Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Distinct Population Segment 

ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009 

Prepared by 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northwest Region 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

DISCLAIMER 

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

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

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

assistance of recovery teams, state agencies, local governments, salmon recovery boards, nongovernmental 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 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are subject to 

modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the completion of 

recovery actions. 

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

arose between a management unit plan and the species level, distinct population segment (DPS) 

plan, NMFS worked with the relevant parties to resolve the differences and in a few cases, 

identified in the DPS plan, decided not to incorporate the disputed material into the DPS plan. 

ESA recovery plans provide important context for NMFS determinations pursuant to section 

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

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

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The 

procedures for the section 7 consultation process are described in 50 CFR 402 and are applicable 

regardless of whether or not the actions are described in a recovery plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Acknowledgements 

The Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan 

represents the dedicated effort of numerous individuals, organizations, recovery boards, and 

interested citizens over many years in the Mid-Columbia River basin. In particular, we would 

like to thank NMFS consultant Margaret Hollenbach, who served as recovery plan writer and 

editor throughout the multi-year process of producing this plan. We would also like to thank the 

Middle Columbia Recovery Forum Steering Committee members, Management Unit 

organization members, and Middle Columbia Recovery Forum meeting participants for their 

input, support, and guidance throughout this recovery planning process. These individuals also 

provided valuable comments on draft versions of the recovery plan. In addition, the Interior 

Columbia Technical Recovery Team was instrumental in providing a comprehensive science 

basis for the plan, as well as reviewing and commenting on earlier drafts. NMFS reviewers of 

the plan were: Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, Rob Walton, Laurie Beale, Susan Pultz and Larissa 

Plants. 

Recovery Plan Authors and Contributors

Nora Berwick – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Thomas Cooney – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Rosemary Furfey – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Elizabeth Holmes Gaar – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Ritchie Graves – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Lynn Hatcher – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Tracy Hillman – BioAnalysts, Inc. 

Margaret Hollenbach – NMFS consultant 

Larry Lestelle – Biostream Environmental 

Michelle McClure – NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Rick Mogren – Federal Caucus Coordinator 

Mark Plummer – NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Rich Turner – National Marine Fisheries Service 

Middle Columbia Recovery Forum Steering Committee Members 

Rich Carmichael – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Alex Conley – Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board 

Brad Houslet – Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation 

Gary James – Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Suzanne Knapp – Oregon Governor’s Natural Resource Office 

Sara Laborde – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Steve Martin – Snake River Salmon Recovery Board 

Phil Miller – Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office 

Bill Sharp –Yakama Nation 

Brian Wolcott – Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council 

Members of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Management Unit Organizations: 

Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board 

 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board 

 Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead Sounding Board 

 Klickitat County 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

 Yakama Nation 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team 

Rich Carmichael – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Thomas Cooney – National Marine Fisheries Service, Co-Chair 

Peter Hassemer – Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Phillip Howell – USDA Forest Service 

Michelle McClure – NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Co-Chair 

Dale McCullough – Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Charles Petrosky – Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Howard Schaller – US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Paul Spruell – Department of Biology, Southern Utah University 

Fred Utter – School of Aquatic and Fisheries Science, University of Washington 

Casey Baldwin – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Authors of the Modules: 

NMFS Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead 

 NMFS Columbia River Hydro Module 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

i 

Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... ix

Recovery Planning Glossary ....................................................................................................... xi

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. ES-i

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

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

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

1.3 Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Geographic Setting ................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Relationship of Steelhead DPS to Resident O. mykiss ................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Context of Plan Development ......................................................................................................... 1-6

1.5.1 Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams ............................................................... 1-7

1.5.2 Management Units .................................................................................................................. 1-8

1.6 Management Unit Recovery Plans and Modules ............................................................................ 1-9

1.6.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan .......................................................................................... 1-11

1.6.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Recovery Plan .......................................................... 1-11

1.6.3 Southeast Washington Plan ................................................................................................... 1-12

1.6.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan ......................................................................................... 1-13

1.7 Recovery Planning Modules ......................................................................................................... 1-13

1.7.1 Hydro Module ....................................................................................................................... 1-13

1.7.2 Estuary Module ..................................................................................................................... 1-14

1.8 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 1-14

2. Biological Background ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Steelhead Distribution, Life History, and Habitat .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 DPS Biological Structure................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.2.1 Distinct Population Segments ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.2 Major Population Groups ........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.3 Independent Populations ......................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead MPGs and Populations ............................................................ 2-5

2.3.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG ............................................................................... 2-6

2.3.2 John Day River MPG .............................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.3.4 Yakima River MPG ................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.4 Viable Salmonid Populations ......................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.1 Abundance and Productivity ................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity .............................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 2-10

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

3.1 Biological Viability Criteria ........................................................................................................... 3-1
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

ii 

3.1.1 DPS Viability Criterion ........................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Major Population Group Viability Criteria ............................................................................. 3-2

3.1.3 Population-Level Viability Criteria ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.4 Recovery Scenarios ................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.2 Recovery Goals and Criteria Adopted by Management Unit Plans ............................................. 3-11

3.2.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.1.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.1.2 Recovery Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.1.3 Viability Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-12

3.2.1.4 Recovery Scenario ......................................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plans ......................................................................... 3-13

3.2.2.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal .......................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.2.2 Recovery Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.2.3 Viability Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-14

3.2.2.4 Recovery Scenario ......................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.3 Southeast Washington Plan .................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.3.1 Broad Sense Goal ........................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.3.2 Recovery Objectives – Planning Targets ....................................................................... 3-15

3.2.3.3 Viability Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-15

3.2.3.4 Recovery Scenario ......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan ......................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.4.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal .......................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.4.2 Recovery Objectives/Scenarios ...................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.4.3 Viability Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-17

3.3 Listing Factors/Threats Criteria .................................................................................................... 3-18

3.4 Delisting Decision ........................................................................................................................ 3-22

4. Current Status Assessment of DPS ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 ICTRT Status Assessment of Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS .................................................... 4-1

4.2 Viability Curves .............................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Spatial Structure and Diversity ....................................................................................................... 4-4

4.4 Population-Level Risk Rating ........................................................................................................ 4-7

4.5 Current Population Status ............................................................................................................... 4-9

4.6 MPG Status ..................................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.7 DPS Status ...................................................................................................................................... 4-9

5. The ‘Gap’ Between Current and Desired Status ............................................................... 5-1

5.1 Gaps Using Abundance and Productivity Criteria .......................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Gaps using Spatial Structure and Diversity Criteria ....................................................................... 5-3

6. Limiting Factors and Threats .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Types of Limiting Factors .............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2 Types of Threats ............................................................................................................................. 6-3

6.3 Limiting Factors and Threats for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS ........................................ 6-4

6.3.1 Tributary Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.2 Columbia River Mainstem Conditions .................................................................................... 6-5
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

iii 

6.3.2.1 Impaired Fish Passage ...................................................................................................... 6-5

6.3.2.2 Water Temperature and Thermal Refuges ....................................................................... 6-9

6.3.2.3 Changes in Mainstem Columbia Nearshore Habitat ........................................................ 6-9

6.3.3 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries ...................................................................................... 6-9

6.3.4 Hatchery-Related Adverse Effects ........................................................................................ 6-10

6.3.5 Predation/Competition/Disease ............................................................................................. 6-12

6.3.5.1 Pinnipeds ........................................................................................................................ 6-12

6.3.5.2 Birds ............................................................................................................................... 6-12

6.3.5.3 Piscivorous Fish ............................................................................................................. 6-13

6.3.5.4 Competition.................................................................................................................... 6-14

6.3.5.5 Disease ........................................................................................................................... 6-15

6.3.6 Degradation of Estuarine and Nearshore Marine Habitat ..................................................... 6-15

6.3.7 Harvest .................................................................................................................................. 6-15

6.3.7.1 Ocean Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 6-16

6.3.7.2 Mainstem Columbia Fisheries ....................................................................................... 6-16

6.3.8 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 6-18

6.4 MPG Limiting Factors .................................................................................................................. 6-19

6.4.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG ............................................................................. 6-19

6.4.2 John Day River MPG ............................................................................................................ 6-20

6.4.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG .................................................................................................. 6-21

6.4.4 Yakima River MPG ............................................................................................................... 6-22

7. Recovery Strategy ................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 DPS Level Recovery Strategy ........................................................................................................ 7-2

7.1.1 NMFS 2006 Listing Decision Recommendations ................................................................... 7-2

7.1.2 Tributary and Columbia Mainstem Habitat ............................................................................. 7-4

7.1.3 Impaired Fish Passage ............................................................................................................. 7-4

7.1.3.1 Impaired Fish Passage in Mainstem Columbia River ...................................................... 7-5

7.1.3.2 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries ............................................................................... 7-7

7.1.4 Hatchery Reforms .................................................................................................................... 7-7

7.1.5 Predation, Competition and Disease........................................................................................ 7-9

7.1.5.1 Predation .......................................................................................................................... 7-9

7.1.5.2 Competition – Density Dependent Mortality ................................................................. 7-11

7.1.5.3 Disease ........................................................................................................................... 7-11

7.1.6 Harvest .................................................................................................................................. 7-12

7.1.7 Estuary and Columbia River Plume ...................................................................................... 7-12

7.1.8 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 7-13

7.1.9 Coordination/Governance ..................................................................................................... 7-15

7.1.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and Adaptive Management ...................................... 7-16

7.2 Summary of Recovery Strategies for the MPGs ........................................................................... 7-16

7.2.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG ............................................................................. 7-17

7.2.2 John Day River MPG ............................................................................................................ 7-23

7.2.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG .................................................................................................. 7-27

7.2.4 Yakima River MPG ............................................................................................................... 7-32

7.3 Setting Priorities ........................................................................................................................... 7-36
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

iv 

7.3.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan .......................................................................................... 7-36

7.3.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plans ......................................................................... 7-40

7.3.2.1 Klickitat Recovery Plan ................................................................................................. 7-40

7.3.2.2 Rock Creek Recovery Plan ............................................................................................ 7-40

7.3.2.3 White Salmon Recovery Plan ........................................................................................ 7-41

7.3.3 Southeast Washington Plan ................................................................................................... 7-41

7.3.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan ......................................................................................... 7-42

8. Site-Specific Management Actions and Cost Estimates .................................................... 8-1

8.1 Site-Specific Management Actions ................................................................................................ 8-1

8.2 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 8-2

8.2.1 Oregon Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan ............................................................... 8-4

8.2.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plan ............................................................................. 8-4

8.2.2.1 Klickitat Recovery Plan ................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.2.2 Rock Creek Recovery Plan .............................................................................................. 8-5

8.2.2.3 White Salmon Steelhead Recovery Plan .......................................................................... 8-5

8.2.3 Southeast Washington Plan ..................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan ........................................................................................... 8-5

8.3 Time Estimate ................................................................................................................................. 8-5

9. Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions ................................................................ 9-1

9.1 Integration Approach ...................................................................................................................... 9-2

9.1.1 EDT Model .............................................................................................................................. 9-3

9.1.2 AHA Model ............................................................................................................................. 9-4

9.2 Effects of Recovery Actions ........................................................................................................... 9-5

9.2.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG ............................................................................... 9-5

9.2.2 John Day River MPG ............................................................................................................ 9-11

9.2.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG .................................................................................................. 9-16

9.2.4 Yakima MPG ......................................................................................................................... 9-20

9.3 Aggregate Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 9-24

9.3.1 Cascades Eastern Slope MPG ............................................................................................... 9-24

9.3.2 John Day River MPG ............................................................................................................ 9-25

9.3.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG .................................................................................................. 9-26

9.3.4 Yakima MPG ......................................................................................................................... 9-26

9.4 Summary of Expected Benefits of Proposed Actions for Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS ........... 9-27

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

10.1 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support Adaptive Management ............... 10-2

10.2 ESU/DPS Status Assessment and Adaptive Management ......................................................... 10-5

10.3 Research on Key Uncertainties ................................................................................................... 10-6

10.3.1 Ocean Productivity and Natural Variation ........................................................................... 10-6

10.3.2 Global Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 10-6

10.3.3 Hatchery Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 10-7

10.3.4 Differential Delayed Mortality of Transported Steelhead (D Value) ................................... 10-7
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

v 

10.3.5 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 10-7

10.3.6 Independent Populations ..................................................................................................... 10-7

10.3.7 Effects of Interacting Strategies/Actions ............................................................................. 10-8

10.3.8 Effects of Human Population Growth ................................................................................. 10-8

10.3.9 Resident-Anadromous O. mykiss Interactions ..................................................................... 10-8

10.4 Important Data Gaps ................................................................................................................... 10-9

10.4.1 Abundance and Productivity ............................................................................................... 10-9

10.4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity .......................................................................................... 10-10

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

11.1 Implementation Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................... 11-2

11.1.1 Mid-C Forum ....................................................................................................................... 11-3

11.1.2 Management Unit Leads ..................................................................................................... 11-5

11.1.3 Washington Regional Recovery Boards .............................................................................. 11-7

11.1.4 Oregon Implementation Coordinator and Advisory Board ................................................. 11-7

11.1.5 NMFS .................................................................................................................................. 11-8

11.1.5.1 ESA Responsibilities ................................................................................................... 11-8

11.1.5.2 Mid-C Convening Partner ............................................................................................ 11-9

11.1.6 Technical Teams .................................................................................................................. 11-9

11.1.7 Science Team ...................................................................................................................... 11-9

11.2 Funding and Resources ............................................................................................................. 11-10

11.2.1 Implementation Funding ................................................... 11-Error! Bookmark not defined.

11.2.2 Funding for Mid-C Forum Activities ................................................................................ 11-10

12 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 12-1
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

vi 

Appendices 

Appendix A Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

http://www.eou.edu/~odfw/Oregon_Mid-C_Recovery_Plan_FRN_August_2009_.pdf

Appendix B Recovery Plan for the Klickitat River Population of the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS - www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/RecoveryDomains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Mid-Col-Plan.cfm) 

Appendix C Recovery Plan for the Rock Creek Population of the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS - http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/RecoveryDomains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Mid-Col-Plan.cfm

Appendix D Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington (Southeast 

Washington Plan) http://www.snakeriverboard.org/resources/library.htm

Appendix E Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan http://www.ybfwrb.org/RecoveryPlan/8-18-

08%20Yakima%20Steelhead%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf 

Appendix F Columbia River Hydro Modulehttp://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/upload/Hydro-Module.pdf

Appendix G Columbia River Estuary Module 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/OtherDocuments.cfm

Appendix H Recovery Plan for the White Salmon Population of the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS: In preparation 

Figures 

Figure ES-1 Geographic Boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, showing land 

ownership. ......................................................................................................................... ES-ii

Figure ES-2 Columbia Basin Recovery Domains for NMFS Northwest Region ................................. ES-vi

Figure ES-3 Management Units and Populations for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. ..... ES-ix

Figure ES-4 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups. ............. ES-xii

Figure ES-5 Viability Ratings for Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations by MPG. ...................... ES-xix

Figure ES-6 Predicted viability results for Mid-Columbia Steelhead Populations after 25 years of major 

restoration efforts. ...................................................................................................... ES-xxxix

Figure ES-7 Mid-C Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure. .................................. ES-xli

Figure 1-1 Geographic boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. .............................. 1-2

Figure 1-2 Columbia Basin Recovery Domains for NMFS Northwest Region. .................................... 1-8

Figure 1-3 Management Units and Populations for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. ...... 1-10

Figure 2-1 Hierarchical levels of salmonid species structure as defined by the TRTs for ESU/DPS 

recovery planning. ............................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-2 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups. .................. 2-7

Figure 2-3 Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Structure. ........................................................................ 2-5
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

vii 

Figure 2-4 Middle Columbia Steelhead Critical Habitat. .................................................................... 2-12

Figure 3-1 Major Population Group Viability Criteria. ......................................................................... 3-3

Figure 3-2 Recovery Scenarios: Application of ICTRT MPG Viability Criteria to Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead MPGs: Options for Viability ..................................................................... 3-7

Figure 4-1 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Basic Populations. ......................................................... 4-3

Figure 4-2 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Intermediate Populations .............................................. 4-3

Figure 4-3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Large Populations. ........................................................ 4-4

Figure 4-4 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Very Large Populations. ............................................... 4-4

Figure 4-5 Assessing Population Viability Across VSP Criteria. .......................................................... 4-8

Figure 4-6 Middle Columbia Steelhead Population Viability. ............................................................... 4-9

Figure 4-7 Viability Ratings for Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations by MPG. .......................... 4-10

Figure 5-1 Survival and Mortality throughout Salmonid Life Cycle. .................................................... 5-2

Figure 6-1 Major Dams and Barriers to Migration for Middle Columbia Steelhead. ............................ 6-6

Figure 9-1 Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves for the 

different size Steelhead Populations within the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG. ............... 9-30

Figure 9-2 Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity estimates to 5% Risk Curves for the 

different size Steelhead Populations within the John Day MPG. ...................................... 9-31

Figure 9-3 Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves for the 

different size Steelhead populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG.................... 9-32

Figure 9-4 Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity estimates to 5% risk curves for the 

different size Steelhead Populations within the Yakima MPG. ......................................... 9-33

Figure 9-5 Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves for the 

different size Steelhead Populations within the Mid-Columbia DPS. ............................... 9-34

Figure 10-1 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework ....................................................................... 10-4

Figure 11-1 Mid-C Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure ...................................... 11-2

Tables 

Table ES-1 Middle Columbia Steelhead size Categories. .................................................................. ES-xv

Table ES-2 Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS Populations: Summary Of Abundance, Productivity, Risk 

Ratings, and Minimum Abundance Thresholds. .......................................................... ES-xviii

Table ES-3 Median Survival Gap For The Major Population Groups of the Middle Columbia Steelhead 

DPS. ................................................................................................................................ ES-xx

Table ES-4 Summary of Cost Estimates for Habitat Projects for Middle Columbia DPS.......... ES-xxxviii

Table 2-1 Key habitat requirements by life stage and time period for steelhead. ................................ 2-2

Table 2-4 Types of sites and essential physical and biological features designated as PCEs for 

steelhead, and the life stage each PCE supports. ............................................................... 2-13

Table 3-1 Abundance and Productivity Thresholds. ............................................................................ 3-4
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

viii 

Table 3-2 Oregon Mid-C steelhead population characteristics and minimum abundance and 

productivity needed. .......................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3-3 Yakima Steelhead Populations Abundance and Productivity Criteria. .............................. 3-17

Table 4-1 Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS populations: summary of abundance, productivity, 

risk ratings, and minimum abundance thresholds. ............................................................... 4-2

Table 5-1 Minimum changes in survival of Middle Columbia River steelhead needed to meet 

abundance and productivity criteria. .................................................................................... 5-4

Table 6-1 Key limiting factors and common characteristics used to describe them. .......................... 6-3

Table 6-2 Mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Juvenile Survival (migrating downstream). ............. 6-7

Table 6-3 Mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Adult Survival (migrating upstream). ....................... 6-8

Table 7-1 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. ....... 7-20

Table 7-2 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the John Day River MPG. ...................................... 7-25

Table 7-3 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. ............................ 7-29

Table 7-4 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Yakima Basin MPG. ........................................ 7-34

Table 7-5 Integrated approach to address threats and factors limiting recovery of Oregon’s MidColumbia River steelhead populations. ............................................................................. 7-37

Table 8-1 Summary of Cost Estimates for Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS. ....... 8-3

Table 9-1 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Deschutes River Westside Steelhead with 

Proposed Actions. ................................................................................................................ 9-6

Table 9-2 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Deschutes River Eastside Steelhead with 

Proposed Actions. ................................................................................................................ 9-7

Table 9-3 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Klickitat River steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. ................................ 9-8

Table 9-4 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of Subbasin Actions. ................................ 9-9

Table 9-5 Estimated Proportional Changes in Average Base-Period Productivity of Rock Creek 

Steelhead. ........................................................................................................................... 9-11

Table 9-6 Estimated Productivity and abundance of Lower John Day River steelhead. .................. 9-12

Table 9-7 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of North Fork John Day River Steelhead. .......... 9-13

Table 9-8 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Middle Fork John Day River Steelhead. ....... 9-14

Table 9-9 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of South Fork John Day River Steelhead. .......... 9-15

Table 9-10 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Upper John Day River Steelhead. .................. 9-16

Table 9-11 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Umatilla River Steelhead. .............................. 9-17

Table 9-12a Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Walla Walla River Steelhead – Oregon and 

Washington Actions. .......................................................................................................... 9-18

Table 9-12b Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Walla Walla River Steelhead – Oregon Actions.

 ........................................................................................................................................... 9-18

Table 9-13 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Touchet River Steelhead. ............................... 9-20
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

ix 

Table 9-14 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Satus Creek Steelhead (tributary only). ......... 9-21

Table 9-15 Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of Toppenish River 

Steelhead. ........................................................................................................................... 9-22

Table 9-16 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Naches River Steelhead. ................................ 9-23

Table 9-17 Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Upper Yakima River Steelhead ...................... 9-24

Table 9-18 Total changes in Productivity of Mid-Columbia River Steelhead expected from Current and 

Prospective Recovery Actions. .......................................................................................... 9-27

Table 9-19 Total changes in Abundance of Mid-Columbia River steelhead expected from Current and 

Prospective Recovery Actions. .......................................................................................... 9-29

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

A/P abundance and productivity 

AHA All-H-Analyzer 

BiOp Biological Opinion 

BOR US Bureau of Reclamation 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CA Comprehensive Analysis of Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem 

Effects of Upper Snake and Other Tributary Actions 

CBFWA Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority 

COE US Army Corps of Engineers 

CWT coded-wire-tagging 

DPS distinct population segment 

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FMEP Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

FR Federal Register 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GNRO Governor’s Natural Resources Office (Oregon) 

GSRO Governor's Salmon Recovery Office (Washington State) 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

HGMP Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan 

ICBTRT Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team 

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team 

LWD large woody debris 

MCSB Middle Columbia Sounding Board (Oregon) 

MPG major population group 

MSA major spawning areas 

N/A Not Applicable 

NGO non-governmental organizations 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

x 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPCC or 

NWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OPSW Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

PRBC Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

RBH Round Butte Hatchery 

RIST Recovery Implementation Science Team 

RM river mile 

SCA Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis 

SRSRB Snake River Salmon Recovery Board 

SS/D spatial structure and diversity 

TBD To Be Determined 

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VSP viable salmonid population 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area 

YBFWRB Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board 

YN Yakama Nation 

YSPB Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xi 

Recovery Planning 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. 

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

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

the five listing factors in ESA section 4[a][1]), and that, when met, would result in a 

determination that a species is no longer threatened or endangered and can be proposed for 

removal from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. These criteria are a NMFS 

determination and may include both technical and policy considerations. 

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

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

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

discrete from and significant to the remainder of its species based on factors such as physical, 

behavioral, or genetic characteristics, it occupies an unusual or unique ecological setting, or its 

loss would represent a significant gap in the species’ range. 

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

within a population. Variations could include anadromy vs. lifelong residence in freshwater, 

fecundity, run timing, spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age at maturity, egg size, 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xii 

developmental rate, ocean distribution patterns, male and female spawning behavior, physiology, 

molecular genetic characteristics, etc. 

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

its range. 

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

actions: Did the management actions achieve their direct effect or goal? For example, did 

fencing a riparian area to exclude livestock result in recovery of riparian vegetation? 

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

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

practicable, incorporate (1) objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a 

determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific 

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. 

implementation monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether an activity was performed 

and/or completed as planned. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xiii 

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. 

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

genetically cohesive. The MPG is a level of organization between demographically independent 

populations and the ESU or DPS. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xiv 

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

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

salmonid populations, defined using results from intrinsic potential analysis. 

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

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

listed species, ESU, or DPS. 

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

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

metric for population abundance. 

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

spawning and rearing habitat to support 50 – 500 spawners (defined using intrinsic potential 

analysis). 

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

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

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

transformation to smolt before migration seaward. 

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

development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior. 

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

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

indicator of a population’s ability to sustain itself or its ability to rebound from low numbers. 

The terms “population growth rate” and “population productivity” are interchangeable when 

referring to measures of population production over an entire life cycle. Can be expressed as the 

number of recruits (adults) per spawner or the number of smolts per spawner. 

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

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

domains may contain one or more listed ESUs. 

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

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

endangered to threatened), and/or other goals. Broad sense goals are a subset of recovery goals 

(see glossary entry above). 

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

describes how the plan addresses ESA requirements for recovery plans. The supplement also 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xv 

proposes ESA delisting criteria for the ESUs addressed by the plan, since a determination of 

these criteria is a NMFS decision. 

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

generally consistent with TRT recommendations for ESU viability. 

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

and deposited. 

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

species’ recovery program. 

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

water and the adjacent upland. 

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

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

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

from freshwater to saltwater as it migrates toward the ocean. 

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

structure depends upon the presence of fish, not merely the potential for fish to occupy an area. 

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

those who will be affected by recovery planning and actions. 

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

related to recovery planning. 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. 

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. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

xvi 

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

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

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

characteristics of salmonid populations that are useful in evaluating population viability. See 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Viable salmonid populations and the 

recovery of evolutionarily significant units (McElhany et al. 2000). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - i 

DPS Recovery Plan 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

This is a recovery plan (Plan) for the protection and restoration of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which spawn and rear in tributaries to the Columbia River in 

central and eastern Washington and Oregon (Figure ES-1). The Middle Columbia River 

steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) was listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA) on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). 

Section 4(f) of the ESA requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop 

recovery plans for marine species listed under the Act. Recovery plans identify actions needed to 

restore threatened and endangered species to the point that they are again self-sustaining 

elements of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. Although recovery 

plans are guidance, not regulatory documents, the ESA clearly envisions recovery plans as the 

central organizing tool for guiding each species’ recovery process. Recovery planning is an 

opportunity to search for common ground among affected parties, to organize protection and 

restoration of salmonid habitat, and to secure the economic and cultural benefits that accrue to 

human communities from healthy watersheds and rivers. While Federal, state, and tribal entities 

can make major contributions to the recovery of Middle Columbia steelhead, the actions of 

individuals on their land, as well as city and county codes and ordinances promoting 

conservation, are also essential. 

Nineteen of the 33 salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest region are listed as threatened 

or endangered. The Middle Columbia steelhead is among those with the best prospects of 

recovery, although it will require considerable political will and investment of long-term effort 

and funding. Modeling of the potential effects of the actions that are proposed in this plan (see 

Chapter 9) predicts that the DPS can achieve a low risk of extinction within a reasonable time 

frame – e.g. 25 to 50 years – if the actions are taken and if they have the predicted effects on 

steelhead habitat and survival. Cautious though this statement may be, it is a beacon of hope in 

the complex realm of salmon and steelhead recovery in the Northwest. The following sections 

tell the story. 

ESA Requirements 

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

recovery plans: 

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

range 

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

C. Disease or predation 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - ii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure ES-1. Geographic Boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, showing land 

ownership.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - iii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clear understanding of the goals and strategies needed to recover a listed species and the science 

underlying these conclusions (NMFS 2006). 

Once a species is deemed recovered and therefore removed from listed status, section 4(g) of the 

ESA requires the monitoring of the species for a period of not less than 5 years to ensure that it 

retains its recovered status. 

Steelhead Distribution and Life History 

The spawning range of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS extends over an area of 

approximately 35,000 square miles in the Columbia plateau of eastern Washington and eastern 

Oregon. The DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in drainages upstream 

of the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), up to, and including, 

the Yakima River, Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake River Basin (64 FR 14517; 

71 FR 849). Major drainages in this DPS are the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, 

Yakima, and Klickitat river systems. The Cascade Mountains form the western border of the 

plateau in both Oregon and Washington, while the Blue Mountains form the eastern edge. The 

southern border is marked by the divides that separate the upper Deschutes and John Day basins 

from the Oregon High Desert and drainages to the south. The Wenatchee Mountains and Palouse 

areas of eastern Washington border the Middle Columbia on the north. 

Most of the region is privately owned (64 percent), with the remaining area under Federal (23 

percent), tribal (10 percent) and state (3 percent) ownership (Figure ES-1). Most of the landscape 

consists of rangeland and timberland, with significant concentrations of dryland agriculture in 

parts of the range. Irrigated agriculture and urban development are generally concentrated in 

valley bottoms. Human populations in these regions are growing. 

Steelhead produced in four artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the 

Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead Program, the Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning 

Program, and the Umatilla River and Deschutes River steelhead hatchery programs. 

The species Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibits perhaps the most complex suite of life history traits of 

any species of Pacific salmonid. These fish can be anadromous (migratory) or freshwater 

residents (and under some circumstances, apparently yield offspring of the opposite form). 

Steelhead can spawn more than once (iteroparous), whereas all other Oncorhynchus except 

cutthroat trout (O. clarki) spawn once and then die (semelparous). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - iv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur throughout the year, with 

seasonal peaks of activity. The “runs” are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs. 

Most steelhead can be categorized as one of two run types, based on their sexual maturity when 

they re-enter freshwater and how far they go to spawn. In the Pacific Northwest, summer 

steelhead enter freshwater between May and October and require several months to mature 

before spawning; winter steelhead enter freshwater between November and April with welldeveloped gonads and spawn shortly thereafter. Summer steelhead usually spawn farther 

upstream than winter steelhead (Withler 1966; Roelofs 1983; Behnke 1992). 

The Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS includes populations of inland winter steelhead in 

the Klickitat River, White Salmon River, Fifteenmile Creek, and possibly Rock Creek. 

Relationship of Steelhead DPS to Resident O. mykiss 

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

species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common names of the non-anadromous, or resident, form are 

rainbow trout and redband trout. When NMFS originally listed the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was classified as an “evolutionarily 

significant unit” (ESU) of salmonids that included both the anadromous and resident forms. 

Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, 

delineating anadromous, steelhead-only “distinct population segments” (DPS). NMFS listed the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Rainbow 

trout and redband trout are under the jurisdiction of the states unless they are listed, when they 

come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This recovery plan 

addresses steelhead and not rainbow trout, as is consistent with the 2006 ESA listing decision. 

Context of Plan Development 

While NMFS is directly responsible for ESA recovery planning for salmon and steelhead, NMFS 

believes that ESA recovery plans for salmon and steelhead should be based on the many state, 

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

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

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

and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans that involve local 

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

This Plan is the product of a collaborative process initiated by NMFS with assistance from the 

Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum), a group convened by NMFS to provide 

input on the development of the DPS recovery plan. NMFS developed this Plan by drawing upon 

the best available scientific information provided by the four regional recovery plans included as 

appendices to this Plan (i.e. the management unit plans, described below and in Section 1.6.), 

and by a regional team of scientists (the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team, described 

below). The Draft Plan went through repeated reviews and revisions in response to comments 

from both the scientific team and the Mid-C Forum. Participants in the Mid-C Forum include the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Washington Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Office, Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Snake River Salmon Recovery 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - v 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Board, Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), US 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS), US Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE), Klickitat County, and NMFS Northwest Region. The Draft Recovery Plan, including the 

four management unit plans and two scientific reports (McClure et al. 2003; ICTRT 2007a) that 

provide the scientific basis for the Plan, was made available for public review as a Proposed 

Recovery Plan. NMFS revised the Proposed Plan in response to public comments, including 

comments from the ICTRT as peer reviewers. The responses to public comments are available 

on the NMFS website, at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/RecoveryDomains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Mid-Col-Plan.cfm. 

Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities 

Northwest Indian Tribes have legally enforceable rights reserving to them a share of the salmon 

harvest. A complex history of treaties, executive orders, legislation, and court decisions have 

culminated in the recognition of tribes as co-managers who share management responsibilities 

and rights for fisheries in the Columbia Basin. 

Ensuring a sufficient abundance of salmon and steelhead to sustain harvest is an important 

element in fulfilling trust responsibilities and treaty rights as well as garnering public support for 

recovery plans. ESA and tribal trust responsibilities complement one another. Both depend on a 

steady upward trend toward ESA recovery and delisting in the near term, while making aquatic 

habitat, harvest, and land management improvements for the long term. 

Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams 

Currently, there are 19 ESA-listed ESUs/DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific 

Northwest. For the purpose of recovery planning for these species, NMFS Northwest Region 

designated five geographically based “recovery domains” (Figure ES-2). The range of the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is located in the Middle Columbia sub-domain of the 

Interior Columbia domain. 

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, nominated for their geographic and 

species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The charge of each 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) was to define ESU/DPS structures, develop recommendations 

on biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its component populations, provide 

scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts, and provide scientific 

evaluations of proposed recovery plans. The Interior Columbia TRT (ICTRT) includes biologists 

from NMFS, states, tribes, and academic institutions. 

Viable Salmonid Populations 

All the TRTs used the same biological principles for developing their recommendations for 

ESU/DPS and population viability criteria – criteria that may be used, along with criteria based 

on mitigation of the factors for decline, in determining whether a species has recovered 

sufficiently to be downlisted or delisted. These principles are described in a NMFS technical 

memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 

Units (McElhany et al. 2000). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - vi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Viable salmonid populations (VSP) are defined in terms of four parameters: abundance, 

productivity (growth rate), spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally selfsustaining, with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year time period. Each TRT made 

recommendations using the VSP framework, based on data availability, the unique biological 

characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, and the members’ collective 

Figure ES-2. Columbia Basin Recovery Domains for NMFS Northwest Region. 

experience and expertise. Although NMFS has encouraged the TRTs to develop regionally 

specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors limiting recovery, all the 

TRTs are working from a common scientific foundation. Viability criteria are an important part 

of recovery goals, as described later in this summary. 

Management Units 

In each domain, NMFS worked with state, tribal, local, and other Federal entities to develop 

planning forums that build to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led recovery efforts. NMFS 

defined “management units” based on jurisdictional boundaries as well as areas where local 

planning efforts were underway (Figure ES-3). It can be seen from the figure that the 

management units do not necessarily correspond to biological units, such as steelhead 

populations, but are defined for planning and administrative purposes. The Middle Columbia 

management units are (1) Oregon; (2) Washington Gorge, which, in turn, is subdivided into three 

planning areas, White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; (3) Yakima subbasin; and (4) 

Southeast Washington. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - vii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Management Unit Recovery Plans and the Modules 

Although NMFS has prepared this plan for the entire DPS, the management unit plans 

(Appendices A-E) are the work of local groups and county, state, Federal, and tribal entities 

within the Middle Columbia River region on both sides of the river. The management unit plans 

built on existing recovery plans, in particular, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 

subbasin plans, and targeted the specific ESA recovery needs of Middle Columbia steelhead. In 

addition, to deal with system effects that transcend the individual subbasins, domains, and 

management units, NMFS prepared two recovery planning modules: the Hydro Module 

(Appendix F), which summarizes the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological 

Opinion, and the Estuary Module (Appendix G), prepared by NMFS in collaboration with the 

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 

 Oregon Management Unit: Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

(Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan) (Appendix A)

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is the lead for the Oregon Steelhead 

Recovery Plan. ODFW drew together three groups to help with the plan: the Middle Columbia 

Recovery Planning Team, made up of ODFW staff biologists and representatives from eight state 

natural resource agencies; a planning forum, the Middle Columbia Sounding Board, made up of 

representatives of local communities, agricultural water users, Federal and non-Federal land 

managers, governing bodies, tribes, and industry and environmental interests; and an Expert 

Panel of 12 biologists to examine limiting factors and threats for the 10 independent steelhead 

populations in Oregon. 

 Washington Gorge Management Unit: Recovery Plans for the Klickitat River 

(Appendix B) and Rock Creek (Appendix C) subbasin populations of Middle Columbia 

River steelhead (the Klickitat Plan and the Rock Creek Plan) 

Since there is not presently a Washington State sponsored salmon recovery planning board for 

this area, NMFS staff drafted the Klickitat and Rock Creek plans in collaboration with the 

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

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

governments, and the public. The White Salmon River subbasin, which historically supported a 

population of Middle Columbia River steelhead, is also part of this management unit, but the 

recovery plan for that population will be finalized as part of the Lower Columbia ESA Recovery 

Plan. Single populations of three listed ESUs of salmon (Lower Columbia River Chinook, Lower 

Columbia River Coho, and Columbia River Chum) spawn in the White Salmon River subbasin 

in addition to steelhead. The need for an ecosystem approach warrants addressing in one single 

plan all the listed salmonids that spawn in the White Salmon subbasin. However, the delisting 

criteria, actions, and costs for the White Salmon steelhead are included in this DPS plan in order 

to have all the information on the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS in one place. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - viii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Southeast Washington Management Unit: Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for 

Southeast Washington (Southeast Washington Plan) (Appendix D) 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board developed the recovery plan for the Southeast 

Washington management unit, which is called the Southeast Washington Plan here in order to 

differentiate it from the forthcoming recovery plan for the five species of listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Snake River region (which includes parts of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board consists of representatives of the Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; a county commissioner and citizen representative from 

Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, Walla Walla and Whitman counties; a land owner representative 

from Asotin, Columbia and Garfield counties; and the Walla Walla county irrigation district. The 

Board appointed a Regional Technical Team for technical and scientific assistance. 

 Yakima Management Unit: Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix D) 

The Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board (YBFWRB), which includes 

representatives from the Yakama Nation, Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima counties, and 18 of the 24 

municipalities in the Yakima Basin, developed the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (available 

at www.ybfwrb.org). 

 Hydro Module (Appendix F) 

The Hydro Module summarizes the general effects of Columbia River mainstem hydropower 

projects on all 13 ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia basin, including the limiting factors and 

threats and expected actions (including site-specific management actions), or strategy options, to 

address those threats. This module supports recovery plans for the Snake River, Upper 

Columbia, Middle Columbia, Lower Columbia, and Upper Willamette River species. It is a 

synthesis of information that has undergone public processes for review, including, but not 

limited to, the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 2008 Biological Opinion, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing proceedings, and Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs). This module may be updated as additional information becomes 

available. 

 Estuary Module (Appendix G) 

The Estuary Module focuses on habitat in the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and 

how that habitat affects the survival of ESA-listed chum, steelhead, Chinook, and coho from 

throughout the Columbia River basin. It identifies and prioritizes limiting factors and threats in 

the estuary, then identifies 23 broad actions whose implementation would reduce the threats and 

thus increase survival of salmon and steelhead during their time in the estuary. The module also 

estimates the cost of implementing each action over a 25-year period. A description of 

monitoring, research, and evaluation needs that are appropriate to the management actions is 

included as an appendix to the module. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - ix 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure ES-3. Management Units and Populations for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - x 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Important Concepts in Steelhead (and Salmon) Biology 

Salmonid species’ homing propensity (their tendency to return to the locations where they 

originated) creates unique patterns of genetic variation and connectivity that mirror the 

distribution of their spawning areas across the landscape. Diverse genetic, life history, and 

morphological characteristics have evolved over generations, creating runs highly adapted to 

diverse environments. It is this variation that gives the 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 resulted from some spawners “straying” into 

neighboring streams. Thus, the overall biological structure of the ESU/DPS is hierarchical; 

spawners in the same area of the same stream will share more characteristics than those in the 

next stream over. Fish whose natal streams are separated by hundreds of miles will have less 

genetic similarity. 

Definition of Evolutionarily Significant Units/Distinct Population Segments 

An ESU is defined as a group of Pacific salmon that is “substantially reproductively isolated 

from other conspecific units and represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy 

of the species” (Waples et al. 1991). A “population segment” is considered distinct (a DPS and 

hence a “species” for purposes of conservation under the ESA) if it is discrete from and 

significant to the remainder of its species based on factors such as physical, behavioral, or 

genetic characteristics; or if it occupies an unusual or unique ecological setting; or if its loss 

would represent a significant gap in the species’ range (71 FR 834). 

ESUs/DPSs may contain multiple populations that are connected by some degree of genetic 

exchange through straying, and hence may have a broad geographic range across watersheds and 

river basins. 

Major Population Groups 

Within an ESU/DPS, independent populations can be grouped into larger populations that share 

similar genetic, geographic, and/or habitat characteristics (McClure et al. 2003). These "major 

groupings" of populations (MPGs) are isolated from one another over a longer time scale than 

that defining the individual populations, but retain some degree of connectivity greater than that 

between ESUs/DPSs. 

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.” 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Abundance and Productivity 

Abundance refers to naturally produced spawners (adults on the spawning ground), measured 

over a time series, i.e. some number of years. The ICTRT often uses a recent 10- or 12-year 

geometric mean of natural spawners as a measure of current abundance. 

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:spawner ratios (returns per spawner or recruits per spawner) (or 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, typically subject to 

a high degree of annual variability and sampling-induced uncertainties. 

Abundance and productivity are linked, as populations with low productivity can still persist if 

they are sufficiently large, and small populations can persist if they are sufficiently productive. A 

viable 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. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Spatial structure and diversity considerations 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, p. 18). Diversity refers to the distribution of 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 (ibid. p. 19). 

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 with 

more widespread and complex spatial structures. Population-level diversity is similarly important 

for long-term persistence. Populations exhibiting greater diversity are generally more resilient to 

short-term and long-term environmental changes. 

Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups 

The ICTRT (McClure et al. 2003) identified 20 historical populations of Middle Columbia 

steelhead, shown in Figure ES-4. This identification was based on genetic information, 

geography, life history traits, morphological traits, and population dynamics. Seventeen of these 

populations are extant, and three extirpated (White Salmon River, Deschutes Crooked River 

above Pelton Dam, and Willow Creek). 

The ICTRT stratified the Middle Columbia River steelhead populations into MPGs based on 

ecoregion characteristics, life history types, and other geographic and genetic considerations. It 

identified four MPGs: Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries, Yakima Basin, John Day Basin, and 

Umatilla/Walla Walla. The John Day River MPG is wholly within Oregon and the Yakima Basin 

MPG is wholly within Washington. The other two include populations on both sides of the 

Oregon/Washington boundary. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure ES-4. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xiii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria 

The recovery goals that are incorporated into a locally developed recovery plan may include 

delisting and/or other “broad sense” goals that may go beyond the requirements for delisting to 

address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, economic, or ecological values. 

NMFS’ delisting criteria may include both technical and policy considerations, and must meet 

the ESA requirements. A third term used in this recovery plan is recovery “scenarios” (Section 

3.1.4). Recovery scenarios are combinations of viability status for individual populations within 

the DPS that will meet the ICTRT criteria for overall DPS viability. 

Recovery criteria are of two kinds: the biological viability criteria, which deal with the VSP 

parameters at the population, MPG, and DPS levels, and the “threats” criteria, which relate to the 

five listing factors detailed in the ESA (see Sections 1.1 and 3.3 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 these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required 

under section 4(f)(1)(B) for the delisting decision. 

The delisting criteria are based on the best available scientific information and incorporate the 

most current understanding of the DPS and the threats it faces. As this recovery plan is 

implemented, additional information will become available that can increase certainty about 

whether the threats have been abated, whether improvements in population and DPS status have 

occurred, and whether linkages between threats and changes in salmon status are understood. 

These criteria will be assessed through an adaptive management program under development for 

the Plan, and NMFS may review the criteria if appropriate during its 5-year reviews of the DPS. 

Biological Viability Criteria

In 2007, the ICTRT completed its Technical Review Draft of Viability Criteria for Application 

to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs (ICTRT 2007a). Biological viability criteria describe 

DPS characteristics associated with a low risk of extinction for the foreseeable future. These 

criteria are expressed in terms of the VSP parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity, according to guidelines developed by NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center and published as a NOAA Technical Memorandum, Viable Salmonid 

Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000; ICTRT 

2007a). The ICTRT calculated varying levels of risk of extinction and related the risk levels to 

their criteria. 

DPS Viability Criterion 

Since MPGs are geographically and genetically cohesive groups of populations, they are critical 

components of ESU or DPS spatial structure and diversity. Having all MPGs within a DPS at 

low risk provides the greatest probability of persistence for the DPS. 

DPS Viability Criterion (ICTRT 2007a) 

All extant MPGs and any extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS1

should be at low risk.

 

1

 The Middle Columbia steelhead DPS has four extant and no extirpated MPGs. The three extirpated populations are addressed as 

part of the MPG-level criteria. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xiv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

MPG Viability Criteria 

MPG viability depends on the number, spatial arrangement, and diversity associated with its 

component populations. 

MPG-Level Viability Criteria 

(ICTRT 2007a) 

The following five criteria should be met for an MPG to be regarded as at low risk (viable): 

1. At least one-half of the populations historically within the MPG (with a minimum of two 

populations) should meet viability standards. 

2. At least one population should be classified as “Highly Viable.” 

3. Viable populations within an MPG should include some populations classified (based on historical 

intrinsic potential) as “Very Large," "Large," or “Intermediate,” generally reflecting the 

proportions historically present within the MPG. In particular, Very Large and Large populations 

should be at or above their composite historical fraction within each MPG. 

4. All major life history strategies (e.g. spring and summer-run timing) that were present historically 

within the MPG should be represented in populations meeting viability requirements. 

5. Remaining MPG populations should be maintained with sufficient abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity to provide for ecological functions and to preserve options for ESU/DPS 

recovery. 

The DPS criterion requiring viable populations in each of the extant MPGs would result in 

sustainable production across a substantial range of environmental conditions. The presence of 

viable populations across MPGs would preserve a high level of diversity within the DPS, thereby 

promoting long-term evolutionary potential for adaptation to changing conditions. The presence 

of multiple, relatively nearby, viable and maintained populations acts as protection against longterm impacts of localized catastrophic loss by serving as a source of re-colonization (ICTRT 

2007a). 

Population Viability Criteria 

To be determined to be viable, populations should meet criteria for all four VSP parameters 

(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). The abundance and productivity 

criteria are related to population size. 

Population Size 

The ICTRT developed criteria for characterizing the relative size and complexity of Interior 

Columbia Basin steelhead populations based on their analysis of the intrinsic or historical 

potential habitat available to the population (ICTRT 2005). Middle Columbia steelhead spawn in 

a wide range of tributary drainage areas, from small creeks, e.g. Fifteenmile Creek or Rock 

Creek, to very large rivers, such as the Lower John Day. The ICTRT categorized historical 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

population sizes as Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large, and set minimum abundance 

thresholds for viable steelhead populations of each type. As explained in Section 2.4.1, 

abundance and productivity are linked, within limits; above a certain threshold, higher 

productivity can compensate for lower abundance and vice versa. Table ES-1 shows the 

minimum abundance and productivity thresholds for the Middle Columbia steelhead populations 

to have a 95 percent probability of persistence for the next 100 years. 

Table ES-1. Middle Columbia Steelhead size categories (ICTRT 2007a). 

Major 

Population 

Grouping 

Population Population 

Size 

Abundance 

Threshold 

Productivity 

Threshold 

Cascades 

Eastern Slope 

Tributaries 

White Salmon (functionally extirp.) Basic 500 1.56 

Klickitat R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Fifteenmile Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Deschutes R. East Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Deschutes R. West Large2

 1500 1.26 

Rock Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Crooked River (Extirp.) Very Large 2250 1.19 

John Day River Lower Mainstem JD Very Large 2250 1.19 

North Fork John Day Large 1500 1.26 

Middle Fork John Day Intermediate 1000 1.35 

South Fork John Day Basic 500 1.56 

Upper Mainstem JD Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Umatilla / 

Walla Walla 

Rivers 

Umatilla R. Large 1500 1.26 

Walla Walla R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Touchet R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Willow Crk. (Extirp.) Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Yakima River 

Group 

Satus Cr. Intermediate3 1000 1.35 

Toppenish Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Naches R. Large 1500 1.26 

Upper Yakima Large 1500 1.26 

Abundance and productivity 

The ICTRT defined abundance and productivity criteria for Middle Columbia steelhead 

populations (ICTRT 2005 and 2007a) based on analyses of the intrinsic potential of the 

historically available habitat, the locations and sizes of major and minor spawning areas, and, 

within these areas, the abundance and productivity relationships that would result in a probability 

of low risk of extinction within 100 years (see Table ES-1 above). The abundance “thresholds” 

shown in the table represent the number of spawners needed for a population of the given size 

category to achieve the 5 percent (low) risk level at a given productivity. 

 

2

 This population is treated as Intermediate in size with respect to abundance and productivity criteria because of 

constraints on currently accessible habitat (i.e. Pelton Dam). 3

 For the historical population analysis, the ICTRT included the mainstem Yakima habitat below the confluence of 

Satus Creek in the Satus Creek population, making it Intermediate in size. However, if the mainstem component is 

lumped instead with mainstem Yakima River habitat upstream of Satus, the Satus Creek population would drop to 

Basic size. The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan discusses this question in more detail. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xvi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Spatial structure and diversity 

The spatial structure and diversity criteria are specific to each population, and are based on 

historical spatial distribution and diversity, to the extent these can be known or inferred. The 

ICTRT cautions that there is a good deal of uncertainty in assessing the status of spatial structure 

and diversity in a population (ICTRT 2007a; McElhany et al. 2000). 

Recovery Scenarios 

The risk levels of the populations within the DPS collectively determine MPG viability and, in 

turn, the likely persistence of the DPS. The ICTRT recommended that all MPGs in a DPS should 

be viable; however, it may not be necessary for all of the populations to attain the lowest risk 

level. There may be more than one way for a DPS to meet the viability criteria. 

The ICTRT, in a January 8, 2007 technical memorandum (ICTRT 2007a), offered a detailed 

discussion of possible recovery scenarios for each MPG. They cautioned against closing off the 

options for any population prematurely, however, because of the many uncertainties in predicting 

the biological response to recovery actions. The ICTRT concluded that “a low risk strategy will 

target more populations than the minimum for viability” (ICTRT 2007a). 

The management unit plans include locally determined recovery goals as well as viability criteria 

for the individual steelhead populations and MPGs in each management unit. Most of the plans 

also provide targets or objectives to measure progress within specified time frames, e.g. 10 to 50 

years. 

Threats Criteria 

At the time of a delisting decision for the Middle Columbia steelhead, NMFS will examine 

whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, 

NMFS will use the listing factors (or threats) criteria described in Section 3.3 of this plan, in 

addition to evaluation of biological recovery criteria and other relevant data and policy 

considerations. It is possible that currently perceived threats will become insignificant in the 

future because of changes in the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the 

entire life cycle of salmon. Consequently, NMFS expects that the relative priority of threats will 

change over time and that new threats may be identified. During the status reviews, NMFS will 

evaluate and review the listing factor criteria as they apply at that time. NMFS expects that if the 

proposed actions described in the Plan are implemented, they will make substantial progress 

toward meeting the listing factor (threats) criteria for the Middle Columbia steelhead. 

Current Status Assessment 

The status of a salmonid ESU or DPS is expressed in terms of likelihood of persistence over 100 

years, or in terms of risk of extinction within 100 years. The ICTRT defines viability at two 

levels: less than 5 percent risk of extinction within 100 years (viable) and less than 1 percent risk 

of extinction within 100 years (highly viable). A third category, “maintained,” represents a less 

than 25 percent risk. The risk level of the DPS is built up from the aggregate risk levels of the 

populations and MPGs. All four VSP parameters must be taken into account to determine the 

risk level. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xvii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table ES-2 summarizes current status of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations, showing 

10-year geometric mean abundance by population, estimated productivity, and the minimum 

abundance threshold needed for long-term viability. The table also includes the 10-year 

geometric mean proportion of hatchery spawners for the populations where data are available, 

and the risk ratings of high, moderate, low, and very low, for abundance and productivity 

combined, and spatial structure and diversity combined. Figure ES-5 is a matrix combining all 

four parameters to illustrate the overall current risk rating of each population. 

Current Population Status 

According to the ICTRT viability criteria, the majority of naturally spawning Middle Columbia 

steelhead populations are rated at moderate risk for all four VSP parameters – abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (Table ES-2 and Figure ES-5). This DPS includes 

one highly viable population (North Fork John Day), two viable (Fifteenmile Creek and 

Deschutes River Eastside), and three at high risk of extinction within 100 years (Deschutes 

Westside, Upper Yakima Mainstem, and Naches River). 

MPG Status 

The viability ratings of the component populations of each Middle Columbia steelhead MPG are 

shown in Figure ES-5. None of the MPGs as a whole reaches low risk status according to the 

ICTRT’s MPG-level criteria. 

DPS Status 

The ICTRT’s DPS-level viability criterion is that all extant MPGs and any extirpated MPGs 

critical for proper functioning of the DPS should be at low risk (ICTRT 2007a). Thus, the Middle 

Columbia steelhead DPS does not currently meet viability criteria based on the determination 

that the four component MPGs are not at low risk. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xviii DPS Recovery Plan Table ES-2. Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS populations: summary of abundance, productivity, risk ratings, and minimum abu

ICTRT 2007a and 2008). (Numbers subject to periodic updates as additional information becomes available.) 

Population 

Abundance 

Threshold4

Size 

Category 

Run Timing 

10-year 

Geomean 

abundance 

Abundance 

Range 

10-yr 

Hatchery 

Fraction

5

Productivity6

Productivity 

Standard 

Error 

Cascades East Slope MPG Deschutes (Westside) 10008 Large (Inter) Summer 456 108-1283 0.26 1.05 0.15 H Deschutes (Eastside) 1000 Intermed. Summer 1599 299-8274 0.39 1.89 0.27 L Klickitat River 1000 Intermed. Wtr & Smr Insufficient data M Fifteenmile Creek 500 Basic Winter 703 231-1922 0 1.82 0.20 L Rock Creek 500 Basic Summer Insufficient data H White Salmon 500 Basic Functionally extirpated N/A Crooked River 2250 Very Large Summer Extirpated Yakima River MPGUpper Yakima River 1500 Large Summer 85 34-283 0.02 1.12 0.22 H Naches River 1500 Large Summer 472 142-1454 0.06 1.12 0.22 H Toppenish River 500 Basic Summer 322 44-1252 0.06 1.60 0.30 M Satus Creek (trib only) 1000 Intermed. Summer 379 138-1000 0.06 1.73 0.14 M John Day River MPG Lower Mainstem John Day 2250 Very Large Summer 1800 563-6257 0.1 2.99 0.24 M North Fork John Day 1500 Large Summer 1740 369-10,235 0.08 2.41 0.22 VL 

Upper Mainstem John Day 1000 Intermed. Summer 524 185-5169 0.08 2.14 0.33 Middle Fork John Day 1000 Intermed. Summer 756 195-3538 0.08 2.45 0.16 South Fork John Day 500 Basic Summer 259 76-2729 0.08 2.06 0.27 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPGUmatilla River 1500 Large Summer 1472 592-3542 0.36 1.50 0.15 Walla Walla Mainstem 1000 Intermed. Summer 650 270-1746 0.02 1.34 0.12 Touchet River 1000 Intermed. Summer Insufficient data Willow Creek 1000 Intermed. Summer Extirpated 

4 Abundance threshold for viability based on habitat intrinsic potential 5 Average proportion of hatchery spawners over most recent 10 years in the data series. 6 Geomean return per spawner calculated over most recent 20 years in data series. 7 H = high risk, M= moderate risk, L = low risk, VL = very low risk 8 The Deschutes Westside steelhead population is classified as Large in terms of spatial structure, but its abundance threshold may be considered 1000 or 1500 

considerations. See ODFW 2009. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xix 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Rock Creek

High Deschutes W

Mod.

Fifteenmile Deschutes E Low

V. 

Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

High

JD Lower MS

Mod. JD Upper MS

Low

JD North Fk V. 

Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

High

Mod.

Low

V. 

Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

Upper 

Yakima

Naches

High

Mod.

Low

V. 

Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

Cascades Eastern Slopes Tributaries Major Population Group. Yakima River Major Population Group.

Klickitat Satus

JD Middle Fk

JD South Fk

White Salmon

(Functionally

extirpated)

Toppenish

Umatilla

Walla Walla

Touchet

 

Figure ES-5. Viability Ratings for Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations by MPG (developed by 

NMFS based on ICTRT 2008).

Gap Analysis 

The ICTRT assessed the difference between a listed species’ or population’s current 

status for abundance and productivity and the viability criteria. This difference is called 

the “gap.” The gap, as used in this plan, is a measure, although it is inevitably imprecise, 

of the improvement in survival needed to meet viability criteria. As such, it is also an 

indicator of the level of effort needed to achieve recovery. 

The ICTRT calculated the gap for each extant Middle Columbia steelhead population 

based on current abundance and productivity for the listed salmon and steelhead in the 

Interior Columbia Basin (ICTRT 2007b). They estimated the minimal survival rate 

changes needed for Middle Columbia steelhead populations to meet the abundance and 

productivity viability criteria for a 5 percent risk of extinction in a 100-year time frame. 

In addition, the ICTRT (2007b) estimated gaps under three different early-ocean survival 

scenarios; historical ocean conditions (ocean conditions that fish experienced over the 

past 60 years), pessimistic ocean conditions (ocean conditions experienced by the 1975-

1997 brood years), and recent ocean conditions (ocean conditions experienced by fish 

during the 20-year assessment period). The ICTRT also estimated gaps assuming three 

different hydropower scenarios. However, only the base hydro condition, which assumed 

that survival rates from the most recent 20 years would continue into the future, is 

reported here. (See NMFS 2008a for details on survival through the FCRPS under 

proposed improvements.) 

John Day Basin Major Population Group. Umatilla/Walla Walla Major Population Group. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xx 

DPS Recovery Plan 

A positive number, e.g. 21 percent gap for Cascades Eastern Slope MPG, means the 

population’s overall survival needs to increase 21 percent over current conditions to 

achieve viability criteria. A zero or negative number would mean there is no gap – the 

population currently meets viability criteria. 

The analysis showed that none of the MPGs would be able to achieve a 5 percent or less 

risk of extinction over 100 years without recovery actions (Table ES-3). The Yakima 

Basin MPG shows the largest gap (77 percent) and also contains two historically large 

populations now at high risk of extinction, the Upper Yakima River and Naches River 

populations. 

Table ES-3. Median survival gap for the major population groups of the Middle 

Columbia Steelhead DPS (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem 

conditions and 5 percent risk). 

Cascades Eastern Slope MPG 21 percent 

John Day MPG 9 percent 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

Sufficient data for only two of the three 

populations: 

Umatilla 

Walla Walla 

9 percent 

34 percent 

Yakima MPG 77 percent 

It is important to include measures to address spatial structure and diversity (SS/D) risks 

in recovery planning. As described in Section 4.3 of this Plan, the ICTRT analyzed a 

population’s spatial structure and diversity in terms of two goals: maintaining natural 

rates and levels of spatially mediated processes, and maintaining natural patterns of 

variation. The team developed a scoring system to derive a composite spatial structure 

and diversity rating for each population (ICTRT 2008). Using this method, the ICTRT 

rated only the Fifteenmile Creek and North Fork John Day populations at low risk of 

extinction with regard to spatial structure and diversity. The Upper Yakima River is at 

high SS/D risk, and the 15 other populations are rated at moderate risk. The Middle 

Columbia River steelhead DPS cannot reach viable status without closing these gaps as 

well as those identified in terms of abundance and productivity. 

Limiting Factors and Threats 

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. NMFS defines limiting factors as the biological and physical conditions that limit 

a species’ viability – e.g., high water temperature – and defines threats as those human 

activities or natural processes that cause the limiting factors. For example, removing the 

vegetation along the banks of a stream can cause higher water temperatures, because the 

stream is no longer shaded. The threats contributing to the limiting factors and causes for 

a species’ decline are often described in terms of the “four Hs” – habitat (usually relating 

to the effects of land use and tributary water use), hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. 

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are typically legitimate and 

necessary human activities that may at times have unintended negative consequences on 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

fish populations—and that can also be managed in a manner that minimizes or eliminates 

the negative impacts. 

Designing effective recovery strategies and actions requires understanding limiting 

factors and threats across the species’ entire life cycle and across the four Hs. This plan 

describes limiting factors and threats for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS as a whole 

at a general level, and notes the most salient specific conditions that affect individual 

populations and limit the viability of specific MPGs. More detail is available in the 

individual management unit plans (Appendices A through E). 

Limiting Factors and Threats for the DPS 

At a general level, based on information from the ICTRT and the four management unit 

plans, the major factors limiting the viability of Middle Columbia steelhead populations 

are degraded tributary habitat, impaired fish passage in the mainstem Columbia River 

and tributaries, hatchery-related effects, and predation/competition/disease. Two other 

factors, degradation of estuarine and nearshore marine habitat and harvest-related effects, 

pose some risk to steelhead viability for the entire DPS, but less than the other factors. 

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to recovery of Middle Columbia 

steelhead populations (see ISAB 2007). In Section 6.3 of this Plan, the limiting factors 

and threats are described in more detail, addressing all the Hs and all life stages. Sources 

for this information include the management unit plans (Appendices A through E); the 

Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS BiOp) 

(NMFS 2008a), particularly the BiOp’s Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis and its 

appendices; the Hydro Module (NMFS 2008c) (Appendix F of this Plan), and the Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) (Appendix G of this Plan). 

Degraded tributary habitat. Tributary habitat degradation from past and/or present land 

use remains a key concern for all of the populations. Today, nearly all historical habitat 

lies in areas modified by human settlement and activities. In many areas, the 

contemporary watershed conditions created by past and current land use practices are so 

different from those under which native fish species evolved that they now pose a 

significant impediment to achieving recovery. The management unit plans contain 

detailed descriptions of tributary habitat threats and limiting factors. 

Impaired fish passage. Impaired fish passage is identified as a key or secondary limiting 

factor for all populations of Middle Columbia steelhead. Dams, culverts, seasonal pushup 

dams, and unscreened diversions can directly prevent migration; seasonal areas of high 

water temperature, low flow, or dewatering can also function as barriers. There are 

various kinds of dams and other barriers in tributaries throughout the basin, and all 

populations of Middle Columbia steelhead use the mainstem Columbia River to migrate 

to and from the ocean. All are affected by the mainstem Federal dams. Development and 

operation of the mainstem Columbia River hydropower system significantly alters travel 

conditions in the mainstem Columbia River, resulting in direct mortality of both upstream 

migrating adults and downstream migrating steelhead kelts, and direct and indirect 

mortality for downstream migrants (juveniles). The hydro system also changes the 

hydrograph, depleting historically available nutrients, changing water temperatures, and 

degrading rearing and food resources for both presmolts and smolts in the Columbia. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Changes in the hydrograph leave steelhead more vulnerable to bird and fish predation in 

the Columbia River estuary and mainstem. In addition, broad deltas have been created at 

the mouths of tributaries where fine sediment has been deposited. These conditions have 

resulted in increased non-native piscivorous and avian predation on juveniles. All these 

impacts increase somewhat for each population in direct relation to the number of dams 

that fish must pass during their migration to and from the Pacific Ocean. Middle 

Columbia River steelhead populations pass from one to four Federal dams. Survival is 

estimated at 90, 73, 54, and 48 percent, respectively, for juvenile steelhead passage 

through one to four dams (see Table 6-2). Adult steelhead survival is relatively high 

through the lower Columbia River dams and reservoirs – estimated at 98.5 to 95 percent 

for one to four dams (Table 6-3) – as a result of dam operations and effective fish ladders. 

Hatchery effects. Hatchery fish that stray into Middle Columbia tributaries and spawn 

naturally may represent a serious threat to steelhead recovery. More than 100 hatchery 

programs operate in the Columbia Basin above Bonneville Dam, mostly for the purpose 

of providing fish for harvest to mitigate losses caused by the FCRPS. Some hatchery 

programs may provide conservation benefits; however, hatchery programs also pose 

threats to natural-origin steelhead in some Middle Columbia watersheds. Hatcheryinduced genetic change can reduce the fitness of both hatchery and natural-origin fish in 

the wild, and hatchery-induced ecological effects (competition for food and space) can 

reduce population productivity and abundance. In particular, hatchery programs designed 

to return summer steelhead to upstream Columbia River tributaries result in substantial 

numbers of stray hatchery steelhead spawning naturally among several Middle Columbia 

populations. Concern exists regarding the continuing detrimental impact of these stray 

out-of-DPS hatchery fish in natural spawning areas on the genetic diversity and 

productivity of naturally produced Middle Columbia River steelhead populations. 

Predation, competition, disease. Anthropogenic changes in the Columbia River have 

altered the relationships between salmonids and other fish, bird, and pinniped species, 

resulting in changed opportunities for predation by non-native piscivorous fish, avian 

species such as terns and cormorants, and California sea lions below Bonneville Dam. 

Hatchery releases of juvenile steelhead may result in competition with natural-origin 

steelhead for food and other resources. Steelhead can be infected by a variety of bacterial, 

viral, fungal, and microparasitic pathogens. Numerous diseases may result from 

pathogens that occur naturally in the wild or that may be transmitted to wild fish via 

infected hatchery fish. However, studies have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to 

be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al. 1983; Sanders 

et al. 1992). Habitat conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can 

exacerbate susceptibility to infectious diseases. Fish weakened by disease are more 

sensitive to other environmental stresses, and may become more vulnerable to predation 

or less able to compete with other species. 

Climate change. Climate change may adversely affect steelhead in freshwater habitats 

across the DPS by exacerbating existing problems with water quantity (lower summer 

stream flows) and water quality (higher summer water temperatures). These changes may 

affect steelhead more than other salmonids because of their long rearing period in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxiii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

freshwater. More detailed information on specific effects that climate change may have 

on Mid-Columbia steelhead at all their life stages is available in Section 8.8 of the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (ODFW 2009). 

Limiting Factors and Threats for the MPGs 

The MPG-level summaries of limiting factors are based on population-level summaries 

compiled from the relevant management unit plans. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The following are major limiting factors for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

(see also the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan [Appendix A] and the Klickitat Recovery 

Plan [Appendix B]):

Tributary habitat. Degraded tributary habitat is a limiting factor to a greater or lesser 

degree throughout the area, including degraded riparian areas, reduced recruitment of 

large woody debris (LWD), altered sediment routing, low or altered stream flows, 

degraded water quality (especially high water temperatures), impaired floodplain 

connectivity/function, altered channel structure/complexity, and impaired fish passage. 

Mainstem passage. Mainstem Columbia River hydro system effects are least for the 

Fifteenmile Creek and Klickitat River populations, which pass only one mainstem dam. 

The Deschutes River populations pass two mainstem dams, and the Rock Creek 

population passes three. Effects, to varying degrees, include direct mortality of pre-smolts 

and smolts at the dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults; and cumulative 

impact of hydropower system on mainstem and estuary habitat.

Hatchery related effects. Influence from hatchery fish could be a significant factor for 

this MPG because of out-of-subbasin hatchery fish straying onto natural spawning 

grounds in the Deschutes River and also because of potential effects of hatchery releases 

on naturally produced steelhead in the Klickitat River. The Oregon Mid-C Expert Panel 

considered out-of-subbasin (and out-of-DPS) hatchery strays a primary threat to genetic 

traits and productivity of naturally produced Deschutes river steelhead populations. Outof-DPS hatchery strays comprised an estimated average of 29 percent of the Eastside 

population and 15.2 percent of the Westside population since 1990 (ICTRT 2008). This 

high fraction resulted in moderate risk ratings for spawner composition for both 

populations. 

Blocked migration to historically accessible habitat. Historically, summer steelhead had 

free access to most of the Deschutes watershed. Currently the Pelton-Round Butte 

Hydroelectric Project (Project), constructed at river mile (RM) 100 on the mainstem 

Deschutes River, creates the primary barrier to anadromous fish attempting to reach 

spawning and rearing areas in the upper basin. Plans are underway to reinitiate fish 

passage facilities at the Pelton-Round Butte complex (details in Section 9.4.2 of the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan) and reintroduce steelhead to the upper basin, including 

the Crooked River. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxiv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Predation/competition/disease. Anthropogenic changes in the Columbia River have 

altered the relationships between salmonids and other fish, bird, and pinniped species. 

Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem and estuary affect all of the 

Middle Columbia steelhead populations (see Section 6.3.5 of this plan). In addition, the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan hypothesizes that the abundance of the Deschutes River 

Westside population may be limited by competition with a large resident population of 

rainbow trout. 

John Day River MPG 

The following are major limiting factors for the John Day River MPG (see also the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan [Appendix A]): 

Mainstem passage. These populations must pass three dams; thus, limiting factors 

include direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville 

dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults; false attraction of returning adults 

over McNary Dam; and cumulative impact of hydropower system on mainstem and 

estuary habitat. 

Hatchery related effects. Hatchery fish straying into natural spawning areas pose risks to 

genetic traits and productivity of naturally produced steelhead. Concern over competition 

for resources with wild fish and potential hybridization with natural-origin fish resulted in 

termination of all hatchery stocking of O. mykiss in the John Day River basin in 1997. 

Most hatchery stray recoveries occur in the lower mainstem John Day River below the 

North Fork; however, strays have been observed in all populations. 

Tributary habitat. For all five John Day populations, degraded floodplain and degraded 

channel structure, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality (temperature), and 

altered hydrology are limiting factors. For the Lower and Upper Mainstem and South 

Fork populations, passage obstructions in some of the smaller tributaries are also 

significant. 

 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem 

and estuary affect all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations.

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

The following are the major limiting factors for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG (see also 

the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan [Appendix A] and the Southeast Washington Plan 

[Appendix D]): 

Mainstem passage. The Walla Walla and Touchet populations must pass four major 

dams; the Umatilla population must pass three. Thus, limiting factors include direct 

mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams; 

delayed upstream migration of returning adults; false attraction of returning adults over 

McNary Dam; and cumulative impact of hydropower system on mainstem and estuary 

habitat. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Tributary habitat. For all three populations, degraded water quality (temperature), altered 

sediment routing, blocked and impaired fish passage, degraded floodplain and channel 

structure and hydrologic alterations are limiting factors. 

Hatchery related effects. The hatchery program on the Umatilla River uses endemic 

(native) stock and is not currently considered a threat to wild steelhead; however, out-ofDPS strays pose a risk to spawner composition. Non-endemic hatchery fish are 

considered a potential threat to the Walla Walla wild steelhead population. Currently, 

data are insufficient to determine whether hatchery effects are a problem for the Touchet 

River population. An endemic stock program is under development for the Walla Walla 

and Touchet. 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem 

and estuary affect all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations.

Yakima Basin MPG 

The following are primary limiting factors for the Yakima MPG (see also the Yakima 

Steelhead Recovery Plan [Appendix E]): 

Mainstem passage. As the farthest upstream populations in the DPS, the Yakima 

populations must pass four dams and undergo higher exposure to altered habitat and 

avian and piscine predators in the mainstem Columbia. Limiting factors include direct 

mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams; 

delayed upstream migration of returning adults; false attraction of returning adults over 

McNary Dam; and cumulative impact of hydropower system on mainstem and estuary 

habitat. 

Tributary habitat. Fish habitat in the Yakima subbasin is substantially influenced by the 

development of irrigation systems. Limiting factors include altered hydrology (low 

summer flow because of withdrawals in tributaries and the lower Yakima, scouring peak 

flows because of degraded watershed conditions, high summer delivery flows in 

mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers, reduced winter and spring flows due to irrigation 

storage, delivery, and withdrawals); degraded riparian area and LWD recruitment; 

blocked and impaired fish passage (primarily due to storage and diversion dams, as well 

as entrainment in unscreened diversions); altered sediment routing; degraded water 

quality; loss of historical habitat because of blocked or impaired fish passage; degraded 

floodplain connectivity and function (loss of off-channel habitat, side channels and 

connected hyporheic zone); degraded channel structure and complexity; reduced 

outmigrant survival in the mainstem Yakima. 

Hatchery related effects. The Yakima populations have the lowest rates of hatchery strays 

in the DPS, and hatchery effects are not considered a significant limiting factor. 

Predation/competition/disease. Of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations, the 

Yakima basin populations have the longest migration through the mainstem Columbia 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxvi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

River. They may therefore be more vulnerable to some factors such as avian and 

piscivorous fish predation. For example, Yakima steelhead, but not the others, are 

consumed by Caspian tern and double-crested cormorants nesting on islands at the mouth 

of the Snake River. 

DPS Recovery Strategy 

NMFS’ overall goal for DPS viability, as formulated by the ICTRT and described in 

Chapter 3 of this plan, is to have all four extant MPGs at viable (low risk) status, with 

representation of all the major life history strategies present historically, and with the 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity attributes required for long-term 

persistence. 

The ICTRT’s current status assessment for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS and the 

gaps analysis show that for this DPS, the outlook is optimistic. One population, North 

Fork John Day, is currently at very low risk or “highly viable.” Two populations are 

currently viable (Deschutes Eastside, Fifteenmile); eleven are at moderate risk, with good 

prospects for improving. However, the three large populations at high risk (Deschutes 

Westside, Naches, and Upper Yakima), are important to DPS viability; as a minimum, 

Deschutes Westside and one of the two large Yakima populations should also reach 

viable status, with the other large Yakima population at least reaching “maintained” 

status. These present significant, though not insuperable, challenges. 

If, as we believe, the decline of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is caused by 

widespread habitat degradation, impaired mainstem and tributary passage, hatchery 

effects, and predation/ competition/ disease, then actions taken to improve, change, 

mitigate, reduce those factors will result in reduced risks and increased survival. Because 

of the steelhead’s complex life cycle and the many changes that have taken place in its 

environment, the factors limiting its survival must be addressed in concert, and in an 

integrated way. The work needs to occur at a regional level, in terms of commitment to 

actions and funding, and at the local level, population by population and site by site. 

Significant investments of research, planning, regional coordination, actions, and political 

will are already underway. The intent for the DPS plan is to build upon, help to 

coordinate, and add to the ongoing efforts. 

NMFS' 2006 listing decision called upon Federal, state, and tribal entities to do their best 

to manage land, hydropower, hatchery, and harvest activities in a manner that would 

support steelhead recovery. This plan reaffirms those recommendations and adds to them 

the contributions of updated science, basinwide programs, and consensus building among 

stakeholders. 

The recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS addresses both the basinwide issues that affect all populations, such as conditions in the migratory corridor, and 

the subbasin and site-specific issues that are the focus of the management unit plans. The 

DPS Plan describes the overall strategy, summarizes the MPG-level strategies, and refers 

to Appendices A-G for more site-specific, population level actions. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxvii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The DPS-level recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead is made up of the 

following elements: 

 Affirm and address the 2006 listing decision recommendations to address the 

limiting factors for the DPS and populations. 

 Protect and restore tributary habitat and Columbia River mainstem habitat, 

through strategies and actions at both the Basin/programmatic level and at the 

local level as detailed in the management unit plans. 

 Address impaired fish passage through strategies and actions in the mainstem 

Columbia River, as detailed in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (as 

summarized in the Hydro Module) and in the tributaries as detailed in the 

management unit plans 

 Implement hatchery reforms at the population and site specific level through 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) as required by the 2008 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and as described in Appendix C of the Supplemental 

Comprehensive Analysis, (NMFS 2008a). 

 Address ecosystem imbalances in predation, competition, and disease through the 

strategies and actions in the management unit plans, estuary module and FCRPS 

Biop. 

 Maintain current low harvest levels, through fishery management planning for 

mainstem fisheries through the U.S. v. Oregon 10-year agreement, updated 

Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource Management Plans 

for tributary fisheries, and Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery 

Management Council processes. 

 Protect and restore the estuary and Columbia River plume as detailed in the 

Columbia River Estuary module. 

 Respond to climate change threats with a strategy based on the principle of 

preserving biodiversity. 

 Implement the Plan through effective coordination and governance. 

 Research critical uncertainties, monitor and evaluate implementation and 

effectiveness and adjust course, as appropriate through adaptive management. 

NMFS believes that if this strategy is implemented and the biological response is as 

expected, the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is likely to achieve viable status within 25 

to 50 years. 

Degraded tributary and mainstem Columbia River habitat 

Measures to improve tributary habitat are contained in the management unit plans and are 

summarized above by MPG. Relatively little information is available concerning Middle 

Columbia River steelhead use of mainstem Columbia River habitat above Bonneville, 

aside from passage through the dams. NMFS believes it is important to assess nearshore 

habitat and cold water refugia in the mainstem and to explore opportunities for, and 

potential benefits from, restoration and protection of these areas. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxviii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Impaired fish passage in the mainstem Columbia River 

Passage for juvenile steelhead migrating to the ocean and adult steelhead returning to 

their natal streams is limited primarily by the four Federal dams on the Lower Columbia 

River mainstem – Bonneville, John Day, The Dalles, and McNary dams – which are part 

of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). NMFS recently issued a new 

biological opinion on the effects of FCRPS operations on salmonids, including Middle 

Columbia River steelhead, and on the predicted results of current and planned 

improvements to the system that are intended to improve fish survival (NMFS 2008a). 

These improvements are expected to increase the in-river survival of Middle Columbia 

River juvenile steelhead by 0.3 percent, 5.1 percent, 8.2 percent, and 10.2 percent, 

depending on the number of dams they must pass. The survival of steelhead adults 

through the four dams is thought to be relatively high at the present time (about 98.5 

percent per project from Bonneville to McNary), and is expected to be maintained or 

improved. 

The plan for current mainstem hydro operations, as summarized in the Hydro Module 

(NMFS 2008c), and any further improvements for fish survival that may result from the 

ongoing FCRPS collaborative process, represent the hydropower recovery strategy for all 

listed salmonids that migrate through the mainstem Columbia River, including the 

Middle Columbia steelhead populations. 

The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for the FCRPS takes a comprehensive 

approach to ESA protection that includes hydro, habitat, hatchery, harvest and predation 

measures to address the biological needs of salmon and steelhead in every life stage. The 

RPA is the product of the collaboration between NMFS and the action agencies ordered 

by the court. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of the salmon life cycle conducted 

down to the level of the populations that make up the listed species. Section 8.8 and the 

“Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Table” in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion 

describe actions that should positively affect Middle Columbia River steelhead. 

The current plan for operation of the FCRPS through 2018 (NMFS 2008a) contains the 

following actions intended to address the needs for survival and recovery of ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead: 

 Continue adult fish passage operations that have resulted in improved survival. 

 Improve juvenile fish passage: install removable spillway weirs or similar surface 

bypass devices at John Day and McNary dams, an extended tailrace spill wall at 

The Dalles Dam, and various modifications at Bonneville Dam. Passage for 

steelhead smolts at each of the four Lower Columbia River mainstem projects 

must reach 96 percent survival. 

 Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage. 

 Continue reservoir operations and river flows to benefit spring migrating 

juveniles. 

 Develop dry water year operations to better protect migrating juveniles. 

 Develop and implement a kelt management plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxix 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Impaired fish passage in the tributaries 

Actions to address fish passage in tributaries include: 

 Implement locally developed management unit plans to improve fish passage in 

tributaries. 

 Implement recovery plan recommendations regarding improved passage and flow 

management by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation below all its facilities in the 

Yakima River and the Umatilla River subbasins, provision of fish passage into 

significant tributaries, and provision of passage over at least two of its storage 

dams in the Yakima Basin.9 

 Implement recovery plan recommendations regarding improvement of fish 

passage, screening, and flow management in the Walla Walla River subbasin by 

 

9

 The conservation measures in NOAA's 2006 listing decision specifically identify the need for passage at 

two or more of the storage dams in the Yakima Basin. The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan strongly 

recommends the provision of passage at the storage dams, but notes that the geographic distribution 

criteria detailed in the plan do provide for combinations of spawning areas that would meet de-listing and 

short-term recovery thresholds without provision of access above the storage dams (See Appendix E, 

Section 4.3.7). 

Dissenting View of State of Oregon Regarding Mainstem Operations 

At the time the proposed recovery plan was finalized, August 2008, 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 NOAA’s FCRPS Biological Opinion. At this time, Oregon is a 

plaintiff in litigation against various federal agencies, including NOAA, challenging the adequacy of the 

measures contained in the current FCRPS Biological Opinion. NOAA is not in agreement with Oregon 

regarding the need for or efficacy of Oregon’s additional or alternative actions. The actions sought by 

Oregon include: 

 Draft storage reservoirs to help meet weekly and seasonal flow and velocity equivalent 

objectives for the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. 

 Operate reservoirs at rule curves and seek additional flow augmentation volumes from Snake 

River and Canadian reservoirs for spring and summer flow and velocity objectives. 

 Operate John Day reservoir at minimum operating pool (MOP) during spring and summer as 

long as barge transport and irrigation needs are met. 

 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 lowest (10th

percentile) flow years. 

 Maintain approximately 50/50 in-river and transportation proportions for spring and summer 

migrants in the Snake River by optimizing spill and surface-oriented routes of dam passage 

and transporting fish collected in the turbine screen bypass systems. Continue to provide spill 

and bypass all fish at McNary Dam at all flows during the spring migration period. 

 Test removable spillway weirs and temporary spillway weirs to ensure they provide equal or 

better benefits of full spill before reducing spill. 

 Establish more rigorous research, monitoring and evaluation to assure that fish survival is 

increasing and to inform adaptive management. 

 Identify and prepare contingency actions for implementation if necessary to meet fish 

performance standards linked to the survival and recovery requirements of listed fish. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxx 

DPS Recovery Plan 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and alteration of the flood operating rule for 

Mill Creek, or alternatively screening the diversion into Bennington Lake. 

 Provide passage into the upper Deschutes River above Round Butte/Pelton 

complex and into the White Salmon River above Condit Dam. 

Hatchery Reform 

The hatchery programs in the Middle Columbia are managed under the Mitchell Act and 

the U.S. v. Oregon process, involving the fisheries co-managers and regulated by NMFS. 

NMFS is working with the funding agencies and hatchery operators to update and 

complete Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for every hatchery program 

in the Middle Columbia region as a means of organizing hatchery review and reform. The 

HGMPs are the basis for NMFS’ biological opinions on hatchery programs under ESA 

sections 7 and 10 and the 4(d) rule, which relate to incidental and direct take of listed 

species. The HGMPs describe each hatchery’s operations and the actions taken to support 

recovery and minimize ecological or genetic impacts, such as straying and other forms of 

competition with naturally produced fish. 

Evaluating the factors that influence interactions between hatchery fish and naturally 

produced fish under varying freshwater conditions and ocean conditions is an important 

area of future research as well as ESA consultations and NEPA review. This is dealt with 

in more detail in Appendix C of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) and 

in the final report of the HSRG. 

The management unit plans propose various actions to reduce deleterious effects of 

hatcheries on natural production. For example, The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan 

proposes increased marking of Columbia Basin hatchery steelhead with coded-wire tags, 

and requiring mass marking of all hatchery steelhead releases with, at a minimum, an 

adipose fin-clip. Regional consensus has not been reached on these strategies, and the 

Mid-Columbia Forum will continue to pursue agreement on appropriate site-specific 

strategies. The Klickitat subbasin plan recommends a targeted monitoring program to 

determine abundance and productivity of natural spawners, determine the proportion of 

hatchery and wild spawners in the Klickitat subbasin, and determine the adverse effects 

of Skamania broodstock on the Klickitat population, if any. Further details are available 

in each management unit plan. 

Predation, Competition and Disease 

Predation, competition and disease are grouped together as a category of concern because 

ultimately these factors relate to balance and imbalance in the ecosystem. Improving 

habitat for salmonids throughout the life cycle is the best strategy for addressing these 

potential limiting factors (ISAB 2007). Specific measures can also be taken; these are 

summarized in Section 7.1.5. 

The Plan addresses major avian, marine mammal and piscivorous fish predation issues in 

the mainstem Columbia River and tributaries and recommends immediate actions as well 

as research and monitoring to track trends in predator populations, understand their 

impacts on steelhead, and develop appropriate management techniques to reduce 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

predation. Competition of hatchery fish with naturally produced fish, for food, spawning 

areas, or other habitat resources, can be an issue at any life stage. The Plan recommends 

actions, research and monitoring in areas where competition may be a problem, 

particularly in the Klickitat, John Day, and Deschutes populations. Disease in salmonids 

is caused by multiple factors and probably cannot be directly addressed by recovery 

actions except in specific instances of known causal factors. It is more likely that nearly 

all of the recommended recovery actions that improve spawning, rearing, and passage 

conditions for steelhead and increase the survival, abundance, and productivity of 

naturally produced fish will result in decreasing incidence of disease. 

Harvest 

Although in general harvest is not considered a major threat for the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS, it is important to ensure that impacts from fisheries do not impede 

recovery, and to perform monitoring and evaluation to verify impacts and reduce existing 

uncertainties. 

Columbia River Estuary and Plume 

Because juvenile steelhead spend less residence time in the shallow parts of the estuary 

than other salmonids, the characteristics of the Columbia River plume and the deeper 

channels of the estuary are more important to their survival. NMFS’ Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) identifies 23 types of management actions that would improve conditions 

in estuary and plume for all salmonids. 

Climate Change 

A strategy for addressing the effects of climate change on Middle Columbia River 

steelhead needs to be based, broadly, on the principle of preserving biodiversity. 

Diversity in terms of both location and biological characteristics gives any species 

resilience in the face of environmental change. This principle underlies the viability 

criteria presented in Chapter 3 of this plan, as well as the strategies described in this 

chapter to address the factors limiting steelhead viability, as these are currently 

understood. NMFS supports the ISAB’s recommendations for mitigating the effects of 

climate change (ISAB 2007), most of which are encompassed in Chapter 7 of this Plan. 

The ISAB notes that “As climate and streams warm, tributary habitats will become 

increasingly important because they usually provide the cool waters for salmonids and 

other cool-water species in a watershed” (ISAB 2007). It follows that water temperature 

and stream flow are factors that will remain important throughout steelhead freshwater 

habitat. All strategies and actions that help to lower water temperature or prevent further 

increase will help to mitigate climate change. Protecting and/or restoring riparian areas to 

increase shade, as recommended in Chapter 7 and the management unit plans, is an 

important strategy for minimizing water temperature increases. Additional actions 

include purchasing water rights to leave more water in streams and restoration actions to 

improve channel complexity and establish side-channel rearing (FCRPS BiOp, NMFS 

2008a). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Recovery Strategies for the Four Major Population Groups 

These summaries of recovery strategies for the four major population groups are drawn 

from the management unit plans and the ICTRT’s status assessment (ICTRT 2008). 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

Population Current Risk Status 

Fifteenmile Creek (Oregon) Viable 

Deschutes Eastside (Oregon) Viable 

Klickitat (Washington) (provisional) Moderate risk – insufficient 

data, hatchery influence 

Rock Creek (Washington) (provisional) High risk – insufficient data 

Deschutes Westside (Oregon) High risk 

White Salmon (Washington) Functionally extirpated 

Crooked River (Oregon) Extirpated 

Primary limiting factors and threats (Section 6.4.1): 

 Degraded tributary habitat 

 Mainstem passage 

 Hatchery related effects 

 Blocked migration to historically accessible habitat 

 Predation, competition, disease – in mainstem and estuary; possibly also in 

Deschutes Westside as competition with resident rainbow trout. 

Recovery Scenario: For the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG to be considered 

viable based on the currently extant populations, the Klickitat, Fifteenmile, and both the 

Deschutes Eastside and Westside populations should reach viable status, with one highly 

viable. The Rock Creek population should reach “maintained” status (25 percent or less 

risk level). MPG viability could be further bolstered if reintroduction of steelhead into the 

Crooked River succeeds and if the White Salmon population is successfully reintroduced 

to its historical habitat. 

Gap: The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions 

and 5 percent risk) for the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG is 0.21 (meaning that a 21 

percent increase in average life-cycle survival is required to achieve 5 percent risk in a 

100-year time period). The gap ranges from –0.34 (Deschutes Eastside) (no gap) to 0.78 

(Deschutes Westside) (needs 78 percent improvement). There was not enough 

information to estimate gaps for the Klickitat or Rock Creek populations. 

Key actions proposed (Section 7.2.1): 

 Protect, improve, and increase freshwater habitat for steelhead production. 

Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific limiting 

factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan and 

the Washington Gorge plans. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxiii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Reduce straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural spawning grounds 

within the Deschutes subbasin. 

 Restore historical passage to the upper Deschutes subbasin including the Westside 

tributaries and Crooked River above Pelton Round Butte dam complex and the 

White Salmon River above Condit Dam. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS 

Estuary Module (NMFS 2007 and Appendix G of this Plan) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) (as summarized in the Hydro Module (NMFS 

2008c and Appendix F of this Plan). 

 Improve hatchery management to minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced steelhead within the Deschutes West and East and Klickitat 

subbasins. 

 Fill data gaps for better assessment of Klickitat and Rock Creek steelhead 

populations. 

 Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers of recovery actions on 

both sides of the Columbia River for sequencing of recovery actions and 

monitoring for adaptive management. 

John Day River MPG 

Population Current Risk Status 

North Fork John Day Highly viable 

Upper Mainstem John Day Moderate risk 

Lower Mainstem John Day Moderate risk 

Middle Fork John Day Moderate risk 

South Fork John Day Moderate risk 

Main limiting factors and threats (Section 6.4.2): 

 Degraded tributary habitat 

 Mainstem passage 

 Hatchery related effects 

 Predation/competition/disease in mainstem and estuary 

Recovery Scenario: For the John Day River MPG to reach viable status, the Lower 

Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day River, and either the Middle Fork John 

Day River or Upper Mainstem John Day River populations should achieve viable status, 

with one highly viable. 

Gap: The median survival gap for the John Day MPG is 0.09, ranging from –0.49 (North 

Fork) (no gap) to 0.34 (South Fork) (needs 34 percent improvement in average survival 

over the life cycle). 

Key Actions proposed (7.3.2): 

 Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and connectivity for steelhead 

production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address 

specific factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxiv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish 

onto natural spawning grounds within the John Day subbasin. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS 

Estuary Module (NMFS 2007 and Appendix G of this Plan) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

Population Current Risk Status 

Umatilla River Moderate Risk 

Walla Walla River Moderate Risk 

Touchet River High Risk (provisional because of insufficient data) 

Main limiting factors and threats (Section 6.4.3): 

 Mainstem passage (Touchet and Walla Walla populations pass four major dams: 

the Umatilla population must pass three.) 

 Tributary habitat 

 Hatchery related effects 

 Predation/competition/disease 

Recovery Scenario: For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to be viable, two populations 

should meet viability criteria, and one should be highly viable. The Umatilla River 

population is the only large population, and therefore should be viable. Either the Walla 

Walla River or Touchet River population also should be viable. 

Gap: There was sufficient information available to estimate gaps for only two of the three 

populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. Assuming base hydrosystem and 

recent ocean conditions, the survival gaps for the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations 

are 0.09 and 0.34, respectively. 

Key actions proposed (Section 7.2.3): 

 Coordinate between planners, scientists and those implementing recovery actions 

in Washington and Oregon for sequencing, monitoring, and adaptive 

management. 

 Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and access for steelhead 

production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address 

specific factors in specific areas as described in the Southeast Washington Plan 

and the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

 Improve hatchery management to reduce straying by out-of-DPS hatchery fish 

onto natural spawning grounds within the Umatilla/Walla Walla subbasins. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS 

Estuary Module (NMFS 2007 and Appendix G of this Plan) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) (as summarized in the Hydro Module, NMFS 

2008c and Appendix F of this Plan). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxv 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Yakima River MPG 

Population Current Risk Status 

Upper Yakima River High Risk 

Naches River High Risk 

Satus Creek Moderate Risk 

Toppenish Creek Moderate Risk 

Main limiting factors and threats (Section 6.4.4): 

 Tributary habitat: Influence of major irrigation system development. Altered 

hydrology; degraded habitat; loss of habitat; impaired fish passage; reduced 

outmigrant survival in Yakima mainstem. 

 Mainstem passage (four dams). 

Status: The Yakima MPG is currently rated at High Risk. The two largest populations in 

the drainage (Naches and Upper Yakima) are rated at High Risk; the Satus Creek and 

Toppenish Creek populations are rated as Maintained. 

Recovery Scenario: For the Yakima River MPG to achieve viable status, two populations 

should be rated as viable, including at least one of the two classified as Large – either the 

Naches River or the Upper Yakima River. The remaining two populations should, at a 

minimum, meet the Maintained criteria. 

Gap: The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions) 

for the Yakima MPG is 0.77 (needs 77 percent improvement in average survival over the 

life cycle), ranging from 0.22 (Satus—tributary only) to 1.15 (Upper Yakima). This is the 

highest median survival gap of the four MPGs in the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. 

Key actions proposed (Section 7.2.4): 

 Protect and enhance habitat in key tributary watersheds in the Yakima Basin. 

 Restore passage to blocked areas in the Naches and Upper Yakima population 

areas. 

 Alter irrigation delivery and storage operations in the Yakima Basin to improve 

flow conditions for Middle Columbia steelhead and use managed high flows to 

maintain floodplain habitat. 

 Improve channel and floodplain function and reduce predation through the 

mainstem Yakima and Naches Rivers. 

 Improve survival in the mainstem Columbia and its estuary through actions 

detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007 and Appendix G of this Plan) 

and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) (as summarized in the Hydro 

Module, NMFS 2008c and Appendix F of this Plan). 

Time Required and Cost Estimates 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxvi 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Estimating time and cost for salmon and steelhead recovery, given the complex 

relationship of these fish to the environment and to human activities on land, poses 

unique challenges. NMFS estimates that recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 

could take 25 to 50 years. The management unit plans (Appendices A through E) contain 

extensive lists of actions to recover the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS populations. 

These projects were developed using the most up-to-date assessment of Middle Columbia 

steelhead recovery needs. The management unit plans focus, for the most part, on actions 

ranging from 5 to 15 years. There are many uncertainties involved in predicting the 

course of recovery and in estimating total costs. Such uncertainties include biological and 

ecosystem responses to recovery actions as well as long-term and future funding. 

Cost Estimates 

Cost estimates for recovery projects were provided by the management unit entities 

where available information was sufficient to do so, using the methods described in each 

management unit plan. No cost estimates are provided for (1) baseline actions (programs 

that are already in existence), which are listed as Not Applicable (N/A); or (2) actions for 

which costs, unit costs, or project-scale estimates are yet to be developed. These are listed 

as To Be Determined. Cost figures will be updated as improved information becomes 

available. 

The total estimated cost of restoring habitat for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is 

approximately $235 million over the initial 5-year period, and approximately $996 

million over 20 to 50 years for all DPS-wide recovery actions for which sufficient 

information exists upon which to base an estimate (Table ES-4). However, they do not 

include costs associated with implementing actions within the lower Columbia River, 

estuary or Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). 

This estimate includes expenditures by local, tribal, state, and Federal governments, 

private business, and individuals, in implementing both capital projects and non-capital 

work. Administrative costs are embedded in the total management unit cost estimates in 

Table ES-4. Preliminary research, monitoring and evaluation costs have, in some cases, 

been estimated at the management unit level; however, these costs are not included at this 

time pending completion of research and monitoring plans and further development of 

each project. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxvii 

DPS Recovery Plan 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxviii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table ES-4 Summary of Cost Estimates for Habitat Projects for 

Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS. 

Recovery Plan First 5 Years

($M) 

Project/Program 

Total ($M) 

 

Oregon $ 103.5 $ 512.8 

 

Yakima Steelhead10 $ 91.9 $ 269.3 

 

SE Washington11 $ 25.5 $ 76.4 

 

Klickitat12,

13 $ 12.9 $ 129.4 

 

Rock Creek14 $ 0.9 $ 1.8 

 

White Salmon 

Steelhead N/A $ 6.5 

DPS Totals $ 234.7 $ 996.2 

These cost estimates do not include expenses associated with implementing actions 

within the lower Columbia River, estuary, or Federal Columbia River Power System 

(FCRPS), first, because of the basin-wide scope and applicability of these actions to all 

13 Columbia Basin salmonid species listed as threatened or endangered, and second, 

because they are considered "baseline actions" that are required through other processes 

such as section 7 consultations, FERC licensing agreements, and Habitat Conservation 

Plans. Cost estimates for estuary actions are included in a module that is incorporated 

into the Plan as Appendix G, and is available on the NMFS website: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon Recovery Planning/ESA Recovery Plans/Other 

Documents.cfm. The estuary recovery costs could be further refined following public 

comment on the module and on the ESA recovery plan for the three listed lower 

Columbia River ESUs and one listed lower Columbia River steelhead DPS in 2009. Costs 

for hatchery actions required through other processes such as consultations, permits, and 

4(d) Rule implementation are not part of recovery costs reported here because the 

programs are already in existence or are undergoing required modifications. There are 

few estimated costs for recovery actions associated with harvest to report at this time. 

This is because no actions are currently proposed that go beyond those already being 

implemented through U.S. v. Oregon and other harvest management forums. In the event 

that additional harvest actions are implemented through these forums, those costs will be 

 

10 The Yakima steelhead plan estimates costs for the first 6 years, and includes preliminary RME cost 

estimate of $300K/year. The 5-year estimate is extrapolated from the 6-year cost data . 11 The SE Washington plan estimates annual steelhead implementation costs at about $5 million per year. 

The 5-year estimate is extrapolated by multiplying the annual amount by five. 12 The Klickitat plan estimates costs for the first 10 years. Five-year estimate extrapolated by dividing the 

10-year amount in half. 13 The Klickitat plan uses a 50-year period to estimate its total project costs. 

14 The Rock Creek plan estimates cost for first 3 years and 10 years. The 5-year estimate is extrapolated 

from the 3-year value. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxix 

DPS Recovery Plan 

added during the implementation phase of this recovery plan. All cost estimates will be 

refined and updated over time. 

Cost estimates from the draft cost chapters in the individual management plans were 

developed as consistently as possible, in that they all applied guidance provided by 

NMFS. However, the approaches vary to some degree given the local and independent 

nature of the planning groups. Costs developed in the management unit plans were 

estimated using several basic assumptions (i.e., neither baseline costs nor out-of-basin 

costs were included in the estimates) and used similar cost calculation methodologies. 

There are, however, differences in the timeframes for cost estimates. 

Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions 

Chapter 9 in this plan presents an analysis of the potential effects of implementing all the 

proposed recovery actions – in all the “H” sectors – on the abundance and productivity of 

Middle Columbia River steelhead. This quantitative analysis provides an opportunity to 

evaluate the efficacy of proposed recovery strategies in light of current knowledge 

regarding population functioning, including relationships with habitat conditions. Equally 

important, the quantitative models used in the assessment provide a framework for 

productively targeting evaluation efforts as well as for revisiting key assumptions in the 

future as more information becomes available (e.g., from monitoring responses to initial 

implementation or from evaluation efforts targeting key uncertainties). Two models were 

used: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and the All-H-Analyzer (AHA). 

Methods of analysis are explained in detail in Chapter 9 of this Plan. 

The analysis indicates, based on the suites of proposed actions in all the sectors, that all 

Middle Columbia River steelhead populations for which there are adequate data are 

expected to achieve 95 percent probability of survival (less than 5 percent risk of 

extinction within 100 years) for abundance/productivity if the most intensive (major) 

restoration scenarios are implemented and the projected habitat changes are realized after 

25 years of implementation. Under minimum restoration scenarios, three populations 

(Deschutes Westside, Satus, and Upper Yakima) may not achieve less than 5 percent risk 

for abundance/productivity. However, the Satus population would meet the recovery 

criteria identified in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, and even under poor ocean 

conditions and minimum restoration actions, the abundance and productivity of the other 

two populations are expected to increase considerably over the baseline. 

Figure ES-6 shows the projected (modeled) abundance and productivity of the 14 

populations for which there are adequate data (excluding the Rock Creek, Klickitat, and 

Touchet populations) after 25 years and major restoration actions. The curve represents 

the abundance and productivity needed to achieve 95 percent probability of survival for 

the next 100 years. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xxxix DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure ES-6. Predicted viability results for Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations after 25 years of major restoration 

South Fork JD

Fifteen Mile Toppenish

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Basic Population Size

Deschutes E

Middle Fk JD

Upper JD

Walla Walla

DeschutesW Satus

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Intermediate Population Size

Lower JD

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Very Large Population Size

North Fk JD

Umatilla

Naches

Upper Yakima

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Large Population Size
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xl 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

An important part of the strategy for achieving recovery is the development of a DPS-wide 

monitoring plan that will support implementation of the recovery plan and long-term adaptive 

management in response to changes and trends in the data. Two keys to effective implementation 

are targeting actions to specific areas and monitoring the results of the actions. To achieve these 

goals, a scientific technical team made up of local scientists, former ICTRT members, and 

managers will be necessary. The monitoring plan is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. It is 

also important to explicitly address the many unknowns in salmon recovery – the “critical 

uncertainties” that make management decisions much harder. Critical uncertainty research will, 

in the long run, reduce monitoring and implementation costs. Critical uncertainties and data gaps 

are described in more detail in Sections 10.3 and 10.4. 

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. Adaptive management works by coupling the decision-making 

process with collection of performance data and its evaluation. Most importantly, it works by 

offering an explicit process through which alternative strategies to achieve the same ends can be 

considered. 

Within the Middle Columbia Basin, many different organizations, including Federal, state, tribal, 

local, and private entities, currently conduct programs and actions that could improve Middle 

Columbia steelhead survival. Development of Middle Columbia regional coordination will be 

essential for NMFS’ future status reviews of the steelhead DPS. Establishing stable funding and 

staff for reporting data is also important. Management unit planners are developing detailed 

research, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management plans for each management unit 

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

Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and Monitoring Guidance 

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf). The individual RM&E and adaptive management plans 

will then be combined into a DPS RM&E and adaptive management plan by the Middle 

Columbia Science Team. This will ensure that, taken together, the monitoring and evaluation 

programs for each management unit, combined with monitoring components of the modules 

incorporated into the plans, address the needs of the entire DPS. The Mid-C Forum and others 

will use the RM&E and adaptive management plans to inform and guide projects and programs. 

Setting Priorities 

Priorities for recovery actions should be guided by DPS-, MPG-, and population-level recovery 

criteria and best available scientific information concerning DPS status, the role of the 

independent populations in meeting DPS and MPG viability, limiting factors and threats, and 

likelihood of effectiveness of actions. Protection of existing habitat is essential. Issues of funding 

and local, state, or national support for implementation will also inevitably come into play. 

The management unit plans all address these issues in their implementation sections. For 

recovery actions in the tributaries, priorities will be settled largely at the local level. However, 

there should be ongoing technical review and support from DPS-level and management unit 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xli 

DPS Recovery Plan 

science and technical committees. Coordination and communication in “out-of-subbasin” forums 

will be necessary for actions in the Columbia mainstem, estuary, and/or ocean. 

Coordination/Governance 

Coordination of actions and information-sharing among fisheries biologists, Tribes, local 

governments, citizen groups, and state and Federal agencies based in both Oregon and 

Washington is a key component of recovery for this DPS. Benefits of coordination include: 

 Dealing with shared migration areas consistently 

 Developing coherent MPG-level strategies where populations are in two states (Cascades 

Eastern Slope MPG; Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG), or the same population is in both 

states (Walla Walla population) 

 Promoting consistent methods for setting recovery objectives, evaluating strategies, and 

monitoring progress across populations, MPGs, and the DPS 

Such coordination is underway through the Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum), 

a group convened by NMFS to provide input on the DPS recovery plan. 

Middle Columbia Recovery Forum 

The recent creation of the Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum), to be convened 

regularly by NMFS, is intended to facilitate collaboration between scientists and recovery 

planners on both sides of the Columbia River. Figure ES-7 gives an overview of the relationships 

between these entities. Chapter 11 of this plan describes in more detail the proposed roles and 

responsibilities. 

Figure ES-7. Mid-C Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure. 

Mid-C Forum 

NOAA, GNRO, GSRO, ODFW, WDFW, 

Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs, Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, Regional 

Recovery Board Exec. Directors, Klickitat 

County, Implementation Coordinator (OR) 

Other Regional Forums: 

 CR Federal Caucus, 

 CBFWA, 

 NWPCC, 

 FCRPS (BiOp), 

 US v OR/WA 

 LC,SR,UC Recov Bds 

Oregon Mid-C 

Implementation 

Coordinator 

Oregon Advisory 

Implementation 

Team 

Washington Regional 

Recovery Boards (Yakima, 

Snake River) and 

Washington Gorge Recovery 

Implementation Group 

Oregon 

Plan Teams 

Oregon 

Technical 

Teams

Washington 

Technical 

Teams

Science 

Teams 

Outreach 

Subgroup 

Implementation 

Subgroup 

RME Subgroup 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xlii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Implementation Funding 

Funding for project implementation is currently available from a variety of sources, but it will be 

an ongoing challenge. The role of the Mid-C Forum is to ensure that management unit plan 

implementers are aware of potential sources of funds and to advocate for the funding and 

implementation of actions that benefit all populations in the DPS. The Forum will not supersede 

decisions made by the individual management unit boards but will provide assistance and may 

promote funding of their projects and programs if requested. Sources of implementation funding 

include: 

 Congressional appropriations to Federal agencies and to Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund (PCSRF) (through states and tribes) 

 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) (Washington) 

 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) (Oregon) 

 State appropriations (state agencies) 

 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program (states and tribes) 

 Federal/state grants 

 Non-profit organization programs and grants 

How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan 

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they are 

important tools that help to do the following: 

 Provide context for regulatory decisions. 

 Guide decision making by Federal, state, Tribal, and local jurisdictions. 

 Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions. 

 Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions. 

 Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. 

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery plans 

under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and allocate their 

resources: 

 Actions carried out to meet section 7(a)(1) obligations to use their programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of the ESA and to carry out programs for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species 

 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 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead ES - xliii 

DPS Recovery Plan 

NMFS will emphasize recovery plan information in ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations, section 

10 permit development, and application of the section 4(d) rule by considering: 

 The importance of affected populations to listed species viability 

 The importance of the action area to affected populations and species viability 

 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, within the action area, their proposed actions will 

affect individuals of specific populations and limiting factors identified in the recovery plans, 

and to describe any mitigating measures and voluntary recovery activities in the action area. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

ESA Recovery Plan 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This is a recovery plan (Plan) for the protection and restoration of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which spawn and rear in tributaries to the Columbia River in 

central and eastern Washington and Oregon (Figure 1-1). The Middle Columbia River steelhead 

distinct population segment (DPS) was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA) on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required, pursuant to Section 4(f) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to develop recovery plans for marine species listed 

under the Act. Recovery plans identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered 

species to the point that they are again self-sustaining elements of their ecosystems and no longer 

need the protections of the ESA. 

Nineteen of the 33 salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest region are listed as threatened 

or endangered. The Middle Columbia steelhead is among those with the best prospects of 

recovery, although it will require considerable political will and investment of long-term effort 

and funding. Modeling of the potential effects of the actions that are proposed in this plan (see 

Chapter 9) predicts that the DPS can achieve a “negligible” risk of extinction within a reasonable 

time frame – e.g. 25 to 50 years – if the actions are taken and if they have the predicted effects 

on steelhead habitat and survival. Cautious though this statement may be, it is a beacon of hope 

in the complex realm of salmonid recovery in the Northwest. 

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 tribal agencies, local 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, not regulatory documents, the ESA clearly 

envisions recovery plans as the central organizing tool for guiding each species’ recovery 

process. 

Over the course of their life cycle, Middle Columbia River steelhead use habitats across a wide 

geographic range. They spawn and rear in the upper and middle reaches of freshwater tributaries, 

then migrate as juveniles through the lower tributary reaches and the mainstem Columbia River 

to the estuary and ocean. After one to five years in the ocean, the adults migrate upstream to their 

natal streams. The long-term biological success of steelhead is based on their ability to make use 

of these diverse habitats. Their resilience in the face of change depends on maintaining genetic, 

phenotypic, and behavioral diversity over a wide geographic area. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 1-1. Geographic boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, showing land 

ownership.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Human activities have dramatically changed this geography. Although many of the deleterious 

effects on fish habitat are due to past practices, current human uses of the land and river systems 

continue to affect steelhead habitat and viability across much of its Middle Columbia range. A 

growing number of 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 the common ground among 

affected parties, to organize protection and restoration of salmonid habitat, and to secure the 

economic and cultural benefits that accrue to human communities from healthy watersheds and 

rivers. While Federal, state, and tribal entities can make major contributions to the recovery of 

Middle Columbia steelhead, the actions of individuals on their land, as well as city and county 

codes and ordinances promoting conservation, are also essential. 

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

needs the protection of the Act and can be delisted. Recovery plans may also contain “broad 

sense goals” that go beyond the requirements for delisting to address other legislative mandates 

or social, economic, and ecological values. The various locally produced plans contain broad 

sense goals adopted by local planning entities. These broad sense goals, while stated in slightly 

different ways, usually share some combination of the following elements: ensuring long-term 

persistence of viable populations of naturally produced steelhead distributed across their native 

range; enjoying the social and cultural benefits of meaningful harvest opportunities that 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. Recovery 

goals and delisting criteria are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

1.1 ESA Requirements 

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

listed as endangered or threatened under the statute. 

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

recovery plans: 

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

range 

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

C. Disease or predation 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

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

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

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

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

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

accordance with the provisions of this chapter, that the species be removed from the list; and; 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

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 conclusions (NMFS 2006). 

Once a species is deemed recovered and therefore removed from a listed status, section 4(g) of 

the ESA requires the monitoring of the species for a period of not less than five years to ensure 

that it retains its recovered status. 

1.2 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan 

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they are 

important tools that help to do the following: 

 Provide context for regulatory decisions. 

 Guide decision making by Federal, state, Tribal, and local jurisdictions. 

 Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions. 

 Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions. 

 Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. 

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery plans 

under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and allocate their 

resources: 

 Actions carried out to meet section 7(a)(1) obligations to use their programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of the ESA and to carry out programs for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species 

 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 the section 4(d) rule by considering: 

 The importance of affected populations to listed species viability 

 The importance of the action area to affected populations and species viability 

 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, within the action area, their proposed actions will 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

affect individuals of 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 Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Geographic Setting 

The range of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS extends over approximately 35,000 square 

miles in the Columbia plateau of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The DPS includes all 

naturally spawned populations of steelhead in drainages upstream of the Wind River, 

Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), up to, and including, the Yakima River, 

Washington, but excluding steelhead from the Snake River Basin (64 FR 14517; 71 FR 849). 

Major drainages in this DPS are the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Yakima, and 

Klickitat river systems. The Cascade Mountains form the western border of the plateau in both 

Oregon and Washington, while the Blue Mountains form the eastern edge. The southern border 

is marked by the divides that separate the upper Deschutes and John Day basins from the Oregon 

high desert and drainages to the south. The Wenatchee Mountains and Palouse areas of eastern 

Washington border the Middle Columbia on the north. 

Temperatures and precipitation vary widely, usually depending on elevation, with cooler and 

wetter climates in the mountainous areas at the western and eastern boundaries and warmer and 

drier climates in the lower portions of the watersheds that make up most of the province. The 

mountainous regions are predominately coniferous forests, while the arid regions are 

characterized by sagebrush steppe and grassland. 

Most of the region is privately owned (64 percent), with the remaining area under Federal (23 

percent), tribal (10 percent) and state (3 percent) ownership (Figure 1-1). The landscape, 

throughout the range of this DPS, is heavily modified for human use, even where populations are 

low. Most of the landscape consists of are rangeland and timberland, with significant 

concentrations of dryland agriculture in parts of the range. Irrigated agriculture and urban 

development are generally concentrated in valley bottoms. Populations in these regions are 

growing. 

1.4 Relationship of Steelhead DPS to Resident O. mykiss

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

species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common names of the non-anadromous, or resident, form are 

rainbow trout and redband trout. When NMFS originally listed the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was classified as an “evolutionarily 

significant unit” (ESU) of salmonids that included both the anadromous and resident forms. 

Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, 

delineating anadromous, steelhead-only “distinct population segments” (DPS). NMFS listed the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Rainbow 

trout and redband trout are under the jurisdiction of the states unless they are listed, when they 

come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This recovery plan 

addresses steelhead and not rainbow trout, as is consistent with the 2006 ESA listing decision. 

NMFS based its DPS determination on the fact that “despite the apparent reproductive exchange 

between resident and anadromous O. mykiss, the two life forms remain ‘markedly separated’ as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors. . . . Steelhead differ 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

from resident rainbow trout physically in adult size and fecundity, physiologically by undergoing 

smoltification, ecologically in their preferred prey and principal predators, and behaviorally in 

their migratory strategy.” (71 FR 838). 

NMFS acknowledges that the data necessary to evaluate the current status and trends of resident 

populations are generally lacking, as well as historical data necessary to evaluate trends in 

abundance and distribution of the two life history forms. NMFS concluded that the collective 

contribution of the resident life history form to persistence of steelhead is unknown, and may not 

substantially reduce the overall extinction risk of the steelhead DPS (71 FR 834). Individual 

management unit plans may identify research and monitoring needs to better understand the 

status and trends of resident rainbow trout in order to address these data gaps. 

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 State of Oregon 

(led by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, with support from a collaborative sounding 

board), emerging regional sounding boards within Oregon, other Federal agencies, state 

agencies, Tribes, local governments, and the public. 

While NMFS is directly responsible for ESA recovery planning for salmon and steelhead, NMFS 

believes that ESA recovery plans for salmon and steelhead should be based on the many state, 

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

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

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

and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans that involve local 

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

NMFS developed the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS ESA Recovery Plan with assistance from 

the Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum), a group convened by NMFS to provide 

input on the DPS recovery plan. NMFS developed this Plan by drawing upon the best available 

scientific information provided by the four regional recovery plans included as appendices to this 

Plan (i.e. the management unit plans, described below and in Section 1.6.), and by a regional 

team of scientists (the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team, described below). The draft 

plan went through repeated reviews and revisions in response to comments from both the 

scientific team and the Mid-C Forum. Participants in the Mid-C Forum include the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Washington Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Office, Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Snake River Salmon Recovery 

Board, Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), US 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS), US Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE), Klickitat County, and NMFS Northwest Region. 

The Draft Recovery Plan, including the four management unit plans and two scientific reports 

(McClure et al. 2003; ICTRT 2007a) that provide the scientific basis for the Plan, was made 

available for public review as a Proposed Recovery Plan. NMFS revised the Proposed Plan in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

response to public comments, including comments from the ICTRT as peer reviewers. The 

responses to public comments are available on the NMFS website, at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/InteriorColumbia/Mid-Columbia/upload/Mid-C-response.pdf

1.5.1 Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams 

Currently, there are 19 ESA-listed ESUs/DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific 

Northwest. NMFS Northwest Region also shares jurisdiction of an additional ESU, Southern 

Oregon/Northern California coho, with NMFS Southwest Region. For the purpose of recovery 

planning for these species, NMFS Northwest Region designated five geographically based 

“recovery domains”: Interior Columbia; Willamette-Lower Columbia; Puget Sound and 

Washington Coast; the Oregon Coast; and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

(Figure 1-2). The range of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is located in the Middle 

Columbia sub-domain of the Interior Columbia domain (the other Interior Columbia subdomains are the Snake River and Upper Columbia). 

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, nominated for their geographic and 

species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The charge of each 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) is to define ESU/DPS structures, develop recommendations on 

biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its component populations, provide 

scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts, and provide scientific 

evaluations of proposed recovery plans. The Interior Columbia TRT (ICTRT) included biologists 

from NMFS, states, tribes, and academic institutions. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 1-2. Columbia Basin Recovery Domains for NMFS Northwest Region. 

All the TRTs used the same biological principles for developing their recommendations for 

ESU/DPS and population viability criteria – criteria to be used, along with criteria based on 

mitigation of the factors for decline, to determine whether a species has recovered sufficiently to 

be downlisted or delisted. These principles are described in a NMFS technical memorandum, 

Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et 

al. 2000). Viable salmonid populations (VSP) are defined in terms of four parameters: 

abundance, population productivity or growth rate, population spatial structure, and diversity. A 

viable ESU/DPS is naturally self-sustaining, with a high probability of persistence over a 100-

year time period. Each TRT made recommendations using the VSP framework, based on data 

availability, the unique biological characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, 

and the members’ collective experience and expertise. Although NMFS encouraged the TRTs to 

develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors limiting 

recovery, all the TRTs worked from a common scientific foundation. 

1.5.2 Management Units 

In each domain, NMFS has worked with state, tribal, local and other Federal entities to develop 

planning forums that build to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led recovery efforts. NMFS 

defined “management units” based on jurisdictional boundaries as well as areas where local 

planning efforts were underway (Figure 1-3). It can be seen from the figure that the management 

units do not necessarily correspond to biological units, such as steelhead populations, but are 

defined for planning and administrative purposes. The Middle Columbia management units are 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

(1) Oregon; (2) Washington Gorge, which, in turn, is subdivided into three planning areas: White 

Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; (3) Yakima subbasin; and (4) Southeast Washington. 

1.6 Management Unit Recovery Plans 

Although NMFS has prepared this plan for the entire DPS, the management unit plans 

(Appendices A-E) are the work of local groups and county, state, Federal, and tribal entities 

within the Middle Columbia River region on both sides of the river. The management unit plans 

built on existing recovery plans, in particular, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 

subbasin plans, and targeted the specific ESA recovery needs of Middle Columbia steelhead. 

 Oregon Management Unit: Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

(Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan) (Appendix A). 

 Washington Gorge Management Unit: Recovery Plans for the Klickitat River (Appendix 

B) and Rock Creek (Appendix C) subbasin populations of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead. NMFS also prepared a draft plan for the White Salmon River extirpated 

population; however, the final White Salmon recovery plan will be incorporated into the 

Lower Columbia River domain plan. 

 Southeast Washington Management Unit: Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for 

Southeast Washington (Southeast Washington Plan) (Appendix D) 

 Yakima Management Unit: Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix E) 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 1-3. Management Units and Populations for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

1.6.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan - Appendix A. 

ODFW is the lead for the Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in 

the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan). ODFW drew together the Middle Columbia Recovery Planning Team, made up of ODFW 

staff biologists and representatives from eight other natural resource agencies, and a planning 

forum, the Mid-Columbia Sounding Board (MCSB). The MCSB is made up of representatives of 

local communities, agricultural water users, Federal and non-Federal land managers, governing 

bodies, Tribes, and industry and environmental interests. The role of the MCSB is to provide 

policy guidance in the development of all aspects of the plan and ensure locally appropriate and 

locally supported recovery actions needed to achieve species recovery goals. Population-specific 

management action development teams were drawn from the pool of natural resource agency 

staff on the Planning Team. 

ODFW convened an “Expert Panel” of 12 biologists to examine limiting factors and threats for 

the 10 independent steelhead populations in Oregon. The recovery planning team also made its 

own evaluation. More detail on the Expert Panel process is available in the Oregon Steelhead 

Recovery Plan, Section 8, and in a report by the panel (Mid-Columbia Expert Panel 2006). The 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan also drew on the relevant subbasin plans, ODEQ reports, 

NMFS’ limiting factors modules, ODFW reports, and other sources. 

Oregon Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations: 

Fifteenmile Creek 

Deschutes River Eastside 

Deschutes River Westside 

Deschutes/Crooked River (extirpated) 

Lower Mainstem John Day 

Upper Mainstem John Day 

North Fork John Day 

Middle Fork John Day 

South Fork John Day 

Umatilla River 

Walla Walla River (also partially in Washington State) 

Willow Creek (extirpated) 

1.6.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Recovery Plan (Appendices B and C) 

The Washington Gorge Management Unit comprises three subbasins in south-central 

Washington: the areas drained by the Klickitat River, Rock Creek, and the White Salmon River. 

The steelhead populations in these subbasins are part of the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries 

major population group. The Washington Gorge Management Unit Recovery Plan (the 

Washington Gorge Plan) is actually made up of three separate plans, one for each subbasin. 

Since there is not presently a Washington-State sponsored salmon recovery planning board for 

this area, NMFS staff drafted the three plans in collaboration with the Yakama Nation, 

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

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

and the public. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The Columbia Gorge area within Washington State from Rock Creek east to Kennewick makes 

up Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 31. The WRIA 31 planning unit is addressing 

steelhead habitat within the WRIA. The area contains Rock Creek and several smaller tributaries 

to the Columbia River with current and historical steelhead habitat. The ICTRT has designated 

steelhead in these smaller tributaries as part of the Willow Creek and Umatilla populations of the 

Middle Columbia steelhead DPS; however, there is very little further information currently 

available and no recovery plan was developed for them (see Appendix A to the Rock Creek 

management unit plan). 

The Klickitat basin is in WRIA 30. The WRIA 30 planning unit is addressing steelhead habitat 

by reviewing water quality proposals developed primarily to fix flow and temperature problems 

in the Klickitat basin external to the Yakama Reservation. This recovery plan and the Klickitat 

Recovery Plan may be used by the WRIA 30 planning unit to help guide the review of proposals 

considered for funding. 

The White Salmon River supported an historical population of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead, which was extirpated from its historical range in 1913 by the construction of Condit 

Dam at river mile 3.4. Condit Dam is scheduled for removal in 2010. In addition to steelhead, 

single populations of three listed ESUs of salmon (Lower Columbia River Chinook, Lower 

Columbia River Coho, and Columbia River Chum) spawn in the White Salmon River subbasin. 

The need for an ecosystem approach warrants addressing in one single plan all the listed 

salmonids that spawn in the White Salmon subbasin; for that reason, the White Salmon plan will 

be finalized as part of the Lower Columbia ESA Recovery Plan, scheduled to be completed in 

2010. However, the delisting criteria, actions, and costs for Middle Columbia River steelhead in 

the White Salmon subbasin are included in this DPS plan in order to have all the information on 

the Middle Columbia DPS in one place. 

Washington Gorge Steelhead Populations: 

Rock Creek 

Klickitat 

White Salmon (functionally extirpated)15

1.6.3 Southeast Washington Plan (Appendix D) 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) developed the recovery plan for the 

Southeast Washington management unit, and entitled it the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan 

for Southeast Washington. This plan is called the Southeast Washington Plan here in order to 

differentiate it from the forthcoming recovery plan for the five species of listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Snake River region (which includes parts of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). 

The SRSRB is made up of government and tribal representatives, landowners, and private 

citizens, funded through the Washington Salmon Recovery Fund. The Board appointed a 

Regional Technical Team for technical and scientific assistance. In March 2006, NMFS accepted 

the SRSRB Plan, in combination with a NMFS Supplement regarding the Plan, as an Interim 

Regional Recovery Plan (March 14, 2006, 71 FR 13094). 

 

15 The ICTRT considers extirpated populations to be those that are entirely cut off from anadromy. 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. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Southeast Washington Steelhead Populations: 

Walla Walla River (also partially in Oregon) 

Touchet River 

1.6.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix E) 

The Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board (YSPB) submitted the Draft Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan to the Washington State Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office 

on October 26, 2005. In May 2006, NMFS accepted the draft YSPB plan, in combination with a 

NMFS Supplement regarding the plan, as an Interim Regional Recovery Plan (May 3, 2006, 71 

FR 26052). On April 5, 2006, the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board and the 

Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board were both dissolved by board resolutions. Their 

functions were then taken on by a new organization, the Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Recovery Board (YBFWRB), which includes representatives from the Yakama Nation, Benton, 

Kittitas, and Yakima counties, and 18 of the 24 municipalities in the Yakima Basin. Since the 

formation of the YBFWRB, revisions have been made to the original October 2005 draft to 

incorporate new information, improve clarity, and address issues identified in the NMFS 

supplement and comments received in response to publication in the Federal Register. A revised 

and updated portion of the draft plan, the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, focuses on steelhead 

recovery needs, and was submitted to NMFS in early 2008 for inclusion in this Middle Columbia 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. (For more information see www.ybfwrb.org). 

Yakima Basin Steelhead Populations: 

Satus Creek 

Toppenish Creek 

Naches River 

Upper Yakima River 

1.7 Recovery Planning Modules 

NMFS prepared two recovery planning “modules” to address system effects that transcend the 

geographic boundaries of individual subbasins, recovery domains, or management units. The 

modules provide detailed information on Columbia mainstem and estuary, through which Middle 

Columbia steelhead and other anadromous salmonids must pass as juveniles and returning adults. 

1.7.1 Hydro Module 

The Hydro Module summarizes the general effects of Columbia River mainstem hydropower 

projects on all 13 ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia basin, including the limiting factors and 

threats and expected actions (including site-specific management actions), or strategy options, to 

address those threats. This module supports recovery plans for the Snake River, Upper 

Columbia, Middle Columbia, Lower Columbia, and Upper Willamette River species. It is a 

synthesis of information that has undergone public processes for review, including, but not 

limited to, the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 2008 Biological Opinion, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing proceedings, and Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs). This module may be updated as additional information becomes 

available. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 14 

DPS Recovery Plan 

1.7.2 Estuary Module 

The Estuary Module, which NMFS prepared in collaboration with the Lower Columbia Estuary 

Partnership, focuses on habitat in the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and how that 

habitat affects the survival of ESA-listed chum, steelhead, Chinook, and coho from throughout 

the Columbia River basin. It identifies and prioritizes limiting factors and threats in the estuary, 

then identifies 23 broad actions whose implementation would reduce the threats and thus 

increase survival of salmon and steelhead during their time in the estuary. The module also 

estimates the cost of implementing each action over a 25-year period. A description of 

monitoring, research, and evaluation needs that are appropriate to the management actions is 

included as an appendix to the module. 

1.8 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities 

Northwest Indian Tribes have legally enforceable rights reserving to them a share of the salmon 

harvest. In the Treaties of 1855 between the U.S. government and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian 

Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, the 

tribes, in exchange for the preponderance of their lands, reserved the rights to fish within their 

reservations and “at all other usual and accustomed places.” The usual and accustomed places 

are understood to include the millions of acres of aboriginal land ceded to the United States in 

the 1855 treaties, which extends to the Upper Columbia and Snake River basins, and includes 

most of the geographic range of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. A complex history of 

treaties, executive orders, legislation, and court decisions have culminated in the recognition of 

tribes as co-managers who share management responsibilities and rights for fisheries in the 

Columbia Basin. 

Achieving the basic purpose of the ESA (to bring the species to the point that it no longer needs 

the protection of the Act) may not by itself fully meet these rights and expectations, although it 

will lead to major improvements in the current situation. Ensuring a sufficient abundance of 

salmon to sustain harvest can be an important element in fulfilling trust and treaty rights as well 

as garnering public support for these plans. ESA and tribal trust responsibilities complement one 

another. Both depend on a steady upward trend toward ESA recovery and delisting in the near 

term, while making aquatic habitat, harvest, and land management improvements for the long 

term. 

It is appropriate for recovery plans to take these considerations into account and plan for a 

recovery strategy that includes harvest. In some cases, increases in the naturally spawning 

populations may be sufficient to support harvest. In others, the recovery strategy may include 

appropriate use of hatcheries to support a portion of the harvest. So long as the overall plan is 

likely to achieve the recovery of the listed ESU/DPS, it will be acceptable as a recovery plan. 

The NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee (June 2003), emphasized the importance of this co-manager relationship: “We have 

repeatedly stressed to the region’s leaders, tribal and non-tribal, the importance of our comanagement and trust relationship to the tribes. NMFS enjoys a positive working relationship 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1 - 15 

DPS Recovery Plan 

with our Pacific Northwest tribal partners. We view that relationship as crucial to the region’s 

future success in recovery of listed salmon.”
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

2. BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

This chapter summarizes the distribution, life history, and habitat needs of Middle Columbia 

River steelhead and reviews the basic concepts in salmonid biology needed to understand 

recovery goals and criteria. 

2.1 Steelhead Distribution, Life History, and Habitat

The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and down 

to southern California (NMFS 1999a), although the historical range of O. mykiss extended at 

least to the Mexico border (Busby et al. 1996). Middle Columbia River steelhead historically 

occupied nine major river systems and numerous minor systems on the east side of the Cascades 

Mountains within the states of Oregon and Washington (see previous Figure 1-1). These major 

tributaries to the Columbia River are the White Salmon, Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, 

Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Yakima Rivers and Fifteenmile Creek and Rock Creek. The John 

Day River of central Oregon supports the largest naturally spawning, native group of steelhead in 

the region. 

Four artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Touchet River Endemic 

Summer Steelhead Program, the Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Program, and the Umatilla 

River and Deschutes River steelhead hatchery programs. 

The species Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibits perhaps the most complex suite of life history traits of 

any species of 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 NMFS jurisdiction, while the resident freshwater 

forms, usually called “rainbow” or “redband” trout, are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (see further discussion in Section 1.4 of this plan). 

Steelhead can spawn more than once (iteroparous), whereas all other Oncorhynchus except 

cutthroat trout (O. clarki) spawn once and then die (semelparous). Iteroparity for Columbia 

Basin steelhead ranges from reported rates of 2-4 percent above McNary Dam (Busby et al. 

1996) up to 17 percent in the unimpounded tributaries below Bonneville Dam (at RM 146.1) 

(Leider et al. 1986). 

Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur throughout the year, with 

seasonal peaks of activity. The “runs” are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs. 

Most steelhead can be categorized as one of two run types, based on their sexual maturity when 

they re-enter freshwater and how far they go to spawn. In the Pacific Northwest, summer 

steelhead enter freshwater between May and October and require several months to mature 

before spawning; winter steelhead enter freshwater between November and April with welldeveloped gonads and spawn shortly thereafter. Summer steelhead usually spawn farther 

upstream than winter steelhead (Withler 1966, Roelofs 1983, Behnke 1992). Winter steelhead 

are also called ocean-maturing or coastal type, and summer steelhead, stream-maturing or inland 

type. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS includes the only populations of inland winter 

steelhead in the United States, in the Klickitat River, White Salmon River, Fifteenmile Creek, 

and possibly Rock Creek.16 

Steelhead spawn in clear, cool streams with suitable gravel size, depth, and current velocity. 

They may spawn in intermittent streams that provide appropriate conditions for spawning and 

incubation (Barnhart 1986, Everest 1973). Productive steelhead habitat is characterized by 

complexity, primarily in the form of large and small wood. Steelhead may enter streams and 

arrive at spawning grounds weeks or even months before they spawn and are therefore 

vulnerable to disturbance and predation. They need cover, in the form of overhanging vegetation, 

undercut banks, submerged vegetation, submerged objects such as logs and rocks, floating 

debris, deep water, turbulence, and turbidity. Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster 

parts of pools, although young-of-the-year are abundant in glides and riffles. Winter rearing 

occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide range of fast and slow habitat types 

(Bambrick et al. 2004) (Table 2-1). Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may 

incubate for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching. 

Table 2-1. Key habitat requirements by life stage and time period for steelhead. 

Life Stage Relevant Months Key Habitat Descriptions 

Spawning Mar-Jun Riffles, tailouts, and glides containing a mixture of gravel 

and cobble sizes with flow of sufficient depth for spawning 

activity. 

Incubation Mar-Jun Riffles, tailouts, and glides as described for spawning, with 

sufficient flow for egg and alevin development. 

Fry Colonization May-Jul Shallow, slow velocity areas within the stream channel, often 

associated with stream margins. 

Active Rearing 0-age May-Jul; 

1-age, Mar-Oct; 

2+-age, Mar-Oct 

Gravel and cobble substrates with sufficient depth and 

velocity, and boulder/large cobble/wood obstruction to 

reduce flow and concentrate food. 

Inactive Rearing 0,1-age Oct-Mar Stable cobble/boulder substrates with interstitial spaces. 

Migrant 1-age, Mar-Jun 

2+-age, Mar-Jun 

All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of 

juvenile migrants. 

Prespawning Migrant Winter, Nov-Apr 

Summer, All 

All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of 

sexually mature adult migrants. 

Prespawning Holding Winter, Dec-May 

Summer, All 

Relatively slow, deep-water habitat types typically 

associated with (or immediately adjacent to) the main 

channel. 

Young steelhead typically rear in streams for some time before migrating to the ocean as smolts. 

Steelhead smolts have been shown to migrate at ages ranging from 1 to 5 years throughout the 

 

16 See Rock Creek Recovery Plan 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Columbia Basin, but most steelhead generally smolt after 2 years in freshwater (Busby et al. 

1996). Some juveniles move downstream to rear in larger tributaries and mainstem rivers. 

Based on catch data, juvenile steelhead tend to 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). Available 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). At the time adults are (re-)entering freshwater, tagging data indicate that immature 

Columbia River steelhead are out in the mid-North Pacific Ocean. 

Most steelhead spend 2 years in the ocean (range 1 to 4 years) before migrating back to their 

natal streams (Shapovalov and Taft 1954; Ward and Slaney 1988). Once in the river, steelhead 

apparently rarely eat and grow little, if at all. These combined behaviors produce fish that range 

between 3 and 7 years of age at the time of spawning. 

2.2 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 that mirror the 

distribution of their spawning areas across the landscape. Diverse genetic, life history, and 

morphological characteristics have evolved over generations, creating runs highly adapted to 

diverse environments. It is this variation that gives the species as a whole the resilience to persist 

over time. 

Historically, a salmon ESU or, as in this case, steelhead DPS typically contained multiple 

populations connected by some small degree of genetic exchange by straying spawners. Thus, 

the overall biological structure of the ESU/DPS is hierarchical; spawners in the same area of the 

same stream will share more characteristics than those in the next stream over. Fish whose natal 

streams are separated by hundreds of miles will have less genetic similarity. The ESU or DPS is 

essentially a metapopulation defined by the common characteristics of populations within a 

geographic range. Recovery planning efforts focus on this biologically based hierarchy (Figure 

2-1). 

McElhany et al. (2000) formally identified two levels in this hierarchy for recovery planning 

purposes: the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) or distinct population segment (DPS) and the 

independent population. The ICTRT identified an additional level between the population and 

ESU/DPS levels, which they call a major population group (MPG) (McClure et al. 2003). 

2.2.1 Distinct Population Segments 

An ESU or DPS is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead that is uniquely adapted to a 

particular area or environment. Because of the hierarchical structure of salmonid populations, the 

concept of “distinctive group” has received considerable attention and refinement. An ESU is 

defined as a group of Pacific salmon that is “substantially reproductively isolated from other 

conspecific units and represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the 

species” (Waples et al. 1991). A “population segment” is considered distinct (a DPS and hence, 

like ESUs, considered a “species” for purposes of conservation under the ESA) if it is discrete 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

from and significant to the remainder of its species based on factors such as physical, behavioral, 

or genetic characteristics, or if it occupies an unusual or unique ecological setting, or if its loss 

would represent a significant gap in the species’ range. ESUs/DPSs may contain multiple 

populations that are connected by some degree of migration, and hence may have a broad 

geographic range across watersheds and river basins.17

2.2.2 Major Population Groups 

Within an ESU/DPS, independent populations can be grouped into larger populations that share 

similar genetic, geographic, and/or habitat characteristics (McClure et al. 2003). These "major 

groupings" of populations (MPGs) are isolated from one another over a longer time scale than 

that defining the individual populations, but retain some degree of connectivity greater than that 

between ESUs/DPSs. The relationship between ESU/DPS, MPG, and independent populations is 

depicted in Figure 2-1. 

Figure 2-1 Hierarchical levels of salmonid species structure as defined by the TRTs for ESU/DPS 

recovery planning. 

2.2.3 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 

 

17 See Section 1.4 for discussion of the relationship of anadromous vs resident O. mykiss. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

substantially affect the population dynamics or extinction risk of the independent 

populations over a 100-year time frame.” 

2.3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead MPGs and Populations

The ICTRT stratified the Middle Columbia River steelhead populations into MPGs based on 

ecoregion characteristics, life history types, and other geographic and genetic considerations. It 

identified four MPGs: Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries, Yakima Basin, John Day Basin, and 

Umatilla/Walla Walla. The John Day River MPG is wholly within Oregon and the Yakima Basin 

MPG is wholly within Washington. The other two include populations on both sides of the 

Oregon/Washington boundary (see Figure 2-2). The management units that NMFS defined for 

planning purposes do not cross state boundaries; thus, the two bi-state MPGs have populations in 

different management units. The headwaters of the Walla Walla River are in Oregon and the 

river joins the Columbia in Washington, but the Walla Walla River steelhead are functionally 

one population, covered in two management unit plans. 

Figure 2-2 Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Structure.

The ICTRT (McClure et al. 2003) identified 20 historical populations of Middle Columbia 

steelhead, shown in Figure 2-3. This identification was based on genetic information, geography, 

life history traits, morphological traits, and population dynamics. Seventeen of these populations 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

are extant, and three extirpated (White Salmon River, Deschutes Crooked River above Pelton 

Dam, and Willow Creek). 

Three hatchery programs produce steelhead that are considered to be part of the DPS: the Round 

Butte hatchery program on the Deschutes River, the Umatilla River hatchery program, and the 

endemic summer steelhead program on the Touchet River (71 FR 834). In addition, a program to 

improve kelt (post-spawned adult) survival for the four Yakima Basin populations is also 

considered part of the DPS. Within the range of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS, non-listed 

hatchery steelhead are released into the Klickitat basin, the Walla Walla (on the Washington 

side), the Touchet, and the White Salmon to support harvest. 

2.3.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG

The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG includes three extant steelhead populations in 

Oregon and two in Washington, with one extirpated population in each state (Figure 2-3). This 

MPG has a geographically complex range, embracing one major river system – the Deschutes – 

and several smaller subbasins on both sides of the river. The Oregon populations are covered in 

the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan and the Washington populations in the Washington Gorge 

Management Unit plans. The Deschutes subbasin stretches over 10,700 square miles of land in 

central Oregon and covers 11 percent of Oregon’s land area. Deschutes County, with the cities of 

Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and Crook County, with Madras and Prineville, are among the 

fastest growing counties in the nation. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation of approximately 641,000 acres includes several tributaries of the Deschutes and is 

bordered to the south and east by the mainstem Deschutes and the Round Butte dam complex. 

The Washington Gorge populations are in rural areas with agricultural development in the 

lowlands and forest uses in the uplands. The headwaters of the Klickitat River are within the 

Yakama Reservation. 

2.3.2 John Day River MPG

The John Day River steelhead populations are currently managed entirely as wild populations. 

The John Day Basin is wholly within Oregon. The John Day River, which flows west from the 

Blue Mountains and then north through a deeply carved, basaltic landscape, is the second-longest 

free-flowing river in the continental United States. The towns within the subbasin with the 

largest populations are John Day, Prairie City, and Condon, all with less than 2000 residents. The 

largest tributary to the John Day River is the North Fork John Day, which originates in the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in the Blue Mountains at elevations near 8000 feet. The 

North Fork John Day River flows westerly for 112 miles and joins the mainstem near Kimberly 

(RM 185), 15 miles below the town of Monument. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 2-3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups.

2.3.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The Umatilla River is in Oregon, the Touchet River in Washington, and the Walla Walla River in 

both states. The Umatilla River originates in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon and 

flows north and west to enter the Columbia River at river mile (RM) 289. The towns of 

Pendleton, Hermiston, and Umatilla are located along the Umatilla mainstem. The Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) comprises 271 square miles on both sides of 

the river. Aside from the towns, land use is mostly dryland and irrigated agriculture. 

The Walla Walla River also originates in Oregon and flows northwest into Washington to join 

the Columbia, while the Touchet originates in the Blue Mountains on the Washington side and 

flows south and west into the Walla Walla. The river valley is extensively and intensively 

irrigated, with timber harvest in the high and mid elevations. Settlements include the city of 

Walla Walla, population 26,500, on Mill Creek, a tributary of the Walla Walla River, and the 

smaller towns of College Place, Dayton, and Waitsburg, Washington, and Milton Freewater, 

Oregon. 

This MPG also includes several small tributaries (Chapman, Wood Gulch, Pine, Old Lady, Alder 

and Glade Creeks) located east of Rock Creek in Washington State that drain into the Columbia 

upstream of John Day Dam. The ICTRT has determined that four of these eastern Washington 

tributaries are minor spawning areas of the extirpated Willow Creek population – Pine Creek, 

Wood Creek, Old Lady Creek and Chapman Creek. Data needs to be collected regarding 

steelhead use in these small tributaries of the Columbia. 

2.3.4 Yakima River MPG

The Yakima River MPG is wholly within Washington State. Cities and towns along the Yakima 

River include Cle Elum and Ellensburg in Kittitas County, Yakima and several smaller towns in 

Yakima County, and Prosser and Richland along the lower river in Benton County. The lowlands 

are extensively developed for irrigated agriculture, though significant amounts of complex 

floodplain habitat remain. Interstate highway 82 follows the river for about two-thirds of its 

length and scenic highways follow the Naches and Tieton rivers. The least developed areas are 

the uplands in the Eastern Cascade Mountains and the Satus Creek subbasin on the Yakama 

Indian Reservation. The population of the Yakima basin is approximately 300,000. 

The Yakima subbasin is growing in population and most likely will continue to grow, and 

planners expect that the bulk of land use and development for future population growth will 

occur in proximity to the Yakima River mainstem and major tributary corridors where there is 

water, an existing core of rail and road transportation infrastructure, major concentrations of 

urban services, and high-value shoreline property. 

Water storage and delivery systems have major impacts on the basin’s hydrology. An extensive 

water supply system run by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yakima Irrigation Project stores and 

delivers water for over 400,000 acres of irrigated agriculture and, to a lesser degree, industrial, 

domestic, and hydropower use. Management of water storage and delivery systems results in 

streamflows across the subbasin that are often out of phase with the life history requirements of 

native salmonids (Fast et al. 1991; Stanford, Snyder et al. 2002) and riparian species such as 

cottonwoods (Braatne and Jamieson 2001). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

2.4 Viable Salmonid Populations 

NMFS scientists measure salmon recovery in terms of four parameters, called the viable 

salmonid population (VSP) parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity 

(McElhany et al. 2000). 

2.4.1 Abundance and Productivity 

Abundance refers to spawners (adults on the spawning ground), measured over a time series, i.e. 

some number of years. The ICTRT often uses a recent 10- or 12-year geometric mean of natural 

spawners as a measure of current abundance. 

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:spawner ratios (returns per spawner or recruits per spawner) (or 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, typically subject to 

a high degree of annual variability and sampling-induced uncertainties. The ICTRT recommends 

estimating current intrinsic productivity using spawner-to-spawner return pairs from low to 

moderate escapements over a recent 20-year period. 

Abundance and productivity are linked, as populations with low productivity can still persist if 

they are sufficiently large, and small populations can persist if they are sufficiently productive. A 

viable 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 be large enough 

to have a high probability of surviving environmental variation observed in the past and expected 

in the future; be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances; maintain genetic 

diversity; and support/provide ecosystem functions (McElhany et al. 2000). 

Viable populations should demonstrate sufficient productivity to support a net replacement rate 

of 1:1 or higher at abundance levels established as long-term targets. Productivity rates at 

relatively low numbers of spawners should, on the average, be sufficiently greater than 1.0 to 

allow the population to rapidly return to abundance target levels (ICTRT 2005). 

The ICTRT considers populations with fewer than 500 individuals at high risk for inbreeding 

depression and a variety of other genetic concerns (McClure et al. 2003). Because of this, it 

considers any population fewer than 500 individuals to be minimally viable, regardless of its 

intrinsic productivity. 

Abundance should be high enough that 1) declines to critically low levels would be unlikely, 

assuming recent historical patterns of environmental variability and intrinsic productivity; 2) 

compensatory processes provide resilience to the effects of short-term perturbations; and 3) 

subpopulation structure is maintained (e.g., multiple spawning tributaries, spawning patches, life 

history patterns) (ICTRT 2005). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

2.4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Spatial structure and diversity considerations 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, p. 18). Diversity refers to the distribution of 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 (ibid. p. 19). 

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 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. 

Population-level diversity is similarly important for long-term persistence. 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 ICTRT adopted the 

principle from McElhany et al. 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. 

2.5 Critical Habitat 

The ESA requires the Federal government to designate “critical habitat” for any species it lists 

under the ESA. The Act defines critical habitat as areas that contain physical or biological 

features that are essential for the conservation of the species, and that may require special 

management or protection. Critical habitat designations must be based on the best scientific 

information available, in an open public process, within specific timeframes. On September 2, 

2005 NMFS published a final rule (70 FR 52630, NMFS 2005b) to designate critical habitat for 

Middle Columbia River steelhead and 12 other ESUs/DPSs of salmon and steelhead (Figure 2-

4). The final rule took effect on January 2, 2006. 

A critical habitat designation does not set up a preserve or refuge, and critical habitat 

requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in activities on private land that do not involve a 

Federal agency. The 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 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

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. 

For anadromous fish, the essential features of designated critical habitat include substrate, water 

quality, water quantity, water temperature, food, riparian vegetation, access, water, velocity, 

space, and safe passage. These features also describe the habitat factors associated with viability 

for all ESUs/DPSs. The specific habitat requirements for each ESU/DPS differ by life history 

type and life stage. 

NMFS’ Critical Habitat Assessment Review Team (Bambrick et al. 2004) rated the conservation 

value of all watersheds supporting populations of Middle Columbia River steelhead. The team 

identified the “primary constituent elements” of critical habitat for steelhead, i.e., the physical 

and biological elements that support one or more life stages and are considered essential to the 

conservation of the species (Table 2-2). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 2-4. Middle Columbia Steelhead Critical Habitat18 (NMFS 2005b)

 

18 Critical habitat designation does not apply to the streams or stream reaches that are on tribal lands. However, the 

pattern of tribal vs nontribal ownership is too complex to differentiate at the scale of this map. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 2 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 2-2 Types of sites and essential physical and biological features designated as PCEs for 

steelhead, and the life stage each PCE supports. 

Site Essential Physical and 

Biological Features ESU/DPS Life Stage 

Freshwater spawning Water quality, water quantity, 

and substrate 

Spawning, incubation, and larval 

development 

Freshwater rearing Water quantity and floodplain 

connectivity 

Juvenile growth and mobility 

Water quality and forage Juvenile development 

Natural covera Juvenile mobility and survival 

Freshwater migration Free of artificial obstructions, 

water quality and quantity, and 

natural coverb

Juvenile and adult mobility and 

survival 

Estuarine areas Free of obstruction, water quality 

and quantity, and salinity 

Juvenile and adult physiological 

transitions between salt and 

freshwater 

Natural cover,a forage,b and 

water quantity 

Growth and maturation 

Nearshore marine areas Free of obstruction, water quality 

and quantity, natural cover,a and 

forageb

Growth and maturation, survival 

Offshore marine areas Water quality and forageb Growth and maturation a

 Natural cover includes shade, large wood, log jams, beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and 

boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. b

 Forage includes aquatic invertebrate and fish species that support growth and maturation. 

NMFS recognizes that salmon habitat is dynamic and that present understanding of areas 

important for conservation will likely change as recovery planning sheds light on areas that can 

and should be protected and restored, such as areas upstream of barriers where steelhead could 

be re-established into historical habitat. One example is the area upstream of Pelton Dam, of 

which the final rule designating critical habitat stated, 

“ . . . the CHART agreed with the comments that areas upstream of Pelton Dam may be 

essential for this ESU as well, citing recent efforts to re-establish steelhead into historical 

habitat above this dam. However . . . at the present time we do not have information 

allowing us to determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 

the species are inadequate for conservation, such that we can make a determination that 

currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. We will revise the 

designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates that specific areas above these dams 

warrant designation as critical habitat” (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005, NMFS 2005a). 

NMFS will update its critical habitat designations as needed, based on information developed 

during recovery plan implementation. Critical habitat designations are one element to consider in 

identifying and prioritizing recovery actions. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3. RECOVERY GOALS AND DELISTING CRITERIA 

In this chapter we describe in greater detail the recovery goals in the management unit plans and 

the delisting criteria NMFS will use in future reviews of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. 

The recovery goals that are incorporated into a locally developed recovery plan may include 

delisting and other “broad sense” goals. The delisting criteria are a NMFS determination and 

may include both technical and policy considerations. Delisting criteria must meet the ESA 

requirements, while recovery may be defined more broadly. Broad sense recovery goals are 

goals defined in the recovery planning process that go beyond the requirements for delisting, to 

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

third term used in this recovery plan is recovery “scenarios” (Section 3.3). Recovery scenarios 

are combinations of viability status for individual populations within the DPS that will meet the 

ICTRT criteria for overall DPS viability. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate objective, 

measurable criteria which, 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). These criteria are of two kinds: the 

biological viability criteria, which deal with population or demographic parameters, and the 

“threats” criteria, which relate to the five listing factors detailed in the ESA (see Sections 1.1 and 

3.3 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 these make up the “objective, 

measurable criteria” required under section 4(f)(1)(B) for the delisting decision. 

The delisting criteria are based on the best available scientific information and incorporate the 

most current understanding of the DPS and the threats it faces. As this recovery plan is 

implemented, additional information will become available that can increase certainty about 

whether the threats have been abated, whether improvements in population and DPS status have 

occurred, and whether linkages between threats and changes in salmon status are understood. 

These criteria will be assessed through an adaptive management program under development for 

the Plan, and NMFS may review the criteria if appropriate during its 5-year reviews of the DPS. 

For these status reviews, NMFS intends to rely strongly on the advice of the TRTs and 

recommendations of local recovery boards. However, 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 in the recovery 

planning process. NMFS has clarified, through Federal Register Notices on interim and proposed 

recovery plans, how it applies the TRT products to the plans (e.g., 71 FR 13094, Availability of 

ESA Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington and Supplement to that 

draft; 71 FR 26052, Availability of Draft Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan; 72 FR 

57303, Adoption of ESA Recovery Plan for Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead). 

3.1 Biological Viability Criteria

In 2007, the ICTRT completed its Technical Review Draft of Viability Criteria for Application 

to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs (ICTRT 2007a). Biological viability criteria are 

quantitative metrics that describe DPS characteristics associated with a low risk of extinction for 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

the foreseeable future. These criteria are based on the VSP parameters of abundance, 

productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity, according to guidelines developed by NOAA’s 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center and published as a NOAA Technical Memorandum, Viable 

Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 

2000, ICTRT 2007a). The ICTRT calculated varying levels of risk of extinction and related the 

risk levels to their criteria. 

3.1.1 DPS Viability Criterion 

Since MPGs are geographically and genetically cohesive groups of populations, they are critical 

components of ESU/DPS spatial structure and diversity. Having all MPGs within an ESU/DPS at 

low risk provides the greatest probability of persistence for the ESU/DPS. The DPS viability 

criterion defined by the ICTRT (ICTRT 2007a) is as follows: 

All extant MPGs and any extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS19

should be at low risk. 

The ICTRT explains that the major objectives of the ESU/MPG-level viability criteria are to 

ensure preservation of basic historical metapopulation processes, including: 1) genetic exchange 

across populations within an ESU over a long time frame; 2) the opportunity for neighboring 

populations to serve as source areas in the event of local population extirpations; 3) populations 

distributed within an ESU so that they are not all susceptible to a specific localized catastrophic 

event. In addition, the presence of viable populations across MPGs would preserve a high level 

of diversity, promoting long-term evolutionary potential for adaptation to changing conditions 

(ICTRT 2007a; see also Section 2.4 of this plan, which explains the VSP parameters). 

3.1.2 Major Population Group Viability Criteria 

The ICTRT recommended MPG-level viability criteria that take into account the level of risk 

associated with the MPG’s component populations (Figure 3-1). While individual populations 

meeting viability criteria are expected to have low risk of extinction, the MPG-level criteria 

ensure robust functioning of the metapopulation and provide resilience in case of catastrophic 

loss of one or more populations. MPG viability depends on the number, spatial arrangement, and 

diversity associated with its component populations. The ICTRT developed the following MPGlevel criteria considering relatively simple and generalized assumptions about movement or 

exchange rates among individual populations. In developing these criteria, the ICTRT assumed 

that catastrophes do not increase dramatically in frequency, that populations are not lost 

permanently (because of catastrophe or anthropogenic impacts), and that permanent reductions in 

productivity, including long-term, gradual reductions in productivity, do not occur (ICTRT 

2005). 

 

19 The Middle Columbia steelhead DPS has four extant and no extirpated MPGs. The three extirpated populations 

are addressed as part of the MPG-level criteria. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Major Population Group Viability Criteria 

(ICTRT 2007a) 

The following five criteria should be met for an MPG to be regarded as at low risk (viable): 

1. At least one-half of the populations historically within the MPG (with a minimum of two 

populations) should meet viability standards. 

2. At least one population should be classified as “Highly Viable.” 

3. Viable populations within an MPG should include some populations classified (based on 

historical intrinsic potential) as “Very Large," "Large," or “Intermediate,” generally reflecting 

the proportions historically present within the MPG. In particular, Very Large and Large 

populations should be at or above their composite historical fraction within each MPG. 

4. All major life history strategies (e.g. spring and summer-run timing) that were present 

historically within the MPG should be represented in populations meeting viability requirements. 

5. Remaining MPG populations should be maintained with sufficient abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity to provide for ecological functions and to preserve options for 

ESU/DPS recovery. 

Figure 3-1. Major Population Group Viability Criteria (ICTRT 2007a).

Specifically, the first criterion for one-half of the populations to meet “viability standards” refers 

to the “Viable” standard, or less than 5 percent risk of extinction within 100 years. In the second 

criterion, “Highly Viable” means less than 1 percent risk of extinction within 100 years. These 

criteria follow recommendations in McElhany et al. 2000. The presence of viable populations in 

each of the extant MPGs and some number of highly viable populations distributed throughout 

the DPS would result in sustainable production across a substantial range of environmental 

conditions. This distribution would preserve a high level of diversity within the DPS, and would 

promote long-term evolutionary potential for adaptation to changing conditions. The presence of 

multiple, relatively nearby, highly viable, viable, and maintained populations acts as protection 

against long-term impacts of localized catastrophic loss by serving as a source of re-colonization. 

These criteria are consistent with recommendations for other ESUs in the Pacific Northwest 

(e.g., McElhany et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus et al. 2002) (ICTRT 2007a). 

3.1.3 Population-Level Viability Criteria 

To be determined to be viable, populations should meet criteria for all four VSP parameters 

(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). The abundance and productivity 

criteria are related to population size. The ICTRT developed criteria for characterizing the 

relative size and complexity of Interior Columbia Basin steelhead populations based on their 

analysis of the intrinsic or historical potential habitat available to the population (ICTRT 2005). 

This analysis used available Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers showing stream 

characteristics (e.g. channel width, gradient, valley confinement) and empirically derived 

relationships between habitat type, stream structure, landscape processes, and spawning. The 

ICTRT built a model that also incorporated information from local biologists and recovery 

planners to identify natural barriers to migration and other local variations (ICTRT 2007a). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Middle Columbia steelhead spawn in a wide range of tributary drainage areas, from small creeks, 

e.g. Fifteenmile Creek or Rock Creek, to very large rivers, such as the Lower John Day. The 

ICTRT categorized historical population sizes as Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large, 

and set minimum abundance thresholds for viable steelhead populations of each type (Table 3-1). 

The abundance thresholds are associated with minimum productivity thresholds, based on 

modeling studies described in ICTRT 2007a and 2007b. As explained in Section 2.4.1, 

abundance and productivity are linked, within limits; above a certain threshold, higher 

productivity can compensate for lower abundance and vice versa. 

Of the 20 Middle Columbia steelhead populations (including the three extirpated populations), 

five are categorized as Basic, eight as Intermediate, five as Large, and two as Very Large 

(ICTRT 2007a). Table 3-1 shows the minimum abundance and productivity thresholds for the 

Middle Columbia steelhead populations to have a 95 percent probability of persistence for the 

next 100 years. 

Table 3-1. Abundance and Productivity Thresholds (ICTRT 2007). 

Major 

Population 

Grouping 

Population Population 

Size 

Abundance 

Threshold 

Productivity 

Threshold 

Cascades 

Eastern Slope 

Tributaries 

White Salmon (functionally extirp.) Basic 500 1.56 

Klickitat R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Fifteenmile Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Deschutes R. East Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Deschutes R. West Large1

 1500 1.26 

Rock Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Crooked River (Extirp.) Very Large 2250 1.19 

John Day River Lower Mainstem JD Very Large 2250 1.19 

North Fork John Day Large 1500 1.26 

Middle Fork John Day Intermediate 1000 1.35 

South Fork John Day Basic 500 1.56 

Upper Mainstem JD Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Umatilla / 

Walla Walla 

Rivers 

Umatilla R. Large 1500 1.26 

Walla Walla R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Touchet R. Intermediate 1000 1.35 

 Willow Crk. (Extirp.) Intermediate 1000 1.35 

Yakima River 

Group 

Satus Cr. Intermediate20 1000 1.35 

Toppenish Cr. Basic 500 1.56 

Naches R. Large 1500 1.26 

 Upper Yakima Large 1500 1.26 

1

This population is treated as Intermediate in size with respect to abundance and productivity 

criteria because of constraints to currently accessible habitat (i.e. Pelton Dam). 

Abundance and productivity 

 

20 For the historical population analysis, the ICTRT included the mainstem Yakima habitat below the confluence of 

Satus Creek in the Satus Creek population, making it Intermediate in size. However, if the mainstem component is 

lumped instead with mainstem Yakima River habitat upstream of Satus, the Satus Creek population would drop to 

Basic size. The Yakima plan discusses this question in more detail in Section 4.1.1. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The ICTRT defined abundance and productivity criteria for Middle Columbia steelhead 

populations (ICTRT 2005 and 2007) based on analyses of the intrinsic potential of the 

historically available habitat, the locations and sizes of major and minor spawning areas, and, 

within these areas, the abundance and productivity relationships that would result in a probability 

of low risk of extinction within 100 years (see Table 3-1). The abundance “thresholds” shown in 

the table represent the number of spawners needed for a population of the given size category to 

achieve the 5 percent (low) risk level at a given productivity. Abundance thresholds are 500, 

1000, 1500, and 2250 for population sizes of Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large, 

respectively, with productivity of 1.56, 1.35, 1.26, and 1.19, respectively. 

Spatial structure and diversity 

Spatial structure and diversity criteria are more complex. The ICTRT cautions that there is a 

good deal of uncertainty in assessing the status of spatial structure and diversity in a population. 

These criteria are based on a set of biological goals and the mechanisms that achieve those goals, 

and are specific to each population. 

The ICTRT defined two goals, or biological or ecological objectives, that spatial structure and 

diversity criteria should achieve: 

 Maintaining natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes. This goal serves (1) 

to minimize the likelihood that populations will be lost due to local catastrophe, (2) to 

maintain natural rates of recolonization within the population and between populations, 

and (3) to maintain other population functions that depend on the spatial arrangement of 

the population. 

 Maintaining natural patterns of variation. This goal serves to ensure that populations can 

withstand environmental variation in the short and long terms (ICTRT 2007a). 

3.1.4 Recovery Scenarios

Populations within the DPS are the units whose risk levels collectively determine MPG viability 

and the likely persistence of the DPS. The ICTRT recommended that all MPGs in an ESU/DPS 

should be viable before the ESU/DPS can be considered at low risk of extinction. However, it 

may not be necessary for all of the populations to attain low risk in order to provide sufficient 

viability for the DPS; the DPS-level viability criteria allow for some combination of risk status 

among the component populations. In other words, there is more than one way for an ESU/DPS 

to meet the viability criteria. The possible combinations of risk status for populations in each 

MPG that would allow the DPS to meet the viability criteria are called “recovery scenarios.” 

The ICTRT offered a detailed discussion of possible recovery scenarios for each MPG that 

would allow the DPS to meet the criteria (ICTRT 2007a). The ICTRT selected these 

combinations of risk status based on the populations’ unique characteristics, such as run timing, 

population size, or genetics; major production areas in the MPG; and spatial distribution of the 

populations. Although the ICTRT criteria provide that at least one population in each MPG 

should reach Highly Viable status, the team did not indicate which population that should be, 

because of the uncertainties of any population’s response to recovery efforts. The ICTRT 

cautioned against closing off the options for any population prematurely. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Importantly, although not all populations in an MPG need to meet TRT viability criteria 

under most viable-MPG scenarios, it is strongly advisable to attempt to improve the 

status of more than the minimum number of populations to a low risk (viable) situation. 

There are two primary reasons for this: First, based on current population dynamic 

theory, the TRT has recommended that all extant populations be maintained with 

sufficient productivity that the overall MPG productivity does not fall below replacement 

(i.e. these areas should not serve as significant population sinks). Thus, it would be highly 

risky to allow the status of any population to degrade. In fact, many populations will need 

to be improved from their current status to be regarded as “maintained.” 

Second, although the possible population sets suggested in [the ICTRT’s] memo would 

meet TRT viability criteria for the ESUs, achieving recovery will likely require 

attempting recovery in more than just those populations because of the uncertainty of 

success of recovery efforts. A low risk strategy will thus target more populations than the 

minimum for viability (ICTRT 2007a). 

Figure 3-2 shows how the ICTRT applied their MPG-level criteria to the 17 extant populations 

of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 7 DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 3-2. Recovery Scenarios: Application of ICTRT Viability Criteria to Middle Columbia River Steelhead MPGs: Options f

MPG & Population Size Category Adult Life History Type Role in Viability Scenario Consideratio

Cascades Eastern Slope MPG: Applying ICTRT viability criteria, for this MPG to be viable, four populations should meet viability criteria, and one should be highly viable. Klickitat River Intermediate Summer/Winter Need for Viable status Only summer/winter population in MPG, aFifteenmile Creek Basic Winter Need for Viable status Only winter population in MPG Deschutes River East Intermediate Summer Need for Viable status Only Intermediate summer population Deschutes River West Large Summer Need for Viable status Only extant Large population Rock Creek Basic Summer Maintain Remaining population White Salmon (functionally extirpated) 

Basic Summer/Winter Functionally extirpated, blocked by a dam

Skamania stock 

Crooked River (extirpated) Very Large Summer 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 8 DPS Recovery Plan 

MPG & Population Size Category Adult Life History Type Role in Viability Scenario Consideratio

John Day MPG: Applying ICTRT viability criteria, for this MPG to be viable, three populations should meet viability 

criteria, and one should be highly viable. 

Lower Mainstem John Day Very Large Summer Need for Viable status Only Very Large population – important fo

the most downstream population 

N. Fork John Day Large Summer Need for Viable status Only Large population – good candidate fo

low risk. Also important to protect. 

Middle Fork John Day Intermediate Summer Option Need one Intermediate population Upper Mainstem John Day Intermediate Summer Option Need one Intermediate population So. Fork John Day Basic Summer Maintain Remaining population 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 9 DPS Recovery Plan 

MPG & Population Size Category Adult Life History Type Role in Viability Scenario Consideratio

Yakima River MPG: Applying ICTRT viability criteria, for this MPG to be viable, two populations should meet viability criteria, and one should be highly viable. In this case, the two viable populations could be BOTH Naches R. and Yakima Upper Mainstem, OR one of these and Satus Creek.Satus Creek Intermediate Summer Option Only Intermediate population Naches River Large Summer Option Need one of two Large populations and on

populations. 

Yakima Upper Main Large Summer Option Need one of two Large populations and on

populations. – This one would be good for at the upper end of drainage. 

Toppenish Creek Basic Summer Maintain Remaining population 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 10 DPS Recovery Plan 

MPG & Population Size Category Adult Life History Type Role in Viability Scenario Consideratio

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG: Applying ICTRT viability criteria, for this MPG to be viable, two populations should meet viability criteria, and one should be highly viable.Umatilla River Large Summer Need for Viable status Only Large population Walla Walla River Intermediate Summer Option Need one of two Intermediate populations 

meeting criteria than Touchet 

Touchet River Intermediate Summer Option Need one of two Intermediate populations Willow Creek (extirpated) Intermediate Summer 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.2 Recovery Goals and Viability Criteria Adopted by Management Unit Plans

The management unit plans include locally determined recovery goals as well as viability criteria 

for the individual steelhead populations and MPGs in each management unit. All of the 

management unit plans used the ICTRT viability criteria and worked within the framework of 

the ICTRT-defined recovery scenarios. In some cases they set higher standards for one or more 

populations. Most of the plans also provide targets or objectives to measure progress within 

specified time frames, e.g. 10 to 50 years. 

3.2.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix A) 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan for the Oregon portion of the Middle Columbia steelhead 

DPS states that the plan’s primary goal is to support removal of the Middle Columbia Steelhead 

DPS from the threatened and endangered species list, and that this would require the Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations and MPGs in Oregon to reach the levels of biological viability 

defined by the ICTRT (Carmichael 2007). 

3.2.1.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan adds that a further goal, developed in collaboration with 

the Middle Columbia Sounding Board (described above in Section 1.6.1), is “to rebuild Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead populations to levels that will provide for sustainable fisheries and other 

ecological, cultural, and social benefits . . . [incorporating] many of the traditional uses, as well 

as rural and Native American values, deemed important in the Pacific Northwest. . . . Recovery 

of Middle Columbia steelhead populations will require actions that preserve, enhance and restore 

healthy watershed conditions where ecosystem functions, processes and dynamics are intact ─

including instream conditions, riparian habitat diversity and complexity, and upland watershed 

health in concert with complementary management of harvest, hatcheries and hydropower. 

Recovery is a process that leads to steelhead populations that are not only viable, but that also 

provide a harvestable surplus for the treaty tribes and for all other citizens of the region” (ODFW 

2007). 

3.2.1.2 Recovery Objectives 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan further states the following recovery objectives, to be 

achieved by the year 205021: 

“1. Middle Columbia steelhead are viable throughout the historical range and no longer need 

protection under the ESA; 

“2. All currently extant Middle Columbia steelhead populations are highly viable; 

“3. Extirpated populations (e.g. Willow Creek, Crooked River) are restored in a manner that 

engages landowner cooperation and does not subject landowners to ESA regulation based 

on the presence of previously extirpated populations until the introduced populations are 

self-sustaining and become part of the listed DPS; 

“4. All extant populations of Middle Columbia steelhead are capable of contributing 

ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits on a regular and sustainable basis; 

 

21 These objectives are in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. NMFS is not, by providing them here, committing 

itself to Oregon's interpretation of the applicability of ESA regulations to reintroduced steelhead in the upper 

Deschutes River basin, including the Crooked River. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

“5. Working in concert with existing agreements and collaboratively with landowners and 

resource managers NOAA will define a suite of additional land and water resource 

management principles and practices that when followed will alleviate liability for 

possible ESA regulatory consequences to landowners and resource managers; 

“6. Out-of-basin limiting factors are addressed equitably and in concert with in-basin limiting 

factors; 

“7. Landowners, land managers and agencies are provided with guidance on the protection 

and management of habitats to promote the recovery of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead; and, 

“8. Land and resource managers work with communities and other interests in a coordinated 

manner to achieve broad sense recovery through a shared vision of conservation where 

options and choices are preserved for future generations.” 

3.2.1.3 Viability Criteria 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan adopts the ICTRT viability criteria for measuring progress 

toward delisting in terms of the four VSP parameters. Table 3-2 (Table 1-1 in Oregon Steelhead 

Recovery Plan Executive Summary) shows the minimum threshold abundance levels and 

minimum productivity required for Oregon Middle Columbia steelhead populations to achieve a 

95 percent probability of persistence over 100 years. 

Table 3-2. Oregon Mid-C steelhead population characteristics and minimum abundance and productivity 

values (at the threshold abundance level) needed to achieve a 95 percent probability of persistence over 100 

years. (Source: ODFW 2009). 

Population Extant/

Extinct Life History Size ThresholdAbundance

Minimum

Productivity

Fifteenmile Creek Extant Winter Basic 500 1.56 

Deschutes River E. Extant Summer Intermediate 1,000 1.35 

Deschutes River W. Extant Summer Large (Inter.)22 1,500 (1,000) 1.35 

Deschutes/Crooked Extinct Summer Very Large 2,250 1.19 

Lower Mainstem John Day R. Extant Summer Very Large 2,250 1.19 

North Fork John Day R. Extant Summer Large 1,500 1.26 

Middle Fork John Day R. Extant Summer Intermediate 1,000 1.35 

South Fork John Day R. Extant Summer Basic 500 1.56 

Upper Mainstem John Day R. Extant Summer Intermediate 1,000 1.19 

Willow Creek Extinct Summer Intermediate 1,000 1.35 

Umatilla River Extant Summer Large 1,500 1.26 

Walla Walla River Extant Summer Intermediate 1,000 1.35 

3.2.1.4 Recovery Scenario 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan sets a higher standard for Oregon populations than the 

minimum identified by the ICTRT for DPS viability. Several scenarios or combinations of 

populations would satisfy the MPG-level viability criteria for the three MPGs containing Oregon 

Middle Columbia steelhead populations. But the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan states that 

“targeting only the minimum number of populations would likely result in failure to achieve our 

 

22 Large size category is for historically accessible area; intermediate size category is for currently accessible area. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

goals,” because of the uncertainty involved in predicting the biological response to management 

actions intended to aid recovery. “To hedge against this uncertainty, more than the minimum 

number of populations must be targeted for viable status. Therefore, we also seek to improve 

other extant Oregon populations to be maintained at sufficient levels to provide for ecological 

functions and to preserve options for DPS recovery” (ODFW 2009). 

The following are the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan’s delisting recommendations23 for the 

three MPGs with Middle Columbia steelhead populations in Oregon: 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

To achieve viable status for this MPG, the Fifteenmile Creek, Deschutes River Eastside, 

Deschutes River Westside, and Klickitat populations must all achieve viable status. One of these 

populations must be highly viable. The Rock Creek population must be maintained. 

John Day River MPG 

To achieve viable status for this MPG, the Lower Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John 

Day River, and either the Middle Fork John Day River or Upper Mainstem John Day River 

populations must achieve viable status. One of these populations must be highly viable. The 

South Fork John Day River population must be maintained. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla River MPG 

To achieve viable status for this MPG, the Umatilla River population and either the Walla Walla 

River or Touchet River population must achieve viable status. One of these populations must be 

highly viable. All remaining extant populations must be maintained. 

3.2.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plans (Appendices B and C) 

The Klickitat River Plan’s primary goal is to restore the Klickitat steelhead population to viable 

status and thus to support recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS (Appendix B). The 

Rock Creek Plan’s primary goal is to achieve “maintained” status for the Rock Creek population 

as part of attaining viable status for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG (Appendix C). 

The White Salmon Plan’s goal is to re-establish the White Salmon River population so that it can 

contribute to the conservation and survival of the DPS. 

3.2.2.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal 

If a Washington Gorge Area regional recovery planning organization is created, it would have 

the option of developing broad sense goals for the area in a collaborative process with diverse 

stakeholders. In the meantime, the Yakama Nation has proposed, as a broad sense goal for the 

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

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

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

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

the DPS. 

 

23 The delisting decision is NMFS’ responsibility, as described in Section 3.5. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 14 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.2.2.2 Recovery Objectives 

At this time NMFS is simply providing proposed ICTRT viability criteria for the Klickitat and 

Rock Creek populations. 

3.2.2.3 Viability Criteria 

The Klickitat and Rock Creek plans adopt the ICTRT viability criteria for their respective 

populations. The White Salmon plan recommends recovering the White Salmon extirpated 

population to viable status when passage is restored. 

Klickitat Subbasin Recovery Plan (Appendix B): The ICTRT-recommended minimum 

abundance threshold for the Klickitat steelhead population to meet the criterion of a 5 percent or 

less risk of extinction over a 100-year time frame is 1000 naturally produced spawners at 1.3 

spawner/spawner ratio. Regarding spatial structure and diversity, the Plan recommends research 

on the extent of the impacts of an outside stock (i.e. Skamania stock) hatchery program on 

natural spawning areas in the subbasin, and reducing these impacts if they are found to be 

substantial. 

Rock Creek Subbasin Recovery Plan (Appendix C): The ICTRT-recommended minimum 

abundance threshold for the Rock Creek steelhead population to meet the criterion of a 5 percent 

or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe is 500 naturally produced spawners. The 

current steelhead range in the Rock Creek watershed is believed to generally resemble the 

historical condition; therefore, the plan recommends maintaining current spatial structure. 

White Salmon Subbasin Recovery Plan (to be included in the Lower Columbia River ESA 

Recovery Plan): The White Salmon steelhead population was functionally extirpated by the 

construction of Condit Dam. The dam is scheduled to be removed in 2010. The ICTRT 

recognizes that recovering this functionally extirpated population to a viable level may not be 

necessary to achieve viability at the MPG and DPS levels (ICTRT 2007a). When the dam is 

removed, the Plan recommends that this population eventually be recovered to a minimum 

abundance threshold of 500 spawners. 

3.2.2.4 Recovery Scenario

The Klickitat and Rock Creek plans adopt the ICTRT-recommended scenario for their respective 

populations, i.e. to achieve viable status for the Klickitat population and maintained status for 

Rock Creek. The White Salmon plan recommends recovering the White Salmon extirpated 

population to viable status when passage is restored. 

3.2.3 Southeast Washington Plan (Appendix D) 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) “defined salmon recovery at two levels: 

recovery and restoration. Recovery is defined as meeting ESA de-listing requirements based on 

VSP criteria. The goal of restoration is attainment of conditions that provide increased harvest 

opportunity for local communities and Tribes, thereby meeting [tribal] trust and treaty rights, as 

well as fisheries mitigation objectives for mainstem dams.” 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 15 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.2.3.1 Broad Sense Goal 

For the Southeast Washington plan, the equivalent of a broad sense goal is what this plan calls 

“restoration.” Restoration means not simply harvestable levels of steelhead but also “a healthy 

ecosystem that fulfills the requirements of the key species and the people of the recovery region . 

. . [with] adequate and appropriate habitat for all salmonid life stages and free access to that 

habitat.” Harvest must be at sustainable levels, hatcheries must contribute to recovery with 

minimal risk, and hydrosystems must not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 

The plan summarized restoration goals for abundance that were proposed by various agencies 

and Tribes, which include both naturally produced and hatchery returns (see Table 5-12, SRSRB 

Plan). Fisheries co-managers and the SRSRB are currently still in discussion regarding these 

longer-term goals. 

3.2.3.2 Recovery Objectives – Planning Targets

The SRSRB set “short-term” (15-year) recovery planning targets for the Walla Walla and 

Touchet populations of the Walla Walla/Umatilla MPG, based on the ICTRT’s viability curves 

for those populations. Both populations are classified as Intermediate size, and therefore their 

recovery goal is 1000 spawners each, with 1.35 spawner:spawner ratio. 

The management unit plan also established general planning targets for spatial structure and 

diversity, as follows: 

1. Where possible, expand current spawning distributions to match the historical condition 

as defined by the Major Spawning Areas in each subbasin. 

2. Develop populations that are separated spatially so that risks due to catastrophic events 

are reduced. 

3. Increase, insofar as the historical patterns can be reconstructed, the similarity between 

current and historical patterns of juvenile rearing distribution, habitat usage, and life 

history types. 

The SRSRB plan also sets specific targets for habitat improvements, including criteria for such 

factors as large woody debris, riparian condition, water temperature, and channel confinement 

(Chapter 7, SRSRB Plan). 

3.2.3.3 Viability Criteria 

The SRSRB Plan used the ICTRT viability curves for each population to determine abundance 

and productivity values needed for delisting and also to identify the values needed for restoration 

of the populations under improved habitat conditions. 

3.2.3.4 Recovery Scenario

The Southeast Washington Plan accepts the ICTRT recovery criteria and thus supports the 

scenario shown in Figure 3-1, which indicates that either the Walla Walla or Touchet Middle 

Columbia steelhead population should reach viable status for delisting. However, the SRSRB’s 

long-term restoration goal is to achieve a healthy ecosystem that supports viability for both 

steelhead populations. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 16 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.2.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix E) 

The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan was submitted to NMFS by the YBFWRB to address 

recovery issues for the Yakima MPG of Middle Columbia steelhead (see Section 1.6.4). This 

plan states that its “overall goal . . . is to ensure long-term persistence of viable populations of 

naturally produced steelhead distributed across their native range.” 

3.2.4.1 Broad Sense Recovery Goal 

The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan sets a long-term, or broad sense, recovery goal to increase 

the abundance and productivity of Yakima Basin steelhead populations to levels that allow for 

harvest for recreational, commercial, and ceremonial purposes. This goal is articulated in the 

YBFWRB’s Vision 2020 statement (Section 1.2 of the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan), which 

describes, in general terms, desired future conditions for the Yakima basin: 

Yakima River basin communities have restored the Yakima River basin sufficiently to 

support self-sustaining and harvestable populations of indigenous fish and wildlife while 

enhancing the existing customs, cultures, and economies in the basin. Decisions that 

continuously improve the river basin ecosystem are made in an open and cooperative 

process that respects different points of view and varied statutory responsibilities and 

benefits current and future generations. 

3.2.4.2 Recovery Objectives/Scenarios

The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan defines three “thresholds” for assessing progress toward 

recovery: thresholds for ESA delisting, short-term recovery, and long-term (broad sense) 

recovery. As used in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, “threshold” combines two concepts 

that are differentiated in this DPS plan, i.e. recovery objectives and recovery scenario. The 

YBFWRB sees these three thresholds as points on a continuum and expects recovery actions to 

continue after delisting, even without the immediate motivation of the ESA. The long-term goals 

are less definite, but are meant to affirm that the Board and its partners believe that long-term 

recovery to significantly higher abundance levels is both feasible and desirable. 

The delisting threshold is based on the ICTRT’s MPG viability criteria: one population should be 

viable, one highly viable, and two should be at “maintained” status or better. The YBFWRB 

expected that the Satus population would be most likely to achieve “highly viable” status, the 

Naches population “viable,” and the Toppenish and Upper Yakima populations “maintained.” 

The short-term recovery threshold also is based on the ICTRT criteria, but with continuing 

recovery actions, all four populations would be expected to achieve viable status. This would 

significantly reduce overall risk to the MPG. 

The long-term recovery threshold is, as described above, a stable, long-term condition in which 

wild steelhead in the Yakima Basin are thriving and harvestable, based on restored access to as 

many of the historically accessible stream reaches as is consistent with the Board’s commitment 

to sustaining local customs and economies. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 17 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.2.4.3 Viability Criteria 

The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan defines abundance and productivity criteria for the 

delisting, short-term, and long-term thresholds in terms of the ICTRT’s viability criteria, as 

shown in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3 Yakima Steelhead Populations Abundance and Productivity Criteria (Source: Executive 

Summary, Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan). 

The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan presents spatial structure and diversity criteria for the four 

Yakima steelhead populations. The spatial structure criteria are more complex, since several 

important historical spawning areas are either no longer accessible to steelhead or no longer 

feasible for spawning. 

Satus

Naturally produced steelhead will occupy both major spawning areas in the Satus watershed 

(Satus and Dry Creek MSAs) and the Mule Dry minor spawning areas. Consistent spawning 

must occur in both major spawning areas. 

Toppenish 

Naturally produced steelhead will occupy both of the major spawning areas in the Toppenish 

watershed (upper Toppenish and Simcoe). Consistent spawning must occur in both major 

spawning areas. 

Naches 

Naturally produced steelhead will occupy at least seven of the eight major spawning areas for the 

delisting and short-term recovery thresholds. For the long-term recovery threshold, all eight will 

 

24 For its historical population analysis, the ICTRT included the mainstem Yakima habitat below the confluence of 

Satus Creek in the Satus Creek population, and therefore classified the Satus population as Intermediate in size. 

However, if the potential mainstem component is lumped instead with mainstem Yakima River habitat upstream of 

Satus, the population in the Satus Creek watershed alone would be Basic size. The Yakima plan discusses this 

question in more detail in Section 4.1.1. 

25 The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan calls for managing the Satus population in two blocks: the tributary block 

treated as a Basic population with the goal of high viability and the mainstem block treated with a simple abundance 

target that can be met within that portion of the mainstem Yakima or by additional production above and beyond the 

abundance targets for other areas. 

Delisting 

Threshold 

Short-Term 

Recovery 

Long-term 

Recovery 

Population Avg. # Prod. Avg. # Prod. Avg. # Prod. 

Satus: 

 Satus 

Watershed24

 Mainstem Block 

500 

500 

2.0025

1.65 

500 

500 

1.56 

1.56 2,000 1.2 

1.2 

Toppenish 250 1.2 500 1.56 1,500 1.2 

Naches 1,500 1.26 1,500 1.26 5,400 1.2 

Upper Yakima 500 1.2 1,500 1.26 7,700 1.2 

Total 3,250 4,500 16,600 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 18 

DPS Recovery Plan 

be occupied. Consistent spawning must occur within the Naches mainstem, Ahtanum Creek, and 

Rattlesnake Creek to maintain distribution across habitat types and life histories. 

Upper Yakima 

Naturally produced steelhead will occupy at least 10 of the 14 major spawning areas for the 

delisting and short-term recovery thresholds. For the long-term recovery threshold, 12 of 14 

MSAs will be occupied. Spawning must consistently occur within at least the Yakima mainstem, 

Umtanum Creek, Swauk Creek, Manashtash Creek, Taneum Creek and the Teanaway River 

(West and North Teanaway MSA and Lower Teanaway minor spawning area). While passage at 

Cle Elum, Kachess and/or Keechelus Dams is not specifically required to meet this threshold, 

providing passage can play an important role. 

The diversity goal for all thresholds is to maintain and enhance both phenotypic (morphology, 

behavior, and life history traits) and genotypic diversity while limiting introgression of non-local 

genes. 

3.3 Listing Factors/Threats Criteria 

Listing factors are those features that are evaluated under section 4(a)(1) when initial 

determinations are made whether to list species for protection under the ESA. “Threats,” in the 

context of salmon recovery, are understood as the activities or processes that cause the biological 

and physical conditions that limit salmon survival (the limiting factors). “Threats” also refer 

directly to the listing factors detailed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors are the following: 

A. 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. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting [the species’] continued existence. 

At the time of a delisting decision for the Middle Columbia steelhead, NMFS will examine 

whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, 

NMFS will use the listing factors (or threats) criteria described below, in addition to evaluation 

of biological recovery criteria and other relevant data and policy considerations. The threats need 

to have been addressed to the point that delisting is not likely to result in their re-emergence. It is 

possible that currently perceived threats will become insignificant in the future due to changes in 

the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of salmon. 

Consequently, NMFS expects that the relative priority of threats will change over time and that 

new threats may be identified. During the 5-year reviews, NMFS may review the listing factor 

criteria as they apply at that time. 

The specific criteria listed below for each of the relevant listing/delisting factors help to ensure 

that underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated before a species is 

considered for delisting. NMFS expects that if the proposed actions described in the Plan are 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 19 

DPS Recovery Plan 

implemented, they will make substantial progress toward meeting the following listing factor 

(threats) criteria for the Middle Columbia steelhead. 

While NMFS appreciates that regional managers would like to have clear, more specifically 

defined targets for reducing threats, and accordingly a clear path to delisting, many scientific 

uncertainties remain. Building adaptive management into the recovery plan is an appropriate 

response to these uncertainties. Research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) are necessary for 

adaptive management. The threats criteria listed in this section for each of the relevant 

listing/delisting factors are intended to help recovery planners formulate appropriate RM&E to 

ensure that underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated before a species is 

considered for delisting. NMFS expects the appropriate metrics to be developed in the 

cooperative process of local and regional implementation, then fed back into adaptive 

management for steelhead recovery. In some cases, metrics or targets in certain categories have 

already been established by NMFS or by management unit planners and approved by NMFS. 

These will become part of the RM&E plan that will be developed after the DPS plan has been 

approved (see Chapter 10 of this Plan). 

Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, threats to habitat should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Passage obstructions (e.g., dams and culverts) are removed or modified to improve survival 

and restore access to historically accessible habitat where necessary to support recovery 

goals. 

2. Flow conditions that support adequate rearing, spawning, and migration are achieved through 

management of mainstem and tributary irrigation and hydropower operations, and through 

increased efficiency and conservation in other consumptive water uses such as municipal 

supply. 

3. Sufficient instream flows are protected to provide for steelhead in appropriate life stages. 

4. Forest management practices that protect watershed and stream functions are implemented on 

Federal, state, tribal, and private lands. 

5. Agricultural practices, including grazing, are managed in a manner that protects and restores 

riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels, and protects water quality from sediment, 

pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer runoff. 

6. Urban and rural development, including land use conversion from agriculture and forestland 

to residential uses, does not reduce water quality or quantity, or impair natural stream 

conditions so as to impede achieving recovery goals. 

7. The effects of toxic contaminants on salmonid fitness and survival are sufficiently limited so 

as not to affect recovery. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 20 

DPS Recovery Plan 

8. Channel function, including vegetated riparian areas, canopy cover, stream-bank stability, offchannel and side-channel habitats, natural substrate and sediment processes, and channel 

complexity are restored to provide adequate rearing and spawning habitat. 

 

9. Floodplain function and the availability of floodplain habitats for salmon are restored to a 

degree sufficient to support a viable DPS. This restoration should include connectedness 

between river and floodplain and the restoration of impaired sediment delivery processes. 

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

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes should be managed as outlined below: 

1. Fishery management plans for steelhead are in place that (a) accurately account for total 

fishery mortality (i.e., both landed catch and non-landed mortalities) and constrain mortality 

rates to levels that are consistent with recovery; and (b) are implemented in such a way as to 

avoid deleterious genetic effects on populations or negative effects on the distribution of 

populations. 

2. Federal, tribal and state rules and regulations are effectively enforced. 

3. Technical tools accurately assess the effects of the harvest regimes so that harvest objectives 

are met but not exceeded. 

4. Handling of fish is minimized to reduce indirect mortalities associated with educational or 

scientific programs, while recognizing that monitoring, research, and education are key 

actions for conservation of the species. 

5. Routine construction and maintenance practices are managed to reduce or eliminate mortality 

of listed species. 

Factor C: Disease or predation 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any disease or predation that threatens its continued 

existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Hatchery operations do not subject targeted populations to deleterious diseases and parasites 

and do not result in increased predation rates of wild fish. 

2. Predation by avian predators is managed in a way that allows for recovery of salmon and 

steelhead populations. 

3. The northern pikeminnow is managed to reduce predation on the targeted populations. 

4. Populations of introduced exotic predators such as smallmouth bass, walleye and catfish are 

managed such that competition or predation does not impede recovery. 

5. Predation of winter steelhead runs below Bonneville Dam by marine mammals does not 

impede achieving recovery. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 21 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6. Physiological stress and physical injury that may cause disease or increase susceptibility to 

pathogens during rearing or migration is reduced during critical low flow periods (e.g. low 

water years) or poor passage conditions (e.g. at diversion dams or bypasses). 

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms that 

threatens its continued existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Adequate resources, priorities, regulatory frameworks, and coordination mechanisms are 

established and/or maintained for effective enforcement of land and water use regulations that 

protect and restore habitats, including water quality and water quantity, and for the effective 

management of fisheries. 

2. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land-use planning that 

guides human population growth and development. 

3. Habitat conditions and watershed function are protected through regulations that govern 

resource extraction such as timber harvest and gravel mining. 

4. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land protection agreements 

as appropriate, where existing policy or regulations do not provide adequate protection. 

5. Regulatory, control, and education measures to prevent additional exotic plant and animal 

species invasions are in place. 

6. Sufficient priority instream water rights for fish habitat are in place. 

Factor E: Other natural or human-made factors affecting [the species’] continued existence 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, other natural and man-made threats to its continued 

existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Hatchery programs are being operated in a manner that is consistent with individual 

watershed and region-wide recovery approaches; appropriate criteria are being used for 

integration of hatchery steelhead populations and extant natural populations inhabiting 

watersheds where the hatchery fish return. 

2. Hatcheries operate using appropriate ecological, genetic, and demographic risk containment 

measures for (1) hatchery-origin adults returning to natural spawning areas, (2) release of 

hatchery juveniles, (3) handling of natural-origin adults at hatchery facilities, (4) withdrawal 

of water for hatchery use, (5) discharge of hatchery effluent, and (6) maintenance of fish 

health during their propagation in the hatchery. 

3. Monitoring and Evaluation plans are implemented to measure population status, hatchery 

effectiveness, and ecological, genetic, and demographic risk containment measures. 

4. Nutrient enrichment programs are implemented where it is determined that nutrient 

limitations are a significant limiting factor for steelhead production and that nutrient 

enrichment will not impair water quality. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 3 - 22 

DPS Recovery Plan 

3.4 Delisting Decision 

NMFS concludes that the biological viability criteria as described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and 

the listing factor (threats) criteria (described in Section 3.3), define conditions that, when met, 

would result in a determination that the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is not likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

These criteria could exceed the minimum necessary to delist the DPS. 

In accordance with our responsibilities under section 4(c)(2) of the ESA, NMFS will conduct 

reviews of Middle Columbia steelhead every five years to evaluate the status of the DPS and 

determine whether it should be removed from the list or changed in status. Such evaluations will 

take into account the following: 

 The biological recovery criteria (ICTRT 2007a) and listing factor (threats) criteria 

described above. 

 The management programs in place to address the threats. 

 Principles presented in the Viable Salmonid Populations paper (McElhany et al. 2000). 

 Best available information on population and DPS status and new advances in risk 

evaluation methodologies. 

 Other considerations, including: the number and status of extant spawning groups; the 

status of the major spawning groups; linkages and connectivity among groups; the 

diversity of life history and phenotypes expressed; and considerations regarding 

catastrophic risk. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

4-1 

4. CURRENT STATUS ASSESSMENT OF DPS 

ICTRT scientists have aggregated a description of current Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 

status from information on the status of the component populations, using the VSP parameters of 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. Several related research reports from the 

ICTRT, including the most recent status assessment, are available on the Northwest Fisheries 

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

4.1 ICTRT Status Assessment of Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS 

The status of a salmonid ESU or DPS is expressed in terms of likelihood of persistence over 100 

years, or in terms of risk of extinction within 100 years. The ICTRT defines viability at two 

levels: less than 5 percent risk of extinction within 100 years (viable) and less than 1 percent risk 

of extinction within 100 years (highly viable). A third category, “maintained,” represents a less 

than 25 percent risk. The risk level of the DPS is built up from the aggregate risk levels of the 

populations and MPGs. All four VSP parameters must be taken into account to determine the 

risk level. 

Table 4-1 summarizes current status of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations, showing 10-

year geometric mean abundance by population, estimated productivity (using a 20-year 

geometric mean), and the minimum abundance threshold needed for long-term viability. The 

table also includes the 10-year geometric mean proportion of hatchery spawners for the 

populations where data are available, and the risk ratings of high, moderate, low, and very low, 

for abundance and productivity combined, and spatial structure and diversity combined. In this 

chapter, two other ways of representing these findings are presented: graphs called “viability 

curves” showing the relationship of current abundance and productivity to that required for 

viability, and a matrix combining all four parameters to illustrate the overall risk rating of each 

population. 

4.2 Viability Curves 

The ICTRT developed viability criteria expressed as graphs showing the relationship between 

abundance and productivity. The result is a curve, called a “viability curve,” running from high 

abundance/low productivity to high productivity/low abundance. The ICTRT then developed a 

method for adapting viability curves to population size categories, which, as described in Section 

3.1.3, are based on estimated intrinsic production potential or capacity of the habitat. The actual 

current abundance and productivity are then plotted against this viability curve. Populations 

above the 5 percent risk curve are considered to have a low risk of extinction and below the 5 

percent risk curve a higher risk of extinction. 

Viability curves for Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large Middle Columbia steelhead 

populations are depicted below in Figures 4-1 through 4-4, respectively. Only the Deschutes 

River East and Walla Walla populations (Intermediate) in Figure 4-2 and the North Fork John 

Day population (Large) in Figure 4-3 meet or exceed the 5 percent minimum risk of extinction in 

100 years needed to meet the ICTRT viability criteria. The ovals about the point estimates of 

actual abundance and productivity represent one standard error of uncertainty about the points. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

4-2 

Table 4-1. Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS populations: summary of abundance, productivity, risk ratings, and minimum abundance thresho2008). (Numbers subject to periodic updates as additional information becomes available.) 

Population 

Abundance 

Threshold26

Size 

Category 

Run Timing 

10-year 

Geomean 

abundance 

Abundance 

Range 

10-yr 

Hatchery 

Fraction27

Productivity28

Productivity 

Standard 

Error 

Cascades East Slope MPG Deschutes (Westside) 100030 Large (Inter) Summer 456 108-1283 0.26 1.05 0.15 Deschutes (Eastside) 1000 Intermed. Summer 1599 299-8274 0.39 1.89 0.27 Klickitat River 1000 Intermed. Wtr & Smr Insufficient data Fifteenmile Creek 500 Basic Winter 703 231-1922 0 1.82 0.20 Rock Creek 500 Basic Summer Insufficient data White Salmon 500 Basic Functionally extirpated Crooked River 2250 Very Large Summer Extirpated Yakima River MPGUpper Yakima River 1500 Large Summer 85 34-283 0.02 1.12 0.22 Naches River 1500 Large Summer 472 142-1454 0.06 1.12 0.22 Toppenish River 500 Basic Summer 322 44-1252 0.06 1.60 0.30 Satus Creek (trib only) 1000 Intermed. Summer 379 138-1000 0.06 1.73 0.14 John Day River MPG Lower Mainstem John Day 2250 Very Large Summer 1800 563-6257 0.1 2.99 0.24 North Fork John Day 1500 Large Summer 1740 369-

10,235 

0.08 2.41 0.22 

Upper Mainstem John Day 1000 Intermed. Summer 524 185-5169 0.08 2.14 0.33 Middle Fork John Day 1000 Intermed. Summer 756 195-3538 0.08 2.45 0.16 South Fork John Day 500 Basic Summer 259 76-2729 0.08 2.06 0.27 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPGUmatilla River 1500 Large Summer 1472 592-3542 0.36 1.50 0.15 Walla Walla Mainstem 1000 Intermed. Summer 650 270-1746 0.02 1.34 0.12 Touchet River 1000 Intermed. Summer Insufficient data Willow Creek 1000 Intermed. Summer Extirpated 

26 Abundance threshold for viability based on habitat intrinsic potential 27 Average proportion of hatchery spawners over most recent 10 years in the data series. 28 Geomean return per spawner calculated over most recent 20 years in data series. 29 H = high risk, M= moderate risk, L = low risk, VL = very low risk 30 The Deschutes Westside steelhead population is classified as Large in terms of spatial structure, but its abundance threshold may be considered 1000 or 150

area” considerations. 

See ODFW 2009. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

South Fk JD

Fifteen Mile

Toppenish

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Basic Population Size

5%Risk Curve

Figure 4-1. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Basic Populations (based on ICTRT 2008). 

Deschutes E

Middle Fk JD

Upper JD

Walla Walla

Satus

DeschutesW

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Intermediate Population Size

5%Risk Curve

Figure 4-2. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Intermediate Populations (based on ICTRT 2008). 

Note: The Deschutes Westside steelhead population is classified as Large in terms of spatial structure, but its 

abundance threshold may be considered 1000 or 1500 because of “currently accessible area” considerations. 

See ODFW 2009. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

North Fk JD

Umatilla

Naches

Upper Yakima 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Large Population Size

5%Risk Curve

Figure 4-3. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Large Populations (based on ICTRT 2008). 

Lower JD

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Very Large Population Size

5%Risk Curve

Figure 4-4. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Very Large Populations (based on ICTRT 2008). 

4.3 Spatial Structure and Diversity

Although the Middle Columbia steelhead spawning range currently extends over an area of 

approximately 35,000 square miles, the viability of the DPS with regard to spatial structure and 

diversity (SS/D) depends on the spatial structure and diversity of each population. Given that one 

population is extinct and two functionally extirpated, and considering the status of the 17 extant 

populations, NMFS considers the DPS to be at moderate risk with regard to spatial structure and 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

diversity. NMFS considers only the Fifteenmile Creek and North Fork John Day populations to 

be at low SS/D risk. The Upper Yakima River is at high SS/D risk, and the 15 other populations 

are rated at moderate risk. 

The ICTRT examined the steelhead’s SS/D risk in terms of biological or ecological “goals,” 

mechanisms that achieve those goals, and factors that influence the mechanisms. They identified 

two primary goals: 

A. Maintain natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes. Spatially mediated 

processes are, for example, population changes that result from local events such as 

landslides or other local catastrophes; recolonization within or between populations after 

such events; or “straying” of spawners away from home streams. 

B. Maintain natural patterns of variation. Variation in the population – whether it is genetic, 

behavioral, or a matter of appearance or life history -- helps to ensure that populations can 

withstand environmental variation in both the short and long term. 

The ICTRT defined mechanisms as biological or ecological processes that contribute to 

achieving the goals. For example, gene flow patterns are mechanisms that affect the distribution 

of genotypic and phenotypic variation in a population. Factors are characteristics of a population 

or its environment that influence mechanisms. For example, gaps in spawning distribution affect 

patterns of gene flow, which then affect patterns of genotypic and phenotypic variation. 

In some cases the same factor can affect more than one mechanism or goal. The distribution of 

spawning areas, for example, can affect both patterns of gene flow and the patterns of spatially 

mediated processes such as catastrophes. 

The ICTRT developed a method for scoring SS/D risk that considers these goals, mechanisms 

and factors. For example, maintaining natural patterns of gene flow is a mechanism that serves 

the goal of maintaining natural patterns of variation. The most relevant factor for maintaining 

natural patterns of gene flow is spawner composition. A high proportion of hatchery fish 

spawning naturally among wild fish can be a risk factor affecting genetic diversity, depending on 

the origin of the hatchery fish and other characteristics. 

Using metrics and criteria developed for SS/D, the ICTRT scored the Mid-Columbia steelhead 

populations as shown in Table 4-1. The following is a narrative summary of the SS/D ratings for 

all four steelhead MPGs. 

Cascades Eastern Slope MPG 

Of the five extant populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG, NMFS considers only the 

Fifteenmile Creek population to be at low risk of extinction with regard to spatial structure and 

diversity. The ICTRT rated the Klickitat River, Deschutes Eastside, and Deschutes Westside 

populations at moderate SS/D risk: these three have low risk for natural processes but moderate 

risk for diversity, because of the potential influence of naturally spawning, out-of-DPS hatchery 

fish. The Rock Creek population is assigned moderate SS/D risk, with the caution that more data 

are needed (ICTRT 2008). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

John Day MPG 

In the John Day MPG, only the North Fork John Day population has a low SS/D risk. The high 

proportion of out-of-population or out-of-DPS spawners puts the Middle and South Fork John 

Day populations at moderate risk. The high proportion of strays is a potential problem for all the 

John Day populations (ICTRT 2008). 

All five populations in this group spawn across the historical range of tributary habitats and are 

rated at low or very low risk for spatial structure, or Goal A, maintaining natural rates and levels 

of spatially mediated processes (ICTRT 2008). The Lower Mainstem and Upper Mainstem 

populations are rated at moderate risk for life history diversity because of limitations and 

reductions in particular juvenile rearing time and area pathways, inferred from current 

temperature and flow conditions in the tributaries, the mainstem John Day River, and the 

mainstem Columbia River (ICTRT 2008). In addition, the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

population was rated at moderate risk for genetic diversity. Sport fishery and spawning ground 

sampling information indicates that a relatively high proportion of out-of-basin hatchery fish 

may be contributing to spawning, but no direct genetic sampling data are available. 

In the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan, the Middle Fork and South Fork John Day populations 

are shown as having Low SS/D risk. The difference turns on the weight given in the integrated 

SS/D rating to the high proportion of out-of-population or out-of-DPS strays spawning naturally 

in these areas. The ICTRT rates both populations as at high risk for diversity, and therefore, 

overall moderate SS/D risk. The Oregon Conservation Plan rates the overall risk as low, “with 

the exception” of spawner composition. 

Yakima River MPG 

Three of the Yakima River steelhead populations are rated at moderate SS/D risk, and one, the 

Upper Yakima River, at high risk (ICTRT 2008). The SS/D risk for the Satus Creek, Toppenish 

Creek, and Naches River populations is moderate, because of changes related to Goal B –

maintaining natural patterns of variation. These include changes in life history strategies – 

spawning, rearing, and migration timing – as well as changes in phenotypic or genetic traits, 

related to altered habitat, particularly flow regimes and water temperature. For the Satus Creek, 

Toppenish Creek, and Naches River populations, there are also changes in the distribution of 

spawning. The Upper Yakima River is at high risk for spatial structure and diversity because of 

loss of spawning areas, decreased life history variation, and possible genetic introgression with 

planted rainbow trout. All of these populations must pass four major dams in the mainstem 

Columbia River, and the ICTRT notes that characteristics of the hydropower system create 

selective pressures on various traits such as size and adult and juvenile migration timing, 

reducing variations that were likely present historically. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

The ICTRT rated all three populations in the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG as at moderate risk 

(ICTRT 2008). All three have lost spawning habitat, and the distances between occupied areas 

have increased. Phenotypic changes such as reduced variation in adult and juvenile migration 

patterns are inferred from changes in flow patterns and water temperature. For the Umatilla 

River, a high proportion of hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally represents a diversity risk. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

For the Walla Walla River, a moderate risk is attributed to out-of-DPS strays spawning naturally. 

Water temperature and hydrograph changes as well as passage barriers have likely influenced 

life history diversity and phenotypic expression (ICTRT 2008). The Touchet population has 

good spatial distribution but was given a moderate risk rating because of assumed or inferred 

loss of life history and phenotypic variation. The ICTRT emphasized the need for more data for 

the Touchet (ICTRT 2008). 

4.4 Population-Level Risk Rating 

Given the hierarchical structure of salmonid biology (see Section 2.2, above), an overall 

assessment of risk of extinction for an ESU or DPS must be built up from assessments of risk for 

the component populations and then the MPGs. 

The ICTRT integrated all four VSP parameters in a simple matrix (Figure 4-5). One side of the 

matrix is a series of risk levels for the combined abundance and productivity parameters (A/P): 

very low risk, i.e. less than a 1 percent risk of extinction within 100 years; low risk, less than a 5 

percent risk of extinction within 100 years; moderate risk, less than a 25 percent risk of 

extinction within 100 years; and high risk, more than a 25 percent risk of extinction within 100 

years. The A/P rating for each population is taken from the corresponding viability curve (see 

Section 4.2 above). A viable population is considered to have no more than a 5 percent A/P risk. 

Across the top of the matrix is a series of risk levels for spatial structure and diversity (SS/D). 

The range of viable combinations of A/P and SS/D risks for a population can be seen in the top 

two rows combined with the first three columns. Populations with a Very Low risk rating for A/P 

and at least a Low rating for SS/D are considered to be “Highly Viable.” Populations with a Low 

risk rating for A/P and a Moderate rating for SS/D are considered to be “Viable.” Populations 

that fall into the cells outside this range cannot be considered viable by the standard set forth in 

the VSP paper (McElhany et al., 2000) and used by all of the TRTs. These individual scores are 

integrated to determine the viability of MPGs (ICTRT 2005), and the assessments of the 

component MPGs are aggregated to assess the DPS as a whole. The ICTRT used this approach 

to examine the viability of independent steelhead populations in the Middle Columbia DPS. 

In Figure 4-5, five of the cells at higher risk are labeled “Candidate for maintained status.” The 

ICTRT recognizes that some populations may not need to be fully viable to make the DPS 

viable, and yet maintaining them at some level will provide ecological functions and preserve 

options for DPS recovery. As a rule of thumb, populations that fall within cells adjacent to those 

regarded as viable in the risk matrix (Figure 4-5 in this recovery plan) can be regarded as 

“maintained.” 

The ICTRT (2007a) details how maintained populations contribute to the ecological functioning 

of the DPS and preserve recovery options in the event that efforts to recover other populations to 

viable levels fail. 

Having populations meet maintained standards: 

 Provides a hedge against the potential risk that the cumulative productivity across 

populations within an MPG may fall below replacement. 

 Provides insurance against catastrophic events. For example, if a catastrophe impacts one 

or more of the functioning viable populations within the MPG, the other populations will 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

need to be at sufficient levels so that they can replenish those populations lost to or 

affected by the catastrophe. 

 Allows these populations to serve as genetic or demographic “stepping stones” between 

populations, allowing natural patterns of gene flow and dispersal. 

 Provides a buffer against uncertainty in the ICTRT population and MPG criteria. For 

example, having populations meet maintained standards preserves recovery options in the 

event that efforts to recover other populations to viable levels fail. 

Although populations with specific combinations of A/P and SS/D ratings are candidates for 

Maintained status (Figure 4-5), the ICTRT cautions that it is difficult to capture all of the 

necessary attributes to meet the objectives for maintained populations in a simple set of 

integrated A/P and SS/D risk ratings. For each MPG, candidate populations should be reviewed 

individually and in context with the other populations against the above principles. 

“In general, populations with moderate abundance and productivity risk levels near 25% 

with high year-to-year variability or populations with high risk for multiple SS/D factors 

are less likely to be considered Maintained. A primary consideration in setting an 

abundance objective [for a] population in the smallest size category (Basic) would be 

uncertainty in current estimates of abundance and productivity. Given the levels of 

uncertainty in estimating recent geomean abundance and productivity, the abundance 

objectives for Basic populations should exceed 250 spawners [if they are] to be 

designated as Maintained status. Populations classified in any of the three largest size 

categories should be at abundance levels not less than 500, and will likely require average 

abundance levels approaching minimum threshold values to address demographic and 

genetic considerations.” (ICTRT 2007a) 

Figure 4-5. Assessing Population Viability Across VSP Criteria (ICTRT 

2005). 

* Candidate for maintained status

High high risk

maintained M 

Low (<5%) viable

maintained

highly viable Very Low 

(<1%)

Very Low Low Moderate

Highh high risk

Moderate maintained*

(<25%)

viable Low (<5%)

Very Low highly viable

(<1%)

A/P rating

Very Low Low Moderate High

SS/D rating

 high risk

high risk high risk high risk

viable

viable viable

highly viable

maintained*

maintained*

maintained*

maintained*
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

4.5 Current Population Status 

According to the ICTRT viability criteria, the majority of natural Middle Columbia steelhead 

populations are rated at moderate risk for abundance and productivity, but low to moderate risk 

for spatial structure and diversity (Table 4-1, Figure 4-6, and Figure 4-7). This DPS includes one 

highly viable population (North Fork John Day), two viable (Fifteenmile Creek and Deschutes 

River Eastside), five at high risk of extinction within 100 years (Deschutes Westside, Upper 

Yakima Mainstem, Naches River, Rock Creek, and Touchet31), and the remaining nine at 

moderate risk. 

Figure 4-6. Middle Columbia Steelhead Population Viability (ICTRT, May 2008). 

4.6 MPG Status 

The ICTRT’s viability ratings of the component populations of each Middle Columbia steelhead 

MPG are shown in the matrices below (Figure 4-7). None of the MPGs as a whole reaches low 

risk status according to the ICTRT’s MPG-level criteria (shown in Figure 3-2). 

4.7 DPS Status 

The ICTRT’s ESU-level viability criterion is the following: All extant MPGs and any extirpated 

MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU should be at low risk (ICTRT 2007a). Thus, the 

Middle Columbia steelhead DPS does not currently meet viability criteria based on the 

determination that the four component MPGs are not at low risk. 

 

31 The Rock Creek and Touchet populations are rated at High Risk because of uncertainty resulting from the limited 

set of annual return estimates (with significant missing years) currently available. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 4 - 10 DPS Recovery Plan 

Rock Creek

High Deschutes WMod.

Fifteenmile Deschutes E

LowV. Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

High

JD Lower MS

Mod. JD Upper MSLow

JD North Fk V. 

Low

V. Low Low Mod. High

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity Risk

HighMod.LowV. Low

V. Low Low Mod. 

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity 

Nache

HighMod.LowV. Low

V. Low Low Mod. 

Abundance / Productivity Risk

Spatial Structure / Diversity 

Cascades Eastern Slopes Tributaries Major Population Group. Yakima River Major Population Group.

Klickitat Satus

JD Middle FkJD South Fk

White Salmon

(Functionally

extirpated)

Toppe

UmatillaWalla Wa

Touchet

John Day River Major Population Group Umatilla/Walla Walla Major Population 

Figure 4-7. Viability Ratings for Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations by MPG (developed by NMFS based on ICTRT 2007

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/col/trt_viability.cfm).
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 5 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

5. THE ‘GAP’ BETWEEN CURRENT AND DESIRED STATUS 

The ICTRT assessed the difference between a listed species’ or population’s current 

abundance/productivity status and the viability criteria. This difference is called the “gap.” 

The gap, as used in this plan, is a measure, although it is inevitably imprecise, of the 

improvement in survival needed to meet viability criteria. As such, it is also an indicator of 

the level of effort needed to achieve recovery. The following material is taken from the 

ICTRT’s “Survival Gaps Report” (ICTRT 2007b) for the listed salmon and steelhead in the 

Interior Columbia Basin. 

Although all four VSP parameters contribute to overall population and DPS viability, the gap 

is discussed quantitatively only in terms of abundance and productivity. Qualitative 

statements may be made about needed improvements to spatial structure and diversity, but 

the metrics—the methods of measurement—used to assess the risk levels of spatial structure 

and diversity are not easily summed up into a single statistic (See Section 4.3 of this Plan and 

ICTRT 2008). 

A key part of the “gap” calculation is the productivity of the population. The ICTRT used a 

measure of productivity that directly relates to a population’s potential to be self-sustaining, 

i.e., recruits per spawner, or the rate at which spawning adults in one generation are replaced 

by spawning adults in the next generation. 

This measure of life-cycle productivity is affected by mortality and survival at all life stages, 

including juvenile mortality (such as the relative number or proportion of juveniles that die 

while migrating down river) and adult mortality (such as the relative proportion of adult fish 

harvested) (Figure 5-1). 

The gap analysis itself does not identify or target a particular life stage for actions to achieve 

viability criteria. Gaps can be addressed by improvements to survival rates at any life stage 

(e.g., tributary residence, migration, estuary, early ocean, upstream migration), depending on 

the specific factors limiting the individual populations. 

5.1 Gaps Using Abundance and Productivity Criteria

The ICTRT (2007c) estimated the minimal survival rate changes needed for Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations to meet the abundance and productivity viability criteria for 

a 5 percent risk of extinction in a 100-year time frame. 

They used the following steps to estimate observed survival gaps: 

1. Estimated current intrinsic productivity (defined by TRT as reproductive rate at low 

abundance) and natural spawner abundance (using the most recent 20 years of stockrecruit data). 

2. Estimated current spawning level associated with achieving juvenile capacity. 

3. Assigned each population to a risk category (very low, low, moderate, or high risk) based 

on its position relative to the viability curve for its size category. 

4. Calculated gaps based on the minimum distance from the abundance/productivity point 

representing current status and the appropriate viability curve. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 5 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Bonneville Dam

Freshwater

Ocean

Smolt to Adult

Recruits per

Spawner

Smolts-perEggs spawner

Estuary

Hydropower survival: (in-river 

survival, transportation related survival, 

proportion transported)

Freshwater survival: (tributary 

habitat, hatchery)

1st year ocean survival: 

climate effects, estuarine and 

plume conditions, latent mortality 

(e.g. delayed hydro effects)

Upstream 

migration: in-river 

harvest, migration 

mortality, pre-spawning 

mortality

Upper Dam

Adult ocean survival: natural 

mortality, ocean harvest (some 

ESUs)

Bonneville Dam

Freshwater

Ocean

Smolt to Adult

Recruits per

Spawner

Smolts-perEggs spawner

Estuary

Hydropower survival: (in-river 

survival, transportation related survival, 

proportion transported)

Freshwater survival: (tributary 

habitat, hatchery)

1st year ocean survival: 

climate effects, estuarine and 

plume conditions, latent mortality 

(e.g. delayed hydro effects)

Upstream 

migration: in-river 

harvest, migration 

mortality, pre-spawning 

mortality

Upper Dam

Adult ocean survival: natural 

mortality, ocean harvest (some 

ESUs)

Figure 5-1. Survival and Mortality throughout Salmonid Life Cycle. 

In addition, the ICTRT (2007b) estimated gaps under three different early-ocean survival 

scenarios; historical ocean conditions (ocean conditions that fish experienced over the past 60 

years), pessimistic ocean conditions (ocean conditions experienced by the 1975-1997 brood 

years), and recent ocean conditions (ocean conditions experienced by fish during the 20-year 

assessment period). The ICTRT also estimated gaps assuming three different hydropower 

scenarios. However, only the base hydro condition, which assumed that survival rates from 

the most recent 20 years would continue into the future, is reported here. (See NMFS 2008a 

for details on survival through the FCRPS under proposed improvements.) 

Changes in survivals of Middle Columbia steelhead needed to achieve the 5 percent risk 

criteria for abundance and productivity in a 100-year time period are presented in Table 5-1. 

The numbers in the table are expressed as a proportion of current survival. For example, in 

the table, an estimated gap of 0.09 for Umatilla steelhead requires increasing average lifecycle survival by 9 percent, or a 1.09 fold increase, to achieve 5 percent risk in a 100-year 

time period. A negative (minus) number means the population is viable. 

The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions and 5 

percent risk) for the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG is 0.21, ranging from –0.34 (Deschutes 

Eastside) to 0.78 (Deschutes Westside). The Deschutes Eastside and Fifteen Mile populations 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 5 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

exceed the 5 percent abundance and productivity criteria under all ocean scenarios. In 

contrast, the Deschutes Westside fails to meet the criteria under all ocean scenarios. There 

was not enough information to estimate gaps for the Klickitat or Rock Creek populations. 

The median survival gap for the John Day MPG is 0.09, ranging from –0.49 (North Fork) to 

0.34 (South Fork). Two out of the five populations exceed the 5 percent abundance and 

productivity risk criteria under both the recent and historical ocean conditions. The North 

Fork population exceeds the 5 percent risk criteria under all ocean scenarios, while the South 

Fork population fails to meet the 5 percent criteria under all ocean scenarios. 

There was sufficient information available to estimate gaps for only two of the three 

populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. Assuming base hydrosystem and recent 

ocean conditions, the survival gaps for the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations are 0.09 

and 0.34, respectively. The Umatilla population is projected to achieve the 5 percent risk 

criteria only under historical ocean conditions. The Walla Walla population fails to meet the 

5 percent criteria under all ocean scenarios. 

The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions) for the 

Yakima MPG is 0.77, ranging from 0.22 (Satus—tributary only) to 1.15 (Upper Yakima). All 

populations in this MPG fail to meet the 5 percent criterion under all ocean scenarios. 

5.2 Gaps using Spatial Structure and Diversity Criteria 

As described in Section 4.3, the ICTRT analyzed a population’s spatial structure and 

diversity in terms of two goals: maintaining natural rates and levels of spatially mediated 

processes, and maintaining natural patterns of variation. The team developed a scoring 

system, described in detail in Table 2-1 of Current Status Reviews, Vol. III (ICTRT 2008) to 

derive a composite spatial structure and diversity rating for each population. Using this 

method, the ICTRT rated only the Fifteenmile Creek and North Fork John Day populations at 

low risk of extinction with regard to spatial structure and diversity. The Upper Yakima River 

is at high SS/D risk, and the 15 other populations are rated at moderate risk. 

It is important to include measures to address spatial structure and diversity risks in recovery 

planning. The Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS cannot reach viable status without 

closing these gaps as well as those identified in terms of abundance and productivity. 

Summary 

Using criteria for abundance and productivity, the ICTRT modeled a gaps analysis for each 

of the four MPGs in this DPS under three different ocean conditions and a base hydro 

condition (most recent 20-year survival rate). The results showed that none of the MPGs 

would be able to achieve a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over 100 years without 

recovery actions. It is important to consider that significant gaps in factors affecting spatial 

structure and diversity also contribute to the risk of extinction for these fish. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 5 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 5-1. Minimum changes in survival of Middle Columbia River steelhead needed to meet abundance 

and productivity criteria for 5 percent risk curves in a 100-year time period under base hydropower 

conditions and three different ocean scenarios. Gap estimates are expressed as a proportion of current 

survival (e.g., a gap of 0.50 requires increasing average life-cycle survival by 50 percent [multiplying by 

1.5] over recent averages). 

NOTE: A negative (minus) number means there is no gap – the population is viable. Data are from Table 

6b in ICTRT (2007b); NA = not available. 

Major Population 

Group Population 

Estimated abundance/productivity gaps (5% risk in a 100-

year time period) 

Recent ocean 

survival 

Historical ocean 

survival 

Pessimistic ocean 

survival 

Cascades Eastern 

Slope 

Deschutes W. 0.78 0.60 0.82 

Deschutes E. No gap (-0.34) No gap (-0.40) No gap (-0.33) 

Klickitat NA NA NA 

Fifteen Mile No gap (-0.21) No gap (-0.29) No gap (-0.20) 

Rock Creek NA NA NA 

John Day 

Lower Mainstem 0.11 0.00 0.14 

North Fork No gap (-0.49) No gap (-0.54) No gap (-0.48) 

Upper Mainstem 0.00 No gap (-0.10) 0.02 

Middle Fork 0.09 No gap (-0.01) 0.12 

South Fork 0.34 0.21 0.37 

Umatilla/Walla 

Walla 

Umatilla 0.09 No gap (-0.01) 0.12 

Walla-Walla 0.34 0.21 0.37 

Touchet NA NA NA 

Yakima 

Satus (tributary 

only) 0.22 0.10 0.25 

Toppenish 0.50 0.35 0.53 

Naches 1.03 0.83 1.08 

Upper Yakima 1.15 0.94 1.20 

Note: These gaps do not constitute a legal determination of the status of Middle Columbia MPGs nor of the 

adequacy of any particular set of actions under the ESA. Rather, the gaps provide a sense of how much effort is 

needed for planning purposes. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6. LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS 

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. NMFS defines limiting factors as the biological and physical conditions that limit a 

species’ viability – e.g., high water temperature – and defines threats as those human 

activities or natural processes that cause the limiting factors. For example, removing the 

vegetation along the banks of a stream can cause higher water temperatures, because the 

stream is no longer shaded. Designing effective recovery strategies and actions requires 

understanding limiting factors and threats across the species’ entire life cycle. 

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are often legitimate human activities 

that may at times have unintended negative consequences on fish populations—and that can 

usually be managed in a manner that minimizes or eliminates the negative impacts. 

For steelhead and other salmonids, survival to reproduce depends on a complex, interacting 

system of environmental conditions, with different conditions needed for each life stage. 

Optimal water temperature, for example, varies (within limits) for adult migration vs. egg 

incubation vs. juvenile rearing. In addition, the particular factors limiting production may 

vary across different sections of the tributary drainage used by a particular population. Data 

on a full range of potential limiting factors is rarely available at the reach level. As a result, 

the identification of limiting factors for salmonids often includes elements based on inference 

and expert opinion. 

The list of limiting factors for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS, as for the populations 

that make up the DPS, is based on a substantial body of research on salmonids, local field 

data and field observations, and the considered opinions of regional experts. These are 

implicitly hypothetical statements, made with the expectation that by taking action in the face 

of some degree of scientific uncertainty, monitoring the results, continuing to conduct 

research to resolve the uncertainties, and adapting our management actions in response, the 

state of our knowledge will improve and so will the survival of these fish, although not 

necessarily in a directly parallel process. 

This plan describes limiting factors and threats for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS as a 

whole at a general level, then describes the most salient specific conditions that affect 

individual populations and limit the viability of specific MPGs. More detail is available in 

the individual management unit plans and modules (Appendices A through G), as well as in 

the FCRPS BiOp (NMFS 2008a), particularly in the BiOp’s Supplemental Comprehensive 

Analysis and Appendices, and in Appendix C of the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, 

Artificial Production for Pacific Salmon. 

The discussion of out-of-subbasin limiting factors and threats that affect all the salmonid 

populations in the mainstem Columbia River corridor is excerpted from a “module” that 

NMFS prepared on the estuary and plume (NMFS 2007 and Appendix G of this Plan; 

available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/Other-Documents.cfm) and from the recently released 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion (NMFS 2008a). NMFS also prepared a module to summarize FCRPS actions 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

contained in the Biological Opinion (Hydro Module, NMFS 2008c and Appendix F of this 

Plan), available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/Other-Documents.cfm. (The Estuary Module underwent public review; the Hydro 

Module, as a summary of the publicly reviewed BiOp actions, did not.) There is no hatchery 

module; hatchery programs are widespread throughout the Columbia Basin and their 

population-specific effects are described in the individual management unit plans. 

6.1 Types of Limiting Factors 

For recovery planning purposes, NMFS standardized descriptions of limiting factors into 12 

categories or types. These are the categories of limiting factors used for the yearly Pacific 

Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) report to Congress in accordance with the PCSRF 

performance reporting framework (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf). NMFS is working within the region 

to standardize definitions for monitoring and reporting. The descriptions of limiting factors in 

the management unit plans fit into these categories, although they may be lumped or split 

differently in the individual plan texts and also may be described slightly differently. 

However, Table 6-1 lists the 12 categories as “key” limiting factors, including the common 

characteristics used to describe them and the salmonid life stages they affect. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 6-1. Key limiting factors and common characteristics used to describe them. 

Key Limiting Factors Common Characteristics Life Stages Affected 

1. Degraded estuarine and 

nearshore marine habitat 

Inadequate large woody debris; loss of estuary 

complexity; loss of off-channel habitats; loss of intertidal, 

salt marsh and other functional estuarine and marine 

vegetation. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, smolt-to-adult 

survival, adult migration 

2. Degraded floodplain 

connectivity and function 

Loss of off-channel habitat and floodplain connectivity, 

seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, side channels habitat; 

loss of connected and functional hyporheic zone. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration, prespawning 

3. Degraded channel 

structure and complexity 

Loss of pool frequency and quantity, large wood debris; 

channel straightening and confinement; simplified habitat; 

loss of spawning habitat structure, redd diversity; loss of 

sinuosity, insufficient instream complexity and roughness. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration, prespawning 

4. Degraded riparian area 

and LWD recruitment 

Degraded riparian condition; loss of vegetation, shade, 

overhead cover, terrestrial food sources; unstable or 

eroding stream banks. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration, prespawning 

5. Altered hydrology Higher peak flows, lower low flows; intermittent flow; 

increased stream energy; significant flow fluctuations on 

weekly, daily or hourly basis; dewatered channel. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration, prespawning 

6. Degraded water quality High water temperatures, high level of chemical 

contaminants, nutrients, oxygen, pathogens, pH, toxic 

mine waste. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration, prespawning 

7. Altered sediment routing 

(degraded stream 

substrate) 

Sedimentation; high levels of suspended sediment, 

turbidity, sediment load; increased fine sediments in 

spawning gravel; unnatural level of course-grained 

sediments; embedded substrate; contaminated sediment. 

egg-to-parr survival 

8. Impaired fish passage Artificial barriers or obstructions, total or partially, 

obstructing habitat access (culverts, irrigation diversions, 

dams, seasonal push-up dams, unscreened diversions, 

and entrainment in irrigation diversions etc.). 

smolt migration, adult migration, 

juvenile upstream migration due 

to thermal stress, water 

availability 

9. Mainstem Columbia 

River hydro system 

effects 

altered stream flows; impaired water quality, high water 

temperatures; impaired fish passage and survival; 

reduced mainstem spawning and rearing; increased 

predation and competition; degraded estuary and 

Columbia River plume habitat quality and quantity; 

degraded floodplains. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration 

10. Hatchery-related 

adverse effects 

Increased competition for food and space; increased 

predation; disease transfer; loss of genetic diversity. 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt 

migration, adult migration 

11. Harvest-related adverse 

effects 

Decreased adult abundance (number of spawners or 

adult recruits) and productivity; influenced diversity and 

spatial structure through selective removal based on size, 

age, distribution or run timing. 

egg-to-smolt survival, adult 

survival 

12. Predation/Competition/ 

 Disease 

Increase in predators; increased competition for food. egg-to-smolt survival, smolt-toadult survival, adult survival 

6.2 Types of Threats 

The threats contributing to the limiting factors and causes for a salmonid species’ decline are 

often described in terms of the “four Hs” – habitat (usually relating to the effects of land use 

and tributary water use), hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. Climate change also represents 

a potentially significant threat to salmon and steelhead.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6.3 Limiting Factors and Threats for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS 

At the DPS level, based on information from the ICTRT and the four management unit plans, 

the major factors limiting the viability of Middle Columbia steelhead populations are 

tributary habitat conditions (varying combinations of factors 2-7 listed in Table 6-1), 

impaired fish passage in the mainstem Columbia River and tributaries, hatchery-related 

effects, and predation/competition/disease. Two factors, degradation of estuarine and 

nearshore marine habitat and harvest-related effects, pose some risk to steelhead viability for 

the entire DPS, but less than the other factors. Climate change could potentially affect habitat 

for all salmonids in the Columbia Basin. 

Most of the management unit plans rate the importance of the limiting factors in their 

respective subbasins by population and also by smaller units such as stream reaches. There 

are some differences of opinion as to the general, relative importance of tributary habitat 

limiting factors vs. passage conditions in the mainstem Columbia. However, all of the plans 

list both as major limiting factors. Hatchery related effects on genetic diversity and 

productivity are considered a major limiting factor for populations in the Deschutes, John 

Day, and Umatilla basins, and possibly the Klickitat. The management unit plans provide 

detailed description and discussion of these factors as they apply to specific populations. 

6.3.1 Tributary Habitat Conditions 

For more than 10,000 years, habitat conditions favorable to salmonid survival were 

widespread in the Northwest. Over the last 150 years, human activities have significantly 

reduced the extent and quality of salmonid habitat. Tributary habitat degradation from past 

and/or present land use remains a key concern for all of the steelhead populations. 

Historically, ecosystem conditions allowed steelhead populations in the spawning range of 

this DPS to grow and prosper. Extensive beaver activity created diverse instream habitats, 

with deep pools and strong connections to floodplains. Many stream channels contained 

abundant large wood from surrounding riparian forests, which included cottonwood, aspen, 

willow, and upstream conifers. Stream temperatures sufficient to support all steelhead life 

stages 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 

stream banks, providing protection against erosion and supporting an abundant food supply. 

Dynamic patterns of channel migration in floodplains continually created complex channel, 

side channel, and off-channel habitats. 

Today, nearly all historical habitat lies in areas modified by human settlement and activities. 

Historical land use exerted a large and widespread impact on steelhead habitat quality and 

quantity across the DPS. Common historical practices included removal of wood from 

streams; removal of riparian vegetation; timber harvest, road construction, agricultural 

development, livestock grazing, urbanization, wetland draining, and gravel mining; alteration 

of channel structure through stream relocation, channel confinement and straightening; 

beaver removal; construction of dams for multiple purposes; and direct withdrawal of water 

for irrigation or human consumption. 

While some streams and stream reaches retain highly functional habitat conditions, these 

various activities have degraded streams and stream reaches across the range of the Middle 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Columbia steelhead DPS, leaving them with insufficient large wood in channels, insufficient 

instream complexity and roughness, and inadequate connectivity to associated wetlands and 

off-channel habitats. Many streams lack sinuosity and associated meanders and suffer from 

excessive streambank erosion and sedimentation, as well as altered flow regimes and higher 

summer water temperatures. In many areas, the contemporary watershed conditions created 

by past and current land use practices are so different from those under which native fish 

species evolved that they now pose a significant impediment to achieving recovery. The 

management unit plans contain detailed descriptions of tributary habitat threats and limiting 

factors. 

6.3.2 Columbia River Mainstem Conditions 

All populations of Middle Columbia steelhead use the mainstem Columbia River to migrate 

to and from the ocean, and all are affected by the mainstem Federal dams, as well as by other 

forms of development that alter the river environment. Mainstem Columbia River conditions 

include impaired fish passage, altered water temperature and thermal refuges, and changes in 

mainstem nearshore habitat. 

6.3.2.1 Impaired Fish Passage 

Development and operation of the mainstem Columbia River hydropower system 

significantly alters travel conditions in the mainstem Columbia River, resulting in direct 

mortality of both upstream migrating adults and downstream migrating steelhead kelts, and 

direct and indirect mortality for downstream migrating juveniles. The hydro system also 

changes the hydrograph, depleting historically available nutrients, changing water 

temperatures, and degrading rearing and food resources for both presmolts and smolts in the 

Columbia. Changes in the hydrograph leave steelhead more vulnerable to bird and fish 

predation in the Columbia River estuary and mainstem. In addition, broad deltas have been 

created at the mouths of tributaries where fine sediment has been deposited. These conditions 

have resulted in increased non-native piscivorous fish and avian predation on juveniles.

All these impacts increase somewhat for each population in direct relation to the number of 

dams that fish must pass during their migration to and from the Pacific Ocean. Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations pass one to four Columbia River dams. The Fifteenmile and 

Klickitat populations pass the Bonneville Dam; the Deschutes populations pass Bonneville 

and The Dalles dams; the John Day, Rock Creek, and Umatilla populations pass Bonneville, 

The Dalles, and John Day dams; and all four populations of the Yakima MPG as well as the 

Walla Walla and Touchet populations pass Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary 

dams (Figure 6-1). While the hydropower system affects Middle Columbia steelhead less 

than the listed Interior Columbia salmonids that must pass up to nine mainstem dams, it still 

substantially affects most Middle Columbia populations. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Figure 6-1. Major Dams and Barriers to Migration for Middle Columbia Steelhead.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Chapter 8 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan provides detailed information concerning 

the effects of the FCRPS on Middle Columbia steelhead; however, much must be inferred 

from studies of hatchery steelhead or Snake River steelhead because of a lack of specific 

survival data for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. Table 6-2 shows current estimates of 

survival of juvenile Middle Columbia steelhead migrating downstream through one to four 

dams. These estimates are based on COMPASS modeling of a 70-year water record (source: 

NMFS 2008a Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis—Hydro Modeling Appendix). They 

represent current conditions, reflecting improvements in the hydropower system made within 

the last decade. Juvenile survival is estimated at 90, 73, 54, and 48 percent, respectively, for 

passage through one to four dams. Juvenile mortality, conversely, is estimated at 10, 27, 46, 

and 52 percent. 

Table 6-2. Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Juvenile Survival (migrating 

downstream) (Source: NMFS 2008a Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis—Hydro 

Modeling Appendix).

Population Dams % Survival 

Fifteenmile Bonneville 90 

Klickitat 90 

Deschutes West The Dalles 

Bonneville 73 

Deschutes East 73 

Rock Creek John Day 

The Dalles 

Bonneville 54 

Lower Mainstem John Day 54 

North Fork John Day 54 

Upper Mainstem John Day 54 

Middle Fork John Day 54 

South Fork John Day 54 

Umatilla 54 

Walla Walla McNary 

John Day 

The Dalles 

Bonneville 48 

Touchet 48 

Upper Yakima 48 

Naches 48 

Toppenish 48 

Satus 48 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 6-3 shows current estimates of adult survival for Middle Columbia steelhead 

migrating upstream through the dams.32 These estimates are based on PIT-tagged steelhead 

from the Snake River as “surrogates.” Adult steelhead survival is relatively high through the 

lower Columbia River dams and reservoirs as a result of dam operations and effective fish 

ladders.33 There are known losses of adult fish approaching Bonneville Dam from marine 

mammal predation. For summer-run populations, this impact is likely minimal. For winterrun populations (Fifteenmile Creek, Klickitat, and possibly Rock Creek), the current impact 

may be as high as 22 percent (Source: NMFS 2008a Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, 

Marine Mammal Predation Appendix). 

Table 6-3. Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Adult Survival (migrating 

upstream) (Source: NMFS 2008a Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, Adult 

Survival Estimates Appendix).

Population Dams % Survival 

Fifteenmile Bonneville >98.5 

Klickitat >98.5 

Deschutes West 

Bonneville 

The Dalles 98.5 

Deschutes East 98.5 

Rock Creek 

Bonneville 

The Dalles 

John Day 97 

Lower Mainstem John Day 97 

North Fork John Day 97 

Upper Mainstem John Day 97 

Middle Fork John Day 97 

South Fork John Day 97 

Umatilla 97 

Walla Walla 

Bonneville 

The Dalles 

John Day 

McNary 

95 

Touchet 95 

Upper Yakima 95 

Naches 95 

Toppenish 95 

Satus 95 

 

32 Adult steelhead detected at Bonneville Dam constitute the starting population for making survival rate 

estimates based on PIT tags. Consequently, no estimates of survival from the Bonneville tailrace to the 

detectors in the ladder are included in these estimates. However, based on the high inter-dam survival rates, 

this impact is likely small, except for winter-run populations, which may be substantially impacted by marine 

mammal predation in the Bonneville tailrace. 33 It should be noted, however, that there are uncertainties in PIT-tag data for Upper Columbia steelhead 

compared to Snake River steelhead for the most recent two years, and it is not yet known how to interpret 

those data or how they apply to Middle Columbia steelhead adult survival estimates. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6.3.2.2 Water Temperature and Thermal Refuges 

Optimal water temperatures for steelhead and salmon vary with life stage, but in general the 

optimal range is 11-15 °C (52-59 °F) and temperatures above 25 °C (77 °F) can be lethal. 

Alterations in water temperature affect the metabolism, growth rate, and disease resistance of 

salmonids, as well as the timing of adult migrations, fry emergence, and smoltification. As a 

result of the operation of the 14 FCRPS dams, in some areas and seasons the Columbia River 

is colder, and in others warmer, than before the dams (SCA Ch.5, NMFS 2008a). Since 1938, 

summer water temperatures at Bonneville Dam have increased 4 degrees on average (Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2004). Among-year variability in temperature has been 

reduced by 63 percent since 1970 (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2004). 

Temperatures in the estuary exceed 20° C earlier in the year and more frequently than they 

did historically (National Research Council 2004). Coincident with and possibly due to 

climate change, average annual Columbia Basin air temperatures have increased by about 1 

degree C over the past century and water temperatures in the mainstem Snake and Columbia 

rivers have been affected similarly (ISAB 2007). On the other hand, at some times of year 

temperatures in the lower Snake River may be lower than before, due to the release of colder 

water from the four lower Snake dams. This latter change has complex consequences; postimpoundment water temperatures may stay cooler longer into the spring and warmer later 

into the fall (called “thermal inertia”), and this in turn may affect adult migration, spawn 

timing, and juvenile emergence, rearing, and outmigration timing (SCA, NMFS 2008a). 

When water temperatures are high, the fish may take refuge in cooler areas at the mouths of 

tributaries, and therefore delay migration and spawning or stray into the cooler rivers. It is 

possible that the Snake River hatchery steelhead that spawn in the Deschutes and John Day 

rivers are initially attracted to the thermal refuges at the mouths of these rivers. 

6.3.2.3 Changes in Mainstem Columbia Nearshore Habitat 

The mainstem nearshore environment has been changed by ports, population centers, railroad 

tracks, and highways, where riprap and docks have replaced riparian vegetation. Adverse 

effects include various contaminants, water temperature changes, loss of habitat complexity 

and associated rearing and refuge areas, loss of food resources, and stranding of juveniles. 

Relatively little information is available; more research is needed. 

6.3.3 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries

Water management for agricultural irrigation alters seasonal flow patterns with serious 

consequences for steelhead rearing and both juvenile and adult migration in the Umatilla, 

Willow Creek, John Day, Deschutes, and especially the Yakima and Walla Walla basins. 

Dams, culverts, seasonal pushup dams, and unscreened diversions can directly prevent 

migration; seasonal areas of high water temperature, low flow, or dewatering can also 

function as barriers. In some tributary systems, local hydro-development blocks fish passage 

and results in flow modifications that affect water quality, habitat conditions, and predation 

rates. The Pelton-Round Butte Dam Complex on the Deschutes River blocks fish passage to 

upstream habitat on the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius rivers and smaller tributaries. 

Condit Dam blocks steelhead access to historical habitat on the White Salmon River. Five 

storage dams – Cle Elum, Kachess, Keechelus, Bumping Lake, and Tieton – block historical 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

habitat in the Yakima River basin. Bennington Dam, east of the City of Walla Walla on Mill 

Creek, a tributary of the Walla Walla River, was without fish passage until the 1980s. 

Subsequent improvements provide only partial passage, and Bennington Dam remains a 

significant passage obstruction that affects Walla Walla River steelhead. Numerous smaller 

barriers block or impair access to smaller tributaries throughout the basin. 

In some tributary systems, local hydro-development also blocks fish passage (Pelton Dam on 

the Deschutes and Condit dam on the White Salmon) and results in flow modifications that 

affect water quality, habitat conditions, and predation rates (Pelton Dam on the Deschutes 

and Roza and Chandler Power Plants in the Yakima River system). Water management for 

agricultural irrigation alters seasonal flow patterns with serious consequences for steelhead 

rearing and both juvenile and adult migration in the Umatilla, Willow Creek, John Day, 

Deschutes, and especially the Yakima and Walla Walla basins. 

6.3.4 Hatchery-Related Adverse Effects 

Hatchery fish that stray into Middle Columbia tributaries and spawn naturally may represent 

a serious threat to steelhead recovery. More than 100 hatchery programs operate in the 

Columbia Basin above Bonneville Dam, mostly for the purpose of providing fish for harvest 

to mitigate losses caused by the FCRPS. Some hatchery programs may provide conservation 

benefits; however, hatchery programs also pose threats to natural-origin steelhead in some 

Middle Columbia watersheds. Hatchery-induced genetic change can reduce the fitness of 

both hatchery and natural-origin fish in the wild, and hatchery-induced ecological effects 

(competition for food and space) can reduce population productivity and abundance. 

In particular, hatchery programs designed to return summer steelhead to upstream Columbia 

River tributaries result in substantial numbers of stray hatchery steelhead spawning naturally 

among several Middle Columbia populations. Concern exists regarding the continuing 

detrimental impact of these stray out-of-DPS hatchery fish in natural spawning areas on the 

genetic diversity and productivity of naturally produced Middle Columbia River steelhead 

populations. A large body of data indicates that steelhead of non-local origin can decrease the 

productivity and genetic diversity of natural populations (Fleming & Peterson 2001; 

McGinnity et al. 2003; Berejikian & Ford 2004, Myers et al. 2004). A recent study suggests 

that any interbreeding of hatchery-origin and naturally produced fish can pose risks to 

species fitness (Araki et al. 2007). The study suggested that use of natural-origin steelhead in 

a supplementation-type program is a possible strategy for increasing wild adults after one 

generation, but cautioned that long-term effects of supplementation are at present unknown 

and therefore a cause for concern in terms of potential impacts on fitness (Araki et al 2007). 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies hatchery practices and the effects of 

spawning stray hatchery fish as a key limiting factor and threat to the viability of the 

Deschutes River Eastside, Deschutes Westside, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla 

populations. Out-of-DPS hatchery-origin spawners are estimated at 29 percent for Deschutes 

Eastside, 15.2 percent for Deschutes Westside, from 10 to 18 percent for Lower Mainstem 

John Day, and 5 percent for the Umatilla population (source: draft ICTRT Current Status 

Summary, Cooney 2008). 

The Hatchery Scientific Review Group completed a review of hatchery programs in the MidColumbia steelhead DPS and released its recommendations in January 2009 (HSRG 2009). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan evaluates the hatchery strategies for each Oregon 

population to determine consistency with the HSRG recommendations. 

Section 8.6 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan summarizes the specific hatchery 

programs and potential hatchery-related limiting factors for each of these populations. 

Within the Oregon portion of the Middle Columbia DPS, both the Round Butte hatchery 

program on the Deschutes River and the Umatilla hatchery program on the Umatilla River 

use endemic summer steelhead for broodstock. Out-of-basin hatchery smolts are released 

into the Walla Walla River as part of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife operates the Lyons Ferry Hatchery, which is 

the only summer steelhead hatchery program in the Walla Walla basin. This hatchery 

program is being modified over time to reduce the impacts of non-endemic hatchery smolts 

released into the lower Walla Walla River with the goal of reducing genetic risks to the 

endemic steelhead population. 

The John Day River steelhead populations are currently managed as wild populations and no 

hatchery production or supplementation occurs within the John Day River watershed. 

However, out-of-basin hatchery steelhead strays pose a primary threat to John Day steelhead 

populations. Hatchery steelhead coded-wire tag recoveries in the John Day subbasin from 

1986 to 2003 identify 18 separate hatcheries as the sources of strays (Section 8.6.4 of the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). 

Releases of non-native Skamania stock hatchery fish in the Klickitat River may affect the 

Klickitat population. More data are needed to determine the effects of these hatchery fish on 

the productivity of the Klickitat population. 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan notes that the number of out-of-basin hatchery-origin 

steelhead observed in the Deschutes River increased as mitigation programs developed in 

Columbia River watersheds (Section 8.6.3). A majority of these fish were produced in the 

Snake River Basin and at the Wallowa Hatchery. Both are funded under the Lower Snake 

River Compensation Plan. 

More data are needed concerning the effect of all the combined hatchery releases on food 

supply and predation rates in the estuary (discussed further in Estuary Module). Pacific 

salmon at all abundance levels and at all life stages are subject to density dependent 

processes. Many factors influence these processes, including changes in habitat quality and 

quantity, prey base, the abundance and distribution of predators, natural fluctuations in 

environmental conditions (e.g., summer stream flows and ocean productivity), and 

interactions among species and between natural and hatchery fish that depend on the same 

natural environments. The question is how and to what extent hatchery-origin fish, in 

combination with these and other factors, affect density dependent processes and the growth 

and survival of natural-origin fish. There is increasing evidence of density dependent effects 

on salmon and steelhead growth and survival, but the underlying factor or factors remain 

poorly understood. Evaluating the factors that influence or drive density dependent effects 

under different freshwater (e.g., hydrosystem), estuarine, and ocean conditions is an 

important area of future research. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6.3.5 Predation/Competition/Disease 

Anthropogenic changes in the Columbia River have altered the relationships between 

salmonids and other fish, bird, and pinniped species. 

6.3.5.1 Pinnipeds 

During the spring salmonid migration season, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and 

harbor seals prey on salmon and steelhead in the Lower Columbia River as far upstream as 

the Bonneville Dam. California sea lions arrive in the greatest numbers (ranging from 31 to 

111, 2002 to 2007, and averaging 82 individuals observed per year, compared to numbers in 

the single digits for Steller sea lions and harbor seals) (NMFS 2008d). They consume an 

estimated minimum of 1,000 to 4,000 (in-migrating adult) salmonids per year (ibid.). 

California sea lions and harbor seals are not ESA-listed, not considered depleted under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), have increased in recent years and are considered 

to have stable populations that have reached carrying capacity for present ocean and breeding 

site conditions (Carretta et al. 2007, cited in NMFS 2008d). The Eastern United States stock 

of Steller sea lions (in this case, eastern refers to the eastern side of the Pacific Rim) is listed 

as threatened under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA. However, this population is 

stable or increasing throughout much of its range (ibid.). 

The abundance of native pinnipeds has steadily increased since passage of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act in 1972. The sea lions are estimated, based on visual observations 

and steelhead counts at Bonneville Dam, to consume 7.8 percent of winter-run steelhead 

(source: Marine Mammal Appendix, 2008 FCRPS BiOp). However, because of the 

difficulties of observing predation at the dam, comparisons of radio-telemetry data indicate 

that the consumption rate of spring Chinook salmon is likely 2.8 times higher (8.5 percent by 

radiotelemetry versus 3.0 by observation) than estimated using observational data alone. 

Applying this correction factor to winter-run steelhead would yield an estimate of 21.8 

percent. Based on the relatively low numbers of steelhead passing Bonneville Dam during 

the winter months (0 to 140 individuals per day – Columbia River DART adult passage data 

for 2005 to 2008), even a small number of sea lions would be capable of consuming 

approximately 20 percent of the migrating winter steelhead (source: NMFS 2008a, 

Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, Marine Mammal Appendix). This may represent a 

significant impact on the winter-run steelhead in the Middle Columbia DPS (primarily 

Fifteenmile Creek and Klickitat populations). Because of their migration timing, the summerrun steelhead populations that make up the bulk of the DPS are not likely substantially 

affected by pinniped predation. 

6.3.5.2 Birds 

Estuary habitat modifications have increased the number and/or predation effectiveness of 

Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and a variety of gull species. Juvenile steelhead, 

including Middle Columbia steelhead, are most vulnerable to predation by Caspian terns 

because they migrate at relatively shallow depths in deep water habitat channels that have 

relatively low turbidity and are close to island tern habitats (NMFS 2007; NMFS 2008a; 

Collis et al. 2007; Roby et al. 2008). They also tend to be larger than juveniles of other 

salmonid species. Caspian terns began nesting on East Sand Island in the Columbia estuary 

(RM 5) in 1984 and on Rice Island (RM 21) in 1986. The islands were formed by U.S. Army 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Corps of Engineers’ disposal of dredged material. On September 15, 1999, NMFS required 

the Corps to modify habitat on Rice Island to eliminate nesting habitat for Caspian terns. 

Since 2001, no Caspian terns have nested on Rice Island, resulting in reduced predation of 

juvenile salmonids from 11.7 million fish in 1999 to 6.5 million fish in 2002. Although total 

consumption of juvenile salmonids by terns was reduced considerably, a 2007 study found 

that predation rates on steelhead were 2-12 times higher than those for other salmonid species 

and run types (Roby et al. 2008). Based on smolt PIT tag recoveries on the East Sand Island 

Caspian tern colony, predation rates on steelhead smolts were particularly high during 2007, 

at about 12.5 percent for in-river migrant smolts and 7.7 percent for transported smolts. 

Avian predation is also significant farther inland in the Middle Columbia region. Avian 

predator colonies on islands in the Columbia River include Caspian terns, double-crested 

cormorants, ring-billed and California gulls, and American white pelicans. The most 

significant populations of avian predators occur on Crescent Island (Caspian terns) and 

Foundation Island (cormorants), which are located in the Columbia near the mouth of the 

Snake River. In 2000 and 2001, bioenergetics modeling was used to estimate the smolt 

consumption rate of the Crescent Island tern colony at 465,000 and 679,000 smolts, 

respectively (Antolos et al. 2005). Approximately 25 percent of this consumption consisted 

of steelhead, including steelhead from the Yakima basin. 

In 2005, an estimated 1 percent (22) of PIT tags from outmigrating Yakima River steelhead 

were subsequently recovered on the Crescent Island Caspian tern colony. In 2004, the figure 

was 2 percent (A. Evans, Real Time Research Inc., personal comm. 2006, as cited in the 

Yakima Recovery Plan). In 2005 only 0.1 percent (3 PIT tags) of PIT-tagged Yakima River 

steelhead were recovered on the Badger Island pelican colony (located just downstream from 

the mouth of the Yakima with more than 1057 adult birds present). PIT tag recoveries from 

the Foundation Island colony of double-crested cormorants, situated 8 km upstream of 

Crescent and Badger islands, indicated an overall steelhead predation rate about one-fifth as 

great as for the tern colony, though this is changing as tern numbers drop and cormorant 

numbers increase (Collis and Roby 2006). These rates do not account for ingested PIT tags 

deposited off the colonies, or for mortality (at least 50 percent for Yakima steelhead) of 

tagged fish between release sites and the Yakima River’s mouth (Yakima Recovery Plan). 

6.3.5.3 Piscivorous Fish 

The dams on the Columbia River alter habitat conditions in several ways that are favorable to 

both native and nonnative fish species that prey on juvenile salmonids (NMFS 2008a). A 

recent report from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, an appointed group of 

scientists advisory to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin 

Indian Tribes, and NMFS, summarizes these effects and concludes that predation by 

nonnative species is as significant as habitat loss and degradation in imperiling native 

freshwater species (ISAB 2008). The primary resident fish predators are northern 

pikeminnow (native), smallmouth bass (introduced), and walleye (introduced) (NMFS 

2008a). Other predatory resident fish are channel catfish (introduced), Pacific lamprey 

(native), yellow perch (introduced), largemouth bass (introduced), and bull trout (native). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 14 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Impacts of the northern pikeminnow are concentrated in the lower Columbia River from The 

Dalles reservoir downstream, where the estimated predation loss is 8 percent of the 

approximately 200 million hatchery and wild juvenile salmonid migrants in the system 

(NMFS 2008a). The highest densities of smallmouth bass in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 

occur in the Lower Granite forebay, tailrace, and reservoir, followed by the John Day 

Reservoir (NMFS 2000a). Throughout the John Day Reservoir study area, smallmouth bass 

consumed far fewer juvenile salmonids than did northern pikeminnow (Zimmerman 1999). 

Walleye are also most abundant in the tailraces of the dams (NMFS 2008a). In the 1983-1986 

John Day Reservoir study that forms the basis for the current predator management program, 

Rieman et al. (1991) found that walleye consumed 13 percent of the estimated annual 2.7 

million juvenile salmonids consumed by predatory fish. Northern pikeminnow accounted for 

78 percent and smallmouth bass took 9 percent (cited in NMFS 2008a). 

6.3.5.4 Competition 

Changes in habitat and high numbers of hatchery fish releases can also affect competitive 

relationships, resulting in increased competition between steelhead and other species for food 

and habitat (NMFS 2008a; ISAB 2008). Competition is often discussed in terms of density 

dependence. Density dependence refers to changes in the size of a population that are 

themselves a result of the size of the population, such as when a population declines because 

it has exceeded the amount of resources available to support it (NMFS 2007). Density 

dependent mortality can occur through several mechanisms, such as direct competition for 

limited food and habitat and changes in the foraging activity of predators. 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 period of time. 

How much density dependent mortality is taking place in the estuary compared to the ocean 

is unclear. There is some evidence that density dependent mortality is occurring in the open 

ocean. For example, during years when salmon are especially numerous in the ocean, their 

growth rates are reduced (Peterman 1984). However, another study found no connection 

between ocean conditions and density dependent mortality, which appeared to be occurring 

among wild Snake River Chinook as hatchery steelhead were released (Levin and Williams 

2002). The authors suggested that the apparent density dependent mortality could be better 

explained by interactions in the tributaries or estuary than by interactions in the ocean. 

There is growing awareness among scientists studying the Columbia River estuary that 

mechanisms related to density dependence may limit salmon and steelhead while they are 

using estuary and plume habitats. Scientists studying Skagit River fall Chinook have 

documented density dependence-related mortality as a result of loss of habitat in the Skagit 

estuary and believe that such mortality can be attributed to a 75 percent loss of tidal delta 

estuarine habitat (Beamer et al. 2005). With similar habitat losses in the Columbia River 

estuary, it is possible that too many fish are competing for limited habitat and associated 

resources in the estuary at key times, and that the resulting stressors translate into reduced 

salmonid survival. The NOAA/NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center currently is 

investigating potential density dependent mortality in the estuary. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 15 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6.3.5.5 Disease 

Steelhead can be infected by a variety of bacterial, viral, fungal, and microparasitic 

pathogens. Numerous diseases may result from pathogens that occur naturally in the wild or 

that may be transmitted to wild fish via infected hatchery fish. Very little current or historical 

information exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable to 

these diseases for steelhead. However, studies have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to 

be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et 

al., 1992). Native salmon populations have co-evolved with specific communities of these 

organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has introduced exotic organisms 

not historically present in a particular watershed. Habitat conditions such as low water flows 

and high temperatures can exacerbate susceptibility to infectious diseases. Fish weakened by 

disease are more sensitive to other environmental stresses, and may become more vulnerable 

to predation or less able to compete with other species. Aggressive hatchery reforms 

implemented in some areas have reduced the magnitude and distribution of hatchery fish 

releases, and consequently the interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish and the 

potential transmission of infectious diseases. Additionally, regulations controlling hatchery 

effluent discharges into streams have reduced the potential of pathogens being released into 

steelhead habitats. There is little or no information on specific impacts or trends in disease 

among Middle Columbia steelhead. 

6.3.6 Degradation of Estuarine and Nearshore Marine Habitat

The estuary serves an important role beyond simply providing a corridor that Interior 

Columbia populations use to migrate between freshwater and the ocean. The estuary is part 

of the continuum of ecosystems that salmon and steelhead use to complete their life cycles. A 

variety of anthropogenic factors and natural changes to the estuary have affected all VSP 

parameters, particularly alterations in flows, loss of emergent marsh, tidal swamp, and 

forested wetlands, shifts in organic matter important to estuarine food webs, and changes in 

the plume. Changes in the plume may have a greater effect than changes in shallow-water 

habitat on salmonids with yearling life history strategies such as the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS. Exposure to waterborne and sediment-associated chemical contaminants such 

as pesticides and dissolved metals can also affect productivity of salmon and steelhead. 

Finally, predation in the estuary is a major source of mortality on both adults and juveniles of 

all listed populations. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007). 

6.3.7 Harvest

Fisheries that harvest salmon and steelhead of the Columbia River are established within the 

guidelines and constraints of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, the states of Oregon and Washington, the ESA administered by NMFS, and 

management agreements negotiated between the parties to U.S. v. Oregon. Fisheries 

management through these various organizations has resulted in the decline of total 

exploitation rates for Columbia River salmon and steelhead, especially since the 1970s. 

Because of these changes, the ICTRT currently considers harvest a secondary limiting factor 

for Oregon Middle Columbia steelhead populations. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 16 

DPS Recovery Plan 

6.3.7.1 Ocean Fisheries 

It is assumed that steelhead are rarely caught in ocean fisheries because they tend to be 

distributed offshore of major fishing areas and are therefore not readily available. According 

to Rich (1942), Columbia River steelhead were historically taken along with Chinook and 

coho in ocean fisheries off the mouth of the Columbia River, but accounted for less than 0.1 

percent of the catch and numbered only in the few hundreds of fish. Current ocean fisheries 

generally target Chinook and coho salmon, and interception of steelhead is believed to be 

rare. If caught, steelhead must be released. Creel surveys on recreational ocean fisheries 

recorded less than 100 steelhead (of any DPS) caught each year from 2003 to 2005. Of these, 

less than 10 were estimated to be released wild fish mortalities. Ocean fishing mortality on 

Middle Columbia River steelhead is assumed to be zero. 

6.3.7.2 Mainstem Columbia Fisheries 

Harvest rates on the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS in the past, e.g. prior to 1975, were 

estimated at 65 percent in fisheries occurring in the Columbia River. Current rates are much 

lower. There has been no direct freshwater non-tribal harvest on wild steelhead from the 

Middle Columbia DPS since 1992, when the last wild fish catch and release regulations on 

these populations became effective. Therefore, all current non-tribal harvest impacts on 

Middle Columbia DPS steelhead are due to incidental bycatch in commercial or recreational 

fisheries that target hatchery steelhead or other species. Monitoring these impacts is complex. 

Information assessing catch and release mortality of adult steelhead is limited. However, 

available information suggests that hook-and-release mortality is low. Hooton (1987) found 

catch and release mortality of adults in winter steelhead fisheries to be, on average, less than 

5 percent when barbed and barbless hooks, bait and artificial lures were used; Hooton (1987) 

concluded that catch and release of adult steelhead was an effective mechanism for 

maintaining angling opportunity without negatively impacting stock recruitment. Reingold 

(1975) showed that adult steelhead hooked, played to exhaustion, and then released returned 

to their target spawning stream as well as steelhead not hooked and played to exhaustion. 

Similarly, Nelson et al. (2005) observed that the catch and release mortality for radio-tagged 

wild winter steelhead was 2.5 percent and that tagged steelhead survived to spawning even 

after being caught and released up to three times. Mongillo (1984) and Rawding (2000) 

reported a strong correlation between water temperature and catch and release mortality, with 

water temperatures below 50F (10C) providing optimal survival, while temperatures above 

60F (15.5C) increase the mortality rate. Recreational fisheries are monitored by creel 

surveys. (Fisheries technicians interview anglers about their catch, gear, and wild steelhead 

releases.) 

Tribal treaty fisheries are managed through the U.S. v. Oregon process. U.S. v. Oregon is the 

result of the Federal government intervening in Federal court to protect tribal treaty reserved 

fishing rights in the Columbia Basin. A 10-year agreement (through 2017) is now in place to 

govern mainstem Columbia River fishing (NMFS 2008a). Harvest impact is limited to ESA 

incidental mortality limits set by NMFS. Within these ESA limits, the states and tribes 

negotiate how harvest will be allocated, with the objective being to balance the catch 

between them. All of the fisheries are abundance-based, with higher harvest rates allowed as 

ESA-listed adult returns increase. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 17 

DPS Recovery Plan 

There is a standing technical committee, the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee), to help 

monitor the fisheries. The TAC, using models, develops pre-season estimates of adult 

returns, updates these estimates in-season based on dam counts, and monitors the fisheries in 

season. The fisheries (both state and tribal) are adjusted based on the in-season run forecasts 

to stay within the ESA impact limits. Most of the time the fisheries take less than the ESA 

impact limit. The states provide real time updates of the fisheries, accessible to the public via 

the Internet, during periods of fishing. There is usually a post-season review of the fishery. 

In summary, NMFS sets ESA limits; the states and tribes negotiate how the harvest will be 

allocated, with the objective being to balance the catch between them. 

Three stocks of summer steelhead are used for management of treaty and non-treaty 

mainstem fisheries: lower river Skamania stock, upriver A-run stock, and upriver B-run 

stock. All Middle Columbia steelhead populations are designated A-run, with two 

populations being winter-run. In NOAA Biological Opinion for the 2008-2017 U.S. v. 

Oregon Fisheries Agreement (NMFS 2008b), the wild Middle Columbia steelhead DPS in 

the non-treaty winter, spring, and summer mainstem fisheries are subject to a 2 percent 

harvest rate limit (NMFS 2008b). Non-treaty fall fisheries are also limited to a 2 percent 

harvest rate for A-run summer steelhead. The total annual harvest rate limit for A-run 

steelhead in non-treaty fisheries is 4 percent and 2 percent for the summer-run and winter-run 

of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS respectively. The expected actual harvest impacts 

from non-treaty fisheries are less than the limits proposed in the U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries 

Agreement. The yearly incidental catch of A-run steelhead in non-treaty fisheries has 

averaged 1.6 percent since 1999, and is not expected to change over the course of the 

Agreement (NMFS 2008b). 

Tribal fishers in Zone 6 of the Columbia mainstem (between Bonneville Dam and McNary 

Dam) continue to retain wild steelhead for commercial sale or for personal use. The U.S. v. 

Oregon Fisheries Agreement does not establish specific harvest rate limits for treaty Indian 

fisheries on steelhead during the spring or summer seasons, which extend through July 31. 

Reported steelhead catch in Zone 6 winter and spring fisheries for 2003 to 2005 ranged from 

0.7 percent to 7.9 percent of the winter steelhead run over Bonneville Dam. In 2004, reported 

and estimated non-reported steelhead catch together amounted to 4.8 percent of the run at 

Bonneville, with an unknown error around these numbers (Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan, 

p. 8-98). 

Impacts on Middle Columbia steelhead from Treaty Indian fall fisheries are limited by 

harvest rate limits for B-run steelhead and Upper Columbia River bright fall Chinook (NMFS 

2008b). The harvest rate on Middle Columbia summer-run steelhead in spring, summer, and 

fall Zone 6 Treaty Indian fisheries combined averaged 11.7 percent since 1985 and 6.64 

percent since 1998 (Table 8.8.5.5-1; NMFS 2008b). The impacts resulting from the Treaty 

Indian fisheries are expected to be similar to the 1998-2006 average of 6.64 percent. The 

harvest rate is less for populations that pass fewer dams in Zone 6 and are therefore subject to 

fewer non-Indian and treaty Indian fisheries (e.g. Klickitat steelhead pass only one dam and 

would experience a harvest rate less than 6.64 percent). Mainstem harvest rates are estimated 

to be less than 8.54 percent for natural Middle Columbia steelhead (NMFS 2008b). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 18 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Oregon and Washington have proposed regulations for tributary recreational fisheries in 

Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) submitted to NMFS for approval 

under the limit 4 of the 4(d) rule. All recreational steelhead fisheries are restricted to adipose 

fin-clipped hatchery steelhead only. WDFW estimates that in 2002 fisheries, the impacts on 

Middle Columbia steelhead from all fisheries were 7.5 percent for the Treaty Columbia River 

mainstem and tributary fisheries, less than 4.0 percent for the non-treaty Columbia River 

mainstem fisheries, and 0.3 percent in Washington tributaries, for a total impact of less than 

12 percent (WDFW 2008). 

ODFW performed a number of Population Viability Assessment model runs for 27 steelhead 

populations to assess the impact of fisheries mortality on the status and recovery of steelhead 

in Oregon (Chilcote 2001). The model looked at a range of fisheries mortalities from 0 

percent to 75 percent. The results were stated in terms of the probability of the population 

becoming extinct in 50 years at each fisheries mortality rate. For most populations the 

modeling suggested that the probability of extinction was essentially zero as long as fisheries 

mortality rates remained less than 30 percent. As mortality rates became greater than 40 

percent, the probability of extinction increased dramatically. Furthermore, once the 

probability of extinction increased beyond 0.05, the transition to an extinction probability of 

1.00 was very rapid. In other words, once mortality rates increase sufficiently to cause the 

probability of extinction to exceed 0.05, any additional mortality would cause a rapid 

increase in the likelihood of extinction. Because the transition from low to high risk happens 

so rapidly, there is little room for error (in the model or the measurements of mortality rates). 

To address this concern, fisheries co-managers will manage steelhead fisheries not to exceed 

a maximum fisheries mortality limit to 20 percent. This conservative approach was used to 

provide a buffer for errors, even though the model results suggested that management under a 

40 percent limit was unlikely to cause extinction. 

6.3.8 Climate Change

The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and NMFS reviewed the 

potential effects of climate change on salmonids in the Columbia River basin (ISAB 2007). 

As described in that report, changes in climate in the Pacific Northwest have affected both 

habitats and species, and those effects are expected to continue in the future. 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. While projected precipitation changes are predicted to be indistinguishable from 

natural variability until late in the 21st century, most models project long-term increases in 

winter precipitation and decreases in summer precipitation. 

The ISAB report shows that changes in climate may adversely affect steelhead in freshwater 

habitats across the DPS by exacerbating existing problems with water quantity (lower 

summer stream flows) and water quality (higher summer water temperatures). Consistently 

identified types of impacts on snow pack, stream flow, and water quality in the Columbia 

Basin are the following (ISAB 2007): 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 19 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Warmer temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as rain rather than 

snow. 

 Snow pack will diminish, and the timing of stream flows will be altered. 

 Peak river flows will likely increase. 

 Water temperatures will continue to rise. 

These changes in air temperatures and river flows will cause changes to the physical and 

chemical habitat in the mainstem river and tributary streams, which will elicit a response in 

the biological communities living in those habitats. These changes will affect all salmonid 

life stages, and range from changes in run timing or movement because of warmer water 

temperatures, to changes in species composition with a shift toward species more tolerant of 

warmer water temperatures. ISAB (2007) predicts changes in interspecies interactions and 

increased physiological stressors on fish. These changes may affect steelhead more than 

other salmonids because of their long rearing period in freshwater. More detailed information 

on specific effects that climate change may have on Mid-Columbia steelhead at all their life 

stages is available in Section 8.8 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (ODFW 2009). 

Changing conditions could also affect salmonid health and survival in the ocean through a 

variety of mechanisms, including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification of 

some waters, changes in the upwelling season, shifts in the distribution of salmonids, longterm variability in winds and ocean temperatures, increased acidity, and increased 

atmospheric and oceanic variability (NMFS 2007, 2008a; ISAB 2007). 

All other threats and conditions remaining equal, future deterioration of water quality, water 

quantity, and/or physical habitat can be expected to cause a reduction in the number of 

naturally produced adult steelhead returning to these populations across the DPS. This 

possibility further reinforces the importance of achieving survival improvements throughout 

the entire steelhead life cycle. Recent research also indicates that neighboring populations 

with differences in habitat may show different responses to climate changes (Crozier and 

Zabel 2006; Crozier et al. 2008). This research reinforces the importance of maintaining 

habitat diversity. Ongoing efforts to develop models of future climate effects should be 

considered in adaptive management. 

 

6.4 MPG Limiting Factors 

The MPG-level summaries of limiting factors are based on population-level summaries 

compiled from the relevant management unit plans. 

6.4.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The following are major limiting factors for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG: 

Tributary habitat. Degraded tributary habitat is a limiting factor to a greater or lesser degree 

throughout the area, including degraded riparian areas, reduced LWD recruitment, altered 

sediment routing, low or altered stream flows, degraded water quality (especially high water 

temperatures), impaired floodplain connectivity/function, altered channel 

structure/complexity, and impaired fish passage. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 20 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Mainstem passage. Mainstem Columbia River hydro system effects are least for the 

Fifteenmile Creek and Klickitat River populations, which pass only one mainstem dam. The 

Deschutes River populations pass two mainstem dams, and the Rock Creek population passes 

three. 

Hatchery related effects. Influence from hatchery fish could be a significant factor for this 

MPG because of out-of-subbasin straying onto natural spawning grounds in the Deschutes 

River and also because of potential effects of hatchery releases on naturally produced 

steelhead in the Klickitat River. The Oregon Mid-C Expert Panel considered out-of-subbasin 

(and out-of-DPS) hatchery strays a primary threat to genetic traits and productivity of 

naturally produced Deschutes river steelhead populations. Out-of-DPS hatchery strays 

comprised an average of 29 percent of the Eastside population and 15.2 percent of the 

Westside population over the past three generations. This high fraction resulted in moderate 

risk ratings for spawner composition for both populations. 

Blocked migration to historically accessible habitat. Historically, summer steelhead had free 

access to most of the Deschutes watershed, including the Crooked River, Metolius River, 

Deschutes River upstream to Big Falls, and Whychus Creek. Summer steelhead were 

historically present throughout much of the Crooked River basin, with the exception of the 

North Fork Crooked River above Upper and Lower Falls. Steelhead were still present in the 

Crooked River until the mid to late 1950s, and were occasionally caught by anglers. Now the 

Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project (Project), constructed at river mile (RM) 100 on 

the mainstem Deschutes River, creates the primary barrier to anadromous fish attempting to 

reach spawning and rearing areas in the upper basin. The project was completed in 1964 with 

upstream and downstream fish passage facilities. However, by 1966 it appeared that 

downstream passage through Lake Billy Chinook, the reservoir behind Round Butte Dam, 

could not be maintained because of poor guidance of out-migrating smolts. The last fish were 

passed in 1968. Currently, plans are underway to reinitiate fish passage facilities at the 

Pelton-Round Butte complex and reintroduce steelhead to the upper basin (details in Section 

9.4.2 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The second large barrier to upstream fish 

migration into the Crooked River is Opal Springs Dam at RM 7. Agencies and stakeholders 

are working together to address fish passage issues (see Section 8.2.4 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan). 

Historically, summer and winter steelhead spawned in the White Salmon subbasin. Condit 

Dam, constructed in 1913 on the mainstem White Salmon River, blocks all anadromous fish 

migration to historical habitats in the upper subbasin. Condit Dam is scheduled to be 

removed in 2010. 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem and 

estuary affect all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations (see Section 6.3.5). In 

addition, the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan hypothesizes that the abundance of the 

Deschutes River Westside population may be limited by competition with a large resident 

population of rainbow trout. 

6.4.2 John Day River MPG 

The following are major limiting factors for the John Day River MPG: 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 21 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Mainstem passage. These populations must pass three dams; thus, limiting factors include 

direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams; 

delayed upstream migration of returning adults; false attraction of returning adults over 

McNary Dam; and cumulative impact of hydropower system on mainstem and estuary 

habitat (see Hydro Module, NMFS 2008c). 

Hatchery related effects. Out-of-DPS hatchery fish straying into natural spawning areas (10 

to 18 percent in the Lower Mainstem John Day) pose risks to genetic traits and productivity 

of naturally produced steelhead. Concern over competition for resources with wild fish and 

potential hybridization with natural-origin fish resulted in termination of all hatchery 

stocking of O. mykiss in the John Day River basin in 1997. Most hatchery stray recoveries 

occur in the Lower Mainstem John Day below the North Fork; however, strays have been 

observed in all populations. 

Tributary habitat. For all five John Day populations, degraded floodplain and degraded 

channel structure (key habitat quantity and habitat diversity), altered sediment routing, water 

quality (temperature), and altered hydrology are limiting factors. For the Lower and Upper 

Mainstem and South Fork populations, passage obstructions in some of the smaller 

tributaries are also significant. 

 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem and 

estuary affect all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations.

6.4.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

The following are the major limiting factors for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG: 

Mainstem passage. The Walla Walla and Touchet populations must pass four major dams; 

the Umatilla population must pass three. 

Tributary habitat. For all three populations, water quality (temperature), sediment, blocked 

and impaired fish passage, degraded floodplain and channel structure (key habitat quantity 

and habitat diversity) and hydrologic alterations are limiting factors. 

On the lower Umatilla River, six major irrigation diversions withdraw enough water to 

dewater the river in mid-summer. McKay Dam blocks fish passage to 108 miles of 

historically accessible habitat. Bennington Dam, east of the City of Walla Walla on Mill 

Creek, a tributary of the Walla Walla River, is a significant passage obstruction. The Mill 

Creek flood control channel through Walla Walla is also a significant passage obstruction. 

Hatchery related effects. The hatchery program on the Umatilla River uses endemic (native) 

stock and is not currently considered a threat to wild steelhead; however, out-of-DPS strays 

pose a risk to spawner composition. The hatchery program on the Walla Walla and Touchet 

rivers uses non-endemic stock, but an endemic stock program is under development. Nonendemic-origin hatchery fish from mitigation releases into the lower Walla Walla River have 

been straying into upper river natural production areas at relatively low levels. Recent smolt 

releases in the program have been reduced. Future levels of straying are uncertain, and 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 6 - 22 

DPS Recovery Plan 

additional actions may be necessary. Currently, data are insufficient to determine whether 

hatchery effects are a problem for wild steelhead in the Touchet River. 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, and disease issues in mainstem and 

estuary affect all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations.

6.4.4 Yakima River MPG 

The following are the primary limiting factors for the Yakima MPG: 

Mainstem passage. As the farthest upstream populations in the DPS, the Yakima populations 

must pass four dams and undergo higher exposure to altered habitat and avian and piscine 

predators in the mainstem Columbia. 

Tributary habitat. Fish habitat in the Yakima subbasin is substantially influenced by the 

development of irrigation systems. Limiting factors include altered hydrology (low summer 

flow, scouring peak flows due to degraded watershed conditions, high summer delivery flows 

in mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers, reduced winter and spring flows due to irrigation 

storage, delivery, and withdrawals); degraded riparian area and LWD recruitment; impaired 

fish passage (dams, culverts, seasonal push-up dams, entrainment in unscreened diversions); 

altered sediment routing; degraded water quality; loss of historical habitat because of blocked 

or impaired fish passage; degraded floodplain connectivity and function (loss of off-channel 

habitat, side channels and connected hyporheic zone); degraded channel structure and 

complexity; reduced outmigrant survival in the mainstem Yakima. 

Hatchery related effects. The Yakima populations have the lowest rates of hatchery strays in 

the DPS, and hatchery effects are not considered a significant limiting factor. 

Predation/competition/disease. Of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations, the Yakima 

basin populations have the longest migration through the mainstem Columbia River. They 

may therefore be more vulnerable to some factors such as avian and piscivorous fish 

predation. For example, Yakima steelhead, but not the others, are consumed by Caspian tern 

and double-crested cormorants nesting on islands at the mouth of the Snake River. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7. RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The preceding chapters summarize recovery goals, biological criteria and threats criteria, 

current status assessment, the gap between current status and desired viability, and the major 

limiting factors and threats identified for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. This 

information helps us understand what recovery would look like, but how will we get there? 

NMFS’ overall goal for DPS viability, as formulated by the ICTRT and described in Chapter 

3 of this plan, is to have all four extant MPGs at viable (low risk) status, with representation 

of all the major life history strategies present historically, and with the abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure and diversity attributes required for long-term persistence. 

The ICTRT’s current status assessment for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS and the gaps 

analysis show that for this DPS, the outlook is optimistic. One population, North Fork John 

Day, is currently at very low risk or “highly viable.” Two populations are currently viable 

(Deschutes Eastside, Fifteenmile); eleven are at moderate risk, with good prospects for 

improving. However, the three large populations at high risk (Deschutes Westside, Naches, 

and Upper Yakima), are important to DPS viability; as a minimum, Deschutes Westside and 

one of the two large Yakima populations should also reach viable status, with the other large 

Yakima population at least reaching “maintained” status. These present significant, though 

not insuperable, challenges. 

If, as we believe, the decline of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is caused by 

widespread habitat degradation, impaired mainstem and tributary passage, hatchery effects, 

and predation/ competition/ disease, then actions taken to improve, change, mitigate, reduce 

those factors will result in reduced risks and increased survival. Because of the steelhead’s 

complex life cycle and the many changes that have taken place in its environment, the factors 

limiting its survival must be addressed in concert, and in an integrated way. The work needs 

to occur at a regional level, in terms of commitment to actions and funding, and at the local 

level, population by population and site by site. Significant investments of research, 

planning, regional coordination, actions, and political will are already underway. The intent 

for the DPS plan is to build upon, help to coordinate, and add to the ongoing efforts. 

NMFS' 2006 listing decision called upon Federal, state, and tribal entities to do their best to 

manage land, hydropower, hatchery, and harvest activities in a manner that would support 

steelhead recovery. This plan reaffirms those recommendations and adds to them the 

contributions of updated science, basinwide programs, and consensus building among 

stakeholders. While Federal, state, and tribal entities can make major contributions to the 

recovery of Middle Columbia steelhead, the actions of individuals on their land, as well as 

city and county codes and ordinances promoting conservation, are also essential. 

The recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS addresses both the basin-wide 

issues that affect all populations, such as conditions in the migratory corridor, and the 

subbasin and site-specific issues that are the focus of the management unit plans. The DPS 

Plan describes the overall strategy, summarizes the MPG-level strategies, and refers to 

Appendices A-G for more site-specific, population level actions. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.1 DPS Level Recovery Strategy 

The DPS-level recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead is made up of the 

following elements: 

 Affirm and address the 2006 listing decision recommendations regarding the limiting 

factors for the DPS and populations. 

 Protect and restore tributary habitat and Columbia River mainstem habitat, through 

strategies and actions at both the Basin/programmatic level and at the local level as 

detailed in the management unit plans. 

 Address impaired fish passage through strategies and actions in the mainstem 

Columbia River, as detailed in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (as summarized 

in the Hydro Module) and in the tributaries as detailed in the management unit plans. 

 Implement hatchery reforms at the population and site-specific level through 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) as required by the 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and as described in Appendix C of the Supplemental 

Comprehensive Analysis (NMFS 2008a). 

 Address ecosystem imbalances in predation, competition, and disease through the 

strategies and actions in the management unit plans, estuary module and FCRPS 

Biop. 

 Maintain current low harvest levels, through fishery management planning for 

mainstem fisheries through the U.S. v. Oregon 10-year agreement, updated Fisheries 

Management Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource Management Plans for tributary 

fisheries, and Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery Management Council 

processes. 

 Protect and restore the estuary and Columbia River plume as detailed in the Columbia 

River Estuary module. 

 Respond to climate change threats with a strategy based on the principle of preserving 

biodiversity. 

 Implement the Plan through effective coordination and governance. 

 Research critical uncertainties, monitor and evaluate implementation and 

effectiveness and adjust course as appropriate through adaptive management. 

NMFS believes that if this strategy is implemented and the biological response is as 

expected, the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is likely to achieve viable status within 25 to 

50 years. 

The following sections describe the recovery strategy elements in more detail. The chapter 

concludes with summaries of the MPG-level strategies. 

7.1.1 NMFS 2006 Listing Decision Recommendations 

In both NMFS’ 2004 proposed listing decision (69 FR 33165) and its 2006 final listing 

decision (71 FR 834), NMFS listed 11 “conservation measures and commitments that if 

implemented might substantially address key limiting factors, ensure viability over the long 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

term, and likely bring Middle Columbia River steelhead to the point where the protections of 

the ESA are no longer necessary," as follows: 

 (1) Continued funding by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) of DPS-wide riparian 

zone and instream habitat restoration efforts, consistent with its Fish and Wildlife 

Program’s portion of the subbasin and recovery plans being developed; 

(2) Adherence by the BLM to best management practices for grazing, mining, and 

recreational activities DPS-wide; 

(3) Adherence by the U.S. Forest Service to best management practices for grazing, forestry, 

and mining activities DPS-wide; 

(4) Continued conservative fisheries management by the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife within the range of this DPS, and development and implementation of a longterm approach that balances natural and hatchery production across the DPS; 

(5) Continued conservative fisheries management by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (particularly in the John Day River subbasin), development and implementation 

of management approaches to reduce the straying of out-of-basin stocks into Deschutes 

and John Day spawning areas, and development and implementation of a long-term 

approach that balances natural and hatchery production across the DPS; 

(6) Improved passage and flow management by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation below all its 

facilities in the Yakima River and the Umatilla River subbasins, provision of fish passage 

into significant tributaries, and provision of passage over at least two of its storage dams 

in the Yakima Basin34; 

(7) Provision for passage in the Deschutes River subbasin above the Pelton/Round Butte 

complex by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); restoration of 

downstream water temperature regime to historical levels, and provision for 

upstream/downstream habitat enhancement and restoration; 

(8) Improvement of fish passage, screening, and flow management in the Walla Walla River 

subbasin by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and alteration of the flood operating rule 

for Mill Creek, or alternatively screening the diversion into Bennington Lake; 

(9) Continued conservative hatchery and harvest management by the Yakama Nation and 

adherence to best land management practices; 

(10) Continued conservative hatchery and harvest management by the Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Reservation; and 

 

34 The conservation measures in NOAA's 2006 listing decision specifically identify the need for passage at two 

or more of the storage dams in the Yakima Basin. The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan strongly 

recommends the provision of passage at the storage dams, but notes that the geographic distribution criteria 

detailed in the plan provide for combinations of spawning areas that would meet delisting and short-term 

recovery thresholds without provision of access above the storage dams (See Appendix E, Section 4.3.7). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 (11) Continued adherence to best land management practices by the Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs Reservation in the Deschutes River subbasin. 

These recommendations call upon Federal, state, and tribal entities to do their best to manage 

land, hydropower, hatchery and harvest activities in a manner that would support steelhead 

recovery. NMFS reaffirms these recommendations. Also, with two thirds of its range in 

private ownership, recovery for Middle Columbia River steelhead will depend on voluntary 

participation of landowners. 

7.1.2 Tributary and Columbia Mainstem Habitat

Actions to protect and improve habitat in the tributaries and Columbia mainstem are essential 

to achieving recovery objectives for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. Unlike some other 

salmonid species, steelhead, which are “stream-type” salmonids, use mainstem tributary, 

upper tributary, and side channel habitats for spawning, juvenile rearing, and overwintering. 

Steelhead populations are particularly susceptible to the effects of degraded freshwater 

habitat because most steelhead spend one or more years in freshwater before migrating. 

While improving survival in the mainstem Columbia River and estuary is also an important 

part of DPS-wide strategy, and will benefit all salmonid populations, protecting existing high 

quality or good quality tributary habitat and restoring degraded habitat will specifically 

benefit Middle Columbia steelhead populations in the spawning and rearing life stages. 

Improved spawning and rearing means that more fish will reproduce, more juveniles will 

survive to migrate, and consequently more adults will return, even if the other factors remain 

as they are today. 

The actions for tributary habitat include the following: 

 Implementation of locally developed management unit plans to address protection 

and restoration of tributary habitat. 

 Implementation of Federal, state, and tribal programs, such as, for example, U.S. 

Forest Service and BLM best management practices for grazing, mining, and 

recreation, and EPA and tribal programs to implement TMDLs and cold water 

refugia, in a manner that addresses primary habitat strategies and actions at the local 

level. 

Relatively little information is available concerning Middle Columbia River steelhead use of 

mainstem Columbia River habitat above Bonneville, aside from passage through the dams. 

NMFS believes it is important to assess nearshore habitat and cold water refugia in the 

mainstem and to explore opportunities for, and potential benefits from, restoration and 

protection of these areas. 

7.1.3 Impaired Fish Passage 

Problems in migratory corridors for juvenile and adult steelhead in the mainstem Columbia 

River and tributaries should be addressed to improve survival. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.1.3.1 Impaired Fish Passage in Mainstem Columbia River

Although the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is a major limiting factor for 

steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River, changing it is a complex process. Three U.S. 

government agencies – the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), also called, collectively, the 

“action agencies” – collaborate to run the FCRPS, under various congressional authorities, as 

a coordinated system for power production and flood control. The 31 federally owned 

multipurpose dams on the Columbia and its tributaries that make up the FCRPS provide 

about 60 percent of the Northwest’s hydroelectric generating capacity. The dams supply 

irrigation water to more than a million acres of land in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and 

Montana. The river is used for barge navigation from the Pacific Ocean to Lewiston, Idaho, 

465 miles inland. 

NMFS has statutory responsibility under the ESA to consult with the FCRPS agencies and 

determine whether FCRPS effects on listed species are likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or cause adverse modification of critical habitat. NMFS summarizes 

its findings in a Biological Opinion, or BiOp. On May 26, 2005, the Federal District Court, in 

National Wildlife Federation, et al., vs. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al., issued an 

opinion finding fault with the NMFS 2004 FCRPS BiOp (NMFS 2004). On October 7, 2005, 

the court ordered a “remand” of the BiOp, requiring NMFS and the three Federal agencies, 

called the action agencies, to engage in a collaborative process, which included input from 

affected States and Tribes, to develop proposed operational measures for analysis in a new 

biological opinion. The court’s order, among other things, directed the action agencies to 

demonstrate how their proposed actions would contribute to recovery. A revised Biological 

Opinion was issued on May 5, 2008 (NMFS 2008a) and is available at 

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

Current Columbia River hydropower programs and operations are the result of this and other 

completed or ongoing ESA section 7 consultation processes; habitat conservation plans 

(HCPs) pursuant to ESA section 10; FERC relicensing proceedings and other regulatory 

processes. In most cases, hydropower programs and operations are intended both to avoid 

jeopardy to listed species and to contribute to recovery. 

The plan for current mainstem hydro operations, as summarized in the Hydro Module 

(NMFS 2008c), and any further improvements for fish survival that may result from the 

ongoing FCRPS collaborative process, represent the hydropower recovery strategy for all 

listed salmonids that migrate through the mainstem Columbia River, including the Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations. 

The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for the FCRPS takes a comprehensive 

approach to ESA protection that includes hydro, habitat, hatchery, harvest and predation 

measures to address the biological needs of salmon and steelhead in every life stage. The 

RPA is the product of the collaboration between NMFS and the action agencies ordered by 

the court. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of the salmon life cycle conducted down to 

the level of the populations that make up the listed species. Section 8.8 and the “Reasonable 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

and Prudent Alternative Table” in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion describe actions that 

should positively affect Middle Columbia River steelhead. 

The current plan for operation of the FCRPS through 2018 (NMFS 2008a) contains the 

following actions intended to address the needs for survival and recovery of ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead: 

 Continue adult fish passage operations that have resulted in improved survival. 

 Improve juvenile fish passage: install removable spillway weirs or similar surface 

bypass devices at John Day and McNary dams, an extended tailrace spill wall at The 

Dalles Dam, and various modifications at Bonneville Dam. Passage for steelhead 

smolts at each of the four Lower Columbia River mainstem projects must reach 96 

percent survival. 

 Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage. 

 Continue reservoir operations and river flows to benefit spring migrating juveniles. 

 Develop dry water year operations to better protect migrating juveniles. 

 Develop and implement a kelt management plan. 

Dissenting View of State of Oregon Regarding Mainstem Operations 

At the time the proposed recovery plan was finalized, August 2008, 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 NOAA’s FCRPS Biological 

Opinion. At this time, Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against various federal agencies, including 

NOAA, challenging the adequacy of the measures contained in the current FCRPS Biological 

Opinion. NOAA is not in agreement with Oregon regarding the need for or efficacy of Oregon’s 

additional or alternative actions. The actions sought by Oregon include: 

 Draft storage reservoirs to help meet weekly and seasonal flow and velocity equivalent 

objectives for the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. 

 Operate reservoirs at rule curves and seek additional flow augmentation volumes from 

Snake River and Canadian reservoirs for spring and summer flow and velocity objectives. 

 Operate John Day reservoir at minimum operating pool (MOP) during spring and summer 

as long as barge transport and irrigation needs are met. 

 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 

lowest (10th percentile) flow years. 

 Maintain approximately 50/50 in-river and transportation proportions for spring and 

summer migrants in the Snake River by optimizing spill and surface-oriented routes of 

dam passage and transporting fish collected in the turbine screen bypass systems. 

Continue to provide spill and bypass all fish at McNary Dam at all flows during the spring 

migration period. 

 Test removable spillway weirs and temporary spillway weirs to ensure they provide equal 

or better benefits of full spill before reducing spill. 

 Establish more rigorous research, monitoring and evaluation to assure that fish survival is 

increasing and to inform adaptive management. 

 Identify and prepare contingency actions for implementation if necessary to meet fish 

performance standards linked to the survival and recovery requirements of listed fish. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.1.3.2 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries

Actions to improve fish passage in tributaries include: 

 Implement locally developed management unit plans to improve fish passage. 

 Implement recommendations regarding improved passage and flow management by 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation below all its facilities in the Yakima River and the 

Umatilla River subbasins, provision of fish passage into significant tributaries, and 

provision of passage over at least two of its storage dams in the Yakima Basin35. 

 Implement recommendations regarding improvement of fish passage, screening, and 

flow management in the Walla Walla River subbasin by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and alteration of the flood operating rule for Mill Creek, or alternatively 

screening the diversion into Bennington Lake. 

 Provide passage into the upper Deschutes River above Round Butte/Pelton complex 

and into the White Salmon River above Condit Dam according to multiparty 

agreements. 

7.1.4 Hatchery Reforms 

Influence from hatchery fish is a limiting factor for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 

because of out-of-basin hatchery fish straying onto natural spawning grounds in the John Day 

Basin, Deschutes River Eastside and Westside, and the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers, as 

well as potential effects of hatchery releases and strays on naturally produced steelhead in the 

Klickitat subbasin. The hatchery programs in question are managed under the Mitchell Act, 

the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, and the U.S. v. Oregon process involving the 

fisheries co-managers, and regulated by NMFS permits and section 7 consultations. 

Hatchery reform actions are included in some of the management unit plans, and are also 

discussed in NMFS’ Appendices C and D of the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of 

the FCRPS (NMFS 2008a). Additional actions are expected to be identified through the 

Hatchery Scientific Review Group’s work and in hatchery management plans (e.g., Klickitat 

River Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan). These hatchery reform proposals will be 

addressed and implemented through the development of HGMPs, section 7 consultations, 

and the U.S. v. Oregon process. 

NMFS is working with the funding agencies and hatchery operators to update and complete 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for every hatchery program in the 

Middle Columbia region, as well as for the hatchery programs that are part of the Lower 

Snake Compensation Plan and Mitchell Act and have been identified as producing the 

 

35 The conservation measures in NOAA's 2006 listing decision specifically identify the need for passage at two 

or more of the storage dams in the Yakima Basin. The Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan strongly recommends 

the provision of passage at the storage dams, but notes that the geographic distribution criteria detailed in the 

plan do provide for combinations of spawning areas that would meet delisting and short-term recovery 

thresholds without provision of access above the storage dams (See Appendix E, Section 4.3.7) 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

problematic, out-of DPS hatchery strays. The HGMPs are the basis for NMFS’ biological 

opinions on hatchery programs under sections 7 and 10 and the 4(d) rule, which all relate to 

incidental and direct take of listed species. The HGMPs describe each hatchery program’s 

operations and the actions taken to support recovery and minimize ecological or genetic 

impacts, such as straying and other forms of competition with naturally produced fish. The 

revised FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) requires the hatchery operators and the 

action agencies to submit to NMFS updated HGMPs describing site-specific applications of 

the “best management practices” for the hatchery programs as described in Appendices C 

and D of the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis (SCA) of the Biological Opinion for 

those mitigation hatchery programs funded by the FCRPS action agencies. 

Hatcheries are the subject of three major scientific reviews that are expected to provide 

important information that will be helpful in crafting specific hatchery actions that are 

consistent with salmon and steelhead recovery: the Mitchell Act Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) (in production), USFWS Hatchery Review, and the congressionally 

established Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). The HSRG recently published its 

recommendations (HSRG 2009.) Collectively, these scientific reviews will be scrutinizing 

every anadromous fish hatchery in the Columbia Basin. The schedule for updating hatchery 

actions is designed to allow consideration of information from the hatchery reviews. The 

updated HGMPs for programs in the range of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are all 

targeted to be submitted to NMFS in 2009, with section 7 consultations completed in 2010. 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan proposes a number of management strategies and 

actions to address the impacts of strays from hatchery programs outside the DPS that are a 

source of out-of-DPS strays. These recommendations include increased marking of 

Columbia Basin hatchery steelhead with coded-wire tags, and requiring mass marking of all 

hatchery steelhead releases with, at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip. In addition, for the 

hatchery programs that contribute significantly to the stray problem, develop alternative 

broodstocks that will stray at lower rates, and reduce the proportion of Snake River hatchery 

smolts that are transported from Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. Section 9.7.2 

identifies proposed tributary hatchery strategies and actions for each population. The Oregon 

Sounding Board members did not reach consensus on all strategies and actions. For each 

proposed strategy and action, the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan lists the Sounding 

Board’s views, and whether or not consensus was reached on the proposal. NMFS realizes 

these are regional issues that need to be addressed. 

Klickitat Plan 

The Klickitat population’s moderate risk rating was assigned primarily on the basis of 

uncertainty and lack of data, particularly with respect to the influence of hatchery fish on the 

wild steelhead population. The plan recommends a targeted monitoring program to determine 

abundance and productivity of natural spawners, the proportion of hatchery and wild 

spawners in the Klickitat subbasin, and the adverse effects of Skamania broodstock on the 

Klickitat population, if any. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

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

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

Klickitat River with the purpose of minimizing adverse impacts on the natural steelhead 

spawning population. The same entities are considering the possibility of using a 

conservation hatchery program to accelerate recolonization of the Upper Klickitat watershed, 

since passage has been restored at Castile Falls. The hatchery program would not occur for at 

least 9 years after passage was restored, to allow for an evaluation of the natural 

recolonization management strategy. 

Southeast Washington Plan 

The Southeast Washington Plan does not propose new actions related to hatcheries but notes 

that as future hatchery strategies and scenarios are developed by the fisheries co-managers, 

the needs for achieving harvest objectives should be balanced with the risks to recovery of 

naturally spawning populations. In the Walla Walla basin, the plan says that the current 

segregated hatchery program could be transitioned to an integrated one using wild brood 

stock. For the Touchet River, the plan proposes intensified monitoring to determine whether 

strays from the segregated program pose an unacceptable risk to the genetic integrity of the 

natural population, and if so, to eliminate the segregated program. In the short term, both the 

integrated and segregated programs will be continued with increased monitoring of hatchery 

fish and removal of hatchery fish at the weir in Dayton. Based on monitoring of the impacts 

of the segregated program and the success of the integrated program it is anticipated that over 

the long term only the integrated program would continue. 

Yakima Steelhead Plan 

The Yakima Steelhead Plan does not indicate hatchery related effects as a limiting factor for 

steelhead, and states that hatchery steelhead have not been released in the Yakima River 

system since 1993. However, the plan does propose evaluating the use of small-scale 

supplementation to restore steelhead to watersheds with good habitat conditions where 

steelhead are not present or severely reduced because of passage barriers that have been or 

are being removed. The plan also recommends maintaining and evaluating the existing kelt 

reconditioning program, which uses hatchery techniques to increase the rate of repeat 

spawning of wild steelhead adults. 

7.1.5 Predation, Competition and Disease

Predation, competition and disease are grouped together as a category of concern because 

ultimately these factors relate to balance and imbalance in the ecosystem. Improving habitat 

for salmonids throughout the life cycle is the best strategy for addressing these potential 

limiting factors (ISAB 2007). Specific measures can also be taken; the following is a 

summary of ongoing efforts and research. 

7.1.5.1 Predation 

Extensive research on predation and efforts at predator control, including piscivorous fish, 

avian predators, and marine mammals have been undertaken in the Columbia Basin for 

decades, and will continue. The FCRPS BiOp and the Estuary Module (73 FR 161, January 

2, 2008), both of which are part of this recovery plan, provide extensive evaluations of these 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

issues as threats and limiting factors as well as specific strategies and actions for both 

monitoring and addressing them. 

Piscivorous Fish 

 Northern Pikeminnow Management Program - A multi-year, ongoing effort funded 

by BPA to reduce piscivorous predation on juvenile salmon through incentives to 

sports fishermen to remove predator-sized northern pikeminnow. From 1991 to 1996, 

three fisheries (sport-reward, dam angling, and gill net) harvested approximately 1.1 

million northern pikeminnows greater than or equal to 250 mm fork length. Total 

exploitation averaged 12 percent (range, 8.1 to 15.5 percent) for 1991 to 1996 

(Section 6.2.7.1 in NMFS 2000b). The annual harvest rate has averaged 

approximately 12 percent in the last few years. 

 Non-native piscivores - Other sport fisheries target smallmouth bass, channel catfish, 

and walleye. However, the ISAB report states that state fisheries agencies in 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have simultaneously adopted management policies 

that in some cases seem aimed at perpetuating or even enhancing populations of these 

introduced predators. The ISAB recommends that the state agencies relax (or 

eliminate) fishing regulations that may be enhancing populations of non-native 

species (both predators and competitors), especially those that directly or indirectly 

interact with juvenile and adult salmonids (ISAB 2007). NMFS supports strategies 

and actions that would result in reduced populations of non-indigenous predators on 

juvenile steelhead. 

Avian predation 

 Altering Rice Island to prevent tern and cormorant nesting was effective in reducing 

avian predation in the estuary, and the current FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 

2008a) recommends further reduction in bird habitat on East Sand Island. 

 The Biological Opinion also recommends development of plans to control Caspian 

terns and double-crested cormorants that nest in islands upstream of Bonneville Dam. 

The Army Corps of Engineers takes various “avian deterrent actions” at the lower 

Snake and Columbia River dams, and will continue to do so. 

Marine Mammals 

A pinniped hazing program has been implemented at Bonneville Dam since 2005, but the 

efforts have largely been ineffective against California sea lions, which are not listed as 

threatened or endangered. The animals may leave the area temporarily but return as soon as 

hazing stops. Under section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, states can ask for 

permission to kill individually identifiable sea lions or seals that are having a “significant 

negative impact” on at-risk salmon and steelhead, and NMFS can grant that permission, if 

certain legal standards are met. In March 2008, NMFS granted the request of the states of 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to lethally remove problem California sea lions. Any 

animals that are captured may be euthanized if no permanent holding facility can be found 

for them. NMFS and representatives of zoos and aquariums are compiling a list of preapproved permanent holding facilities interested in receiving a limited number of captured 

sea lions as an alternative to euthanasia. NOAA has authorized the states to remove as many 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

as 85 animals annually, but estimates that only about 30 animals will be removed each year, 

given the conditions in its authorization. 

In addition, non-lethal deterrence methods will be continued, including the following: 

 Vessel chasing 

 Cracker shells 

 Aerial pyrotechnics (screamer rockets, banger rockets) 

 Rubber projectiles 

 Sea-lion exclusion devices 

 Acoustic deterrents 

 Underwater firecrackers 

 Capture, marking, and relocation 

 Temporary captive holding 

Safety and training requirements for vessel use and deterrence measures (including firearms 

use) also would be continued. 

Maintaining and restoring habitat 

The ISAB report indicates that the methods of controlling non-native piscivores have not 

been sufficient, and that maintaining and restoring habitat is actually the better strategy. 

“When native species are provided with habitat for which they are best adapted, they have an 

improved chance of out-competing or persisting with non-native species,” the ISAB report 

states (ISAB 2008). NMFS, as indicated elsewhere in this chapter, supports that conclusion. 

Research and monitoring 

NMFS supports the recommendations in the Yakima Steelhead Plan for research and 

monitoring to track trends in predator populations, understand their impacts on steelhead, and 

develop appropriate management techniques to reduce predation. 

7.1.5.2 Competition – Density Dependent Mortality

As described in Section 6.3.5.4 of this Plan, density-dependent mortality can occur at any 

stage in salmon or steelhead life cycle and may be exacerbated by the introduction of, and/or 

cumulative effects of, large numbers of hatchery fish released over a relatively short period 

of time. Consistent with this concern NMFS, Salmon Recovery Division, and the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center are planning to better define and describe the scientific uncertainty 

associated with ecological interactions of hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmonids. 

See also Appendix C of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a). 

7.1.5.3 Disease 

Disease in salmonids is caused by multiple factors and probably cannot be directly addressed 

by recovery actions except in specific instances of known causal factors. It is more likely that 

nearly all of the recommended recovery actions that improve spawning, rearing, and passage 

conditions for steelhead and increase the survival, abundance, and productivity of naturally 

produced fish will result in decreasing incidence of disease. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.1.6 Harvest 

Although in general harvest is not considered a major threat for the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS, it is important to ensure that impacts from fisheries do not impede recovery, 

and to perform monitoring and evaluation to verify impacts and reduce existing uncertainties. 

 The U.S. v. Oregon agreement for 2008-2018 will maintain current low impacts on 

Middle Columbia steelhead in the lower mainstem and treaty mainstem fisheries. (See 

Section 6.3.7) 

 The Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) submitted by the States of 

Oregon and Washington and approved by NMFS under the 4(d) rule of the ESA 

provide a mechanism for developing, implementing, and adjusting recreational 

fisheries to achieve management and conservation objectives. Under the FMEPs, 

recreational fisheries in the tributaries are expected to maintain the currently 

estimated low impacts on steelhead. Furthermore, NMFS requires the states to 

implement, monitor, and evaluate the effects of these plans and to report annually, 

including an assessment of the annual catch of natural fish, fishery mortality, the 

abundance of hatchery and natural fish for each tributary fishery area, and angler 

compliance. A comprehensive evaluation is required every five years. The continuing 

and additional monitoring and evaluation under the FMEPs is expected to further 

reduce uncertainties concerning fisheries impacts. 

 Other increases in monitoring and evaluation will help to reduce uncertainties 

concerning fisheries impacts on steelhead: 

o Creel surveys or other methods of quantifying impacts in the more popular 

fisheries 

o In-basin monitoring of escapement from ocean into tributaries and onto the 

spawning grounds 

o Monitoring to verify the applicability of aggregate impact rates of mainstem 

fisheries on specific populations 

 Other proposals in the management unit plans: 

o The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan proposes using selective fisheries to 

reduce the number of out-of-basin hatchery strays. 

o The Washington Gorge Management Unit plans recommend studies to 

determine the impacts of tributary fisheries and to determine the extent of 

illegal harvest, if any. 

7.1.7 Estuary and Columbia River Plume

Although juvenile steelhead pass through the estuary on their way to the ocean, they tend to 

spend less residence time in the shallow parts of the estuary than other salmonids, and 

therefore the characteristics of the Columbia River plume and the deeper channels of the 

estuary are more important in determining their survival. 

Flow changes in the estuary are primarily a result of dam operations, whereas habitat changes 

are a function of both hydropower operations and other, non-hydro issues, notably the 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

construction of dikes and levees in the estuary. The main effects of flow on Middle Columbia 

steelhead populations are associated with changes in the plume. Thus, actions that affect the 

plume, decrease exposure to toxicants, and decrease predation (especially Caspian tern 

predation) should improve the abundance/productivity and diversity of the Middle Columbia 

DPS. 

NMFS’ Estuary Module identifies 23 types of management actions that would improve 

estuary conditions for all salmonids. The following is a selection of these actions most 

beneficial to steelhead: 

 Adjust the timing, magnitude and frequency of flows (especially spring freshets) 

entering the estuary and plume to provide better transport of sediments and access to 

habitats in the estuary, plume, and littoral cell. 

 Manage pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish to prevent 

increases in abundance. 

 Identify and implement actions to reduce salmonid predation by pinnipeds. 

 Implement projects to redistribute part of the Caspian tern colony currently nesting on 

East Sand Island. 

 Implement projects to reduce double-crested cormorant habitats and encourage 

dispersal to other locations. 

 Implement pesticide and fertilizer best management practices to reduce estuary and 

upstream sources of toxic contaminants entering the estuary. 

 Identify and reduce industrial, commercial, and public sources of pollutants. 

 Monitor the estuary for contaminants and/or restore contaminated sites. 

 Implement stormwater best management practices in cities and towns. 

The module includes an evaluation of the “constraints” on implementation of these actions. 

Perhaps the most significant action would be to adjust the timing, magnitude and frequency 

of flows to return to a more natural hydrograph for the estuary; however, this is the least 

possible of the actions, given the constraints: 

Constraints on hydrosystem operations prevent the return to a natural hydrograph in the 

estuary. Implementation of this action would be limited by international treaties, the need for 

flood control, fish management objectives systemwide, and power management (NMFS 

2007). 

7.1.8 Climate Change

A strategy for addressing the effects of climate change on Middle Columbia River steelhead 

needs to be based, broadly, on the principle of preserving biodiversity. Diversity in terms of 

both location and biological characteristics gives any species resilience in the face of 

environmental change. This principle underlies the viability criteria presented in Chapter 3 of 

this plan, as well as the strategies described in this chapter to address the factors limiting 

steelhead viability, as these are currently understood. NMFS supports the ISAB’s 

recommendations for mitigating the effects of climate change (ISAB 2007), most of which 

are encompassed in Section 7.2 of this Plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 14 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The ISAB notes that “As climate and streams warm, tributary habitats will become 

increasingly important because they usually provide the cool waters for salmonids and other 

cool-water species in a watershed” (ISAB 2007). It follows that water temperature and 

stream flow are factors that will remain important throughout steelhead freshwater habitat. 

All strategies and actions that help to lower water temperature or prevent further increase will 

help to mitigate climate change. Protecting and/or restoring riparian areas to increase shade, 

as recommended in Section 7.2, is an important strategy for minimizing water temperature 

increases. Additional actions include purchasing water rights to leave more water in streams 

and restoration actions to improve channel complexity and establish side-channel rearing 

(FCRPS BiOp, NMFS 2008a). Specific recommendations from the ISAB include: 

 Protect or restore riparian buffers along streams – especially in headwater tributaries 

where shading is crucial for maintaining cool water temperatures. 

 Expand efforts to protect riparian areas from grazing, logging, development, or other 

activities that could impact riparian vegetation. 

 Protect potential thermal refugia. Remove barriers to fish passage into thermal 

refugia. 

The ISAB emphasizes the importance of identifying areas that may be most affected by 

climate change and establishing adequate protective measures, including “reserve” areas or 

strongholds of high productivity and diversity. 

The ISAB also offers possible actions that could be taken on the mainstem Columbia River 

to address climate change impacts on Middle Columbia steelhead: 

 

 Flow augmentation from cool/cold water storage reservoirs to reduce water 

temperatures or create cool water refugia in mainstem reservoirs and the estuary. 

Effective implementation of this strategy may require increasing the number of 

storage reservoirs. 

Existing FCRPS operations result in cold water releases from Dworshak reservoir in late 

summer. Temperature control towers at other headwater reservoirs are under consideration 

through other processes. However, these actions are unlikely to have a significant impact on 

Middle Columbia steelhead because these water sources are too far away from this species’ 

migration corridor. For Middle Columbia steelhead, new reservoirs would be needed in 

order to implement this option. Careful consideration of the benefits and negative impacts of 

increasing the number of storage facilities in the basin will be required. Such consideration 

should occur in the near future if storage capacity is to be increased in time to address 

climate change impacts. 

 Use of removable surface weirs to reduce the time juvenile salmonids spend in the 

warm water of the forebay. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 15 

DPS Recovery Plan 

This Recovery Plan (through the FCRPS BiOp) includes operating all mainstem dams with 

removable surface weirs or other structures to quickly move juveniles downstream from dam 

forebays. 

 Reduction of water temperatures in the ladders with water drawn from lower, cooler 

strata in the water column of the forebay. 

Most mainstem reservoirs that Middle Columbia steelhead pass are isothermal during warm 

water periods, so pumping water from depth would not reduce ladder temperatures. 

However, stratification with warm surface water affecting fish ladders sometimes occurs at 

McNary Dam. A means of cooling fish ladder temperatures at this project should be 

investigated. 

 Liberalization of harvest of introduced piscivorous species such as smallmouth bass, 

walleye, and channel catfish. 

The recovery plan (through the FCRPS BiOp) calls for a plan to reduce predation of 

introduced fish species by the end of 2009. 

 There are opportunities to mitigate for some climate change impacts in the estuary 

and plume with changes to hydrosystem operations. Possible actions would include 

reducing the frequency and magnitude of winter flows, extending the period of spring 

runoff later in the year, and increasing late summer and autumn flows. 

The recovery plan (through the FCRPS BiOp) calls for estuary habitat restoration projects 

that include dike breaching and restoring access and tidal influence to marshes. 

The recovery plan (through the FCRPS BiOp) includes new analyses to incorporate climate 

change predictions into mainstem Columbia River hydrology models with improved 

forecasting capabilities. The goal is better long-term operations planning, including patterns 

of reservoir storage and release for flood control and other purposes. 

Climate change responses require significant monitoring information and additional research 

regarding effects of climate on key habitat variables and effects of habitat variables on fish 

survival. Research and monitoring related to climate change are described in Section 10.3.2. 

7.1.9 Coordination/Governance 

Coordination of actions and information-sharing among fisheries biologists, Tribes, local 

governments, citizen groups, and state and Federal agencies based in both Oregon and 

Washington is a key component of recovery for this DPS. Benefits of coordination include: 

 Dealing with shared migration areas consistently. 

 Developing coherent MPG-level strategies where populations are in two states 

(Cascades Eastern Slope MPG; Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG), or the same population 

is in both states (Walla Walla population). 

 Promoting consistent methods for setting recovery objectives, evaluating strategies, 

and monitoring progress across populations, MPGs, and the DPS. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 16 

DPS Recovery Plan 

This coordination is under development. The recent creation of a Middle Columbia Recovery 

Forum, to be convened regularly by NMFS, is intended to facilitate such collaboration 

between scientists and recovery planners on both sides of the Columbia River. The Middle 

Columbia Recovery Forum is discussed further in Chapter 11, Implementation. 

7.1.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and Adaptive Management 

An important part of the strategy for achieving recovery is the development of a monitoring 

plan that will support implementation of the recovery plan and long-term adaptive 

management in response to changes and trends in the data. Two keys to effective 

implementation are targeting actions to specific areas and monitoring the results of the 

actions. To achieve these goals, a scientific technical team made up of local scientists, former 

ICTRT members, and managers will be necessary. The monitoring plan is discussed in more 

detail in Chapter 10. 

For each DPS-level, five-year status review, NMFS needs summarized information on each 

population derived from more detailed field assessments – at the least, monitoring data on 

abundance and productivity throughout the steelhead’s range. The most efficient way to 

generate this information is through annual reports compiled by regional biologists. 

Currently, although basic data (e.g., redd surveys) are being gathered, funding and staff are 

lacking to turn this raw data into annual estimates of abundance/productivity in each river or 

stream in a timely fashion. Typically, each five-year status review starts with a timeconsuming scramble to gather the information from the regional biologists and work with 

them to produce the metrics that are needed for the status assessment. These annual reports 

need to be funded, staffed, and standardized. 

The Southeast Washington Plan proposes that the co-managers should be convened with 

NMFS and USFWS to better define the level (scale, frequency, location) of monitoring 

required to determine when recovery goals are achieved. The results of these conversations 

could be used to better define monitoring tasks and allow for the prioritization of 

expenditures. 

In addition to the issue- and area-specific monitoring for adaptive management, research 

should be directed toward resolving the many uncertainties pertaining to ocean productivity, 

global climate change, hatchery effectiveness, effects of transportation, invasive species, 

effects of interacting strategies, and effects of human population growth on steelhead 

recovery. These are described in greater detail in Section 10.3 of this Plan. 

7.2 Summary of Recovery Strategies for the MPGs 

The following sections summarize the recovery strategy for each MPG. Tables 7-1 through 

7-4 show more detail. The tables link the strategies with the limiting factors addressed. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 17 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.2.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG

Population ICTRT Risk Status 

Fifteenmile Creek Viable 

Deschutes Eastside Viable 

Klickitat (provisional) Moderate risk – insufficient 

data, hatchery influence 

Rock Creek (provisional) High risk – insufficient data 

Deschutes Westside High risk 

White Salmon Functionally extirpated 

Crooked River Extinct 

Two populations in this MPG meet the criteria for viable status (Fifteenmile Creek and 

Deschutes Eastside); one (Klickitat) is assigned a provisional moderate risk (“maintained” 

status) based on insufficient abundance/productivity data and an unknown degree of diversity 

risk from hatchery influence; one (Rock Creek) is assigned a provisional high risk status 

because of lack of data; one (Deschutes Westside) is at high risk for abundance/productivity 

and moderate risk for spatial structure/diversity, primarily because of blocked passage to a 

large amount of historically accessible habitat. Two populations in the MPG are extirpated 

(White Salmon and Crooked River); the Crooked River population was historically very 

large. 

Recovery Scenario: For the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG to be considered viable 

based on the currently extant populations, the Klickitat, Fifteenmile, and both the Deschutes 

Eastside and Westside populations should reach viable status, with one highly viable. The 

Rock Creek population should reach “maintained” status (25 percent or less risk level). MPG 

viability could be further bolstered if reintroduction of steelhead into the Crooked River 

succeeds and if the White Salmon population is successfully reintroduced to its historical 

habitat. 

Gap: The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions and 

5 percent risk) for the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG is 0.21 (meaning that a 21 percent 

increase in average life-cycle survival is required to achieve 5 percent risk in a 100-year time 

period). The gap ranges from –0.34 (Deschutes Eastside) (no gap) to 0.78 (Deschutes 

Westside) (needs 78 percent improvement). There was not enough information to estimate 

gaps for the Klickitat or Rock Creek populations. 

Key actions proposed (more detail in Table 7-1): 

 Protect, improve, and increase freshwater habitat for steelhead production. 

Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific limiting 

factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan and the 

Washington Gorge plans. 

 Reduce straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural spawning grounds within 

the Deschutes subbasin. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 18 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Restore historical passage to the upper Deschutes subbasin including the Westside 

tributaries and Crooked River above Pelton Round Butte dam complex and the White 

Salmon River above Condit Dam. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a). 

 Improve hatchery management to minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced steelhead within the Deschutes West and East and Klickitat 

subbasins. 

 Fill data gaps for better assessment of Klickitat and Rock Creek steelhead 

populations. 

 Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers of recovery actions on 

both sides of the river for sequencing of recovery actions and monitoring for adaptive 

management. 

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy: The proposed actions for the five extant populations in 

the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG are based on restoring important tributary habitat functions 

in areas that likely supported substantial steelhead production. The particular actions 

proposed for each population are predicated upon restoring natural conditions supporting 

summer rearing and overwintering in high potential reaches. For Cascades Eastern Slope 

populations, restoring degraded instream channel structure and the associated riparian 

habitats is a common element. For several populations, restoring sufficient flow, addressing 

high summer water temperatures, and other water quality issues are also key components. 

Quantitative modeling indicates that achieving the targeted levels of habitat improvement 

will translate into increases in both juvenile production capacity and survival rates through 

the key summer and winter juvenile rearing periods. Restoring access to tributaries with 

substantial amounts of high quality habitat is also a high priority across populations. Current 

and future increases in steelhead production from tributary habitats will be further bolstered 

by actions aimed at reducing mortalities during juvenile and adult migrations to and from the 

ocean. 

The specific tributary habitat strategy for each population builds out from good habitat, 

targeting opportunities where there is substantial habitat potential. For the Fifteenmile Creek, 

Deschutes (eastside), Deschutes (Westside) and Rock Creek populations, restoring stream 

structure, riparian habitat, and water quality (temperature, sediments, etc.) in the lower 

reaches of major tributaries and the associated population mainstems are identified as high 

priorities. In the Klickitat, recent passage improvements at Castile Falls have reduced 

impediments to steelhead access into a substantial amount of habitat in the upper Klickitat 

River. Restoring stream channel structure and diversity and addressing tributary access 

problems in the Upper Klickitat is highlighted in the plan. Unique to the Westside Deschutes 

River population is a major effort to restore upstream and downstream passage at the 

Pelton/Round Butte Complex. This passage restoration combined with reintroductions using 

hatchery fish is designed to reestablish natural production in the blocked areas in the 

Westside population and in the extirpated Crooked River population. Section 9.7.2 in the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan gives details for these actions (ODFW 2009). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 19 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The recovery strategy for the two Deschutes River populations involves reducing the impacts 

and risks associated with chronically high levels of non-local stray hatchery spawners. While 

direct estimates of impacts on these particular populations are not available, steelhead field 

studies in nearby drainages and modeling of the proposed actions indicate that natural 

productivity may be significantly impaired, especially given the abundance of strays. The 

current steelhead hatchery program in the Klickitat River is intended to be a segregated 

program; an important objective is to minimize spawning interactions with natural-origin 

spawners. The Klickitat River strategy includes evaluating the performance of the current 

programs in the Klickitat (steelhead, Chinook and coho), adjusting to complement natural 

recovery efforts, and considering the use of artificial production in restoring production 

above Castile Falls. 

An important element across all of the Middle Columbia steelhead populations is to continue 

to manage harvest in a manner that supports recovery efforts. Middle Columbia steelhead 

runs are subject to harvest in mainstem Columbia River fisheries and in hatchery-directed 

tributary fisheries. Fisheries in each of those geographic areas are currently managed under 

impact limits for natural-origin steelhead and all recreational fisheries prohibit retention of 

natural-origin fish. 

Results of modeling management action effectiveness indicate that for most of the 

populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, most of the productivity and 

capacity benefits from the proposed recovery actions will result from those focused on 

tributary habitat. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 20

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 7-1 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG.

CASCADES EASTERN SLOPE TRIBUTARIES MPG 

Strategies 

(Not necessarily in order) 

Populations Affected 

and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

All populations in MPG  Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition 

and conservation. 

 Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements.  Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats.  Consistently apply Best Management Practices and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

All Parameters Degra

procestructveget

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers. 

Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside Crooked River Fifteenmile Creek White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek 

 Provide passage at Condit Dam.  Provide passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

(PRBC). 

 Provide passage at Pine Creek confluence with 

Columbia River. 

 Improve steelhead passage at Lyle Falls Fishway.  Remove or replace barriers blocking or impairing 

passage including dams, dikes, road culverts and irrigation structures. 

 Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions.  Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Loss impaipush-

Restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Fifteenmile Creek Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek Major Creek 

 Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to 

stream channels. 

 Restore wet meadows.  Reconnect floodplain to channel.  Relocate or improve floodplain infrastructure and 

roads. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Degra(loss conne

Restore channel structure and complexity. 

Fifteenmile Creek Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek Major Creek 

 Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

 Stabilize stream banks.  Restore natural channel form. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degra(loss pools

Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment . 

Fifteenmile Creek Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek Major Creek 

 Restore natural riparian vegetative communities.  Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian 

recovery. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraveget
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 21

DPS Recovery Plan 

CASCADES EASTERN SLOPE TRIBUTARIES MPG 

Strategies 

(Not necessarily in order) 

Populations Affected 

and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

Restore altered hydrograph to provide appropriate flows during critical periods. 

Fifteenmile Creek Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside Crooked River White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek 

 Implement agricultural water conservation 

measures. 

 Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency.  Lease or acquire water rights and convert to 

instream. 

 Restore natural functions and processes through 

actions identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs for forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices and road management. 

 Protect and/or rehabilitate springs. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Alterepeak condiwithd

Improve degraded water quality. Fifteenmile Creek 

Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside Crooked River White Salmon River Klickitat River Rock Creek 

 Reduce chemical pollution inputs.  Restore natural functions and processes through 

actions identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs for forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices and road management. 

 Upgrade or remove problem forest roads.  Conduct pathogen sampling and monitoring. 

 Construct water and sediment control basins. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degratemperunofdegrareduc

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries that have significant impacts. 

All populations in MPG  Maintain current management regulations for low 

impact fisheries and adjust tributary harvest regulations in areas where harvest significantly impacts steelhead viability. 

 Monitor and evaluate effects of tributary harvest. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a 

Use harvest to reduce abundance and proportion of stray hatchery spawners. 

Deschutes Westside Deschutes Eastside 

 Develop educational outreach program to promote 

retention of hatchery fish in selective recreational fisheries to reduce the number of out-of-basin hatchery strays. 

Abundance, Productivity, Diversity 

Straynatura

Reduce illegal harvest on ESA- listed species. 

Klickitat River  Eliminate illegal harvest by enforcing sport and 

Tribal regulations. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a 

Provide better educational opportunities at the COE Park to preventing accidental catch of steelhead. 

Rock Creek  Increase outreach efforts to reduce the number of 

steelhead caught in recreational fisheries near the mouth of Rock Creek. 

Abundance, Productivity Not a 

Hatchery 

Determine origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatcheryorigin fish. 

Potential risk for all populations in MPG. Currently a significant risk to Deschutes Eastside and Deschutes Westside populations. 

NOTE: The following measures are recommended in one or more management unit plans but have not been agreed upon by all co-managers. - Implement representative coded-wire-tagging (CWT) 

program so that all hatchery stocks have adequate 

Diversity, Productivity Stray

natura
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 22

DPS Recovery Plan 

CASCADES EASTERN SLOPE TRIBUTARIES MPG 

Strategies 

(Not necessarily in order) 

Populations Affected 

and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

CWT groups released annually. 

- Mark all hatchery steelhead releases in Columbia 

River Basin with, at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip. 

(An exception may be the proposed Klickitat hatchery 

program – a conservation hatchery program – that may use elastomer eye marking for evaluations.) 

- Recommend development of alternative broodstocks 

to reduce stray rates for programs that contribute significantly to stray problem. 

- Reduce proportion of Snake River hatchery smolts 

transported from Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. 

Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of hatchery strays spawning naturally. 

Fifteenmile Creek Deschutes Eastside Klickitat River, Rock Creek 

 Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery 

fish on spawning grounds through additional stream surveys and other methods. 

Diversity, productivity Out-o

tribut

Reduce abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish that spawn naturally. 

Deschutes Eastside Deschutes Westside 

 Construct, improve trapping facilities and expand 

operations. 

Abundance, Productivity, Diversity 

Out-otribut

Reduce genetic risks associated with Round Butte Hatchery Program. 

Deschutes Westside  Investigate opportunities and risks associated with 

incorporating naturally produced Deschutes River summer steelhead into Round Butte Hatchery (RBH) broodstock. 

Diversity Not a 

Restore natural production into historically utilized habitats, including blocked areas above Pelton-Round Butte Complex (Deschutes), Condit Dam (White Salmon) and Castile Falls (Klickitat). 

Deschutes Westside Crooked River Klickitat River White Salmon River 

 Develop plan for steelhead reintroductions into 

historical habitat when passage is restored. 

 Re-establish natural production in MaSAs and some 

minor spawning areas. 

All Parameters Not a 

Review effect of current hatchery practices and releases. 

White Salmon River Klickitat River 

 Review potential impact of Skamania stock 

steelhead on naturally producing steelhead. 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Not a 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 23 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.2.2 John Day River MPG 

Population ICTRT Risk Status 

North Fork John Day Highly viable 

Upper Mainstem John Day Moderate risk 

Lower Mainstem John Day Moderate risk 

Middle Fork John Day Moderate risk 

South Fork John Day Moderate risk 

This MPG does not meet viability criteria despite the fact that one of its populations, the 

North Fork John Day, is the only steelhead population in the Middle Columbia DPS 

classified as highly viable. The other four populations in the MPG are at maintained status. 

Both the Upper and Lower Mainstem John Day populations have moderate risk for diversity 

because of out-of-DPS hatchery strays. The Middle Fork population has moderate risk 

because of low abundance. The South Fork population has moderate risk for abundance and 

productivity, and there is also some uncertainty concerning the proportion of hatchery strays 

spawning. 

Recovery Scenario: For the John Day River MPG to reach viable status, the Lower 

Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day River, and either the Middle Fork John Day 

River or Upper Mainstem John Day River populations should achieve viable status, with one 

highly viable. 

Gap: The median survival gap for the John Day MPG is 0.09, ranging from –0.49 (North 

Fork) (no gap) to 0.34 (South Fork) (needs 34 percent improvement in average survival over 

the life cycle). 

Key Actions proposed (more detail in Table 7-2): 

 Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and connectivity for steelhead 

production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific 

factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

 Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto 

natural spawning grounds within the John Day subbasin. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a). 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies priority areas and actions for each population 

based on relative importance in meeting local and regional recovery objectives, and envisions 

local groups using the individual population action tables for development of specific 

implementation plans. 

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy: John Day River steelhead populations have been 

affected by changes across all the types of habitat they use in their complex life histories and 

across all their life stages. Of particular importance is the loss of rearing habitat quality and 

floodplain channel connectivity in the lower sections of major tributaries. Poor conditions in 

the downstream migration corridors affect both outmigrating juveniles and returning adults. 

For some populations, increased sedimentation and altered flow regimes have resulted in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 24 

DPS Recovery Plan 

increased mortality during incubation and early rearing. Higher summer water temperatures 

have significantly reduced the available rearing habitat. 

Recovery strategies for John Day steelhead are designed to improve conditions across the 

range of habitats used for spawning, rearing, and migration. Actions projected to contribute 

the most would restore or maintain rearing habitat complexity and address sediment and 

temperature problems, especially in reaches that are adjacent to high quality habitats. 

Restoration of the associated riparian habitats will also contribute to sustaining natural stream 

functions. These actions will reduce sediment, restore a more normal hydrograph, and reduce 

water temperature. In addition, there are a significant number of actions to improve passage 

and connectivity of habitats for both juvenile and adult life stages. 

The effect of improved tributary habitat will be enhanced if, in addition, migration conditions 

in the mainstem Columbia River and estuary are improved, fewer outside-origin hatchery 

fish spawn within the basin, and harvest is managed so that a high proportion of the increased 

numbers of steelhead return to spawn. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 25

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 7-2 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the John Day River MPG.

JOHN DAY RIVER MPG 

Strategies 

Populations 

Affected 

and Addressed 

Key Actions 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

All populations in MPG 

 Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition and 

conservation. 

 Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements.  Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats.  Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws 

to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

All Parameters Degradat

and functconnectivrecruitme

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers 

All populations in MPG 

 Remove or minimize use of push-up dams.  Remove or replace barriers blocking passage.  Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions.  Replace screens that do not meet criteria.  Improve passage at culverts on forest land. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Loss of himpaired unscreen

Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

Lower Main John Day South Fork John Day Upper Main John Day 

 Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream 

channels. 

 Restore wet meadows.  Reconnect floodplain to channel. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Degraded of off-chhyporhei

Restore channel structure and complexity 

All populations in MPG 

 Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds.  Stabilize stream banks.  Restore natural channel form. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded spawning 

Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

All populations in MPG 

 Restore natural riparian vegetative communities.  Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery.  Install/maintain fencing. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded vegetativ

Restore altered hydrograph to provide appropriate flows during critical periods 

All populations in MPG 

 Implement agricultural water conservation measures.  Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency.  Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream.  Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified 

in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing practices and to 

road management. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Altered hflows dustreamfloand other 

Improve degraded water quality All populations in 

MPG 

 Reduce chemical pollution inputs.  Reduce discharge from mining and dredging areas. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded fine sedim
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 26

DPS Recovery Plan 

JOHN DAY RIVER MPG 

Strategies 

Populations 

Affected 

and Addressed 

Key Actions 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

 Restore natural functions and processes through actions 

identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing practices and to 

road management. 

other chewithdraw

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries that have significant impacts. 

All populations in MPG 

 Maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvestrelated adverse effects in those fisheries that have significant 

impacts. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a pri

Use harvest to reduce abundance and proportion of stray hatchery spawners. 

All populations in MPG 

 Develop educational outreach program to promote retention of 

hatchery fish in selective recreational fisheries to reduce the number of out-of-basin hatchery strays. 

Abundance, Productivity, Diversity 

Straying spawning 

Reduce catch and release mortality on natural-origin fish 

All populations in MPG 

 Promote voluntary curtailment of fishing at higher water 

temperatures (above 21C) to reduce hook-and-release mortality. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a pri

Improve quality of harvest and naturalorigin fish data. All populations in MPG  Expand the creel surveys to monitor fisheries effort and catch. Abundance, Productivity Not a pri

Hatchery 

Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery-origin fish. 

Potential risk for all populations in MPG. Currently a primary risk to Lower John Day population. 

NOTE: The following measures are recommended in one or more management unit plans but have not been agreed upon by all comanagers. - Implement representative coded-wire-tagging (CWT) program so all 

hatchery stocks have adequate CWT groups released annually. 

- Mark all hatchery steelhead releases in Columbia River Basin with, 

at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip. 

- Recommend development of alternative broodstocks to reduce stray 

rates for programs that contribute significantly to stray problem. 

- Reduce proportion of Snake River hatchery smolts that are 

transported from Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. 

Productivity, Diversity 

Straying spawning 

Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of hatchery strays spawning naturally 

Potential risk for all populations in MPG. Currently a primary risk to Lower John Day population. 

 Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on 

spawning grounds through additional stream surveys and other methods. 

Productivity, Diversity 

Out-of-Dtributary 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 27 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.2.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

Population ICTRT Risk Status 

Umatilla River Moderate Risk 

Walla Walla River Moderate Risk 

Touchet River High Risk (provisional because of 

insufficient data) 

This MPG does not meet viability criteria because all three populations have moderate risk 

for both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity and are assigned “maintained” 

status. The annual abundance data series for the Touchet River steelhead population is 

relatively short and has several missing years; the ICTRT cautions that the Touchet’s 

status/risk rating is provisional and should be interpreted with caution. 

Recovery Scenario: For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to be viable, two populations should 

meet viability criteria, and of these one should be highly viable. The Umatilla River is the 

only large population, and therefore should be viable. Either the Walla Walla River or 

Touchet River population also should be viable. 

Gap: There was sufficient information available to estimate gaps for only two of the three 

populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. Assuming base hydrosystem and recent 

ocean conditions, the survival gaps for the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations are 0.09 

and 0.34, respectively. 

Key actions proposed (more details in Table 7-4): 

 Coordinate between planners, scientists and those implementing recovery actions in 

Washington and Oregon for sequencing, monitoring, and adaptive management. 

 Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and access for steelhead 

production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific 

factors in specific areas as described in the Southeast Washington Plan and the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

 Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto 

natural spawning grounds within the Umatilla/Walla Walla subbasins. 

 Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a). 

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy: Natural steelhead production from the three 

populations in this MPG are projected to benefit from the combined effects of improved 

tributary habitats and enhanced survival through the migration corridor connecting upper 

tributary rearing habitats with the ocean. Tributary restoration strategies in these three 

populations put a high priority on building out from existing reaches of relatively good 

spawning and rearing habitat in the upper ends of major tributaries. The downriver tributary 

reaches targeted for restoration include a substantial amount of habitat projected to have 

historically supported steelhead production. Increased water temperatures during the summer 

rearing period, increased fine sediment levels, and loss of natural stream structure limit 

survival and capacity for summer rearing and overwintering in these reaches. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 28 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The plans summarize results of habitat assessments that document the distribution and 

relative magnitude of habitat degradation throughout the drainages. The projections of 

potential responses to the proposed habitat restoration actions were developed based upon 

considerations for the results of the habitat assessments in each population and past 

experiences with restoration efforts. Restoring juvenile rearing conditions in tributary 

mainstem rearing areas included as priorities in each population will increase the range of 

historically important life history patterns, increasing the resilience of the populations to 

fluctuations in environmental conditions. Action strategies are aimed at reducing 

temperatures and sedimentation by restoring riparian cover, natural bank conditions and flow 

regimes in targeted reaches. 

An important element of the restoration strategy for each population in this MPG is to 

increase survivals during the smolt outmigration phase through improvements to the spring 

flow and temperature regimes in the tributary mainstems and the Columbia River. Actions 

proposed in the plans are designed to build upon the flow and passage improvements that 

have been gained in recent years. Hatchery programs designed to boost natural recovery 

efforts and to provide fish for harvest operate within each of the populations. The recovery 

plan includes strategies designed to limit long-term risks to natural production by controlling 

the distribution and level of hatchery contributions within each population. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 29

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 7-3 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG.

UMATILLA/WALLA WALLA MPG 

Strategies Populations Affected and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

All populations in MPG  Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition 

and conservation. 

 Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements.  Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats.  Consistently apply Best Management Practices and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

All Parameters Deg

prostruveg

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Remove or replace culverts and/or other passage 

barriers. 

 Construct ladders over existing dams.  Provide adequate screening at 100% of irrigation 

diversions. 

 Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Losimpuns

Restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to 

stream channels. 

 Restore wet meadows.  Reconnect floodplain to channel. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Deg(loscon

Restore channel structure and complexity. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

 Stabilize stream banks.  Restore natural channel form. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Deg(lospoo

Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Restore natural riparian vegetative communities.  Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian 

recovery. 

 Install/maintain fencing. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degveg

Restore altered hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Restore natural functions and processes through 

actions identified in strategies above. 

 Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phases I-III.  Implement water conservation measures.  Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency.  Investigate feasibility of water storage and exchange 

(WW). 

Abundance, Productivity 

Altepeaconwith
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 30

DPS Recovery Plan 

UMATILLA/WALLA WALLA MPG 

Strategies Populations Affected and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices and to road management. 

Improve degraded water quality. Umatilla River  Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

 Reduce discharge from mining and dredging areas.  Restore natural functions and processes through 

actions identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices and to road management. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degor fpestof wflow

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries that have significant impacts. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River 

 Maintain current management regulations for low 

impact fisheries and adjust tributary harvest regulations in areas where harvest significantly impacts steelhead viability. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not 

Hatchery 

Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery-origin fish. 

Umatilla River, Walla Walla River 

NOTE: The following measures are recommended in one or more management unit plan but have not been agreed upon by all co-managers. 

 Implement representative coded-wire-tagging 

(CWT) program so all hatchery steelhead stocks have adequate CWT groups released annually. 

 Mark all hatchery steelhead releases in Columbia 

River Basin with, at a minimum, an adipose finclip. 

 Recommend development of alternative 

broodstocks to reduce stray rates for programs that contribute significantly to stray problem. 

 Reduce proportion of Snake River hatchery smolts 

that are transported from lower Granite and Little Goose dams. 

Productivity, Diversity Stra

natu

Reduce abundance and proportion of outof-basin hatchery strays spawning naturally. 

Umatilla River  Uniquely mark Umatilla Hatchery steelhead and 

remove out-of-basin hatchery strays at Three Mile Falls Dam. 

Productivity, Diversity Out

spaw

Reduce abundance and proportion of outof-basin hatchery strays spawning naturally. 

Walla Walla River  (These actions are currently non-consensus 

recommendations.) 

Productivity, Diversity Gen

spaw
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 31

DPS Recovery Plan 

UMATILLA/WALLA WALLA MPG 

Strategies Populations Affected and Addressed Key Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

 Eliminate adult hatchery strays above Nursery 

Bridge Dam by resuming trapping operations and removing hatchery fish. 

 Alter release strategy of Lyons Ferry hatchery 

smolts released into lower Walla Walla River from direct stream to acclimated releases. Implement trap and removal near acclimation site. 

 Develop local broodstock to replace Lyons Ferry 

stock for use in harvest augmentation program and to initiate a natural production supplementation program. 

Reduce abundance and proportion of outof-basin hatchery strays spawning naturally. 

Touchet River  Continue development of Endemic Touchet River 

summer steelhead program to replace current releases of Lyons Ferry hatchery summer steelhead smolts. 

 Improve adult trap at the Dayton Pons diversion 

dam to improve management of returning adult hatchery summer steelhead. 

 Install weir on Copei Creek to monitor escapement 

of summer steelhead and remove hatchery strays. 

Diversity Gen

spaw

Re-establish natural production in historically utilized habitats. 

Umatilla River  Re-establish natural production in Little Butter and 

Butter creek drainages by outplanting adults and/or juveniles into tributaries after habitat conditions are restored. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure, Diversity 

Lossyst

Reduce genetic influence of hatchery fish in hatchery broodstock. 

Umatilla River  Eliminate use of hatchery-produced adults in 

broodstock. 

Diversity Pot

traitstee

Reduce interactions between residual hatchery steelhead and natural steelhead. 

Umatilla River  Conduct volitional releases of steelhead smolts and 

remove fish that do not migrate. 

Abundance, Productivity, Diversity 

Risk prey

Reduce potential negative ecological interactions between coho salmon and natural steelhead. 

Umatilla River  Reduce number of hatchery coho released in 

Umatilla River and relocate releases downstream to areas not currently important for steelhead production. 

Potjuve
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 32 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.2.4 Yakima River MPG 

Population ICTRT Risk Status 

Upper Yakima River High Risk 

Naches River High Risk 

Satus Creek Moderate Risk 

Toppenish Creek Moderate Risk 

The Yakima MPG is currently rated at High Risk. The two largest populations in the 

drainage (Naches and Upper Yakima) are rated at High Risk; the Satus Creek and Toppenish 

Creek populations are rated as Maintained. 

Recovery Scenario: For the Yakima River MPG to achieve viable status, two populations 

should be rated as Viable, including at least one of the two classified as Large - the Naches 

River and the Upper Yakima River. The remaining two populations should, at a minimum, 

meet the ICTRT’s Maintained criteria. 

Gap: The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions) for 

the Yakima MPG is 0.77 (needs 77 percent improvement in average survival over the life 

cycle), ranging from 0.22 (Satus—tributary only) to 1.15 (Upper Yakima). This is the highest 

median survival gap of the four MPGs that make up the Middle Columbia River DPS. 

Key actions proposed (more detail in Table 7-3): 

 Protect and enhance habitat in key tributary watersheds in the Yakima Basin. 

 Restore passage to blocked areas in the Naches and Upper Yakima population areas. 

 Alter irrigation delivery and storage operations in the Yakima Basin to improve flow 

conditions for Middle Columbia steelhead and use managed high flows to maintain 

floodplain habitat. 

 Improve channel and floodplain function and reduce predation through the mainstem 

Yakima and Naches Rivers. 

 Improve survival in the mainstem Columbia and its estuary through actions detailed 

in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 

2008a). 

Summary of Recovery Strategy: 

Tributary and mainstem habitats for steelhead in the Yakima basin have been substantially 

altered from historical conditions. High quality rearing habitat has been substantially reduced 

or rendered inaccessible. Especially in the Naches and Upper Yakima mainstem reaches, 

degraded conditions such as flow reductions, increased temperatures, and altered stream 

structure have reduced survival and the expression of life history diversity. 

Recovery actions proposed to benefit Yakima River steelhead populations are aimed at 

improving conditions across the freshwater habitats the fish use in all life stages – from 

incubation and rearing to juvenile and adult migration – especially in the Yakima River 

mainstem. This has the highest potential to quickly make a difference by increasing 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 33 

DPS Recovery Plan 

productivity in the areas where fish now spawn and restoring the pattern of extended rearing 

in the mainstem. It is also important to restore flow and temperature conditions conducive to 

steelhead rearing in mainstem reaches of the Naches River and the Upper Yakima, which are 

believed to have supported substantial production historically. Restoring anadromous access 

into tributaries with large amounts of relatively high quality habitat by targeting flow 

improvements and barrier removals is also a high priority, especially for the two large 

populations in the upper Yakima basin. 

The Yakima River enters the Columbia upstream of four major hydroelectric dams. Actions 

to improve passage and migration survival in the mainstem Columbia River and the estuary 

will also contribute to achieving objectives for the Yakima populations. Since Yakima-origin 

steelhead are harvested in mainstem Columbia River fisheries primarily directed on fall 

Chinook, harvest management is another important component of the recovery strategy for 

these and all Middle Columbia steelhead populations.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 34

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 7-4 Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Yakima Basin MPG. 

YAKIMA RIVER MPG 

Highest Priority Strategies Populations Affected and Addressed Key Types of Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

All populations in MPG: Upper Yakima Naches Toppenish Satus 

 Protect highest quality habitats through long-term 

protection and conservation. 

 Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements.  Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats.  Consistently apply BMPs and existing laws to protect 

and conserve natural ecological processes. 

All Parameters Degradation of tri

(loss of channel stvegetation and LW

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers. 

All Populations  Provide passage at selected Yakima and Naches River 

Storage Dams as feasible. 

 Remove or replace barriers blocking or impairing 

passage including dams, dikes, road culverts and irrigation structures. 

 Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions.  Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Loss of historical passage (dams, cudiversions) Reduced survival in water diversion

Improve conditions for outmigratingsmolts at diversion structures. 

Upper Yakima Lower Yakima migratory area (affects all populations) 

 Improve smolt passage at Roza Dam.  Reduce mortality at Chandler, Roza and other 

Diversion Dams. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Increased travel tismolts 

Restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

All Populations  Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to 

stream channels. 

 Restore wet meadows.  Reconnect floodplain to channel.  Relocate or improve floodplain infrastruct. & roads. 

Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure 

Degraded floodplachannel habitat, si

Restore channel structure and complexity. All Populations  Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

stream banks. 

 Stabilize stream banks.  Restore natural channel form. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded channel and rearing habita

Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. 

All Populations  Restore natural riparian vegetative communities. 

 Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian 

recovery. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded riparian communities, LW

Restore altered hydrograph to provide appropriate flows during critical periods. 

All Populations  Implement agricultural water conservation measures. 

 Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Lease or 

acquire water rights and convert to instream. 

 Restore natural functions and processes through actions 

Abundance, Productivity 

Altered hydrology degraded watershemainstem Yakima Reduced winter an
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 35

DPS Recovery Plan 

YAKIMA RIVER MPG 

Highest Priority Strategies Populations Affected and Addressed Key Types of Actions VSP Parameters Addressed 

identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices, and to road management. 

 Protect and/or rehabilitate springs.  Increase irrigation storage as feasible. 

delivery and withd

Improve degraded water quality. All Populations  Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

 Restore natural functions and processes through actions 

identified in strategies above. 

 Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing 

practices and to road management. 

 Upgrade or remove problem forest roads.  Conduct pathogen sampling and monitoring.  Construct water and sediment control basins. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Degraded water qunutrients fro runofbecause of water w

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries that have significant impacts. 

All Populations  Maintain current management regulations for low 

impact fisheries and adjust tributary harvest regulations in areas where harvest significantly impacts steelhead viability. 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a primary lim

Reduce illegal harvest on ESA-listed species. 

All Populations  Ensure adequate enforcement to prevent illegal harvest 

of steelhead 

Abundance, Productivity 

Not a primary lim

Hatchery 

Restore natural production into historically utilized habitats, including blocked areas in tributaries and above storage dams where passage is provided. 

Naches, Upper Yakima 

 Develop plan for steelhead reintroductions into 

historical habitat when passage is restored. 

 Use small scale supplementation to re-establish natural 

production in MaSAs and some MiSAs 

All Parameters Risks related to st

using inside-DPS 

Promote repeat spawning of kelts. All Populations  Use kelt reconditioning program All Parameters Reduced survival 

Columbia and low
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 36 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.3 Setting Priorities 

Priorities for recovery actions should be guided by DPS-, MPG-, and population-level recovery 

criteria and best available scientific information concerning DPS status, the role of the 

independent populations in meeting DPS and MPG viability, limiting factors and threats, and 

likelihood of effectiveness of actions. Protection of existing habitat is essential. Issues of funding 

and local, state, or national support for implementation will also inevitably come into play. 

The management unit plans all address these issues in their implementation sections. The Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan offers detailed considerations for prioritization that are also adopted by 

the Washington Gorge Plans. The Southeast Washington Plan describes “strategic guidelines” 

for prioritization. The Yakima Steelhead Plan notes that the process of working out an 

implementation schedule with stakeholder participation will ultimately set the priorities. 

See Chapter 11, Implementation, for discussion of the organization of ongoing technical review 

and support from DPS and management unit science and technical committees. Coordination and 

communication in the Mid-C Forum and other venues will be necessary for actions in the 

Columbia mainstem, estuary, and/or ocean. 

7.3.1 Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan offers an approach to steelhead recovery that attempts to 

integrate both the biological needs of the fish and the economic, political, social, and cultural 

context in which strategies must be implemented and actions chosen. The plan provides an 

overview of the links between threats and limiting factors, management strategies, and types of 

actions (Table 7-5). This is followed by detailed tables for each of the 10 Oregon steelhead 

populations, identifying specific proposed actions, locations, limiting factors and threats 

addressed, VSP parameters and life stages affected. The tables also include assessments of 

existing programs relevant to the proposed actions. The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan is 

included as Appendix A of this Plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 37 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 7-5. Integrated approach to address threats and factors limiting recovery of Oregon’s Middle 

Columbia River steelhead populations. 

Threats and 

Limiting 

Factors 

Management Strategies Types of Actions 

All degraded habitat 

limiting factors 

Protect and conserve natural ecological 

processes that support the viability of 

populations and their primary life history 

strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition and 

conservation. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements. 

Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing 

laws to protect and conserve natural ecological 

processes. 

Degraded Habitat - 

Impaired fish 

passage 

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats

blocked or impaired by artificial barriers, and 

maintain unimpaired passage and connectivity 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as 

dams, road culverts and irrigation structures. 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions. 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Degraded habitat - 

floodplain 

connectivity and 

function 

Restore floodplain connectivity and function, 

and maintain unimpaired floodplain 

connectivity and function 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream 

channels. 

Restore wet meadows. 

Reconnect floodplain to channel. 

Degraded habitat - 

channel structure 

and complexity 

Restore channel structure and complexity, and 

maintain unimpaired structure and complexity 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

Stabilize stream banks. 

Restore natural channel form. 

Degraded habitat - 

riparian area and 

LWD recruitment 

Restore riparian condition and LWD 

recruitment, and maintain unimpaired 

conditions 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities. 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery. 

Degraded habitat - 

altered hydrology 

Restore altered hydrograph to provide 

sufficient flow during critical periods 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures.

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream. 

Degraded habitat - 

water quality 

Improve degraded water quality and maintain 

unimpaired water quality 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations. 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions 

identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Degraded habitat - 

altered sediment 

routing 

Restore degraded upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, 

and maintain unimpaired natural upland 

processes 

Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming. 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads. 

Restore native upland plant communities. 

Employ BMPs for forest practices, livestock grazing, road 

management and agricultural practices. 

Degraded habitat - 

estuarine and 

Nearshore Marine 

Restore degraded estuarine and nearshore 

habitat, and maintain unimpaired conditions 

Protect/restore riparian areas

Remove pile dikes 

Protect remaining high quality off-channel habitat 

Breach or lower dikes and levees 

Identify and reduce sources of pollutants 

Monitor and restore contaminated sites 

Mainstem Columbia 

River hydro system 

Improve salmonid migration and habitats, and 

reduce predation on and competition between 

salmonids in the mainstem Columbia River. 

Adjust the timing, magnitude, and frequency of flows

Mitigate/reduce reservoir heating 

Continue adult fish passage operations 

Improve juvenile fish passage 

Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage 

Modify fish transportation to improve juvenile survival 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 38 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Threats and 

Limiting 

Factors 

Management Strategies Types of Actions 

Hatchery related 

adverse effects 

Reduce hatchery related genetic and 

ecological effects on natural populations of 

Middle Columbia steelhead 

Increase marking of Col. Basin hatchery steelhead with 

coded-wire tags. 

Require mass marking of all hatchery steelhead releases 

with, at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip. 

Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on 

spawning grounds. 

Develop plan for steelhead reintroduction into historical 

habitat when passage is restored. 

Eliminate the use of hatchery produced adults in the 

broodstock 

Construct trapping facilities 

Harvest-related 

adverse effects 

Manage fisheries to reduce harvest-related 

adverse effects 

Use selective recreational fisheries to reduce the number of 

out-of-basin hatchery strays. 

Call for a voluntary curtailment of fishing at higher water 

temperatures (above 21C) as a measure to reduce 

hook-and-release mortality 

Expand the creel surveys to monitor fisheries effort and 

catch 

Predation, 

competition, disease 

Reduce predation, competition and disease Reduce predation by pinnipeds 

Redistribute Caspian terns 

Redistribute cormorants 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan’s recommendation for setting priorities is a list of 

“considerations,” based on key principles derived from conservation biology and ecosystem 

management. 

The principles for sound salmon recovery efforts: 

1) Set aside or protect the highest quality habitat. 

2) Do not let habitat conditions degrade further. 

3) Maintain or restore critical ecological processes. 

4) Develop goals and objectives based on deep understanding of ecological properties of 

the system. 

5) Evolutionary processes must be conserved or restored. 

6) Management must be adaptive and minimally intrusive. 

The considerations for prioritizing actions: 

We consider actions that achieve the following to be highest priority: 

• Actions that provide long-term protection of habitat conditions and conservation of 

natural ecological processes that support the viability of priority extant populations and 

their primary life history strategies throughout their entire life cycle. A population is 

considered a priority if it is critical for MPG or DPS viability. 

• Actions that protect or enhance viability of multiple steelhead populations. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 39 

DPS Recovery Plan 

• Actions that support conservation of unique and rare functioning habitats, habitat 

diversity, life histories and genetic attributes. 

• Actions that target the key limiting factors and that contribute the most to closing the 

gap between current status and desired future status of priority populations. 

• Actions that provide critical information needed for assessing success and making 

adaptive management decisions. 

We consider the following types of actions to be high priority but less than highest: 

• Actions that enhance the habitat conditions and restore natural ecological processes of 

priority extant populations and their primary life history strategies throughout the 

entire life cycle. 

• Actions that enhance the viability of priority extant populations. 

• Actions that are required to protect and enhance habitats for populations that are not 

critical for MPG or ESU viability but must be maintained. 

Other things being equal, actions that demonstrate the following have enhanced priority: 

• Actions where opportunity for success is high (rather than those of limited feasibility). 

• Actions that likely produce a large (rather than small) improvement in viability 

attributes. 

• Actions that support restoration of normative ecological processes rather than shortterm substitutions for normative processes. 

• Actions that are complementary to other land management, water quality, 

environmental management and recreational objectives as specified in fish 

management, conservation, recovery or other plans developed with and supported by 

regional and subbasin stakeholders (rather than those that are isolated, stand-alone 

efforts). 

• Actions that have regional and local support and generate increased participation. 

• Actions that demonstrate cost effectiveness relative to alternative means of achieving 

the same objectives. 

• Actions that have high degree of certainty in effectiveness and outcome. Source: ODFW 

2009. 

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan also proposes the following measures to address hatchery 

related genetic and ecological effects on natural populations of Middle Columbia steelhead: 

 Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on spawning grounds. 

 Develop and implement plan for steelhead reintroduction into historical habitat when 

passage is restored. 

 Eliminate the use of hatchery-produced adults in the Umatilla River brood stock. 

 Construct trapping facilities in the Deschutes River basin to remove stray hatchery 

fish. 

 Use selective recreational fisheries to reduce the number of out-of-basin hatchery 

strays. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 40 

DPS Recovery Plan 

7.3.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plans 

The Washington Gorge plans (White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek) identify recovery 

strategies in the same general order of importance as in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

7.3.2.1 Klickitat Recovery Plan 

The first priority for the Klickitat River steelhead population is to reduce the uncertainties and 

data gaps identified by the ICTRT. A targeted monitoring program will be designed to do the 

following: 

 Determine abundance and productivity of natural steelhead spawners 

 Determine the adverse effects of Skamania broodstock and out-of-subbasin strays on the 

Klickitat population, if any. 

 Determine the effects of non-native coho and fall Chinook released from the hatcheries 

and naturalized in the river on naturally produced steelhead, if any. 

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

Further actions related to potential limiting factors: 

 Minimize adverse impacts of large-scale hatchery releases of U.S. v. Oregon production 

stocks (coho and fall Chinook) on Klickitat steelhead. The satellite Wahkiacus 

Hatchery/Acclimation Facility at RM 17.0 is being developed so that existing U.S. v. 

Oregon production of fall Chinook and coho can be transferred from the Klickitat 

Hatchery 26 miles downstream to the Wahkiacus facility, transferring coho and fall 

Chinook production 26 miles downriver, to reduce and minimize the impacts of largescale hatchery releases on wild spring Chinook and steelhead rearing between the two 

facilities. 

 Determine and minimize impacts of hatchery trout releases in the subbasin. 

 Improve steelhead passage at Lyle Falls Fishway. 

 Assess steelhead natural recolonization of upper Klickitat watershed and the potential use 

of artificial propagation to accelerate recolonization. 

To address habitat degradation in the Klickitat watershed, the plan proposes a strategy to protect 

and improve ecosystem functions and restore normative ecological processes. The components 

of the strategy are, first, to protect and maintain existing high quality and/or unimpaired habitats 

and ecosystem functions; and, second, to restore degraded habitat where appropriate, through 

passive and active measures. 

Managing harvest for low impacts from both mainstem and tributary fisheries, and to reduce any 

adverse impacts that may be occurring, also is an important contribution to the population’s 

viability. 

7.3.2.2 Rock Creek Recovery Plan 

The Rock Creek plan’s recovery strategy aims to remove threats to the long-term survival of the 

population and improve population biological characteristics so it will, first, meet requirements 

for a Maintained population and support DPS recovery and, eventually, achieve viability and 

meet broader population goals. The recovery strategy focuses on (1) gaining information needed 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 41 

DPS Recovery Plan 

to better assess population status and (2) removing key threats to population viability by 

improving freshwater habitat conditions. 

7.3.2.3 White Salmon Recovery Plan 

The White Salmon plan’s recovery strategy contains two key parts: 1) a plan for reintroducing 

naturally produced steelhead into historical habitat after the removal of Condit Dam, and 2) 

improving and increasing freshwater habitat for steelhead production in the subbasin. The plan 

also recommends ensuring that harvest or hatchery actions do not impede efforts to improve 

steelhead viability. The White Salmon Technical Working Group is developing the 

reintroduction plan. 

7.3.3 Southeast Washington Plan 

The SRSRB developed its recovery strategies by means of a set of “strategic guidelines” 

weighed against proposed actions. However, for habitat protection and restoration actions, 

“imminent threats” to fish life in areas containing ESA-listed populations will receive the highest 

priority. Examples of imminent threats include adult fish passage barriers such as culverts or 

dams, unscreened or poorly screened irrigation diversions, stream crossings (fords or low water 

crossings) that are located in spawning areas and are used during the incubation period, 

dewatered reaches that strand or kill fish and act as passage barriers, and point sources of toxic 

pollutants. Removing imminent threats will likely result in the greatest increase in fish survival 

over the shortest time. 

The overall strategic guidelines are as follows: 

1. Emphasis will be placed on projects with long persistence time (“life span”) and benefits 

distributed over the widest possible range of environmental attributes. 

2. Recovery/restoration actions must include immediate measures in addition to long-term 

actions. Many actions that address the root causes of habitat degradation require a long 

time to achieve their goals. An example would be planting trees in riparian zones to: a) 

reduce instream temperatures, b) add large woody debris, and c) increase habitat 

complexity. Immediate actions that can “jump start” recovery can include such things as 

manual addition of large woody debris to stream channels, and creation of meanders in 

channelized streams. 

3. The management strategy will involve “adaptive management”; that is, it will be a 

feedback system where changes in information or data detected through monitoring and 

evaluation will be used to adjust and modify plans and actions. 

4. Identification of important areas and proposed actions is based substantially on 

information contained in the applicable subbasin plans. 

5. Actions necessary to accomplish the recovery goals will be considered within the context 

of the four “Hs” (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydroelectric). 

6. Actions implemented within the region will be focused primarily on restoration and 

protection of habitat; actions pertinent to the other “Hs” will be addressed primarily 

through other planning processes, but the SRSRB may provide recommendations to these 

processes. 

7. The EDT analysis tool, in combination with other analyses, empirical data and 

professional opinion, will be used to identify and prioritize habitat actions. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 7 - 42 

DPS Recovery Plan 

8. The final set of proposed actions will be subject to economic, social, and cultural 

constraints identified by the recovery region. 

9. Priority actions are those that the SRSRB hopes to accomplish over the 15-year planning 

period of this plan. 

In general, the habitat strategy is based on protection of high quality or productive habitat and 

restoration, preferably passive restoration, to revitalize degraded habitat. Specific habitat 

strategies were prioritized in the following way: Habitat characteristics or factors, such as 

substrate embeddedness, pools, or temperature, were correlated with general categories of 

appropriate action, such as improving riparian areas, improving channel and floodplain, or 

improving water quantity. The categories of action, called “approaches,” were assigned priority 

in terms of effectiveness, technical feasibility, and cost/benefit. Objectives for restoration and 

protection were defined specifically; for example, the restoration objective for water temperature 

is to achieve a stream condition where the water temperature does not rise above 72° F for more 

than four days per month. The habitat factors were then arranged in order of importance for each 

major spawning area, and specific actions, funding sources, and potential costs were listed. 

7.3.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan 

Since the Yakima management unit encompasses all the populations of one MPG, the Yakima 

Steelhead Plan is structured to present a recovery strategy at the MPG-level. For this reason, the 

details of the Yakima recovery strategy are presented above in Section 7.2.4, Yakima River 

MPG. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

8. SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES 

It is important to consider the unique characteristics and challenges of estimating time and cost for 

salmon and steelhead recovery, given the complex relationship of these fish to the environment and 

to human activities on land. NMFS estimates that recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 

could take 25 to 50 years. The management unit plans (Appendices A through E) contain extensive 

lists of actions to recover the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS populations. These projects were 

developed using the most up-to-date assessment of Middle Columbia steelhead recovery needs. The 

management unit plans focus, for the most part, on actions within the next 5 to 15 years. There are 

many uncertainties involved in predicting the course of recovery and in estimating total costs. Such 

uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses to recovery actions as well as long-term and 

future funding. 

8.1 Site-Specific Management Actions 

The proposed site-specific management actions at the population level are described in detail in 

Appendices A through E. It is possible that some of these actions will not be funded and that others 

will be proposed or added. It is important to note that the management unit plans are dynamic and 

subject to change through the adaptive management process. Implementation plans are often updated 

annually and generally cover a 3-to-10-year period. The reader is urged to refer to the management 

unit plans for up-to-date implementation schedules. 

Proposed site-specific actions for the mainstem Columbia River and estuary are described in detail in 

the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a) and the Hydro Module (NMFS 2008c), the Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007), and Artificial Propagation for Pacific Salmon, Appendix C of the 

Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a). 

NMFS recognizes that to achieve recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River 

Basin, site-specific actions addressing all limiting factors and threats (habitat, hydropower, 

hatcheries, harvest, and ecological interactions including predation and competition) are necessary. In 

this recovery plan, the relative impacts of this full range of limiting factors and threats are identified 

and evaluated, although effective site-specific actions may be better developed or more feasible to 

implement in some sectors than in others. At this time, site-specific management actions are more 

fully developed for tributary habitat and mainstem hydropower than for hatcheries and harvest. Given 

that habitat protection and restoration actions generally take some time to yield ecosystem responses 

and improvements in fish populations, it is important to implement actions with more immediate 

benefits, as well as those whose benefits will accrue in the future. 

Hatchery and harvest actions developed in other management processes will be important for 

recovery. For hatcheries, site-specific actions are being developed pursuant to the FCRPS 

consultation process, which requires Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for all 

facilities that affect listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin. Mainstem fisheries in the 

Columbia River will be implemented consistent with the recently completed U.S v. Oregon 

Agreement, which extends through 2017. Tributary fisheries are subject to Fishery Management and 

Evaluation Plans, many of which are now under review or scheduled for completion in the near 

future. Such plans have been and will be developed to be consistent with recovery plans, ESA 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

section 7(a)(2), and other ESA requirements. NMFS will continue to monitor these plans, using 

adaptive management, to assess implementation progress and consistency with recovery plans. 

8.2 Cost Estimates 

Cost estimates for recovery projects were provided by the management unit entities where available 

information was sufficient to do so. In some cases this was done in coordination with a NMFS 

economist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle using a regional recovery cost 

database, together with input and review from regional experts and representatives from the Middle 

Columbia Recovery Forum in 2007. 

Cost estimates for proposed recovery projects were developed using the methods described in each 

management unit plan. No cost estimates are provided for (1) baseline actions (programs that are 

already in existence), which are listed as Not Applicable (N/A); or (2) actions that need costs to be 

developed, need unit costs, and/or need project scale estimates, which are listed as To Be Determined 

(TBD). Each management unit worked with regional experts to identify costs, scale, or unit costs for 

actions that required more information in the draft stage, and costs were updated to the extent 

possible for this final plan. 

The total estimated cost of habitat recovery actions for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is 

approximately $235 million over the initial 5-year period, and approximately $996 million for all 

DPS-wide recovery actions for which sufficient information exists upon which to base an estimate 

(Table 8-1). This estimate includes expenditures by local, tribal, state, and Federal governments, 

private business, and individuals in implementing both capital projects and non-capital work. 

Administrative costs are embedded in the total management unit cost estimates in Table 8-1. 

However, they do not include costs associated with implementing actions within the lower Columbia 

River, estuary or Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). Preliminary research, monitoring 

and evaluation costs have, in some cases, been estimated at the management unit level; however, 

these costs are not included at this time pending completion of research and monitoring plans and 

further development of each project. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 8-1 Summary of Cost Estimates for Habitat Projects for Middle 

Columbia Steelhead DPS. 

Recovery Plan First 5 Years

($M) Total Cost ($M) 

 

Oregon $ 103.5 $ 512.8 

 

Yakima Steelhead36 $ 91.9 $ 269.3 

 

SE Washington37 $ 25.5 $ 76.4 

 

Klickitat38,

39 $ 12.9 $ 129.4 

 

Rock Creek40 $ 0.9 $ 1.8 

 

White Salmon 

Steelhead N/A $ 6.541

DPS Totals $ 234.7 $ 996.2 

Table 8-1 provides costs for implementing actions in the first five years for each management unit, 

together with total program costs in each management unit plan. The estimates in Table 8-1 do not 

include costs associated with baseline actions because these are actions categorized as part of 

ongoing, existing programs. The success of steelhead recovery is, however, dependent upon the 

continued support of ongoing baseline projects and programs. 

There are several cautions that must be highlighted regarding these summary costs, because many of 

these estimates may be incomplete until actions are better defined. For example, the costs for 

potentially expensive projects such as land and water acquisition, water leasing, and research and 

monitoring have not yet been estimated for many populations. For other projects, unit cost estimates 

or determination of project scale may also still need to be calculated. Therefore, Table 8-1 presents 

preliminary summary costs for recovery that will likely increase when unit cost estimates, scale of 

projects, and costs for actions are determined and as projects are better defined. 

These cost estimates do not include expenses associated with implementing actions within the lower 

Columbia River, estuary, or Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), first, because of the 

basin-wide scope and applicability of these actions to all 13 Columbia Basin salmonid species listed 

 

36 The Yakima steelhead plan estimates costs for the first 6 years, and includes preliminary RME cost estimate of 

$300K/year. The 5-year estimate was extrapolated from the 6-year cost data. 37 The SE Washington plan estimates annual steelhead implementation costs at about $5 million per year. The 5-year 

estimate was extrapolated by multiplying the annual amount by five. 38 The Klickitat plan estimates costs for the first 10 years. The five-year estimate was extrapolated by dividing the 10-

year amount in half. 39 The Klickitat plan uses a 50-year period to estimate its total project costs. 

40 The Rock Creek plan estimates cost for the first 3 years and for years 4 to 10. The 5-year estimate was extrapolated by 

dividing the 10-year amount in half. 41 Improvement of habitat in the White Salmon subbasin will likely improve conditions for all four listed salmonid 

species; however, there may be additional costs when recovery actions designed specifically for the three listed Lower 

Columbia salmon ESUs that spawn in the subbasin are figured in. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

as threatened or endangered, and second, because they are considered "baseline actions" that are 

required through other processes such as section 7 consultations, FERC licensing agreements, and 

Habitat Conservation Plans. Cost estimates for estuary actions are included in a module that is 

incorporated into the Plan by reference, and is available on the NMFS website: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon Recovery Planning/ESA Recovery Plans/Other Documents.cfm. The 

estuary recovery costs could be further refined following public comment on the module and on the 

ESA recovery plan for the three listed lower Columbia River ESUs and one listed lower Columbia 

River steelhead DPS in 2009. Costs for hatchery actions required through other processes such as 

consultations, permits, and 4(d) Rule implementation are not part of recovery costs reported here 

because the programs are already in existence or are undergoing required modifications. There are 

few estimated costs for recovery actions associated with harvest to report at this time. This is because 

no actions are currently proposed that go beyond those already being implemented through U.S. v. 

Oregon and other harvest management forums. In the event that additional harvest actions are 

implemented through these forums, those costs will be added during the implementation phase of this 

recovery plan. All cost estimates will be refined and updated over time. 

Cost estimates from the draft cost chapters in the individual management plans were developed as 

consistently as possible, in that they all applied guidance provided by NMFS staff. However, the 

approaches vary to some degree given the local and independent nature of the planning groups. Costs 

developed in the management unit plans were estimated using several basic assumptions (i.e., neither 

baseline costs nor out-of-basin costs were included in the estimates) and used similar cost calculation 

methodologies. There are, however, differences in the timeframes for cost estimates. 

8.2.1 Oregon Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan

Oregon’s Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan presents extensive cost information for 

proposed recovery actions by strategies and populations in its Section 11 (Recovery Cost Summary 

Table) and two cost tables in Appendix I. Cost estimates for proposed recovery projects were 

developed using the unit cost method described in Section 11. Table I-1 (All Actions by Population, 

Strategy and Category) in Appendix I summarizes estimated total costs that can currently be 

identified for recovery actions in each Oregon population and strategy. These do not include certain 

high cost actions such as land and water acquisition or water leases. ODFW worked with regional 

experts to identify costs, scale or unit costs for actions that need more information during the public 

comment period. The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan’s Appendix I, Table I-1 was updated with this 

new information for the final recovery plan. The total expected 5-year expenditure for all populations 

is $103,537,000. The overall total cost estimate for all proposed actions, where costs are available, 

for all populations is $512,843,328. 

8.2.2 Washington Gorge Management Unit Plan

Costs are provided for the three smaller subbasin plans that make up the Washington Gorge 

management unit. Costs for steelhead habitat recovery for the White Salmon subbasin are included 

here; however, the White Salmon plan will be finalized as part of the Lower Columbia River ESA 

Recovery Plan because more than one species of listed salmonid spawns in the White Salmon 

subbasin. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

8.2.2.1 Klickitat Recovery Plan 

Costs for habitat recovery actions are estimated at approximately $26 million for years 1-10, 

approximately $104 million for years 11-50, and $130 million over a 50-year period. The funds to 

cover improvements at Lyle Falls and Castile Falls total $5.9 million (Klickitat Plan, Appendix B to 

this plan). Ongoing and expanded research monitoring and evaluation activities are estimated to cost 

roughly $4,484,402 total for years 1 to 3 and $15,142,783 total for years 4 through 10. 

8.2.2.2 Rock Creek Recovery Plan 

The plan estimates funding needs for habitat projects for the first 3 years at approximately $600,000. 

Total costs for recovery, expected to occur over a 10-year period, are approximately $1.8 million. 

Other costs will be developed as actions are proposed and implemented. The estimated cost for filling 

data gaps is roughly $3,350,000 over 10 years ($2,095,000 total for years 1 to 3 and $1,255,000 total 

for years 4 through 10). 

8.2.2.3 White Salmon Steelhead Recovery Plan 

The plan estimates costs for implementing the proposed habitat actions for the White Salmon 

drainage, based on the costs of specific reach actions identified in the plan. Habitat action costs for 

recovery over a 10-year time period are estimated to be $6.5 million ($2.17 million for years 1-3 and 

$4.33 million for years 4-10). 

8.2.3 Southeast Washington Plan

The Southeast Washington Plan contains a 5-year implementation plan (2006-2011) with actions that 

can be carried out in the near future to reduce threats to listed fish. The plan’s cost estimates are 

based on unit cost estimates for each type of project envisioned for seven major spawning areas 

(MaSA) in which listed fish reside. Of these, four MaSAs are home to Mid Columbia steelhead. For 

steelhead in these MaSAs, the plan estimates implementation cost as approximately $5 million per 

year and approximately $76 million for total costs to recovery, exclusive of monitoring and 

evaluation. 

8.2.4 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan 

The Yakima Steelhead Plan (Appendix E) identifies preliminary cost estimates for each action in 

accordance with NMFS’ guidelines for developing cost estimates. The Plan categorizes each project’s 

implementation as occurring over time spans of 0-3 years, 4-6 years, 6-10 years, or > 10 years. The 

estimate for projects expected to be completed within the first 6 years is approximately $110 million. 

The estimated total cost of recovery, for projects where sufficient information upon which to base an 

estimate exists, is approximately $211million. 

8.3 Time Estimate 

NMFS estimates that recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS could take 25 to 50 years. 

While the management unit plans contain extensive lists of actions to recover the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS populations, there are many uncertainties involved in predicting the course of recovery 

and in estimating total costs. Such uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses to 

recovery actions as well as long-term and future funding. While continued programmatic actions in 

the management of habitat, hatcheries, hydro, and harvest will warrant additional expenditures 

beyond the first 10 years, NMFS believes it is impracticable to estimate all projected actions and 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 8 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

costs over 50 years, given the large number of economic, biological, and social variables involved. 

NMFS believes it is appropriate to focus on the first 5 years of implementation, with the proviso that 

before the end of the first implementation period, specific actions and costs will be estimated for 

subsequent years, to achieve long-term goals and to proceed until a determination is made that listing 

is no longer necessary. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

9. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS 

This chapter presents an analysis of the potential effects of proposed recovery actions on the 

abundance and productivity of Middle Columbia River steelhead. Estimated levels of 

effectiveness for the proposed actions are generated and used as inputs into quantitative models to 

project the potential impacts of those changes on populations. In most cases, results are expressed 

as changes in steelhead abundance and productivity compared to the “baseline” abundance and 

productivity that the ICTRT calculated for the period 1980-2001. These quantitative analyses 

provide an opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of proposed recovery strategies in light of current 

knowledge regarding population functioning, including relationships with habitat conditions. 

Equally important, the quantitative models used in the assessment provide a framework for 

productively targeting evaluation efforts as well as for revisiting key assumptions in the future as 

more information becomes available (e.g., from monitoring responses to initial implementation or 

from evaluation efforts targeting key uncertainties). 

The analyses were performed sequentially, first by projecting effects for tributary habitat actions 

alone, then sequentially adding in hatchery, hydro, predation, estuary, and harvest actions. The 

results at each step provide a means for comparing estimated relative benefits of the proposed 

suites of actions, and, finally, the potential benefit of all the proposed actions to the Middle 

Columbia steelhead DPS. Last, these results are compared to the gaps identified by the ICTRT 

(see Chapter 5 of this Plan). 

Two models were used: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and the All-H-Analyzer 

(AHA). The EDT model has commonly been used in regional planning efforts across the DPS to 

evaluate potential responses to tributary habitat restoration efforts. The EDT model uses derived 

relationships between habitat characteristics and fish survival to calculate changes in survival, 

abundance, and productivity that could result from changes in the habitat. Use of the EDT model 

requires a set of inputs that describe current habitat conditions and the expected changes in habitat 

conditions that would result from a proposed action scenario. This model could be used, for 

example, to calculate the improvement that would be expected from a 10 percent drop in water 

temperature during the period of egg incubation in a certain tributary reach. The AHA model 

encompasses prospective relationships between all the “H” factors: habitat, hatcheries, hydro, and 

harvest. Thus, the results of the EDT model become one set of information fed into the AHA 

model to produce an estimate of the benefits of all the proposed actions. 

For the Oregon populations, modifications were made to the EDT and AHA models to improve 

their application for this analysis. These modifications or refinements are described in Chapter 10 

of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix A), as follows: 

“EDT and AHA address different life stages in the life cycle and thus the different limiting 

factors that affect salmonid population performance (Figure 10-1). We incorporated several 

refinements to the modeling procedures for each platform as they are usually employed in the 

region to improve application for our objectives. For EDT, we formulated an auxiliary tool for 

defining action effectiveness to better ensure that we considered the distinct elements of 

effectiveness consistently between actions and subbasins, and we incorporated an implementation 

timeframe element. For AHA, we disaggregated the life cycle into more segments than used in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

the standard AHA in order to completely incorporate the effects of habitat conditions in the 

juvenile life stages following emigration from the subbasin through the adult life stages, until 

return to the subbasin. We also formulated a module for AHA to provide an efficient way of 

processing the large number of action combinations—both in tributaries and the mainstem 

Columbia—of interest to this analysis. In addition, we modified the default settings in AHA for 

genetic fitness to produce results that appear to be more consistent with how the populations of 

interest are currently performing” (ODFW 2008). 

The models indicate, based on the suites of proposed actions in all the sectors, that all Middle 

Columbia River steelhead populations for which there are adequate data are expected to achieve 

less than 5 percent risk for abundance/productivity if the most intensive (major) restoration 

scenarios are implemented and the projected habitat changes are realized. Under minimum 

restoration scenarios, three populations (Deschutes Westside, Satus, and Upper Yakima) may not 

achieve less than 5 percent risk for abundance/productivity. However, even under poor ocean 

conditions and minimum restoration actions, the abundance and productivity of these three 

populations are expected to increase considerably over the baseline. 

The results of the modeling analyses of the restoration scenarios are summarized by population in 

Section 9.2, by MPG in Section 9.3 and for the DPS in Section 9.4. Section 9.1 describes 

technical aspects of the analytical method. 

It is important to note that the modeling results relative to recovery criteria are a function of the 

input information and key assumptions associated with the translation of actions into habitat 

changes, habitat and life-stage survival relationships, and population dynamics. Although the 

modeling provides valuable insight into the potential responses to recovery actions, the estimated 

potential responses are dependent on the assumptions and information put into the models. 

9.1 Integration Approach 

The analysis of action effectiveness for all populations except Rock Creek was performed using 

two modeling platforms: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and the All-H-Analyzer 

(AHA). Linking the two models provided a way of projecting benefits measured at the end of the 

life cycle for a wide range of actions, regardless of what life stage an action affects. 

For the Oregon Middle Columbia steelhead populations and for a description of the modeling 

approach, this chapter relies substantially on the analysis performed by ODFW biologists and 

detailed in Section 10 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (ODFW 2008). The Oregon 

analyses considered tributary habitat changes projected for reach specific action strategies. The 

Yakima and SE Washington area population level model assessments incorporated results from 

more generic EDT tributary habitat restoration scenario analyses. 

Estimates of the relative changes in population abundance and productivity associated with 

potential changes in tributary habitat conditions for the Touchet and the four Yakima populations 

were compiled in the regional recovery plans. A set of estimates for the Klickitat population was 

provided by Yakama Nation Fisheries biologists. All of these estimates for Washington area 

steelhead populations were based on EDT model runs generated for previous planning exercises 

(e.g., NWPPC 2004 Subbasin Plans). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Benefits associated with proposed actions for the Rock Creek steelhead population were 

estimated with the simple, multiplicative approach used in NMFS’ 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion (Comprehensive Analysis of Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem 

Effects of Upper Snake and Other Tributary Actions [CA]) and the Supplemental CA [SCA]). 

This approach estimated only density-independent survivals, unlike EDT and AHA, which 

modeled density dependent effects. 

9.1.1 EDT Model 

The EDT model was used to analyze the potential benefits of tributary habitat actions. In the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan, four scenarios were modeled for each Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

population, using EDT: (1) actions only in high priority areas at 25 years in the future; (2) actions 

only in high priority areas at 100 years in the future; (3) actions in all priority areas at 25 years in 

the future; and (4) actions in all priority areas at 100 years in the future. The expected change in 

habitat conditions assuming that the tributary protection and restoration actions are implemented 

following the general schedule described for each population was input into the EDT model for 

each scenario. The model results for a particular scenario represent the expected average 

performance of a population over a number of years given the specified habitat conditions. In 

addition, the Deschutes Westside population was modeled with and without passage at the PeltonRound Butte Complex to estimate added benefits of passage and restoration of natural production 

in the blocked areas (see Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan for more details). 

Assessments of the potential response to tributary habitat changes resulting from implementation 

of the proposed actions for the Washington area populations were adapted from EDT analyses 

generated in developing the 2004/2005 NWPPC subbasin plans. Some modifications were made 

to reflect updates to the proposed tributary actions incorporated into the regional draft recovery 

plans. A single recovery action scenario was modeled for Washington populations, the model 

results represent the expected average performance of a population over a period of years given 

the projected changes in habitat conditions input into the EDT model corresponding to the 

proposed recovery strategy. For populations in Washington, no distinction was made between 

high priority actions and other actions; all actions were modeled, and future time horizons were 

only specified for the Walla Walla and Touchet populations (10-15 years future). Therefore, to 

complete the exercise for the Walla Walla population, which spawns in both states, the model 

combined Washington actions (10-15-year time horizon) with Oregon actions (all priority 

actions) using the 25-year time horizon. 

Two different restoration scenarios were modeled for populations in the Yakima Basin. The first 

scenario, referred to as “minimum habitat restoration,” used an updated version of the reference 

conditions from the Yakima Subbasin Plan, as described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

The second scenario, referred to as “major habitat restoration,” assumed that restoration actions 

will achieve about 50 percent of “properly functioning conditions” (a standardized set of criteria 

for watershed restoration [NMFS 1996]), across the basin. For both the Satus Creek and 

Toppenish River populations, the scenarios assumed that the basin consisted predominantly of 

anadromous life history types. For the Naches and Upper Yakima populations, the model was 

configured to partition habitat between resident and anadromous life history types and assume a 

steady-state abundance for resident fish. Performance of the Klickitat population was also 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

modeled under two different restoration scenarios. One included restoring conditions in areas 

already used by steelhead (i.e., it did not include recolonization of areas upstream from Castile 

Falls); the other included recolonization of the upper watershed (upstream from Castile Falls) and 

restoration of habitat throughout the basin. Both restoration scenarios assumed that major habitat 

limiting factors would be restored to 40 percent effectiveness. 

For Oregon populations, the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan considered the influence of five 

factors for determining how effective an action may be in improving habitat conditions. The five 

factors were: (1) potential effectiveness – maximum effect of action type when fully implemented 

in targeted area; (2) intensity – scale of implementation within the targeted geographic area; (3) 

time lag – amount of potential effectiveness realized after 25 or 100 years; (4) schedule – delay in 

realizing potential effect due to implementation schedule; and (5) attribute – amount of reduced 

effectiveness associated with a specific attribute. The product of these scalars resulted in a 

“realized effectiveness” for each attribute (see Section 10.1.2 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan for more details). 

9.1.2 AHA Model 

The purpose of using the AHA model was to integrate the effects of various types of actions over 

the full life cycle of the fish. In the AHA model, the EDT analyses of tributary habitat actions 

were linked to prospective recovery actions involving hatchery fish and the mainstem Columbia 

River. This provided a way of projecting benefits measured at the end of the life cycle for a wide 

range of potential actions, regardless of what life stage an action affected. Section 10 in the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan describes in detail the AHA modeling approach. 

For all populations except Rock Creek, AHA was used to model a set of scenarios representing 

baseline conditions (average conditions for migration years 1980-2001), current conditions 

(average conditions for migration years 2002-2006), and combinations of actions aimed at 

tributary habitat, mainstem Columbia River factors, and hatchery fish management. The model 

allowed the inclusion of potential effects of hatchery programs on the genetic fitness of the 

naturally produced populations. It also included several prospective actions to be implemented in 

the mainstem Columbia River, including: predator management – aimed at reducing predation 

rates caused by terns and northern pikeminnow; downstream juvenile passage improvements – 

measures to improve survival at each of the mainstem dams; Columbia estuary habitat 

improvements – measures to enhance habitat conditions within the Columbia estuary; and harvest 

– regulatory measures to reduce or hold harvest impacts in the mainstem Columbia River to 

current levels. The model incorporated survival improvement estimates for predation, 

hydrosystem, and estuary actions that were provided in the CA and SCA reports. 

Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then 

adding in actions sequentially. Using AHA, the effects of hatchery programs on genetic fitness of 

natural-origin fish were incorporated for each scenario. Actions intending to control the number 

of stray hatchery fish in subbasins were modeled as part of another set of scenarios. Finally, the 

effects of potential changes in marine survival were modeled. All of the scenarios were modeled 

using an average marine survival rate corresponding to the average during both the baseline and 

current periods. Then, two additional scenarios were modeled; one representing relatively good 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

ocean conditions (125 percent of the average condition) and the other representing relatively poor 

ocean conditions (75 percent of the average condition). 

The output from AHA was expressed as Beverton-Holt population parameters, which represent 

the expectations of change for each population’s abundance and productivity as a result of all the 

proposed actions. This change can be thought of as a percent change (e.g., 25 percent) or a ratio 

(e.g., 1.25). This needed to be “translated” into the same terms as the ICTRT’s baseline 

abundance and productivity calculations for each population, which were derived empirically. 

Therefore, the ICTRT’s baseline abundance and productivity values for each population were 

multiplied by the percent of change estimated by the AHA model. For example, if the AHA 

model indicated that abundance for a certain population will increase by 25 percent as a result of 

the proposed actions, then the ICTRT baseline abundance for that population was multiplied by 

1.25 to get the projected estimate for abundance for that population under the recovery scenario. 

These calculations are described fully in Section 10.1 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan and 

shown in Figure 10-2 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

9.2 Effects of Recovery Actions 

This section presents a summary of results of the benefits of proposed actions on Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations (see respective management unit recovery plans [Appendices AE]for more detail). Changes in performance measures associated with each action scenario are 

presented for intrinsic productivity and spawner abundance. Except where noted otherwise, the 

results are comparable to population metrics for baseline performance, as derived empirically by 

the ICTRT, and to minimum productivity (at the threshold abundance level) and abundance 

viability thresholds at the 5 percent risk level in a 100-year time period. Performance measures 

are given for three periods: base period (1980-2001), base-current period (2002-2006), and the 

current-prospective period (2006-future). The latter varies depending on population. For those 

populations entirely within Oregon, the prospective period includes results at 25 and 100 years in 

the future. For Walla Walla and Touchet populations, results are projected ≤ 25 years in the 

future, while those in the Yakima and Klickitat have no defined future time horizon. A more 

detailed presentation of results for Oregon populations can be found in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 in 

the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. Section 10.2 of the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan 

includes maps for each population showing the geographic areas that are currently in protected 

status, stream reaches where high priority actions are proposed, and restoration benefits from high 

priority actions for all reaches (ODFW 2009). 

9.2.1 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG

Deschutes River Westside Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Deschutes River Westside steelhead (Table 8.4; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The largest 

increases in population performance are associated with decreasing the number of stray hatchery 

fish and/or by providing passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex (including passage at 

Whychus Creek barriers). In the absence of the removal of strays or passage, benefits are much 

reduced. For those scenario combinations lacking removal of strays and passage, beneficial 

effects of tributary actions are greatest. However, predicted increases in abundance and 

productivity associated with habitat actions are less than 20 percent and between 35-55 percent, 

respectively. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-1 shows estimated abundance and productivity for the Deschutes River Westside 

population associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with and without passage at Pelton-Round 

Butte Dam Complex and with and without action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 95 

percent of those expected to enter the relevant area for the scenario. All scenario combinations 

include average ocean conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25 

percent represents performance of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean 

conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current 

conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. 

Data are from Table 10-39 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-1. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Deschutes River Westside Steelhead with Proposed Actions.

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

No passage 

and no stray 

action 

No passage 

with stray 

action 

Passage 

with stray 

action 

No passage 

and no 

stray 

action 

No passage 

with stray 

action 

Passage 

with stray 

action 

Base 1.05 456 

Base-Current 1.17 1.84 514 557 

CurrentProspective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 1.59 2.44 2.39 578 610 880 

Hydro 1.67 2.57 2.52 610 641 925 

Predation 1.74 2.68 2.63 638 669 966 

Estuary 1.84 2.84 2.78 675 707 1,020 

Harvest 1.84 2.84 2.78 675 707 1,020 

Ocean ±25% 1.38-2.29 2.13-3.55 2.08-3.47 497-844 530-875 763-1,263 

CurrentProspective 

(100 yrs 

future) 

Habitat 1.82 2.78 2.74 630 660 931 

Hydro 1.92 2.92 2.88 665 694 978 

Predation 2.00 3.05 3.01 696 725 1,020 

Estuary 2.11 3.23 3.18 738 767 1,077 

Harvest 2.11 3.23 3.18 738 767 1,077 

Ocean ±25% 1.59-2.64 2.42-4.03 2.39-3.98 542-927 571-955 810-1,329 

Deschutes River Eastside Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Deschutes River Eastside steelhead (Table 9.5; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). 

The largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with 

the greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that between 50-70 percent 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

of historical habitat potential for abundance will be achieved. The amount of habitat potential 

reflected in productivity, however, is somewhat less, being between 25-45 percent of potential. 

This means that the habitat actions will have a greater effect on habitat quantity than on habitat 

quality. Substantial benefits to both productivity and abundance are also expected to occur as a 

result of reducing the number of stray hatchery fish spawning with naturally produced fish. 

Table 9-2 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Deschutes 

River Eastside steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically 

for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with and without action to reduce the 

number of hatchery strays by 95 percent of those expected to enter the relevant areas for the 

scenario. All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline 

and current conditions); ocean ±25 percent represents performance of combined actions under 

relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with 

baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the 

previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-38 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-2. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Deschutes River Eastside Steelhead with Proposed Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

No stray action With stray 

action No stray action With stray action 

Base 1.89 1,599 

Base-Current 2.10 3.71 2,340 4,634 

CurrentProspective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.26 6.80 6,973 8,323 

Hydro 4.47 7.15 7,471 8,818 

Predation 4.67 7.47 7,921 9,265 

Estuary 4.93 7.89 8,520 9,859 

Harvest 4.93 7.89 8,520 9,859 

Ocean ±25% 3.71-6.13 5.91-9.88 5,679-11,199 7,039-12,519 

CurrentProspective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 5.97 9.20 8,643 9,619 

Hydro 6.26 9.67 9,174 10,151 

Predation 6.53 10.10 9,656 10,632 

Estuary 6.89 10.68 10,295 11,272 

Harvest 6.89 10.68 10,295 11,272 

Ocean ±25% 5.22-8.54 8.00-13.35 7,265-13,167 8,239-14,140 

Klickitat River Population 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Klickitat River steelhead (Table 9-6; note that performance values in the table are direct output 

from EDT/AHA and have not been converted into ICTRT-equivalent performance values). The 

largest contribution to performance improvements results from the combination of tributary 

habitat actions throughout the basin and recolonization of the upper watershed (recolonization of 

the upper watershed is possible because of passage improvements at Castile Falls). In contrast, 

relatively small increases are attributable to mainstem actions. 

Table 9-3 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Klickitat 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly from EDT/AHA and were not converted to 

ICTRT-equivalent performance values (the ICTRT was unable to empirically estimate baseline 

performance measures for this population because of a lack of data). Results are shown with and 

without recolonization of the upper watershed. All scenario combinations include average ocean 

conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance 

of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. 

Table 9-3. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Klickitat River steelhead associated with Combinations of 

all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Actions 

without 

recolonization 

of upper 

watershed 

Actions with 

recolonization 

of upper 

watershed 

Actions without 

recolonization of 

upper watershed 

Actions with 

recolonization of 

upper watershed 

Base 1.77 939 

Base-Current 1.92 1.92 1,118 1,118 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 2.12 2.38 1,319 2,320 

Hydro 2.24 2.50 1,468 2,572 

Predation 2.29 2.56 1,538 2,692 

Estuary 2.36 2.62 1,630 2,850 

Harvest 2.36 2.62 1,630 2,850 

Ocean ±25% 2.01-2.64 2.27-2.90 1,181-2,026 2,088-3,539 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Fifteenmile Creek steelhead (Table 9.7; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The 

largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions. It is 

predicted that between 50-70 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

abundance will be achieved. In contrast, relatively small increases are attributable to mainstem 

actions. 

Table 9-4 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Fifteenmile 

Creek steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions 

(average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of 

combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-37 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-4. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead associated with Combinations 

of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions.

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 1.82 703 

Base-Current 1.96 764 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.02 1,342 

Hydro 3.02 1,345 

Predation 3.16 1,410 

Estuary 3.34 1,496 

Harvest 3.34 1,496 

Ocean ±25% 2.50-4.17 1,095-1,898 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.79 1,502 

Hydro 3.80 1,506 

Predation 3.96 1,577 

Estuary 4.19 1,672 

Harvest 4.19 1,672 

Ocean ±25% 3.14-5.24 1,230-2,114 

Rock Creek Population 

Because no ETD/AHA modeling was conducted for Rock Creek steelhead, potential benefits in 

productivity were estimated with the multiplicative approach used in the FCRPS BiOp (CA and 

SCA reports). This approach did not estimate productivity or abundance values. Rather, it 

estimated changes in productivity associated with actions within each sector (habitat, hatchery, 

hydrosystem, predation, estuary, and harvest). Values for habitat should be considered a 

minimum estimate, given that the FCRPS BiOp assumed no habitat restoration actions in the 

subbasin. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Based on the survival changes presented in the FCRPS BiOp for each sector, Rock Creek 

steelhead productivity was projected to increase about 13 percent during the base-current period 

(Table 9-8). For the current-prospective period, productivity is projected to increase about 21 

percent. Most of this increase is associated with actions in the hydrosystem and estuary. 

Table 9-5 shows estimated proportional changes in average base-period productivity of Rock 

Creek steelhead expected from completed actions and current human activities that are likely to 

continue in the future (base-current) and proposed future tributary and out-of-subbasin actions 

(current-prospective). Estimates greater than 1.00 result in higher survival (e.g., 1.134 indicates a 

13.4 percent increase in survival, compared to the base period average); 1.00 indicates no change; 

and estimates less than 1.00 result in lower survival (e.g., 0.997 indicates a 0.3 percent reduction 

in survival, compared to the base period average. Because no EDT/AHA modeling was 

completed for Rock Creek steelhead, estimated changes in productivity are from the FCRPS 

BiOp (SCA and CA reports). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 11 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-5. Estimated Proportional Changes in Average Base-Period Productivity of Rock Creek Steelhead. 

Performance period Scenario combination* Change in Productivity 

Base-Current 

Habitat 1.000 

Hydro 1.090 

Predation 0.997 

Estuary 1.003 

Harvest 1.040 

Hatchery 1.000 

Total 1.134 

Current-Prospective 

Habitat 1.000 

Hydro 1.100 

Predation 1.044 

Estuary 1.057 

Harvest 1.000 

Hatchery 1.000 

Total 1.214 

Tributary habitat estimates are from CA Chapter 10, Table 10-9; hydro estimates are from SCA Hydro Modeling Appendix B; 

predation estimates are from CA Appendix F, Attachment F-1 (for pikeminnow predation), CA Appendix F, Attachment F-2, Table 

4, based on the “Prospective 2 S/Current 2 S” approach (for bird predation), and SCA Marine Mammal Appendix (for marine 

mammal predation); and estuary estimates are from CA Appendix D, Attachment D-1, Table 6. The analyses assumed no survival 

changes associated with harvest or hatchery programs. Total survival improvement multipliers are the product of the survival 

improvement multipliers in each previous row. 

9.2.2 John Day River MPG 

Lower John Day River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Lower John Day River steelhead (Table 9.9; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The 

largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat actions can achieve 

about 31-40 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and abundance. Benefits 

associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-6 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Lower John 

Day River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically 

for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean 

conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance 

of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 12 

DPS Recovery Plan 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-40 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-6. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Lower John Day River steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions.

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 2.99 1,800 

Base-Current 3.44 2,423 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.99 5,751 

Hydro 5.43 6,537 

Predation 5.65 6,918 

Estuary 5.94 7,427 

Harvest 5.94 7,427 

Ocean ±25% 4.61-7.33 5,047-9,722 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 7.31 8,627 

Hydro 7.94 9,628 

Predation 8.25 10,112 

Estuary 8.67 10,758 

Harvest 8.67 10,758 

Ocean ±25% 6.77-10.66 7,728-13,667 

North Fork John Day River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for North Fork John Day River steelhead (Table 9.10; Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan). The largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat 

actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat 

actions can achieve about 45-55 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and 

abundance. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition 

of actions. 

Table 9-7 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of North Fork 

John Day River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived 

empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average 

ocean conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25 percent represents 

performance of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios 

were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 13 

DPS Recovery Plan 

actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-41 in the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-7. Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of North Fork John Day River 

Steelhead associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions.

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 2.41 1,740 

Base-Current 2.77 2,101 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.44 2,762 

Hydro 3.77 3,090 

Predation 3.94 3,248 

Estuary 4.16 3,458 

Harvest 4.16 3,458 

Ocean ±25% 3.14-5.18 2,465-4,404 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.03 3,209 

Hydro 4.42 3,572 

Predation 4.61 3,747 

Estuary 4.87 3,980 

Harvest 4.87 3,980 

Ocean ±25% 3.69-6.06 2,880-5,028 

Middle Fork John Day River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Middle Fork John Day River steelhead (Table 9.11; Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan). The largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat 

actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat 

actions can achieve about 40-55 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and 

abundance. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition 

of actions. 

Table 9-8 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Middle Fork 

John Day River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived 

empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average 

ocean conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents 

performance of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios 

were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 14 

DPS Recovery Plan 

actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-42 in the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-8. Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of Middle Fork John Day River 

Steelhead associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions.

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 2.45 756 

Base-Current 2.82 921 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.24 1,385 

Hydro 4.64 1,545 

Predation 4.84 1,622 

Estuary 5.11 1,724 

Harvest 5.11 1,724 

Ocean ±25% 3.88-6.35 1,240-2,186 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 5.46 1,694 

Hydro 5.97 1,878 

Predation 6.23 1,966 

Estuary 6.57 2,084 

Harvest 6.57 2,084 

Ocean ±25% 5.00-8.15 1,528-2,616 

South Fork John Day River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for South Fork John Day River steelhead (Table 9.12; Oregon Steelhead Recovery 

Plan). The largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat 

actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat 

actions can achieve about 40-55 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and 

abundance. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition 

of actions. 

Table 9-9 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of South Fork 

John Day River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived 

empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average 

ocean conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents 

performance of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios 

were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 15 

DPS Recovery Plan 

actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-43 in the 

Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-9. Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of South Fork John Day River 

Steelhead associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 2.06 259 

Base-Current 2.37 315 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.03 414 

Hydro 3.32 464 

Predation 3.46 488 

Estuary 3.66 520 

Harvest 3.66 520 

Ocean ±25% 2.76-4.55 369-665 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.72 491 

Hydro 4.07 546 

Predation 4.25 573 

Estuary 4.48 609 

Harvest 4.48 609 

Ocean ±25% 3.40-5.57 440-769 

Upper John Day River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Upper John Day River steelhead (Table 9.13; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The 

largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat actions can achieve 

about 35-55 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and abundance. Benefits 

associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-10 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Upper John 

Day River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically 

for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean 

conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance 

of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-44 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 16 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-10. Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of Upper John Day River 

Steelhead associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 2.14 524 

Base-Current 2.46 650 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.14 1,262 

Hydro 4.52 1,409 

Predation 4.71 1,480 

Estuary 4.97 1,575 

Harvest 4.97 1,575 

Ocean ±25% 3.79-6.16 1,129-2,004 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 5.35 1,566 

Hydro 5.85 1,738 

Predation 6.09 1,821 

Estuary 6.42 1,931 

Harvest 6.42 1,931 

Ocean ±25% 4.91-7.95 1,411-2,431 

9.2.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Umatilla River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Umatilla River steelhead (Table 9.14; Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). The largest 

contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with greatest 

benefits accruing for the 100-year scenario. It is predicted that habitat actions can achieve about 

45-70 percent of historical habitat potential for both productivity and abundance. Benefits 

associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-11 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Umatilla 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions 

(average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of 

combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-45 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 17 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-11 Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of Umatilla River Steelhead 

associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 1.50 1,472 

Base-Current 1.73 1,820 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 3.18 3,685 

Hydro 3.50 4,092 

Predation 3.65 4,287 

Estuary 3.86 4,545 

Harvest 3.86 4,545 

Ocean ±25% 2.90-4.82 3,313-5,693 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 4.03 4,355 

Hydro 4.42 4,808 

Predation 4.62 5,026 

Estuary 4.88 5,314 

Harvest 4.88 5,314 

Ocean ±25% 3.67-6.09 3,940-6,592 

Walla Walla River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase markedly for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Walla Walla River steelhead (Table 9-12a and 9-12b). The largest contribution to 

performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions. Benefits associated with 

mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-12a shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Walla 

Walla River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions, including combined benefits of actions proposed in the Oregon portion of the Walla 

Walla basin with those proposed in the Washington portion of the basin. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline and 

current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of combined actions under relatively 

poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, 

then current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous 

scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 18 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-12a. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Walla Walla River Steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions, Including both Oregon and Washington. 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 1.34 650 

Base-Current 1.60 864 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 2.78 2,214 

Hydro 3.12 2,515 

Predation 3.25 2,634 

Estuary 3.44 2,790 

Harvest 3.44 2,790 

Ocean ±25% 2.58-4.30 2,033-3,465 

Table 9-12b. Estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Walla Walla 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary actions only within the 

Oregon portion of the Walla Walla basin and out-of-subbasin actions (this analysis does not 

include habitat actions proposed within the Washington portion of the Walla Walla basin). 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions 

(average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of 

combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. Data are from Table 10-46 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Table 9-12b. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Walla Walla River Steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary Actions within Oregon and Out-of-Subbasin Actions (but not with 

actions in Washington). 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 1.34 650 

Base-Current 1.60 864 

Current-Prospective 

(25 yrs future) 

Habitat 2.51 1,576 

Hydro 2.81 1,779 

Predation 2.94 1,859 

Estuary 3.11 1,961 

Harvest 3.11 1,961 

Ocean ±25% 2.33-3.88 1,451-2,393 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 19 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Current-Prospective 

(100 yrs future) 

Habitat 2.76 1,730 

Hydro 3.09 1,944 

Predation 3.23 2,027 

Estuary 3.41 2,136 

Harvest 3.41 2,136 

Ocean ±25% 2.56-4.27 1,599-2,590 

Touchet River Population 

Because of a lack of empirical data for the Touchet River steelhead population, base productivity 

was estimated as the median of the empirical series of estimates for the Walla Walla and Umatilla 

populations. This resulted in an estimated productivity of 1.42 for the Touchet population. It is 

important to note that this value is only a surrogate and will be replaced with an empirically 

derived estimate after there is a data series of sufficient length. 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for Touchet River steelhead (Table 9-13). A 

relatively large contribution to performance improvements should result from tributary habitat 

actions. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of 

actions. 

Table 9-13 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Touchet 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Base productivity was estimated as the median of the empirical series of productivity from the 

Walla Walla and Umatilla populations. All scenario combinations include average ocean 

conditions (average during baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance 

of combined actions under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 20 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-13. Estimated productivity and abundance of Touchet River steelhead associated with Combinations of 

all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance period Scenario combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Base 1.42 310 

Base-Current 1.69 387 

Current-Prospective 

(10-15 yrs future) 

Habitat 2.97 914 

Hydro 3.33 1,032 

Predation 3.48 1,078 

Estuary 3.67 1,139 

Harvest 3.67 1,139 

Ocean ±25% 2.57-4.59 609-1,402 

9.2.4 Yakima MPG 

Satus Creek Population (tributary only) 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Satus Creek steelhead (Table 9-14). The largest contribution to performance improvements 

results from tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the major habitat 

restoration scenario, which assumes that restoration actions will achieve about 50 percent of 

Properly Functioning Conditions across the watershed. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-14 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Satus Creek 

steelhead (tributary only) associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived 

empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with minimum habitat 

restoration actions (using reference conditions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan) 

and major habitat restoration actions (restoring 50 percent of Properly Functioning Conditions 

across the subbasin). All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during 

baseline and current conditions); ocean ±25 percent represents performance of combined actions 

under relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, 

starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being 

added to the previous scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 21 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-14. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Satus Creek Steelhead (Tributary only) associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Base 1.73 1.73 379 379 

Base-Current 2.06 2.06 487 487 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 2.29 5.14 540 1,474 

Hydro 2.52 5.63 607 1,624 

Predation 2.63 5.87 639 1,696 

Estuary 2.78 6.19 682 1,793 

Harvest 2.78 6.19 682 1,793 

Ocean ±25% 2.09-3.46 4.70-7.70 478-870 1,338-2,225 

Toppenish River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Toppenish River steelhead (Table 9-15). The largest contribution to performance improvements 

results from tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the major habitat 

restoration scenario, which assumes that restoration actions will achieve about 50 percent of 

Properly Functioning Conditions across the watershed. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-15 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Toppenish 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with minimum habitat restoration actions 

(using reference conditions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan) and major habitat 

restoration actions (restoring 50 percent of Properly Functioning Conditions across the subbasin). 

All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline and current 

conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of combined actions under relatively poor and 

good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then 

current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous 

scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 22 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-15. Estimated Population Performance (Productivity and Abundance) of Toppenish River Steelhead 

associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Base 1.60 1.60 322 322 

Base-Current 2.05 2.05 462 462 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 2.32 4.78 564 1,597 

Hydro 2.55 5.23 635 1,760 

Predation 2.66 5.45 670 1,839 

Estuary 2.81 5.75 715 1,944 

Harvest 2.81 5.75 715 1,944 

Ocean ±25% 2.12-3.51 4.37-7.16 499-918 1,448-2,413 

Naches River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Naches River steelhead (Table 9-16). The largest contribution to performance improvements 

results from tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the major habitat 

restoration scenario, which assumes that restoration actions will achieve about 50 percent of 

Properly Functioning Conditions across the watershed. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-16 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Naches 

River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with minimum habitat restoration actions 

(using reference conditions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan) and major habitat 

restoration actions (restoring 50 percent of Properly Functioning Conditions across the subbasin). 

All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline and current 

conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of combined actions under relatively poor and 

good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then 

current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous 

scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 23 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-16. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Naches River Steelhead associated with Combinations of 

all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Base 1.12 1.12 472 472 

Base-Current 1.34 1.34 971 971 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 1.63 3.20 1,575 5,427 

Hydro 1.76 3.43 1,860 5,997 

Predation 1.83 3.55 2,002 6,273 

Estuary 1.92 3.71 2,192 6,644 

Harvest 1.92 3.71 2,192 6,644 

Ocean ±25% 1.53-2.36 3.06-4.51 1,347-3,054 4,989-8,320 

Upper Yakima River Population 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations analyzed for 

Upper Yakima River steelhead (Table 9-17). The largest contribution to performance 

improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing for the major 

habitat restoration scenario, which assumes that restoration actions will achieve about 50 percent 

of Properly Functioning Conditions across the watershed. Benefits associated with mainstem 

actions are cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Table 9-17 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of Upper 

Yakima River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically 

for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with minimum habitat restoration 

actions (using reference conditions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan) and major 

habitat restoration actions (restoring 50 percent of Properly Functioning Conditions across the 

subbasin). All scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline 

and current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of combined actions under relatively 

poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, 

then current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous 

scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 24 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-17. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Upper Yakima River Steelhead associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Minimum 

habitat 

restoration 

Major habitat 

restoration 

Base 1.09 1.09 85 85 

Base-Current 1.30 1.30 363 363 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 1.46 2.58 923 3,809 

Hydro 1.50 2.62 1,041 4,089 

Predation 1.56 2.72 1,179 4,337 

Estuary 1.64 2.86 1,367 4,672 

Harvest 1.64 2.86 1,367 4,672 

Ocean ±25% 1.32-2.03 2.35-3.53 622-2,259 3,296-6,187 

9.3 Aggregate Analysis 

This section describes the integration of total “base-to-current” and total “current-to-future” 

productivity and abundance improvements expected from recovery actions. For simplicity, 

improvements are based on the benefits of all priority actions projected at ≤ 25 years into the 

future. In addition, unless noted otherwise, benefits described in this section are based on the least 

intensive restoration scenarios (e.g., scenarios without passage, without stray actions, etc.). 

“Overall” abundance/productivity benefits are then compared to the 5 percent risk curves (in a 

100-year time period). Information on expected changes to spatial structure and diversity are not 

currently available. 

9.3.1 Cascades Eastern Slope MPG 

Productivity. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

productivity increases of at least 14 to 224 percent, compared to the “base” condition for 

Cascades Eastern Slope populations (Table 9-18). Productivity for the Deschutes Eastside 

population is expected to increase the most (base to future = 96-224 percent). These percentages 

do not account for possible increases in productivity that could be gained by reducing the number 

of stray hatchery fish spawning with naturally produced fish. Productivity for the Deschutes 

Westside population, which has the largest survival gap in this MPG, is expected to increase 31-

118 percent (base-future). These percentages do not include actions for passage (at the PeltonRound Butte Complex and Whychus Creek) or decreasing the numbers of stray hatchery fish 

spawning in the population. Including these actions, productivity could be expected to increase 

98-230 percent. Productivities in the other populations are expected to increase 14-129 percent. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 25 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Abundance. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

abundance increases of at least 9 to 600 percent, compared to the “base” condition for Cascades 

Eastern Slope populations (Table 9-19). Abundance for the Deschutes Eastside population should 

increase the most (base to future = 255-600 percent). Abundance in the Deschutes Westside 

population, which has the largest survival gap in this MPG, should increase 9-85 percent. 

Including passage and stray actions, the abundance of this population may increase 67-177 

percent. The other populations in the MPG are expected to increase 26-170 percent in abundance. 

Abundance/Productivity Risk. Only the Deschutes Westside population has an estimated survival 

gap (78 percent increase in survival needed to achieve 5 percent risk in a 100-year time period 

under base hydrosystem and recent ocean conditions). Gaps could not be estimated for the 

Klickitat or Rock Creek populations because of a lack of information. The other two populations 

(Deschutes Eastside and Fifteen Mile) had no survival gaps and the projected 

abundance/productivity estimates for these populations fell above the 5 percent risk curves (i.e., 

risk in a 100-year period was ≤ 5 percent) (Figure 9-1). The proposed actions for the Deschutes 

Westside population should result in ≤ 5 percent risk (in a 100-year time period) for 

abundance/productivity if actions intended to decrease the number of stray hatchery fish are 

implemented and passage is provided at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. In the absence of stray 

actions and passage at Pelton-Round Butte, the projected benefit in abundance/productivity may 

not achieve ≤ 5 percent risk (Figure 9-1, bottom graph). 

9.3.2 John Day River MPG 

Productivity. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

productivity increases of at least 30 to 188 percent, compared to the “base” condition for John 

Day populations (Table 9-18). Productivity is expected to increase the most for the Upper 

Mainstem population (base to future = 77-188 percent). For the South Fork population, which has 

the largest survival gap in this MPG, productivity is projected to increase 34-121 percent (basefuture). For the Lower Mainstem and Middle Fork populations, which also have survival gaps, 

productivity is projected to increase 54-145 percent and 58-159 percent, respectively. 

Productivity for the North Fork population, which has no survival gap, is expected to increase 30-

115 percent (base-future). 

Abundance. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

abundance increases of at least 42 to 440 percent, compared to the “base” condition for John Day 

populations (Table 9-19). Abundance is expected to increase the most for the Lower Mainstem 

population (base to future = 180-440 percent). For the South Fork population, which has the 

largest survival gap in this MPG, abundance is projected to increase 43-157 percent (base-future). 

For the Middle Fork population, which has a survival gap, abundance is projected to increase 64-

189 percent. Abundance for the North Fork and Upper Mainstem populations is expected to 

increase 42-153 percent and 116-282 percent, respectively. 

 

Abundance/Productivity Risk. The North Fork John Day population is the only population within 

the John Day MPG that is presently considered viable (at ≤ 5 percent risk in a 100-year period). 

The other populations within the MPG have survival gaps (Table 9-3). The proposed actions for 

all populations within this DPS should result in ≤ 5% risk (in a 100-year time period) for 

abundance/productivity (Figure 9-2). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 26 

DPS Recovery Plan 

9.3.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

Productivity. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

productivity increases of at least 93 to 221 percent, compared to the “base” condition for the 

Umatilla and Walla Walla populations (Table 9-18). Productivity for the Walla Walla population, 

which has the largest survival gap in this MPG, is projected to increase 93-221 percent (basefuture). For the Umatilla population, which has a survival gap, productivity is also expected to 

increase 93-221 percent. For the Touchet River, base productivity was estimated as the median of 

the empirical series of estimates for the Walla Walls and Umatilla populations. This is a surrogate 

value and will be replaced with an empirically derived estimate after there is a data series of 

sufficient length. Based on this interim value, productivity is expected to increase 52-172 percent 

(base-future). 

Abundance. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

abundance increases of at least 125 to 433 percent, compared to the “base” condition for Umatilla 

and Walla Walla populations (Table 9-19). Abundance for the Walla Walla population, which has 

the largest survival gap in this MPG, is projected to increase 213-433 percent (base-future). For 

the Umatilla population, which has a survival gap, abundance is also expected to increase 125-

287 percent. Abundance for the Touchet population is expected to increase 57-262 percent. 

Abundance/Productivity Risk. Of the three populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla DPS, 

there are estimated survival gaps for the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations (Table 5-1). A 

gap for the Touchet population could not be estimated because of a lack of information. The 

proposed restoration actions for the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations should result in ≤ 5% 

risk (in a 100-year time period) for abundance/productivity (Figure 9-3). Assuming a base 

productivity of 1.42 for the Touchet population (this is the median of the Walla Walla and 

Umatilla populations) and a projected productivity and abundance of 3.67 and 1,139, 

respectively, the proposed restoration actions for the Touchet population should result in ≤ 5% 

risk. 

9.3.4 Yakima MPG 

Productivity. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

productivity increases of at least 21 to 119 percent, compared to the “base” condition for Yakima 

populations (Table 9-18). Productivity is expected to increase the most for the Toppenish 

population (base to future = 33-119 percent). Productivity for the Upper Yakima, which has the 

largest survival gap in this MPG, is projected to increase 21-86 percent (base-future). For the 

other two populations, which also have survival gaps, productivity is expected to increase 21-100 

percent for the Satus Creek population (tributary only) and 37-111 percent for the Naches 

population. 

Abundance. The combined effects of current and future recovery actions should result in 

abundance increases of at least 26 to 2,558 percent, compared to the “base” condition for Yakima 

populations (Table 9-19). The largest increase in abundance is projected for the Upper Yakima 

population (base to future = 632-2,558 percent). Abundance for the Satus Creek population is 

projected to increase 26-130 percent (base-future). Abundance for the Toppenish and Naches 

populations should increase 55-185 percent and 185-547 percent, respectively. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 27 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Abundance/Productivity Risk. Under the major restoration scenario, all populations are expected 

to achieve ≤ 5% risk (in a 100-year time period) for abundance/productivity (Figure 9-4). Under 

the minimum restoration scenario, however, only the Naches and Toppenish populations are 

projected to achieve ≤ 5% risk for abundance/productivity. 

9.4 Summary of Expected Benefits of Proposed Actions for Middle Columbia Steelhead 

DPS 

Based on the proposed actions identified within the specific management unit plans, all Middle 

Columbia River steelhead populations for which there are adequate data are expected to achieve 

less than 5% risk for abundance/productivity if the most intensive (major) restoration scenarios 

are implemented (Figure 9-5). Under minimum restoration scenarios, three populations 

(Deschutes Westside, Satus (tributary only), and Upper Yakima populations) may not achieve ≤

5% risk for abundance/productivity. However, even under poor ocean conditions and minimum 

restoration actions, the abundance and productivity of these three populations are expected to 

increase considerably over base conditions (Tables 9-18 and 9-19). 

Table 9-18 shows total changes in productivity of Middle Columbia River steelhead expected 

from current and prospective recovery actions. For Oregon populations and the Walla Walla and 

Touchet, total changes in productivity are based on benefits projected at ≤ 25 years into the 

future. The range of benefits represents performance of combined actions under relatively poor (-

25%) and good (+25%) ocean conditions. Estimates greater than 1.00 result in higher productivity 

(e.g., 1.114 indicates an 11.4% increase in productivity, compared to the base period average); 

1.00 indicates no change; and estimates less than 1.00 result in lower productivity. 

Table 9-18. Total changes in Productivity of Middle Columbia River Steelhead expected from Current and 

Prospective Recovery Actions. 

Major Population 

Group Population Total Base-toCurrent 

Total Current-toFuture 

(±25% Ocean) 

Total Base-Current 

and CurrentFuture1

(±25% Ocean) 

Cascades Eastern 

Slope 

Deschutes W.2

 1.114 1.179-1.957 1.313-2.180 

Deschutes E.3 1.111 1.767-2.919 1.963-3.243 

Klickitat4 1.085 1.047-1.375 1.136-1.492 

Fifteen Mile 1.077 1.276-2.128 1.374-2.291 

Rock Creek5 1.134 1.214 1.377 

John Day 

Lower Mainstem 1.151 1.340-2.131 1.542-2.452 

North Fork 1.149 1.134-1.870 1.303-2.149 

Middle Fork 1.151 1.376-2.252 1.584-2.592 

South Fork 1.150 1.165-1.920 1.340-2.209 

Upper Mainstem 1.150 1.541-2.504 1.771-2.879 

Umatilla/Walla Walla 

Umatilla 1.153 1.676-2.786 1.933-3.213 

Walla-Walla 1.194 1.613-2.688 1.925-3.209 

Touchet6 1.190 1.521-2.716 1.810-3.232 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 28 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Major Population 

Group Population Total Base-toCurrent 

Total Current-toFuture 

(±25% Ocean) 

Total Base-Current 

and CurrentFuture1

(±25% Ocean) 

Yakima 

Satus (tributary only)7

 1.191 1.015-1.680 1.208-2.000 

Toppenish7 1.281 1.034-1.712 1.325-2.193 

Naches7 1.196 1.142-1.761 1.366-2.107 

Upper Yakima7 1.193 1.015-1.562 1.211-1.862 

1

 Calculated as the product of the Total Current-to-Future multiplier and the Total Base-to-Current multiplier. 

2

 Represents the no passage and no stray action scenario. 

3 Represents the no stray action scenario. 

4

 Represents actions without recolonization of the upper watershed. 

5

 Benefits for Rock Creek steelhead were based on the FCRPS BiOp, which did not calculate survival changes under relatively good and 

poor ocean conditions. 

6

 Base productivity for the Touchet population was estimated as the median of the empirical series of estimates for the Umatilla and 

Walla Walla populations. The base estimate for the Touchet is only a surrogate that will be replaced with an empirically derived 

estimate after there is a data series of sufficient length. 

7

 Represents the minimum habitat restoration scenario. 

Table 9-19 shows total changes in abundance of Middle Columbia River steelhead expected from 

current and prospective recovery actions. For Oregon populations and the Walla Walla and 

Touchet, total changes in abundance are based on benefits projected at ≤ 25 years into the future. 

The range of benefits represents performance of combined actions under relatively poor (-25%) 

and good (+25%) ocean conditions. Estimates greater than 1.00 result in higher abundance (e.g., 

1.114 indicates an 11.4% increase in abundance, compared to the base period average); 1.00 

indicates no change; and estimates less than 1.00 result in lower abundance. NA = information 

not available. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 29 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Table 9-19. Total changes in abundance of Middle Columbia River steelhead expected from current and 

prospective recovery actions. 

Major Population 

Group Population Total Base-toCurrent 

Total Current-toFuture 

(±25% Ocean) 

Total Base-Current 

and CurrentFuture1

(±25% Ocean) 

Cascades Eastern 

Slope 

Deschutes W.2

 1.127 0.967-1.642 1.090-1.851 

Deschutes E.3 1.463 2.427-4.786 3.552-7.004 

Klickitat4 1.191 1.056-1.812 1.258-2.158 

Fifteen Mile 1.087 1.433-2.484 1.558-2.699 

Rock Creek5 NA NA NA 

John Day 

Lower Mainstem 1.346 2.083-4.012 2.804-5.401 

North Fork 1.207 1.173-2.096 1.417-2.531 

Middle Fork 1.218 1.346-2.374 1.640-2.892 

South Fork 1.216 1.171-2.111 1.425-2.568 

Upper Mainstem 1.240 1.737-3.083 2.155-3.824 

Umatilla/Walla Walla 

Umatilla 1.236 1.820-3.128 2.251-3.868 

Walla-Walla 1.329 2.353-4.010 3.128-5.331 

Touchet 1.248 1.574-3.623 1.965-4.523 

Yakima 

Satus (tributary only)6

 1.285 0.982-1.786 1.261-2.296 

Toppenish6 1.435 1.080-1.987 1.550-2.851 

Naches6 2.057 1.387-3.145 2.854-6.470 

Upper Yakima6 4.271 1.714-6.223 7.318-26.576 

1

 Calculated as the product of the Total Current-to-Future multiplier and the Total Base-to-Current multiplier. 

2

 Represents the no passage and no stray action scenario. 

3 Represents the no stray action scenario. 

4

 Represents actions without recolonization of the upper watershed. 

5

 Benefits for Rock Creek steelhead were based on the FCRPS BiOp, which did not calculate survival changes under relatively good and 

poor ocean conditions. 

6

 Represents the minimum habitat restoration scenario. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 30 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Fifteen Mile

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Eastern Cascades MPG

Basic Population Size

Deschutes Westside

Deschutes Eastside

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Eastern Cascades MPG

Intermediate Population Size

No Stray/No

Passage Stray/No Passage

Stray/Passage

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Eastern Cascades MPG

Deschutes Westside

Figure 9-1. Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves (in a 100-year 

time period) for the different size Steelhead Populations within the Cascades Eastern Slope MPG. 

In the top two graphs, estimated benefits (projected 25 years into the future) are associated with the least 

intensive restoration scenarios. The bottom figure shows the projected benefits associated with the different 

restoration scenarios for the Deschutes Westside population. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 31 DPS Recovery Plan 

South Fork

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

John Day MPG

Basic Population Size

Upper John Day Middle Fork

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

John Day MPG

Intermediate Population Size

North 

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 

Abundance

Growth Rate

John Day MPG

Large Population Size

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 

Abundance

Growth Rate

John Day MPG

Very Large Population Si

Figure 9-2. Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves (in a 100-year time period) for the Populations within the John Day MPG. Estimates are projected at 25 years into the future. Populations are considered viable if abundance/productivity estimates fall on or above the 5% risk curve.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 32 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Walla Walla

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Intermediate Population Size

Umatilla

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Large Population Size

Figure 9-3. Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves (in a 100-year time 

period) for the different size Steelhead Populations within the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. The Walla Walla 

estimate includes restoration actions within both Oregon and Washington. Estimates are projected at 25 years into 

the future. Populations are considered viable if the projected abundance/productivity estimates fall on or above 

the 5% risk curve. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 33 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Toppenish (min)

Toppenish (major)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Yakima MPG

Basic Population Size

Satus(min)

Satus(major)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Yakima MPG

Intermediate Population Size

Naches(min)

Upper Yakima (min)

Naches(major)

Upper Yakima

(major)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Yakima MPG

Large Population Size

Figure 9-4. Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity estimates to 5% Risk Curves (in a 100-year time 

period) for the different size Steelhead Populations within the Yakima MPG. Estimates from both minimum and 

major restoration actions are shown for each population. Populations are considered viable if the Projected 

Abundance/Productivity Estimates fall on or above the 5% Risk Curve.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 9 - 34 DPS Recovery Plan 

South Fork JD

Fifteen Mile Toppenish

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Basic Population Size

Deschutes E

Middle Fk JD

Upper JD

Walla Walla

Deschutes W Satus

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhead DPS

Intermediate Population Size

North F

Umatilla

Naches

Upper Yakima

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhe

Large Population Siz

0

2000400060008000

10000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 

Abundance

Growth Rate

Mid‐Columbia Steelhe

Very Large Population 

Figure 9-5. Relationship of Projected Abundance/Productivity Estimates to 5% Risk Curves (in a 100-year time period) for the 

Populations within the Middle Columbia DPS. Estimates are projected at 25 years into the future and assume major restoration are considered viable if the projected abundance/productivity estimates fall on or above the 5% risk curve.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

10. RESEARCH, MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT 

Because of the length and complexity of the salmonid life cycle and the habitat conditions these 

anadromous fish require, there are many uncertainties involved in improving salmon or steelhead 

survival. Simply identifying cause-and-effect relationships between any given management 

action and characteristics of fish populations can be a scientific challenge. It is essential to design 

a monitoring and evaluation program that will answer these basic questions: How will we know 

we are making progress? How will we get the information we need? And how will we use the 

information in decision-making? 

Within the Middle Columbia Basin, many different organizations, including Federal, state, tribal, 

local, and private entities, currently conduct programs and actions designed to improve tributary 

fish habitat, and these entities also conduct various kinds of monitoring. Development of Middle 

Columbia regional coordination will be essential for NMFS’ future status reviews of the 

steelhead DPS. Establishing stable funding and staff to produce annual reports is also important. 

Detailed research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) and adaptive management plans need to 

be developed for each management unit, based on the principles and concepts laid out in the 

NMFS draft guidance document, Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation 

Framework and Monitoring Guidance (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf). Each of the management unit 

Recovery Plans includes an RM&E component that follows or is generally consistent with the 

NMFS guidance document. The Oregon management unit plan is organized around a set of key 

RM&E questions applied to each MPG and includes a comprehensive set of recommendations 

addressing status monitoring, limiting factors assessments, and responses to recovery actions. 

The SE Washington management plan RM&E section is tailored after Washington state 

protocols, which share many of the principles included in the NMFS guidance document. The 

Yakima and Klickitat management unit plans explicitly incorporate the NMFS RM&E guidance 

principles and identify opportunities for improved status, limiting factors, and key uncertainty 

assessments. The Rock Creek Plan RM&E section recognizes that steelhead monitoring 

information has not been routinely collected in the basin and identifies a set of questions to 

inform monitoring implementation decisions. All of the management unit RM&E plans call for 

establishing a more detailed and specific RM&E implementation plan after the corresponding 

recovery plans are finalized. 

The Middle Columbia Science Team will combine these management unit plans into an RM&E 

and adaptive management plan for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. This will ensure that, 

taken together, the monitoring and evaluation programs for each management unit, combined 

with monitoring components of the modules incorporated into the plans, address the needs of the 

entire DPS. The Mid-C Forum and others will use the RM&E and adaptive management plans to 

guide projects and programs during implementation. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

10.1 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support Adaptive Management 

for Recovery Plans 

Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a method of decision making in the face of 

uncertainty. It is a process of adjusting management actions and/or directions based on new 

information. To do this, it is essential to incorporate a plan for monitoring, evaluation, and 

feedback into an overall implementation plan for recovery. The plan should link results 

(intermediate or final) to feedback on design and implementation of actions. Adaptive 

management works by coupling the decision-making process with collection of performance data 

and its evaluation. Most importantly, it works by offering an explicit process through which 

alternative strategies to achieve the same ends are proposed, prioritized, and implemented when 

necessary. 

An adaptive management plan must include the following elements (Anderson, 2003): 

 Management strategies that are revisited regularly; 

 The use of conceptual or quantitative models of the system being managed to develop 

and test hypotheses and to guide strategy and action planning; 

 A range of potential management actions that could be used to meet the strategy; 

 Monitoring and evaluation to track progress; 

 Mechanisms for incorporating learning from monitoring and evaluation into decisions on 

actions and strategies; and 

 A collaborative structure for stakeholder participation in adjusting management strategies 

and actions. 

Adaptive management is crucial for salmonid recovery programs because of the length and 

complexity of the salmonid life cycle and the uncertainties involved in improving salmonid 

survival and status. The key is to build explicit links between management actions, monitoring 

data, and biological and physical responses. 

Several types of monitoring are needed to support adaptive management: 

 Implementation and compliance monitoring, used to evaluate whether the recovery plan 

is being implemented. 

 Status and trend monitoring, which assesses changes in the status of an ESU and its 

component populations, and changes in status or significance of the threats to the ESU. 

 Effectiveness monitoring, which tests hypotheses on cause-and-effect relationships and 

determines (via research) if an action is effective and should be continued. 

It is essential to build effectiveness monitoring into the implementation plan at the outset, 

because it requires explicitly coupling the monitoring design and implementation with the action 

design and implementation in order to detect an effect. Recovery plan implementation should 

consist of action strategies that include the demonstration of effect. 

It is also important to explicitly address the many unknowns in salmon recovery – the “critical 

uncertainties” that make management decisions much harder. Critical uncertainty research may 

seem expensive or unnecessary in light of basic information needs; however, in the long run, it 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

will reduce monitoring and implementation costs. Critical uncertainties are described in more 

detail in Section 10.3, below. 

Implementation and compliance monitoring simply check on whether activities were carried out 

as planned, and whether specified criteria are being met as a direct result of an implemented 

action. For example, if a fence is planned for 20 miles of stream corridor to keep livestock off the 

stream banks so that riparian vegetation will rebound, implementation monitoring would verify 

the presence of the fence. Compliance monitoring would take note of the presence or absence of 

livestock in the fenced-off area. 

Status and trend monitoring is a simple compilation of data-based descriptions of existing 

conditions. To be useful in decision-making, the raw data, or metrics, must be reduced to a more 

directly applicable form or indicator. For example, if the question is “What is the annual 

spawning population size of steelhead in the X River?” the indicator would be total spawning 

numbers of steelhead over one season for the entire river basin; however, the metric, or directly 

measured thing, would be something quite different, perhaps steelhead redds sighted on weekly 

passes over known spawning grounds. Thus, the metric must be processed to translate it from the 

metric data type (e.g., redds) into the indicator data type (e.g., spawners), and then reduced to 

generate the indicator required (e.g., list of weekly counts on spawning grounds to annual total 

for watershed). The ICTRT identified deficiencies in the currently available data and/or datagathering techniques for Middle Columbia River steelhead. These are described in Section 10.4, 

below. 

Effectiveness monitoring specifically addresses cause-and-effect questions. Demonstrating the 

direct and indirect impact of management actions requires supporting all steps in the logical 

chain that connects the action to its expected impact. This chain is rarely short and usually 

contains several hypotheses. For this reason, it’s better to build the effectiveness monitoring into 

the recovery action strategies, with, for example, pilot-scale tests or other methods carefully 

thought out beforehand. Monitoring and evaluation will only provide the answers to the 

questions they were designed to address; they do not provide the framework for revising these 

questions if they are ill-posed, evaluating the assumptions upon which the strategy was built, or 

incorporating learning into future decisions on actions and strategies—this is the role of adaptive 

management. 

NMFS’ guidance document presents a decision framework that can guide the design of a 

research, monitoring, and evaluation plan. The framework (Figure 10-1) contains two basic sorts 

of questions: (1) questions regarding ESU status (biological viability criteria) and (2) questions 

regarding statutory listing factors and factors limiting recovery (limiting factor and threats 

criteria). Evaluating a species for potential delisting requires an explicit analysis of both types of 

criteria. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 4 DPS Recovery Plan 

Evaluation

Status of Viability Param eters

•Abundance

•Productivity

•Spatial Distribution

•Diversity

Status of Statutory Listing Factors ESU Viability Assessment

NM FS w ill determ ine an ESU is recovered w hen an ESU is no longer in danger of extinction 

or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of both 

the ESU’s status and the extent to w hich the threats facing the ESU have been addressed

M ajor Population Group Status

ESU Status

Population Status:

Listing Factor 1: 

The present or threatened destruction, m odification, or curtailm ent of its habitat or range

Listing 

Factor 3: 

Disease 

or 

predation

Listing Factor 4: The inadequacy of existing regulatory m echanism s

List

Other m anm affectexiste

Listing Factor 2: 

Over utilization for com m ercial, recreational or educational purposes

Status of 

Harvest Threats 

& Lim iting 

Factors

Status of 

Disease 

and 

Predation

Threats & 

Lim iting 

Factors

Status o

Hatcher

program 

Threats & 

Lim iting 

Factors

Status of 

Hydropower

Threats & 

Lim iting 

Factors

Com pliance and 

Im plementation Monitoring 

Implement Adaptive 

Management Plan

Action Effectiveness 

Monitoring 

Status of 

Regulatory 

M echanism s

Threats & 

Lim iting 

Factors

Critical Uncerta

Research and Eva

Status of 

Habitat 

Threats & 

Lim iting 

Factors

Actions

NM FS Listing Status Decision Fram ework

Figure 10-1. NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The guidance document contains a more detailed discussion of the framework and identifies the 

specific questions that must be answered to evaluate ESU status. These specific questions take 

the form of a series of decision-question sets that address the status and change in status of a 

salmonid ESU and the risks posed by threats to the ESU. The decision-question sets are designed 

to elicit the information NMFS needs to make delisting decisions. The framework can guide 

future decisions about strategies and actions aimed at achieving population, MPG, and ESU 

recovery goals. 

Designing an effective monitoring program for salmon recovery involves the following initial 

steps: 

1. Clarify the questions that need to be answered for policy and management decisionmaking. Include the full ESU and the full salmonid life cycle. 

2. Identify entity or entities responsible for coordinating development of this program. 

3. Identify: 

o Which populations and associated limiting factors to monitor 

o Metrics and indicators 

o Frequency, distribution, and intensity of monitoring 

o Tradeoffs and consequences of these choices 

4. Assess the degree to which existing monitoring programs are consistent with NMFS 

guidance. 

5. Identify needed adjustments in existing programs, additional monitoring needs, and 

strategy for filling those needs. 

6. Develop a data management plan (See Appendix C of the NMFS guidance document). 

7. Prioritize research needs for critical uncertainties, testing assumptions, etc. 

8. Identify entities responsible for implementation. 

Monitoring and evaluation programs will provide (1) a clear statement of the metrics and 

indicators by which progress toward achieving goals can be assessed, (2) a plan for tracking such 

metrics and indicators, and (3) a decision framework through which new information from 

monitoring and evaluation can be used to adjust strategies or actions aimed at achieving the 

Plan’s goals. 

10.2 Five-Year Reviews, ESU/DPS Status Assessments, and Adaptive Management 

The ESA requires that, at least every 5 years, the Secretary shall conduct a review of all ESAlisted species and determine whether any species should: (1) be removed from such list; (2) be 

changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species; or (3) be changed in status 

from a threatened species to an endangered species. Accordingly, at five-year intervals, NMFS 

will conduct reviews of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. These reviews will consider 

information that has become available since the most recent listing determinations, and make 

recommendations whether there is substantial information to suggest that a change in listing 

status may be warranted. If an ESU or DPS may warrant a change in status NMFS will conduct 

a formal, much more in-depth, ESA status review consistent with section 4(a) of the Act. Any 

formal status reviews will be based on the NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework and will be 

informed by the information obtained through implementation of the monitoring, research, and 

evaluation programs in each management unit plan and the recovery modules. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Similarly, new information considered during the five-year reviews may also compel more indepth assessments of implementation and effectiveness monitoring and associated research to 

inform adaptive management decisions at the management unit and module level. 

10.3 Research on Key Uncertainties

Chapter 6 described many of the important factors that have reduced, and continue to reduce, the 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of Middle Columbia River steelhead. It 

is clear that actions must be taken in all sectors (not just habitat) in order to recover listed 

populations. However, there are “key” areas of uncertainty identified in Biological Opinions 

(BiOp), PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses), and Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council documents that can affect the success of actions implemented within each 

of the sectors. Resolution of uncertainties will greatly improve chances of attaining recovery 

goals outlined in this plan. These “key” uncertainties are highlighted below. 

10.3.1 Ocean Productivity and Natural Variation 

Global-scale processes in the ocean and atmosphere can regulate the productivity of marine, 

estuarine, and freshwater habitats of steelhead. Although managers cannot control these 

processes, natural variability must be understood to correctly interpret the response of steelhead 

to management actions. For example, assessing needed survival improvements based on spawner 

returns during periods of below average climatic and other background conditions has the effect 

of projecting these generally poor ocean conditions into the future. If one were to add years 

representing better ocean conditions to the analysis, estimated required survival increases would 

decrease. Additional research is needed to help understand the mechanisms of ocean and climatic 

survival conditions, and to help improve forecasting and relating fisheries management 

capabilities and ensure that Middle Columbia steelhead populations persist over the full range of 

environmental conditions they are likely to encounter. 

10.3.2 Global Climate Change

The potential impacts of global climate change are recognized at national and international 

levels. Many climate models project changes in regional snowpack and stream flows with global 

climate change. The effects of these changes could have significant effects on the success of 

recovery actions and the status of Middle Columbia steelhead. The risks of global climate change 

are potentially great for Middle Columbia stocks because many of the populations spawn and 

rear in snow-rain transitional zones that are likely to be impacted by climate change. It will be 

important to monitor key environmental variables such as summer and fall streamflow and 

temperature in tributaries (Crozier et al. 2008) and to perform research to better understand the 

relation between changes in those habitat factors and survival of Middle Columbia steelhead. 

Other useful freshwater monitoring includes assessment of existing areas of hyporheic flow 

comprising cold-water refuges and research to understand how those areas change with 

environmental conditions and human impacts such as water withdrawals. Steelhead stocks are 

also sensitive to climate-related shifts in ocean conditions, such as the position of the sub-arctic 

boundary, the strength of the California Current, the intensity of coastal upwelling, and the 

frequency and intensity of El Nino events (NPCC 2004). More research is needed to address the 

effects of climate change on ocean circulation patterns, freshwater habitat, and steelhead 

productivity. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

10.3.3 Hatchery Effectiveness

Uncertainties exist regarding the potential for both benefits and harm of hatchery-produced fish 

on naturally spawning steelhead populations. A major uncertainty is whether it is possible to 

integrate natural and artificial production systems in the same subbasin to achieve sustainable 

long-term productivity. There is also uncertainty about the reproductive success of hatchery fish 

spawning in the wild. There is currently little data available and experimental methods for 

obtaining this information will take many years to get initial results and much longer before 

conclusions can be inferred from the empirical information. Although supplementation is 

considered a potential benefit to recovery, it carries risks as noted here. 

10.3.4 Differential Delayed Mortality of Transported Steelhead (D Value)

The differential delayed mortality of transported steelhead (D value) is the estimated ratio of the 

post-Bonneville survival of transported fish relative to in-river migrating fish. This differential 

mortality can occur during any time from release downstream from Bonneville Dam, through the 

estuary and ocean life stage, and during adult upriver migration to the specific dam from which 

they were transported. The factors determining D are complex and poorly understood. This 

uncertainty has little effect under current conditions because few Middle Columbia steelhead are 

currently transported. However, an improved understanding of D will be necessary to determine 

the appropriate role of McNary transportation in the future. Furthermore, the future role of 

transportation and the potential benefit of major hydro-system configurations are highly sensitive 

to this uncertainty. 

10.3.5 Invasive Species

Another critical uncertainty is the effect of invasive species on the viability of Middle Columbia 

steelhead. One such species, American shad, may affect the abundance and survival of steelhead 

in the lower Columbia River. It is possible that the growing population of shad is competing 

directly with juvenile steelhead by cropping food sources important to salmonids in the lower 

Columbia River. It is also possible that the large numbers of shad in the lower river contribute to 

the growth of northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, and walleye, which are important 

predators of steelhead. Shad may be sustaining large populations of predators during periods 

when steelhead are not available to the predators, and, as a result, more and larger predators are 

present during periods when steelhead are moving through the lower Columbia River. 

10.3.6 Independent Populations

The Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICBTRT) used a hierarchical approach 

to define DPS level viability, defining independent populations within each DPS and applying 

relatively simple rule sets to geographic groups of those populations to evaluate viability 

(ICBTRT 2003). The ICBTRT based their approach on the guidelines provided in McElhany et. 

al. (2000), including a specific definition of an independent population (see Section 2.2.3). 

Following McElhany et al. (2000), the ICTRT assumed that spawning aggregations meeting a 

minimum size criteria were defined as independent if they were separated by a sufficient distance 

so that expected straying rates would be below 5-10 percent (ICBTRT 2003). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The ICBTRT DPS status evaluations were based on simplified demographic analyses of 

individual populations that implicitly assume that each population would function independently. 

The hierarchical model of DPS structure recognizes that relatively low (<10%) levels of 

exchange among independent populations within a DPS is also important to overall DPS 

viability. 

The ICBTRT ESU/DPS level criteria were specifically designed to “... ensure preservation of 

basic historical metapopulation processes including:1) genetic exchange across populations 

within an ESU over a long time frame; 2) the opportunity for neighboring populations to serve as 

source areas in the event of local population extirpations; 3) populations distributed within an 

ESU so that they are not all susceptible to a specific localized catastrophic event. To meet these 

objectives a viable ESU will likely have some populations meeting viability standards close to 

each other AND some populations meeting viability standards relatively distant from each other 

(McElhany et al. 2000, Isaak et al. 2003).” 

The ICBTRT viability criteria were specifically designed to implement the principles in 

McElhany et al. 2000 given the range of characteristics and data availability associated with 

listed Interior Columbia ESU/DPS. As the ICBTRT acknowledged, it may be possible to 

develop more detailed metapopulation models for DPS/ESUs where sufficient information is 

available. Continuing to explore each ESU/DPS from a metapopulation perspective could lead to 

improved criteria for assessing the risk at the DPS level. For that purpose, research is needed to 

further define population structures, natural straying, and movement among aggregations. 

10.3.7 Effects of Interacting Strategies/Actions

A critical uncertainty associated with the implementation of this recovery plan will be the effect 

of management actions or strategies on the environment and on life-stage specific survival rate 

and population level responses. It is unclear how strategies implemented within each of the 

sectors (Harvest, Hatcheries, Hydropower, and Habitat) will interact and contribute to recovery. 

In particular, a high level of uncertainty exists for the magnitude and response time of habitat 

actions. Even if all habitat actions could be implemented immediately (which they cannot), there 

will be delays in the response to actions. Populations will likely respond more quickly to some 

actions (e.g., diversion screens and barrier removals) than they will to others (e.g., riparian 

plantings). Although the effects of interacting strategies on population VSP parameters remain 

unknown, monitoring will contribute substantially to resolving this uncertainty. 

10.3.8 Effects of Human Population Growth

Human population growth in the Columbia Basin and its effects on recovery of listed species is a 

critical uncertainty. The size of the human population within the Columbia Basin will continue to 

increase and projected development will probably expand along streams and rivers at a greater 

rate than in upland areas. A high degree of coordination among agencies, tribes, and counties will 

be needed to maximize recovery efforts. 

10.3.9 Resident-Anadromous O. mykiss Interactions

In the Middle Columbia region, only the anadromous life form (steelhead) of O. mykiss is listed. 

The resident life form (also known as rainbow trout or redband trout) is not listed, although these 

fish are genetically similar to steelhead, where they co-occur. In addition, where they co-occur, 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

individuals can occasionally produce progeny of the alternative life form. The nature of the 

relationship between resident and anadromous forms of O. mykiss is inherently complex, and an 

improved understanding of the range of interactions is needed. 

10.4 Important Data Gaps

The management unit plans described monitoring and research needs for each steelhead 

population and/or area, and will do so in greater detail in the RM&E plans that will be completed 

after the DPS plan is approved. In its 2007 document, “Viability Criteria for Application to 

Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs,” the ICTRT identified data gaps at the DPS/MPG 

level. The ICTRT said: “There is considerable variability in the quality and quantity of 

information to conduct viability assessments for Interior Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

populations. We have identified fairly large gaps in information for steelhead populations . . . We 

believe improving the quality and quantity of data is essential for monitoring future change in 

population status relative to viability criteria (ICTRT 2007).” Important information gaps the 

ICTRT listed for conducting population level viability assessments for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead include the following: 

10.4.1 Abundance and Productivity

Mid Columbia Steelhead population abundance and productivity data: Most population 

abundance estimates are derived from standard index redd count surveys. Yakima population 

abundance is estimated from aggregate dam counts, and population-specific levels are 

apportioned using limited radio tag data. Abundance estimates need to be conducted using 

probabilistic sampling protocol for either redd counts or tagging studies (ICTRT 2007). 

Mid Columbia steelhead population specific hatchery fraction and age structure data: A majority 

of populations had inadequate hatchery fraction information. Abundance and productivity 

assessments would improve with more detailed population level hatchery fraction data. A 

majority of populations had inadequate age structure information. Typically, average MPG 

aggregate age structure from a few years of data was used in most cases for the population level 

(ICTRT 2007). 

Smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) and juvenile productivity estimates: Improve or collect 

information on SARs and juvenile productivity (i.e. smolts per spawner). SARs are essential for 

taking into account variability in survival during smolt outmigration and marine life stages in 

evaluating abundance and productivity criteria. The goal is to estimate SARs that are 

representative at the population level. There are a number of approaches to accomplish 

estimating these SARs (e.g. marking wild or hatchery smolts or estimating natural-origin smolts 

and adult production). In addition, measures representing survival from spawning to 

outmigrating smolts would aid in partitioning productivity between freshwater and marine lifestages (ICTRT 2007). 

Population level effects of hatchery spawners on natural productivity: For populations with 

hatchery spawners, develop representative estimates of the effects of hatchery spawners on 

population-level productivity. Topics of interest include the effect of hatchery spawner 

contributions to the average natural productivity of a population and the relative effectiveness of 

hatchery spawners. In combination with adequate estimates of the relative levels of hatchery fish 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 10 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

contributing to natural spawning for a particular population, this information would allow for 

more representative estimates of current and potential natural productivity levels (ICTRT 2007). 

10.4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity

Steelhead population spawner distribution and habitat preference data: Many populations had 

inadequate spawner distribution information to assess spatial structure and diversity criteria. In 

addition, estimates of historical distribution are dependent upon habitat preferences derived from 

available empirical studies. Those studies are limited in scope and number. Additional 

information on habitat/steelhead preference or production relationships could improve the 

assessment of steelhead populations against SS/D criteria (ICTRT 2007). 

Phenotypic characteristics for populations: Little information was available to assess phenotypic 

changes. Representative estimates of current morphological, life history, or behavioral traits are 

not available for many populations. Additional analysis of relationships between habitat 

characteristics and phenotypic traits would improve the ability to assess changes from historical 

patterns at the population level (ICTRT 2007). 

Genetics information: Genetic baseline information and periodic follow-up surveys specifically 

designed to evaluate the level of variation or differentiation among subcomponents within 

populations and among populations. Periodic follow-ups would support evaluation of responses 

to management actions designed to promote restoration of natural patterns of population 

structure (ICTRT 2007). 

Spawner composition for steelhead populations with hatchery spawners: Collect specific 

spawner composition information including proportion and source of hatchery spawners. 

Information on the relative distribution of hatchery spawners among production areas within 

populations would also improve the ability to assess status against ICTRT spatial structure 

criteria (ICTRT 2007). 

Selective mortality effects: Little information was available to assess selective mortality resulting 

from differential impacts of human induced mortality. Additional information is needed to better 

assess human induced mortality effects in each of the four Hs (habitat, hatcheries, harvest and 

hydropower) (ICTRT 2007). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

11. IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION 

This chapter describes how implementation of this recovery plan will be coordinated. It proposes 

that the Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum or Forum) will play a central role at the 

DPS-level.42 The Forum is a voluntary organization of Federal agencies, states, tribes and other 

planning entities (see Chapter 1), that will coordinate implementation within the DPS. The function, 

membership, processes and organization of the Forum are described herein. State entities will play a 

central role in coordination plan implementation at the MU level. This chapter also describes the 

Oregon and Washington approaches to recovery implementation and the role of NMFS. 

NMFS’ vision43 for recovery implementation is that the actions identified in salmon and steelhead 

recovery plans are carried out in a cooperative and collaborative manner and that recovery and 

delisting occur. NMFS’ strategic goals to achieve that vision are to: 

1. Sustain local support and momentum for recovery implementation. 

2. Implement recovery plan actions within the time periods specified in each plan. 

3. Ensure that the actions implemented contribute to achieving recovery. 

4. Provide accurate assessments of species status and trends, limiting factors, and threats. 

NMFS’ strategic approach to achieving these goals is to: 

 Support local efforts by using Domain Teams44 to coordinate (internally and externally) 

and encourage recovery plan implementation. 

 Use recovery plans to guide internal and external regulatory decision-making. 

 Use non-regulatory authorities and encourage others to use their authorities to implement 

recovery plans. 

 Provide leadership to regional forums to develop research, monitoring, and evaluation 

(RME) processes that track action effectiveness and status and trends at the population 

and DPS levels. 

 Provide periodic reports on species status and trends, limiting factors, threats, and plan 

implementation status. 

 

42 The Mid-C Forum was formed in March, 2007 to assist NMFS in completing this recovery plan. 43 From NMFS Northwest Region Memo dated February 26, 2008, subject: Northwest Region Recovery Implementation 

Strategy. 44 Domain Teams are an organizational structure internal to NMFS whose purpose is to coordinate recovery plan 

completion and the recovery implementation effort. The teams promote consistency in internal decision making and 

work with state, tribal, and local recovery parties to achieve recovery plan objectives. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

NMFS will carry out its vision, goals, and strategic approach to recovery for Middle Columbia 

steelhead by working in partnership with the Mid-C Forum. 

11.1 Implementation Roles and Responsibilities 

Effectively implementing recovery actions for Mid-C steelhead will require coordinating the actions 

of diverse private, local, state and Federal parties spread across two states. In Washington, regional 

recovery boards have taken the lead on coordinating recovery implementation within the Yakima 

and Snake management units45. In Oregon, an implementation coordinator and reformed advisory 

board will lead recovery plan implementation, supported by the governance structure for the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Actions in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the ocean are 

implemented by a broad range of partners, including NMFS, the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of 

Engineers, Federal land management agencies, state and tribal fisheries co-managers, the Columbia 

River Estuary Partnership, and local parties and jurisdictions interested in salmon recovery. The 

Mid-C Forum will take the lead in efforts to coordinate the actions of these many players at a DPSlevel, supported by both local and regional Science Teams. Figure 11-1 gives an overview of the 

relationships between these entities. 

Figure 11-1. Mid-C Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure. 

 

45 Implementation structures for the Eastern Cascades populations within Washington have yet to be determined. 

Mid-C Forum 

NOAA, GNRO, GSRO, ODFW, WDFW, 

Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs, Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, Regional 

Recovery Board Exec. Dirs, Klickitat 

County, Implementation Coordinator 

(OR)

Other Regional Forums: 

 CR Federal Caucus, 

 CBFWA, 

 NWPCC, 

 FCRPS (BiOp), 

 US v OR/WA 

 LC, SR, UC Recovery 

Boards 

Oregon Mid-C 

Implementation 

Coordinator 

Oregon Advisory 

Implementation 

Team 

Washington Regional 

Recovery Boards (Yakima, 

Snake River) and 

Washington Gorge 

Recovery Implementation 

Group 

Oregon Plan 

Teams 

Oregon 

Technical 

Teams 

Washington 

Technical 

Teams 

Science 

Teams 

Outreach 

Subgroup 

Implementation 

Subgroup 

RME Subgroup 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

11.1.1 Mid-C Forum 

The Mid-C Forum provides organizational structure for communication and coordination on a bistate and multi-tribal level across the entire DPS. 

Specific functions include: 

 Facilitating coordination and communication between Federal agencies, the Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council, states, tribes, management unit leads, and local recovery boards. 

 Advocating for the recovery of Mid-C steelhead. 

 Promoting the application of adaptive management in the DPS. 

 Providing recommendations for resource prioritization. 

 Networking with other multi-jurisdictional Columbia recovery planning groups (e.g. Lower 

Columbia, Upper Columbia, and Snake River) and Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council subbasin planning efforts. 

 Providing a scientific interface with the Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST). 

 Coordinating and synthesizing RME efforts and activities. 

The Forum will coordinate with broader efforts to develop common indicators for measuring trends. 

The Mid-C Forum may also identify legislative, congressional, and other funding opportunities for 

management actions and RM&E within the DPS. Policy issues will be resolved within respective 

local, state, Federal and tribal authorities and agencies. 

Organization/Membership:

The Mid-C Forum is guided by a Steering Committee. NMFS will serve as the convening partner 

and provide facilitation, venues, and guidance. Steering Committee membership includes 

management unit leads (or their representative) in Washington and Oregon and representatives from 

the Oregon and Washington governors’ offices, NMFS, Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Klickitat County. 

There is no established membership for participation in the broader activities of the Forum. It is 

anticipated that participation in regular Forum meetings, as distinguished from meetings of the 

Steering committee, will vary depending on the topics and issues being addressed. 

Operations:

The Mid-C Forum and Steering Committee will conduct regular meetings semi-annually, or as 

needed, and work to reach consensus on issues of dispute or discrepancy within the DPS. 

Functional Topics:

The Forum will focus on four functional topics. For each topic the Forum may establish subgroups 

to organize, implement, and track progress. The decision to establish such subgroups will be 

determined based on the anticipated scope of work for each functional topic, Forum members’ 

available staffing and funding, and other considerations as the Forum considers appropriate. The 

intent of these efforts is to support coordinated and effective implementation of the Mid-C Steelhead 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Recovery Plan and to ensure that 5-year status reviews by NMFS are informed and efficient. The 

four functional topics are: 

1. Research, Monitoring & Evaluation: RM&E will be coordinated by a Science Team 

which will be composed of RIST representatives, management unit technical 

representatives, ODFW/WDFW/tribal co-manager technical representatives, Klickitat 

County, etc. Focus areas may include: 

 Review/compile new information on VSP parameters and update stock status 

summaries accordingly. 

 Identify knowledge gaps that are high priorities across the DPS and review/coordinate 

efforts to address them. 

 Identify how to track threats criteria and provide annual summaries of applicable 

data. 

 Develop a DPS monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management plan. 

2. Implementation: Subgroups may be composed of key project managers from 

management units, representatives from key funding programs (e.g., NMFS Restoration 

programs, Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia Basin Fish Accords46, Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Salmon 

Recovery Funding Board, and others), and key partners in recovery actions (such as 

USFS, BOR, and others). Their focus areas may include: 

 Review status of implementation scheduling for each management unit. 

 Share significant accomplishments by management units. 

 Promote technology transfer relevant to implementation across management units. 

 Communicate priorities for future actions to assist coordination across management 

units. 

 Identify opportunities where shared advocacy and coordination help implement key 

recovery actions (e.g., combine suitable proposals into single programmatic proposal; 

share technical resources for design review). 

3. Outreach: Subgroups may be composed of representatives from state governors’ staffs, 

co-manager policy leads, management unit representatives, and/or partner agency policy 

people. Their focus is to develop/support outreach related to Mid-C recovery, including 

reviewing/drafting NMFS two-year reports and updates to key decision makers (elected 

officials, agency heads, etc.). 

 

46 The Fish Accords consist of three Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) entered into between the Federal Columbia River Power 

System (FCRPS) action agencies (Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 

Reclamation), four tribes, and one state. The most relevant MOA to the Middle Columbia River steelhead is with the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the three treaty fishing tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation;

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. The MOAs are 

10-year action agency commitments for projects to benefit fish affected by the FCRPS, with a focus on ESA-listed fish. The 

projects will be reviewed through the Northwest Power Act processes for implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program, 

administered by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

4. Policy: Policy issues will be managed by the Steering Committee, who may elect to 

organize subgroups for specific issues. Policy focus areas include: 

 Identify issues where joint advocacy supports Mid-C recovery action. 

 Track the status of Mid-C related activities in the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, Federal Caucus, FCRPS litigation, U.S. v. Oregon, U.S. v. Washington, and 

other regional forums. 

 Identify and, if appropriate, develop Mid-C policy proposals. 

11.1.2 Management Unit Leads 

The proposed organizational structure for plan implementation within Oregon and Washington is 

based on the structure used for development of the respective management unit recovery plans, with 

the note that these approaches differed, and will continue to differ, slightly. In Oregon, the 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) led recovery plan development with assistance from the 

Governor’s Natural Resources Office and NMFS. For implementation of the Oregon management 

unit recovery plan ODFW will seek an additional staff person (Implementation Coordinator) to 

facilitate implementation. In Washington, regional recovery boards, where they exist, developed the 

management unit plans and will coordinate plan implementation with guidance and support from the 

Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. 

For the purposes of implementation, the term “management unit leads” (MU leads) refers to the 

Washington regional recovery boards, Oregon’s recovery plan Implementation Coordinator (in 

conjunction with an Advisory Board) and, where no recovery board exists in Washington, NMFS. 

The MU leads have three primary responsibilities in regard to tributary-based implementation. 

Performance of these responsibilities will be influenced by MU lead capacity, authority, and MU 

priority, and will likely require other support structures or processes to fully accomplish these 

responsibilities. Not all of these duties can be accomplished initially with the current resources 

available. Prioritization of the initial duties will be guided by the statutory requirements of the ESA 

and the individual state’s guidance. 

The first responsibility for MU leads is to develop implementation schedules for the respective MUs, 

organized in a spreadsheet format consistent with NMFS interim recovery planning guidance 

(NMFS 2006). While all of the MU plans presently contain site-specific actions, priorities, and 

estimates of the time and cost sufficient to complete this DPS plan, further specificity will aid in 

local project selection and prioritization as well as in implementation reporting at the regional and 

national levels. 

 Site-specific recovery actions specific to populations within the MUs. 

 Limiting factor(s) addressed by each action. 

 Priority for completing the action. Organize actions by priority level. 

 Duration of and schedule for action, indicating also whether the action is new or already 

underway. 

 Biological benefits of the action(s). 

 Lead entity(ies) to implement each action. 

 Estimated cost for each action over each of the next 5 years and a total cost for that action to 

recovery. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

The second responsibility for MU leads is to coordinate implementation of recovery actions 

identified in the plan and implementation schedule. In this regard, they serve to facilitate two-way 

communication vertically (i.e., different spatial scales related to recovery plan governance) and 

horizontally (i.e., related programs, interests, and oversight outside of recovery plan governance). A 

key related program is the implementation of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish 

and Wildlife Program Subbasin Management Plans. The MU leads, in full coordination with the 

fishery agencies and tribes, should ensure that the project selection process for the Council’s 

subbasin plans within the MU is consistent with implementing the ESA priority actions specified in 

this plan and the implementation schedules. 

Specific responsibilities include: 

 Coordinate with Federal and state agencies, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 

tribes, local government, and other stakeholders, with an emphasis on implementing tributary 

habitat actions. 

 Coordinate development of implementation strategies for voluntary actions requiring 

complex coordination among various entities, including: 

o local outreach 

o incentives 

o technical help 

o project funding 

o project management 

o monitoring/reporting 

The third responsibility for MU leads is to track and report on progress of implementation in 

accordance with state and Federal reporting requirements. Specific responsibilities include: 

 Coordinate plan monitoring within the MU. 

o Ensure appropriate tracking and reporting of recovery actions. 

 Coordinate plan research within the MU. 

o Include results and reports in system information/outreach materials. 

 Report on plan progress in relation to goals, strategies, and actions, using mechanisms and 

processes established for tracking progress. 

o Highlight plan successes and needs. 

 Review and revise implementation schedules as necessary. 

o Use monitoring and research to guide actions. 

o Incorporate adaptive management, as needed. 

 Represent the MU in the Mid-C Forum and Forum subgroups, as necessary. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

11.1.3 Washington Regional Recovery Boards 

Purpose and Function: 

Regional Recovery Boards will be the MU Leads in Washington, and will serve those functions 

described under Section 11.1.2. In general, this entails overseeing, promoting, coordinating, and 

tracking actions and RM&E efforts within their respective management units (or within units that 

span two states) to ensure implementation of the Middle Columbia recovery plan. In addition, the 

Boards will coordinate data acquisition and sharing, seek funding opportunities for specific 

management unit actions, and track and ensure progress reporting to the Mid-C Forum on viability 

and threat trends for steelhead. 

Regional Recovery Boards’ regular operations are served by Executive Directors. The directors will 

coordinate Regional Recovery Board efforts, with assistance from the Governor’s Salmon Recovery 

Office. Yakama Nation management and policy-level staff and other participants will coordinate 

with NMFS in areas not covered by a Recovery Board. 

Organization/Membership:

Regional Recovery Boards include the Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board and the 

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. The Washington Gorge management unit will be served by 

the Yakama Nation, Klickitat County, and other participants NOAA brings into the recovery 

process. Where boards are in place, they are made up of government and tribal representatives and 

other local interests and are funded through the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board. 

Operations:

Washington Regional Recovery Boards meet regularly, generally monthly or quarterly. Progress 

reporting will be done in coordination with existing “support” teams of Board and 

state/Federal/tribal agency staff. 

The Yakima Basin and Snake River boards will report progress to the Mid-C Forum annually, 

including progress in management, conservation and RM&E actions, and trends in habitat health and 

salmonid viability. 

Resources: 

Washington's Recovery Boards will operate on existing funding sources. 

11.1.4 Oregon Implementation Coordinator and Advisory Board

The Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan proposes an updated implementation structure and approach in 

Section 12.1, Implementation and Adaptive Management. Figures 12.1 and 12.2 in the Oregon 

Steelhead Recovery Plan illustrate this new structure and working relationships to implement 

recovery actions and carry out adaptive management for the Oregon steelhead populations. 

Implementation Coordinator: An ODFW implementation coordinator will serve as Oregon’s “MU 

lead” for recovery plan implementation, under the advice and guidance of the Recovery Team. This 

individual will work with relevant teams, groups, entities and all relevant parties to implement the 

recovery plan. The Implementation Coordinator will work with the Implementation Team and 

Watershed Teams to plan, schedule, track and report on action implementation, and in coordination 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

with the Technical Team, develop, track and report on Adaptive Management activities (refer to 

Figure 12.1 in Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan). 

Recovery Team: The Recovery Team provides oversight and vision to recovery plan implementation. 

This team is responsible for reporting to NMFS and shares accountability for species recovery in the 

MU. The team provides overall coordination and guidance to the recovery plan teams, coordinates 

with other domain teams and the Oregon Plan Core Team, and serves as the state’s representative at 

the bi-state Mid-C Forum. The Recovery Team is made up of representatives from the Governor’s 

Natural Resource Office, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Implementation Coordinator, 

Tribes, counties, and other major local entities. 

Implementation Team: The Implementation Team provides advice, recommendations and support to 

the Implementation Coordinator. The Implementation Team is made up of Sounding Board 

members, watershed team representatives, NMFS, Tribes, Technical Team representative, and is 

chaired by the Implementation Coordinator. 

Technical Team: The Technical Team provides advice and guidance on technical and science issues 

related to monitoring, research and evaluation, data analysis, and adaptive management that supports 

and strengthens effective implementation of the recovery plan. The Technical Team is made up of 

planning team representatives, other key Federal, state, local, tribal scientists, consultants, university 

professors and is chaired by a member of the Team or facilitator. 

Watershed Teams: Watershed Teams are comprised of the various entities implementing local 

restoration and conservation actions via their respective organizations and entities. There will be a 

watershed team for each major watershed in the MU. 

Figure 12.2 in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan illustrates the relationships between these groups 

and how they will coordinate with each other. Oregon and NMFS will produce an implementation 

plan with a schedule to satisfy the requirements under the ESA. 

11.1.5 NMFS 

NMFS’ role in Middle Columbia steelhead recovery 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 Mid-C Forum and to update forum members on issues relevant to recovery 

strategies. Forum meetings, for example, might contain standing agenda items where updates can be 

provided to the members on hatchery and harvest issues. 

11.1.5.1 ESA Responsibilities

NMFS is responsible for the following tasks under the ESA: 

 Ensure the recovery plan meets ESA statutory requirements, tribal trust and treaty 

obligations, and agency policy guidelines. 

 Develop DPS-wide performance measures consistent with the recovery strategy outlined in 

Chapter 7. 

 Conduct 5-year reviews (see Section 10.2). 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 9 

DPS Recovery Plan 

 Make delisting determinations. 

 Coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure compliance under the ESA. 

 Implement recovery plans. 

11.1.5.2 Mid-C Convening Partner 

As convening partner for the Mid-C Forum, the NMFS Northwest Regional Office, working through 

its Middle Columbia Recovery Coordinator and Domain Team, will: 

 Convene Forum meetings on a regular basis (twice a year) and convene additional meetings 

as needed. 

 Provide meeting facilitation services and manage the meeting process. 

 Provide Forum meeting venues. 

 Prepare and distribute meeting notes and follow up on tasks agreed to by the Forum. 

 Serve as central clearinghouse for information, to include: DPS-wide stock status, relevant 

Federal scientific research, and DPS-wide gaps in recovery efforts. 

 As requested by the Forum, establish and facilitate state, Federal and tribal meetings 

necessary for the coordination of recovery activities. 

11.1.6 Technical Teams 

Purpose and Function:

Technical teams are ad hoc work units or groups associated with supporting on-the-ground 

implementation of actions, monitoring and research, or technical analysis of data. The teams are a 

part of the foundation of implementation. 

Organization/Membership:

Technical teams are composed of the members or staff of various watershed councils, soil and water 

conservation districts, non-governmental organizations, state agencies, Federal agencies, tribes, and 

others that conduct recovery plan actions, research, monitoring, or evaluation in the field or in the 

lab. 

Operations:

Teams operate within their own internal structures, but will be requested to provide information and 

data to their respective MU Lead to ensure appropriate tracking and coordination within 

management units. 

11.1.7 Science Team 

Purpose and Function: 

The Science Team will provide science input and advice to Mid-C actions, strategies, research 

designs, and RM&E priorities, including scoping science needs from RM&E needs at the MU and 

DPS-level. The Science Team will ensure that rigorous and “best available science” informs 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 11 - 10 

DPS Recovery Plan 

implementation and is applied in RM&E for all “H’s” within the DPS, and assist in translating 

information into status of species viability. The Science Team’s input will be critical to 5-year 

reviews of the DPS. 

Organization/Membership:

The Science Team will be a standing committee of the Forum and will be composed of RIST 

representatives, management unit technical representatives, ODFW/WDFW/tribal co-manager 

technical representatives, etc. The Science Team will select its own chair. It will coordinate with 

existing groups (e.g., the Recovery Implementation Science Team [RIST], Independent Science 

Advisory Board [ISAB], and/or the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team [IMST]) or groups 

formed to provide scientific expertise for a specific purpose. 

Operations:

The Science Team will operate on an ad hoc basis or on a regular schedule as determined by its 

members and will provide science oversight and guidance to the full DPS or to each management 

unit, as needed. The Science Team will coordinate with management unit technical teams where 

necessary. 

11.2 Implementation Funding 

Funding for project implementation is available from a variety of sources. The role of the Forum is 

to ensure MU plan implementers are aware of potential sources of funds and to advocate for the 

funding and implementation of actions that benefit all populations in the DPS. The Forum will not 

supersede decisions made by the individual management unit boards but may advocate for the 

funding of their projects and programs if requested. 

Sources of implementation funding include: 

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

 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) (Washington) 

 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) (Oregon) 

 Columbia Basin Fish Accords 

 Congressional appropriations (Federal agencies) 

 State appropriations (State agencies) 

 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program (States and tribes) 

 Federal / state grants 

 Non-profit organization programs and grants 

11.3 Funding for Mid-C Forum Activities

Staff time for participation in the Mid-C Forum is to be funded by participating agencies and parties. 

NMFS will fund venues, facilitation, and other needs associated with convening Mid-C Forum 

meetings.
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 1 

DPS Recovery Plan 

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, K. Collis, A.F. Evans, M. Hawbecker and B.A Ryan. 2005. 

Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the mid-Columbia River. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 134:466-480. 

Araki, H., B. Cooper and M.S. Blouin. 2007. Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, 

cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science, 318: 100-103. 

Bambrick, D., T. Cooney, B. Farman, K. Gullett, L. Hatcher, S. Hoefer, E. Murray, R. Tweten, R. 

Gritz, P. Howell, K. McDonald, D. Rife, C. Rossel, A. Scott, J. Eisner, J. Morris and D. 

Hand. 2004. Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team (CHART) Assessment for the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

Barnhart, R. A. 1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal 

fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--steelhead. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 82(11.60). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 21 p. 

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. 

Beechie, T. and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming processes in 

Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries, 24:4:6-15. April 1999. 

Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Roni, and G. Giannico. 2007 In Press. Setting river restoration priorities: a 

review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Monog. 6, 275 p. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Berejikian, B. and M.J. Ford. 2004. Review of relative fitness of hatchery and natural salmon. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum NMFS-NWFSC61. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle. Available from 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications. 

Braatne, J.H. and B. Jamieson. 2001. The Impact of Flow Regulation on Riparian Cottonwood 

Forests along the Kootenai and Yakima Rivers. Northwest Power Planning Council and 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. http://www.efw.bpa.gov/publications 

 

Buchanon, D. V., Sanders, J. E., Zinn, J. L., and Fryer, J. L. 1983. Relative susceptibility of four 

strains of summer steelhead to infection by Ceratomyxa Shasta. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc.: 

112:541-543. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 2 

DPS Recovery Plan 

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. 

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. 

Carmichael, R. 2007. Draft Oregon Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan. November 2007. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson and M. M. Muto. 2007. 

Draft U. S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2007. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SWFSC. May 2007. 176 

pages. 

Chilcote, M.W. 2001. Conservation Assessment of Steelhead Population in Oregon. March 5, 2001 

Public Review Draft. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 83 pp. 

Collis, K. and D. D. Roby. 2006. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on 

salmonid smolts in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River: Draft 2005 season summary. 

Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 

Collis, K., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, Y. Suzuki, J.Y. Adkins, L. Reinalda, C. Hand, N. Hostetter, A. 

Evans, and M. Hawbecker. 2007. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on 

salmonid smolts in the lower and mid-Columbia River. Draft 2006 season summary report to 

the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. 

Crozier, L. and R.W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential 

population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology (2006) 

75:1100–1109. 

Crozier, L., R.W. Zabel, and A.F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate change at 

the population level with life-cycle models of spring. Global Change Biology (2008) 14:236–

249. 

Everest, F. H. 1973. Ecology and management of summer steelhead in the Rogue River. Fishery 

Research Report 7, Oregon State Game Commission, Corvallis, 48 p. 

Fast, D. E., J. D. Hubble, M. S. Kohn, and D. B. Watson. 1991. Yakima River spring Chinook 

enhancement study. Bonneville Power Administration, Final Report: Project No. 82-16, 

DOE/BP-39461-9, Portland, OR. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 3 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Fleming, I.A. and E. Peterson. 2001. The ability of released hatchery salmonids to breed and 

contribute to the natural productivity of wild populations. Nordic Journal of Freshwater 

Research 75:71-98. 

Good, T. P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of Federally listed ESUs of 

West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFSNWFSC-66, 598p. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-StatusReviews/upload/SR2005-allspecies.pdf

Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2009. System-Wide Report on Columbia River Basin 

Hatchery Reform. Available at http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp/welcome_show.action

Hooton, R. 1987. Catch and release as a management strategy for steelhead in British Columbia. 

In R. Barnhart and T. Roelofs, eds, Proceedings of catch and release fishing, a decade of 

experience. September 30 - October1, 1987. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2. May 11, 2007. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2008. Non-native Species Impacts on Native 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. ISAB 2008-4. July 15, 2008. 

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team. 2003. Independent Populations of Chinook, 

Steelhead, and Sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily Significant Units Within the Interior 

Columbia River Domain. Working Draft, July 2003. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

NMFS Northwest Region. 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2005. Interior Columbia Basin TRT: 

Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. ICTRT 

Internal Review Draft. July 18, 2005. 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2007a. Viability Criteria for Application to 

Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. Review draft March 2007. Available at: 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_viability.cfm. 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2007b. Required Survival Rate Changes to 

Meet Technical Recovery Team Abundance and Productivity Viability Criteria for Interior 

Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Populations. ICTRT Review Draft. Nov. 30, 

2007. 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2008. Current Status Reviews: Interior 

Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Volume III: Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Draft, May 9, 2008. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 4 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Isaak, D.J., R.F. Thurow, B.E. Rieman, and J.B. Dunham. 2003. Temporal variation in synchrony 

among chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd counts from a wilderness area in 

central Idaho. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 840-848. 

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 

Kalama River, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1398–

1409. 

Levin, P.S. and J.G. Williams. 2002. Interspecific effects of artificially propagated fish: an additional 

conservation risk for salmon. Conservation Biology 16(6):1581-1587. 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2004. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and 

Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Vol I. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Washington. 

McClure, M. M., E. E. Holmes, B. L. Sanderson, and C. E. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale, multispecies status assessment: Anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Ecol. Appl. 

13(4):964–989. 

McClure, M., T. Cooney and the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005. Updated 

population delineation in the Interior Columbia Basin. Memo to NMFS NW Regional 

Office, Co-managers and other interested parties. May 11, 2005. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Seattle, Washington. 

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. 

McElhany, P., C. Busack, M. Chilcote, S. Kolmes, B. McIntosh, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, C. 

Steward, D. Ward, T. Whitesel, C. Willis. 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. Review Draft, April 

1, 2006. 

McGinnity, P., et al. 2003. Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic 

salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 270:2443-2450. 

Mid-Columbia Expert Panel. 2006. Limiting factors and threats to recovery of steelhead in the 

Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia distinct population segment. Results of Expert Panel 

deliberations. July 2006. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. 

Mongillo, P.P. 1984. A summary of salmonid hooking mortality. Fish Management Division. 

Washington Department of Game. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 5 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Myers, R.A., S.A. Levin, R. Lande, F.C. James, W.W. Murdoch, and R.T. Paine. 2004. Ecology. 

Hatcheries and endangered salmon. Science 303:1980. 

McGinn, N. A., editor. 2002. Fisheries in a changing climate. American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 32, Bethesda, Maryland. 

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 (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations 

of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation 

Branch, Seattle, WA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999a. 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

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999b. Evaluations of the Status of Chinook and Chum 

Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Populations for ESUs Identified in Final Listing 

Determinations. March 4, 1999, NMFS-NWFSC Status Review Update Memo. Available on 

the Internet at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/sru990304.pdf 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000a. White paper: predation on salmonids relative to 

the federal Columbia River power system. NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion for reinitiation of consultation on operation of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System, including the juvenile fish transportation program, and 19 

Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia basin. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Consultation on Remand of the Columbia River 

Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised and 

reissued pursuant to Court Order NWF v NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon). 

November 30, 2004. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2005a. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries’ Critical 

Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast 

Salmon and Steelhead. August 2005. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation 

of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 6 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. September 2, 2005, Federal Register/ VOL 70, 

No. 170. Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/NWR-CH-Designation-FRN.cfm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2006. Interim endangered and threatened 

species recovery planning guidance. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, NMFS, 

Original October 2004, Updated July 2006, 121 pp, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan 

Module for Salmon and Steelhead. November 5, 2007. available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/EstuaryModule.cfm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Consultation: consultation on remand for operation of the Columbia River 

Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. (“FCRPS 

BiOp”) NMFS, Portland, Oregon. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonHydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/Final-BOs.cfm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008b. Biological Opinion: Impacts of US v OR 

Fisheries in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA-listed Species and MagnusonStevens Act Essential Fish Habitat. May 5, 2008. Available at 

https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=107547

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008c. Recovery Plan Module for Mainstem Columbia 

River Hydropower Projects (“Hydro Module”). NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008d. Final 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. Portland, Oregon. 

National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water 

Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. The National Academies Press. Washington D.C. 

Nelitz, M., K. Wieckowski, D. Pickard, K. Pawley, and D. Marmorek. 2007. Helping Pacific salmon 

survive the impact of climate change on freshwater habitats: pursuing proactive and reactive 

adaptation strategies. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Vancouver, B.C. 

Nelson, T.C., M.L. Rosenau, and N.T. Johnston. 2005. Behavior and Survival of Wild and 

Hatchery-Origin Winter Steelhead Spawners Caught and Released in a Recreational Fishery. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:931-943. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004. Draft Columbia River Basin research 

plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 7 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008 and 2009 (draft and final). Conservation 

and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. Final, August 2009. 

www.eou.edu/~odfw/Oregon_Mid-C_Recovery_Plan_FRN_August_2009_.pdf 

Peterman, R.M. 1984. Density-dependent growth in early ocean life of sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1825- 1829. 

Rawding, D. 2000. A methodology for estimating the adult winter steelhead sport fishing mortality 

in tributaries to the Lower Columbia River. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Vancouver, WA Unpublished draft, 18pp. 

Reingold, M. 1975. Effects of displacing, hooking, and releasing on migrating adult steelhead trout. 

Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 104(3):458-460. 

Rich, W.H. 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River in 1938. Fish. Bull., U.S. 50(37):103-

147. 

Rieman, B.E., R.C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T.P. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile salmonids 

to predation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, 

Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:448-458. 

Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, Y. Suzuki, J.Y. Adkins, L. Reinalda, N. Hostetter, and L. 

Adrean. 2008. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on salmonid smolts in 

the lower and mid-Columbia River. Draft 2007 season summary. Prepared for the Bonneville 

Power Administration by U.S. Geological Survey - Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

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., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M.M. Pollock, and G.R. Pess. 2002. A review of 

stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific 

Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22(1):1-20. 

Roni, Phil, Karrie Hanson, Tim Beechie, George Pess, and Michael Pollock. 2005. Habitat 

rehabilitation for inland fisheries: global review of effectiveness and guidance for 

rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 484. FAO, Rome. 

Ruckelshaus, M.H., K. Currens, R. Furstenberg, W. Graeber, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and K.J. Scott. 

2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guideline for the delisting and recovery of the Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

Team. 
Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

November 30, 2009

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 12 - 8 

DPS Recovery Plan 

Sanders, J.E., J.J. Long, C.K. Arakawa, J.L. Bartholomew, and J.S. Rohovec. 1992. Prevalence of 

Renibacterium salmoninarum among downstream-migrating salmonids in the Columbia 

River. Journ. Aquat. Animal Health. 4:72-75. 

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. 

Sharp, W., C. Fredericksen, W. Bosch, D.J. Warren & Associates, Inc. 2008. Klickitat River 

Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 1988-115-35. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries. Toppenish Washington. 

Stanford, J. A., and coauthors. 2002. The Reaches Project: Ecological and geomorphic studies 

supporting normative flows in the Yakima River basin, Washington. University of Montana 

Flathead Lake Biological Station, Poulson. 

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. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Fisheries Management and 

Evaluation Plan. Mid-Columbia River Region. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. April 7, 2008. Olympia, WA. 

Withler, I. L. 1966. Variability in life history characteristics of steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) 

along the Pacific coast of North America. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23(3):365-393. 

Zimmerman, M.P. 1999. Food habits of smallmouth bass, walleyes, and northern pikeminnow in the 

lower Columbia River basin during outmigration of juvenile anadromous salmonids. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:1036-1054.