APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 2

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 14

1.1 VISION STATEMENT........................................................................................................ 15

1.2 PURPOSE AND CONTEXT................................................................................................ 15

1.3 USE OF THIS PLAN ........................................................................................................... 19

1.4 LEAD ENTITY AND PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................. 19

1.4.1 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board ..................................................................... 19

1.4.2 Committees and Subcommittees.............................................................................. 21

1.5 APPROACH AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANNING PROCESSES.......... 23

1.5.1 Coordination and Approach..................................................................................... 23

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................................. 24

1.6.1 2004-2006................................................................................................................ 24

1.6.2 2006-Present ............................................................................................................ 25

2 DESCRIPTION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................... 26

2.1 HISTORY, CULTURE, AND ECONOMY......................................................................... 26

2.2 GEOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................... 28

2.3 CLIMATE............................................................................................................................. 28

2.4 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 29

2.5 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................... 30

2.5.1 Surface Water .......................................................................................................... 30

2.5.2 Rivers and Streams.................................................................................................. 30

2.5.3 Ground Water .......................................................................................................... 42

2.5.4 Water Quality........................................................................................................... 45

2.6 VEGETATION..................................................................................................................... 50

2.6.1 Riparian Vegetation................................................................................................. 52

2.6.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasives................................................................................. 58

2.7 FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES........................................................................................ 59

2.7.1 Aquatic Species ....................................................................................................... 59

2.7.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Species..................................................................................... 61

2.7.3 Federal and State Species Listing ............................................................................ 62
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 3

2.8 LAND USE, LAND OWNERSHIP, AND JURISDICTION............................................... 67

2.8.1 Land Use.................................................................................................................. 67

2.8.2 Land Ownership....................................................................................................... 71

2.8.3 Jurisdiction............................................................................................................... 75

2.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SETTING .......................................................... 79

2.9.1 Population and Growth............................................................................................ 79

2.10 HATCHERY FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 81

2.11 HYDROPOWER FACILITIES AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT DAMS ............................. 82

3 BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 86

3.1 POPULATION IDENTIFICATION AND STRUCTURE................................................... 86

3.1.1 Important Concepts in Salmon and Steelhead Biology ........................................... 86

3.1.2 Definition of Evolutionarily Significant Units/Distinct Population 

Segments.................................................................................................................. 87

3.1.3 Major Population Groups ........................................................................................ 87

3.2 KEY SPECIES AND LISTING STATUS ........................................................................... 88

3.3 SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT SALMONID 

POPULATION STRUCTURE............................................................................................. 90

3.3.1 Spring/summer Chinook Salmon............................................................................. 90

3.3.2 Steelhead.................................................................................................................. 92

3.3.3 Population Subdivisions: Major and Minor Spawning Areas.................................. 96

3.4 GENERAL LIFE HISTORY OF SALMONIDS................................................................ 110

3.4.1 Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon .......................................................................... 111

3.4.2 Steelhead Trout...................................................................................................... 113

3.4.3 Bull Trout .............................................................................................................. 116

4 RECOVERY AND RESTORATION GOALS AND DELISTING CRITERIA.................................. 119

4.1 SALMON AND STEELHEAD.......................................................................................... 119

4.1.1 Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) ........................................ 121

4.2 BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY CRITERIA ........................................................................... 121

4.2.1 ESU/DPS Viability Criterion................................................................................. 123

4.2.2 Major Population Group Viability Criteria............................................................ 123

4.2.3 Population-Level Viability Criteria ....................................................................... 124

4.3 BULL TROUT.................................................................................................................... 127
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 4

4.4 RESTORATION GOALS .................................................................................................. 127

5 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS .......................................................................................... 129

5.1 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 130

5.2 GENERAL CAUSES OF SALMONID POPULATION DECLINE IN THE 

SEWMU ............................................................................................................................. 132

5.2.1 Agriculture............................................................................................................. 132

5.2.2 Logging.................................................................................................................. 133

5.2.3 Urban and Rural Development .............................................................................. 133

5.2.4 Hydroelectric Generation....................................................................................... 135

5.2.5 Hatcheries.............................................................................................................. 136

5.2.6 Harvest................................................................................................................... 136

5.3 SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DECLINE DUE TO HABITAT ALTERATIONS FOR 

POPULATIONS WITHIN THE SEWMU......................................................................... 138

5.4 FACTORS AFFECTING HABITAT................................................................................. 139

5.5 SEWMU DPS/ESU ............................................................................................................ 141

5.5.1 Snake River DPS/ESU Asotin Creek Steelhead and Asotin Creek 

Spring/Summer Chinook Populations ................................................................... 141

5.5.2 Mid-Columbia DPS: Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead ................................ 151

5.5.3 Snake River DPS/ESU: Tucannon River Steelhead and Spring/Summer 

Chinook Salmon Populations ................................................................................ 160

5.5.4 Snake River ESU/DPS........................................................................................... 169

5.6 SUMMARY OF KEY LIMITING FACTORS .................................................................. 173

5.6.1 Key Factors Related to Habitat.............................................................................. 173

5.6.2 Key Factors Related to Hydroelectric Installations............................................... 176

5.6.3 Key Factors Related to Hatcheries......................................................................... 176

5.6.4 Key Factors Related to Harvest ............................................................................. 176

5.7 CURRENT THREATS....................................................................................................... 177

5.7.1 Spring Chinook Salmon......................................................................................... 180

5.7.2 Steelhead................................................................................................................ 183

5.7.3 Bull Trout .............................................................................................................. 185

5.8 UNCERTAINTIES............................................................................................................. 187

5.8.1 Ocean Productivity and Natural Variation............................................................. 187

5.8.2 Global Climate Change.......................................................................................... 188
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 5

5.8.3 Hatchery Effectiveness.......................................................................................... 188

5.8.4 Invasive Species..................................................................................................... 188

5.8.5 Effects of Dams on Bull Trout............................................................................... 188

5.8.6 Interaction between Resident and Migrant Bull Trout Life-History Types........... 189

5.8.7 Interaction between Resident and Anadromous Rainbow (steelhead) Trout 

Life-History Types................................................................................................. 189

5.8.8 Effects of Harvest, Hatchery, Hydropower, and Habitat Actions.......................... 189

5.8.9 Effects of Human Population Growth ................................................................... 189

6 RECOVERY STRATEGIES AND GENERAL ACTIONS ............................................................... 190

6.1 RECOVERY STRATEGY................................................................................................. 190

6.2 ESU/DPS LEVEL RECOVERY STRATEGY .................................................................. 192

6.3 HABITAT........................................................................................................................... 193

6.3.1 Columbia/Snake River........................................................................................... 193

6.3.2 Tributary ................................................................................................................ 193

6.4 IMPAIRED FISH PASSAGE............................................................................................. 196

6.4.1 Impaired Fish Passage in Mainstem Columbia River............................................ 197

6.4.2 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries..................................................................... 198

6.5 HATCHERIES ................................................................................................................... 198

6.5.1 Adult management of hatchery-origin fish............................................................ 198

6.6 PREDATION, COMPETITION AND DISEASE.............................................................. 201

6.6.1 Predation................................................................................................................ 201

6.6.2 Competition – Density Dependent Mortality......................................................... 203

6.6.3 Disease................................................................................................................... 203

6.7 HARVEST.......................................................................................................................... 203

6.8 ESTUARY AND COLUMBIA RIVER PLUME............................................................... 204

6.9 CLIMATE CHANGE......................................................................................................... 205

6.10 COORDINATION/GOVERNANCE ................................................................................. 207

6.10.1 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and Adaptive Management ....................... 207

6.10.2 Summary of Recovery Strategies .......................................................................... 207

6.10.3 Delisting and Recovery Scenarios......................................................................... 208

6.10.4 Spring/summer Chinook Salmon........................................................................... 211
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 6

6.10.5 Summary of General Actions and Strategies for SEWMU Populations................ 222

7 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS ................................................. 227

7.1 METHODS......................................................................................................................... 228

7.2 QUALIFICATIONS OF ANALYSES BELOW................................................................ 229

7.3 RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 231

7.3.1 Bull Trout .............................................................................................................. 231

7.3.2 Asotin Creek .......................................................................................................... 232

7.3.3 Tucannon River ..................................................................................................... 239

7.3.4 Walla Walla River ................................................................................................. 246

7.3.5 Joseph Creek (Grande Ronde)............................................................................... 252

7.3.6 Lower Grande Ronde River................................................................................... 255

8 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 261

APPENDIX A SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS AND COST ................................................................ 273

APPENDIX B CURRENT STATUS ASSESSMENT OF SEWMU POPULATIONS ..................... 284

APPENDIX C ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH MONITORING AND 

EVALUATION PLAN. AND EVALUATION PLAN .................................................................... 375

APPENDIX D HATCHERY MANAGEMENT SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 

PLAN SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE MANAGEMENT UNIT....................................... 542

APPENDIX E FISHERY MANAGEMENT – SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON

MANAGEMENT UNIT................................................................................................................ 573

APPENDIX F ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT (EDT) ....................................... 588
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 7

Table of Figures

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 1-1. COLUMBIA BASIN RECOVERY DOMAINS FOR NMFS NORTHWEST 

REGION ............................................................................................................................... 17

FIGURE 1-2. SNAKE RIVER BASIN RECOVERY SUB-DOMAIN DISPLAYING 

THE IDAHO, NORTHEAST OREGON, AND SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 

MANAGEMENT UNITS..................................................................................................... 18

FIGURE 1-3. SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT...................................... 18

FIGURE 1-4 STATE OF WASHINGTON SALMON SEWMUS............................................... 20

FIGURE 1-5 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE SNAKE RIVER SALMON 

RECOVERY BOARD AND COMMITTEES ..................................................................... 22

2 DESCRIPTION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT........................................... 26

FIGURE 2-1 HYDROLOGIC FEATURES WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT. ................................................... 32

FIGURE 2-2 LAND USE IN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY 

MANAGEMENT UNIT....................................................................................................... 68

FIGURE 2-3 MAJOR OWNERSHIP OF LAND WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT. ................................................... 73

FIGURE 2-4 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................................... 76

FIGURE 2-5. HATCHERY AND MAJOR HYDROPOWER FACILITIES WITHIN 

THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT.......................................... 82

3 BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 86

FIGURE 3-1. HIERARCHICAL LEVELS OF SALMONID SPECIES STRUCTURE AS 

DEFINED BY THE TRTS FOR ESU/DPS RECOVERY PLANNING.............................. 88

FIGURE 3-2. SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON ESU. 

MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS (MPGS) WITH EXTANT POPULATIONS............... 91

FIGURE 3-3. SNAKE RIVER STEELHEAD DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT 

(DPS) POPULATIONS - CURRENT STATUS RATINGS BASED ON ICTRT 

CRITERIA............................................................................................................................ 93

FIGURE 3-4. MIDDLE COLUMBIA STEELHEAD DPS POPULATIONS AND 

MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS...................................................................................... 94

FIGURE 3-5. TUCANNON RIVER SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON MAJOR 

AND MINOR SPAWNING AREAS ................................................................................. 101
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 8

FIGURE 3-6. ASOTIN CREEK SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON MAJOR 

AND MINOR SPAWNING AREAS ................................................................................. 102

FIGURE 3-7. WENAHA RIVER SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON 

MAJOR AND MINOR SPAWNING AREAS................................................................... 103

FIGURE 3-8. WALLA WALL STEELHEAD MAJOR AND MINOR SPAWNING 

AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 104

FIGURE 3-9. TOUCHET RIVER STEELHEAD MAJOR AND MINOR 

SPAWNING AREAS ......................................................................................................... 105

FIGURE 3-10. TUCANNON RIVER STEELHEAD MAJOR AND MINOR

SPAWNING AREAS ......................................................................................................... 106

FIGURE 3-11. ASOTIN CREEK STEELHEAD MAJOR AND MINOR 

SPAWNING AREAS ......................................................................................................... 107

FIGURE 3-12. JOSEPH CREEK STEELHEAD MAJOR AND MINOR 

SPAWNING AREAS ......................................................................................................... 108

FIGURE 3-13. GRAND RONDE LOWER MAINSTEM STEELHEAD 

MAJOR AND MINOR SPAWNING AREAS................................................................... 109

4 RECOVERY AND RESTORATION GOALS AND DELISTING CRITERIA ........................................ 119

FIGURE 4-1. NMFS LISTING STATUS DECISION FRAMEWORK. .................................... 120

FIGURE 4-2. MAJOR POPULATION GROUP VIABILITY CRITERIA (ICTRT 2007A....... 124

5 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS................................................................................................. 129

FIGURE 5-1. FACTORS AFFECTING VIABILITY OF ASOTIN STEELHEAD. .................. 142

FIGURE 5-2. FACTORS AFFECTING VIABILITY OF ASOTIN SPRING/SUMMER 

CHINOOK (2004) .............................................................................................................. 143

FIGURE 5-3. FACTORS LIMITING THE VIABILITY OF THE WALLA WALLA 

STEELHEAD POPULATION. .......................................................................................... 151

FIGURE 5-4. FACTORS LIMITING THE VIABILITY OF THE TOUCHET RIVER 

STEELHEAD POPULATION. .......................................................................................... 157

FIGURE 5-5. FACTORS LIMITING THE VIABILITY OF THE TUCANNON RIVER 

STEELHEAD POPULATION. .......................................................................................... 161

FIGURE 5-6. FACTORS LIMITING THE VIABILITY OF TUCANNON RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK. ....................................................................................... 162

FIGURE 5-7. FACTORS AFFECTING THE VIABILITY OF THE WENAHA RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK POPULATION. ............................................................. 170

FIGURE 5-8. FACTORS AFFECTING THE VIABILITY OF THE LOWER GRANDE 

RONDE STEELHEAD POPULATION............................................................................. 171

FIGURE 5-9. FACTORS AFFECTING THE VIABILITY OF THE JOSEPH CREEK 

STEELHEAD POPULATION. .......................................................................................... 173
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 9

6 RECOVERY STRATEGIES AND GENERAL ACTIONS...................................................................... 190

FIGURE 6-1. COMPARISON OF THE RISK OF EXTINCTION IN 100 YEARS, 

MAJOR POPULATION GROUP VIABILITY CRITERIA (ICTRT 2007A) AND 

POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF POPULATIONS AS PRIMARY, 

CONTRIBUTING, AND STABILIZING.......................................................................... 200

7 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS....................................................... 227

FIGURE 7-1. REVISED EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS (2004) FOR ASOTIN 

SUMMER STEELHEAD................................................................................................... 233

FIGURE 7-2. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR ASOTIN SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER CURRENT AND 

SRSRP CONDITIONS (2004). .......................................................................................... 234

FIGURE 7-3. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR ASOTIN SPRING/SUMMER 

CHINOOK (2004). ............................................................................................................. 235

FIGURE 7-4. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR ASOTIN SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON UNDER 

CURRENT AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004). ........................................ 238

FIGURE 7-5. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TUCANNON SUMMER 

STEELHEAD METAPOPULATION (2004). ................................................................... 239

FIGURE 7-6. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR TUCANNON SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER CURRENT 

AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004)............................................................. 241

FIGURE 7-7. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TUCANNON SPRING/SUMMER 

CHINOOK SALMON (2004). ........................................................................................... 243

FIGURE 7-8. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR TUCANNON RIVER SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK 

SALMON UNDER CURRENT AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004)......... 245

FIGURE 7-9. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR WALLA WALLA SUMMER 

STEELHEAD (2004).......................................................................................................... 246

FIGURE 7-10. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR WALLA WALLA SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER 

CURRENT AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004). ........................................ 248

FIGURE 7-11. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TOUCHET SUMMER 

STEELHEAD. 250

FIGURE 7-12. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR TOUCHET SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER CURRENT 

AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004)............................................................. 251
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 10

FIGURE 7-13. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR JOSEPH CREEK 

(GRANDE RONDE) SUMMER STEELHEAD (2004). ................................................... 253

FIGURE 7-14. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR JOSEPH CREEK SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER 

CURRENT AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004). ........................................ 254

FIGURE 7-15. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR LOWER GRANDE 

RONDE SUMMER STEELHEAD (2004)......................................................................... 256

FIGURE 7-16. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY, AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR LOWER GRANDE RONDE SUMMER STEELHEAD UNDER 

CURRENT AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004). ........................................ 258

FIGURE 7-17. EDT VIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR WENAHA RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK (2004)............................................................................. 258

FIGURE 7-18. VIABILITY CURVE MODIFIED EDT INDEX VALUES OF 

ABUNDANCE, INTRINSIC PRODUCTIVITY, AND LIFE HISTORY 

DIVERSITY FOR WENAHA RIVER SPRING/SUMMER UNDER CURRENT 

AND RECOVERY PLAN CONDITIONS (2004)............................................................. 260
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 11

List of Tables

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 14

TABLE 1-1 SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY BOARD................................................ 20

2 DESCRIPTION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT........................................... 26

TABLE 2-1 AREA OF DRAINAGE BASINS WITHIN THE SEWMU ................................... 31

TABLE 2-2 CURRENT FLOW REGIMES WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................................... 36

TABLE 2-3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND 

INDUSTRIAL WATER USE WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 

MANAGEMENT UNIT ....................................................................................................... 39

TABLE 2-4 IRRIGATION SUMMARY FOR THE MIDDLE SNAKE PORTION OF 

THE SEWMU....................................................................................................................... 40

TABLE 2-5 CLOSURES TO SURFACE WATER APPROPRIATION IN THE

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ 41

TABLE 2-6 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER RIGHTS WITHIN THE

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ 44

TABLE 2-7 CWA 303(D) WATER QUALITY IMPAIRED SURFACE WATERS 

WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT 

UNIT 47

TABLE 2-8 DOMINANT SPECIES IN VEGETATIVE ZONES WITHIN THE 

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ 52

TABLE 2-9 DOMINANT RIPARIAN VEGETATION IN THE SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................................... 53

TABLE 2-10 RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT BY STREAM REACH WITHIN THE 

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ 56

TABLE 2-11 FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE SE WASHINGTON SALMON 

SEWMU ............................................................................................................................... 60

TABLE 2-12 FEDERAL AND STATE LISTINGS FOR AQUATIC AND 

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 

RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ................................................................................ 64

TABLE 2-13 LAND USE BY COUNTY IN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 

RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT. ............................................................................... 69

TABLE 2-14 IRRIGATED CROP ACREAGE WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT. ................................................... 70
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 12

TABLE 2-15 ESTIMATED OWNERSHIP BY COUNTY (SQUARE MILES) WITHIN 

THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT. .................. 72

TABLE 2-16 POPULATION OF LARGEST COMMUNITIES WITHIN SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT COUNTIES IN 2005. ....................................... 79

TABLE 2-17 HISTORIC, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS IN THE 

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ 81

3 BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 86

TABLE 3-1 ESA STATUS OF KEY SPECIES AND STOCKS WITHIN RECOVERY 

REGION ............................................................................................................................... 88

TABLE 3-2 MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS FOR THE SNAKE RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK ESU.................................................................................. 92

TABLE 3-3 MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS FOR THE SNAKE RIVER AND MIDCOLUMBIA STEELHEAD DPSS ...................................................................................... 95

TABLE 3-4 MAJOR AND MINOR SPAWNING AREAS WITHIN THE SE 

WASHINGTON RECOVERY REGION............................................................................. 98

TABLE 3-5 HABITAT PREFERENCES FOR SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK 

SALMON ........................................................................................................................... 112

TABLE 3-6. HABITAT PREFERENCES FOR STEELHEAD..................................................... 115

TABLE 3-7 BULL TROUT HABITAT PREFERENCES BY LIFE STAGE.......................... 118

4 RECOVERY AND RESTORATION GOALS AND DELISTING CRITERIA ........................................ 119

TABLE 4-1. ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY THRESHOLDS (ICTRT 2007A) 

FOR POPULATIONS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 

MANAGEMENT UNIT..................................................................................................... 126

TABLE 4-2. COMPARISON BETWEEN DE-LISTING GOALS AND 

RESTORATION GOALS FOR STEELHEAD AND SPRING/SUMMER 

CHINOOK POPULATIONS WITHIN THE SEWMU. .................................................... 128

5 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS................................................................................................. 129

TABLE 5-1. EDT HABITAT FACTORS................................................................................. 139

TABLE 5-2. KEY LIMITING HABITAT FACTORS IN SEWMU SUBBASINS................... 174

TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF CURRENT THREATS BY LISTING FACTOR AND 

CATEGORY....................................................................................................................... 177

TABLE 5-4. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS THAT COULD AFFECT THE VIABILITY OF 

SEWMU POPULATIONS. ................................................................................................ 179

6 RECOVERY STRATEGIES AND GENERAL ACTIONS...................................................................... 190

TABLE 6-1. PRIORITIZATION OF APPROACHES TO HABITAT RESTORATION. ........ 194

TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF HABITAT FACTORS, AND ASSOCIATED OBJECTIVES 

FOR EACH SEWMU MASA. ........................................................................................... 195
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 13

TABLE 6-3. HSRG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POPULATION CATEGORIES OF 

PRIMARY, CONTRIBUTING, AND STABILIZING...................................................... 199

TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF ICTRT VIABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT FOR EACH 

MPG IN THE SEWMU...................................................................................................... 207

TABLE 6-5. RECOVERY SCENARIOS: APPLICATION OF ICTRT VIABILITY

CRITERIA TO SEWMU MPGS: OPTIONS FOR VIABILITY AND 

COMPARISON TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SRSRB (RTT)........................... 209

TABLE 6-6. SUMMARY OF HABITAT FACTORS, AND ASSOCIATED 

OBJECTIVES FOR THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER 

CHINOOK SALMON MPG. ............................................................................................. 213

TABLE 6-7. SUMMARY OF HABITAT FACTORS, AND ASSOCIATED 

OBJECTIVES FOR THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER STEELHEAD MPG. ...................... 216

TABLE 6-8 SUMMARY OF HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS 

FROM THE NE OREGON DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN ................................................ 219

TABLE 6-9. SUMMARY OF HABITAT FACTORS, AND ASSOCIATED 

OBJECTIVES FOR THE UMATILLA/WALLA WALLA STEELHEAD MPG............. 221

TABLE 6-10. RECOVERY STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE 

SEWMU SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD 

POPULATIONS. 223
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 14

1 INTRODUCTION

Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations within the Columbia River Basin have suffered declines due 

to a variety of causes. Government agencies, tribal governments, environmental organizations, fishing 

interests, local entities, and the public at large agree that halting the decline and, if possible, reversing it is 

important to the social, cultural, economic, and environmental well-being of the region. Recovery plans 

are a vital part of the effort to combat the decline of salmon; the goal of the plans is to produce a guide for 

the long-term implementation of actions designed to restore populations as closely as practicable to a 

healthy state.

The following is a revision and update to a plan that was originally written in 2005 and finalized in 2006. 

Many of the processes and associated information has been updated from the 2006 plan and the status of 

the species (Appendix B) has also been updated.

This recovery plan addresses the following salmon and trout populations in southeast Washington: bull 

trout, Asotin Creek summer steelhead, Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook, Tucannon River summer 

steelhead, Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook, Wala Walla River summer steelhead, Touchet River 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 15

summer steelhead, Joseph Creek summer steelhead, Lower Grande Ronde River summer steelhead, and 

Wenaha River spring/summer Chinook.

1.1 VISION STATEMENT

Defining recovery goals and planning targets begins with establishment of a vision statement for the 

recovery region. The vision statement provides the context within which recovery goals and planning 

targets are set and strategies and actions are identified. The following vision statement for this Plan is 

based largely on statements from the Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, Walla Walla River, Grande Ronde 

River, and Lower Snake Mainstem subbasin plans:

Develop and maintain a healthy ecosystem that contributes to the rebuilding of key fish 

populations by providing abundant, productive, and diverse populations of aquatic 

species that support the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the communities 

both within and outside the recovery region.

The vision statement includes: 1) meeting recovery goals established by NMFS for listed populations of 

anadromous fish species and by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for bull trout, 2) achieving healthy and 

harvestable populations of listed species in affected subbasins, and 3) realizing these objectives while 

recognizing that local culture and economies (agriculture, urban development, logging, power production, 

recreation, and other activities) are beneficial to the health of the human environment within the recovery 

region.

1.2 PURPOSE AND CONTEXT

Salmon and other salmonids are an important part of the life and economy of the Pacific Northwest. Since 

the 19th century, salmon populations have declined within the Columbia River Basin. Over-harvesting, as 

well as loss of habitat due to agricultural activities, logging, urbanization, and construction of dams, have 

reduced populations of salmonids to extremely low levels in some parts of Washington State, resulting in 

some populations being listed as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species acts. 

Recovery planning for salmon in Washington State is defined by the Salmon Recovery Act of 1998 

(RCW 77.85) as ―a state plan developed in response to a proposed or actual listing under the federal 

endangered species act that addresses limiting factors including, but not limited to harvest, hatchery, 

hydropower, habitat, and other factors of decline.‖ In addition to aiding in the recovery of salmon 

populations within the state, Washington‘s goal in embarking upon the recovery planning effort was to 

retain responsibility for managing the state‘s resources rather than relying on the federal government to 

do so. The recovery planning process is designed to provide an opportunity to incorporate best available 

scientific information with local enhancement efforts. The objective in adopting this approach is a plan, 

capable of being implemented, that can be used to remove currently listed species from the threatened or 

endangered species designation and maintain healthy, viable, sustainable, and harvestable populations of 

those species.

In 1999, the document ―Extinction is Not an Option—a Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon‖ was 

released by the Washington Governor‘s Salmon Recovery Office. This document provides overall 

guidance for addressing the myriad aspects of salmonid recovery including agriculture, forestry, land use, 

water quality and quantity, fish passage, harvest, artificial production (hatcheries), and hydroelectric 

dams. It ―stresses the importance of a strong scientific foundation, a collaborative and open process, and a 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 16

long-term adaptive management strategy based on a comprehensive monitoring of salmon recovery and 

watershed health.‖

To guide regional groups entering into salmonid recovery planning, ―An Outline for Salmon Recovery 

Plans‖ was developed by the State of Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC), and other local and regional organizations. This document is 

based on the earlier strategy document and presents more details on what should be included in a recovery 

plan. It was endorsed by the Governor‘s Office of the State of Washington and approved by NMFS in 

December 2003.

The outline establishes the approach to salmon recovery planning and identifies the important 

components of a plan. Specifically, the plan must include:

Scientific assessments of the status of species and their habitats.

Factors for decline, threats to viability, and/or factors limiting recovery of the species, and factors 

supporting current populations.

Measurable goals that describe recovery for the listed species against which the success of actions 

will be measured.

Actions and commitments for habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydropower necessary to reduce or 

eliminate the limiting factors and recover fish populations.

Implementation components such as time lines, funding, identification of responsible parties and 

authorities, research needs, monitoring plans, and methods of evaluating actions and adapting the 

plan.

In the Pacific Northwest, NMFS has identified four recovery domains: Puget Sound; Willamette/Lower 

Columbia, which has two sub-domains of Willamette and Lower Columbia; Oregon Coast; and Interior 

Columbia, which has three sub-domains of Middle Columbia, Snake and Upper Columbia (Figure 1-1). 

These are geographically-based areas for preparing multi-species recovery plans for anadromous 

salmonids in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 17

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

Because most state and local boundaries are not drawn on the basis of watersheds or ecosystems, the 

various groups and organizations that formed for recovery planning in these subregions do not necessarily 

correspond to salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and steelhead distinct population segment 

(DPS) areas. So to develop ESU-wide recovery plans that are built from local recovery efforts, 

NMFS defined ―management units‖ that roughly follow jurisdictional boundaries but, taken together, 

encompass the geography of entire ESUs/DPSs.

Two of the Interior Columbia sub-domains, the Middle Columbia and Snake, have multiple management 

units. For the Middle Columbia, there are four management units: Oregon, Yakima, Columbia Gorge 

(Klickitat/Rock Creek/White Salmon), and Southeast Washington (Walla Walla and Touchet). The Snake 

sub-domain has three management units: Idaho, Oregon and Southeast Washington.

This plan provides recovery planning for the Southeast Washington Management Unit (SEWMU), which 

is part of the Snake River Recovery sub-domain (Figure 1-2, 1-3).
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 18

Figure 1-2. Snake River Basin Recovery Sub-Domain displaying the Idaho, Northeast 

Oregon, and Southeast Washington Management Units. (note that the Walla Walla 

subbasin is absent from the SEWMU in the figure, but is considered by NMFS, the 

Washington Governor’s Office of Salmon Recovery and the SRSRB to part of the 

management unit).

Figure 1-3. Southeast Washington Management Unit.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 19

NMFS has the ultimate responsibility to decide if actions implemented by the salmon recovery domains 

have successfully restored salmon and steelhead populations to the point where they can be de-listed.

NMFS appointed technical recovery teams (TRTs) for each domain to identify independent salmon 

populations within each ESU, recommend viability criteria, and analyze factors that limit species survival. 

The TRTs provide the technical basis for recovery plans and advise NMFS and other recovery planners.

For bull trout, the USFWS has the ultimate responsibility to determine when this species has been 

successfully restored to the point where they can be delisted.

This Plan will be one part of a comprehensive Snake River Basin Sub-Domain Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery Plan, coordinated and developed by NMFS and other local stakeholders.

The primary purpose of this recovery plan is to present implementable actions that can lead to the delisting of populations of salmon, steelhead and bull trout within the SEWMU.

1.3 USE OF THIS PLAN

This plan is to be used to guide federal agencies charged with species recovery. In and of itself, this plan 

is a non-regulatory document. As such, it is not intended to be nor may it serve as a regulatory document 

forcing landowner action. Any such regulatory actions deemed necessary as a result of this document 

must be accompanied by a clear legislative mandate to that end.

The plan may be used to inform state and local agency planning and land use actions, but it may not be 

deemed to place requirements on such entities. The goal of this plan is to offer options for future actions 

that strive to secure the survival of species. No mandate on state or local agencies may be construed from 

this plan, and the plan may not be cited as creating a need for new regulatory actions at the state or local 

level unless clear legislative authority is first adopted.

1.4 LEAD ENTITY AND PARTICIPANTS

1.4.1 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

To aid in salmon recovery planning, the state was divided into regions: Snake River, Northeast 

Washington, Upper Columbia Basin, Middle Columbia Basin, Lower Columbia River, Puget Sound, and 

the Washington Coast (Figure 1-4). The planning effort in each region is funded by Washington‘s Salmon 

Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) established by the Salmon Recovery Act. Lead Entities were organized 

as precursors to regional recovery organizations and were locally based committees reliant upon citizen 

volunteers to provide a framework for restoration of salmon habitat.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 20

Figure 1-4 State of Washington Salmon SEWMUs

For the Washington State Snake River region (SEWMU), the Lead Entity is the Snake River Salmon 

Recovery Board (SRSRB). The SRSRB comprises government and tribal representatives, landowners, 

and private citizens. Table 1-1 shows the list of voting SRSRB members. 

Table 1-1 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

Affiliation Constituency

Garfield County Landowner

Citizen

County Commisioner

Columbia County Landowner

Citizen

County Commissioner

Asotin County Landowner

Citizen

County Commisioner

CTUIR Tribal Representative

Tribal Representative

Tribal Representative

Whitman County Landowner

Citizen

County Commissioner

Walla Walla County Landowner

Irrigation District
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 21

Affiliation Constituency

County Commissioner

The SRSRB was formed in 2002 after invitations were submitted to more than 150 individuals, 

organizations, tribes, and government bodies. The invitation was followed by presentations by the state 

Recovery Planning project manager to better acquaint potential members with the responsibilities and 

goals of salmon recovery planning.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board makes decisions using a consensus-driven process and is 

committed to implementing a recovery plan that is supported by science and the community. 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board defined its mission as protection and restoration of salmon 

habitat, consistent with the recovery plan, for current and future generations. The following recovery 

priorities were established by the SRSRB.

Habitat Protection: protect existing high-quality salmonid habitat

o Recognize and support cooperative, voluntary habitat protection activities and projects

o Protect key habitat via public education, outreach, and voluntary activities

o Protect key habitat via market-oriented conservation easements, banking, and/or lease

o Protect key habitat via purchase by government entities or non-profit land trusts

Habitat Restoration: restore degraded salmon habitat

o Continue promoting cooperative, voluntary landowner involvement in habitat restoration 

activities

o Restore important habitat consistent with, but not limited to, recommendations in the 

SRSRB‘s Recovery Strategy, Washington Conservation Commission Limiting Factors 

Analysis, Guidance on Watershed Assessment for Salmon, and Subbasin Summaries

o Restore important habitat via public education and involvement activities

o Encourage restoration of important habitat via cost-share funded restoration project

Public Support/Involvement: Facilitate widespread support for salmonid habitat protection and 

restoration activities among taxpayers, landowners, civic groups, and businesses

o Create general public awareness that public funds are being spent effectively and 

strategically

o Create interest in public and private habitat protection and restoration assistance from 

owners of important habitat 

o Create interest among civic groups and businesses to be involved with protection and 

restoration efforts

In addition, all SRSRB actions ―occur with an emphasis on (1) being proactive rather than reactive, (2) 

providing strategic leadership, (3) looking to the future rather than the past, (4) encouraging diversity in 

viewpoints, and (5) making collective rather than individual decisions‖ (Parametrix 2003).

The priorities will guide the development of the SEWMU Recovery Plan. The plan will become the 

implementing mechanism for salmon, steelhead, and bull trout recovery efforts in the region following its 

submittal and funding by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.

1.4.2 Committees and Subcommittees

The SRSRB operates through several committees including the Lead Entity Project Review and Ranking 

Committee. In addition, the SRSRB has appointed a Regional Technical Team (RTT) to review and 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 22

provide input to the recovery effort from the technical and scientific standpoints. Figure 1-5 shows the 

relationship of the SRSRB and various committees. The Executive Committee is responsible for 

developing broad policy recommendations, guidance, and budgets. These recommendations are referred 

to the full SRSRB for consideration.

Figure 1-5 Organizational Chart for the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and 

Committees

The Lead Entity Project Review and Ranking Committee is responsible for developing a ranked habitat 

project list for the SRSRB to use in requesting funding from the state-level Salmon Recovery Funding 

Board. This committee is managed by the Habitat Project Manager and has citizen members and members 

from the Technical Advisory Committee. The committee‘s organizational members are Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service (Pomeroy Ranger District), Washington 

Department of Ecology, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 23

1.4.2.1 Technical Recovery Team

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists to provide a scientific foundation for recovery 

plans. The charge of each Technical Recovery Team (TRT) included defining ESU/DPS population 

structures; characterizing habitat and fish productivity relationships; identifying factors for decline and 

limiting factors; identifying early factors for recovery; and describing research, monitoring, and 

evaluation needs. For this plan, the regional TRT is the Interior Columbia TRT (ICTRT), which includes 

biologists from NMFS, states, tribes, and academic institutions. 

1.4.2.2 Regional Technical Team

The SRSRB has appointed a Regional Technical Team (RTT) to review and provide input to the recovery 

effort from the technical and scientific standpoints. The RTT has reviewed information leading to creation 

of the plan including the methods and strategies that lead to formulation of salmonid restoration actions. 

The RTT worked with the SRSRB to ensure that policies and the recovery plan‘s implementation 

strategies are based on best available science. Furthermore, it is intended that the RTT will be involved in 

implementation of the plan as well as monitoring and evaluation. Membership in the RTT consists of the 

following organizations: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), GSRO, 

WDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), NRCS, and NMFS. 

Currently, the WDOE and NPT are not represented but are encouraged by the SRSRB to participate.

1.5 APPROACH AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANNING PROCESSES

1.5.1 Coordination and Approach

Salmon recovery planning is part of a larger array of planning taking place within the region. Recovery 

planning must be cognizant of other plans which have been, or are being, formulated and must seek 

consistency with those plans to the extent possible. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board considers 

that the recovery plan is based primarily on the subbasin plans developed by local entities in partial 

response to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council‘s Fish and Wildlife Program. Other plans 

which may affect or be affected by the recovery plan include Habitat Conservation Plans and other 

documents developed under the ESA, State of Washington habitat preservation programs, conservation 

reserve enhancement programs, watershed plans, and harvest management plans. Some of these plans are 

discussed further in Chapter 6. In addition, master plans and comprehensive plans developed by 

communities, as well as land and water use plans for communities and counties may affect the recovery 

plan by defining what can and cannot be done to lands and water within certain geographic areas.

Where possible, the recovery plan will coordinate with the goals of other applicable plans. The plan has 

sought to actively integrate the various planning projects to achieve consistency, to the extent possible, 

among the plans and to make use of data and information from the other plans. Many of the plans have 

similar broad goals and objectives, facilitating coordination and communication across planning efforts.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board recognizes the importance of a coordinated approach to salmon 

recovery within its region. To that end, the SRSRB developed an ―interlocal‖ agreement between itself 

and the affected counties and the CTUIR. The purpose of the agreement is to achieve salmon, steelhead, 

and bull trout recovery, to the extent possible, through habitat restoration and protection. The SRSRB 

recognizes that it has no authority or jurisdiction over the land or water within the counties and cannot 

preempt any jurisdiction or treaty rights, but it intends to work with the counties, the tribes, the State of 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 24

Washington, NMFS, and the USFWS to achieve the recovery goals. The SRSRB will strive to ensure that 

the recovery plan is consistent with local watershed plans, the subbasin plans, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency‘s Total Maximum Daily Load criteria.

The SRSRB‘s primary approach to salmon, steelhead, and bull trout recovery is through habitat 

restoration and protection through collaboration and coordination of the various interest groups and 

stakeholders in the SEWMU. The SRSRB believes that hydropower operations, hatchery management, 

and harvest issues are being addressed in other forums, and while integral for the recovery of SEWMU 

salmonids, they are outside the purview of the SRSRB. The SRSRB will maintain familairatiy with these 

processes and forums, and may offer recommendations or persepctives for consideration. 

The SRSRB through the RTT prioritized streams for preservation and restoration within the SEWMU and 

assessed the reasons for salmonid decline within the prioritized streams on a stream-by-stream basis. 

Projects and programs designed to aid in salmonid recovery will be prioritized on the basis of a project‘s 

benefit for salmon recovery and its ability to protect, restore, or enhance treaty reserved resources of the 

affected Indian tribes and to benefit the citizens of Washington. Economic impact will be considered in 

designing the prioritization criteria.

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

1.6.1 2004-2006

The public involvement strategy, which was conducted in three phases, resulted in hundreds of agency 

and public comments. The purpose of Phase 1 was to inform the public about the planning process and to 

receive public input on the first two plan elements: existing conditions and salmonid assessment (chapters 

1.0 and 2.0). This phase took place between May 2004 and September 2004. Phase 2 began in October 

2004 and extended through June 2005. Its purpose was to report to the public on the planning process and 

to receive public comment on the Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan and Draft Public Summary. 

Phase three or the "transition phase" occurred between July 2005 and October 2005. During the transition 

period, additional agency and public comment was procured and incorporated into the June 2005 version 

of the plan. The October 2005 version of the plan received additional agency and public comments and 

the updated versionwas completed in December 2006.

The website, www.snakeriverboard.org, includes information about the planning process and schedule 

and outlines ways in which the public can be involved in the process. It also provides specific information 

about the planning elements and related planning processes. SRSRB meeting times and locations, SRSRB 

meeting minutes, drafts of plan elements, and planning updates were posted on the site. 

Paid advertisements ran in several area newspapers at various times throughout the initial planning 

process during development of the 2005 Plan: Walla Walla Union Bulletin, Waitsburg Times, Dayton 

Chronicle, The East Washingtonian, Lewiston Tribune, Whitman County Gazette, The Daily Bulletin, and 

the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. The advertisements gave an overview of the planning process and 

informed the public that portions of the plan were available for review. Press releases aimed at advertising 

the public workshops were also sent to the newspapers, 19 radio stations, and four television stations in 

the area.

In August and September 2004, public displays were set up at the Columbia and Walla Walla county 

fairs. The displays provided recovery planning information and information about public workshops 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 25

related to early stages of the planning process. In addition, brochures about recovery planning were made 

available to those who passed by the display booths.

SRSRB meetings are held in Dayton, Washington, and are open to the public. The meetings are 

advertised on the website and approved minutes are posted to the website.

In Phase 1, four public workshops were held in September 2004 in Clarkston, Pomeroy, Walla Walla, and 

Dayton, Washington. All the workshops were held in the evening with a staffed ―open house‖ followed 

by a short Power Point presentation and comment period. These workshops were held to provide general 

information on the plan and the planning process and to provide the public with an opportunity to ask 

questions and provide input. Workshops were held in April 2005 in Clarkston, Walla Walla, and Dayton 

during Phase 2. Specific information was provided about each chapter of the draft plan and the public was 

given an opportunity to comment.

In addition to the workshops, a regional salmon summit was held in March 2005 in Dayton. The purpose 

of the summit was to update regional stakeholders on the salmon recovery planning process, generate 

discussion on the draft recovery plan, and provide other entities involved in salmon recovery activities 

within the region the opportunity to share the results of their efforts.

A ―speakers‘ bureau‖ was offered by the SRSRB staff. The staff contacted groups within the SEWMU 

which were considered to have a particular interest in the salmon recovery plan. Several of these 

requested presentations by the SRSRB staff during the early portions of the planning process.

1.6.2 2006-Present

The SRSRB has met in open public meetings monthly since 2005 and notification of those open public 

meeting are provided in newspapers, announced in partner newsletters and correspondances 

(Conservation Districts, WDFW, Watershed Planning Units, regional fisheries enhancement group, etc) to 

engage the public in the process and decisions of the SRSRB. The Director and Project Manager 

participate in myriad public meetings and informal meetings with the Boards of County Commissioners, 

CTUIR, Watershd Planing Units, RFEG, cattleman‘s ssociation, wheat growers, Kiwanis, Rotary, 

Exchange Club and other organizaitons to ensure community understanding of the Salmon Recovery 

Plan. Outreach to state and federal agencies through meetings with policy leads and collaboration in local 

work groups on pertinent topics has and continues to occur on a frequent basis.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 26

2 DESCRIPTION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT

Chapter 2.0 contains a brief overview of the physical, environmental, and human aspects of the SEWMU

so that planning for salmon recovery can be understood within the broad context of the region‘s economy, 

environment, and culture.

2.1 HISTORY, CULTURE, AND ECONOMY

Prior to contact with European settlers, the area was inhabited by various native peoples, including the 

Nez Perce (Nimi‘ipuu), Cayuse, Yakama, Umatilla, and Walla Walla tribes (Nez Perce Tribe 2002; 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 2004). The native people harvested fish from the 

Snake and Columbia rivers and their tributaries, and hunted elk, deer, bear, and waterfowl. The lower 

Snake, Asotin, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, and Tucannon rivers are still of particular historic and 

cultural importance to the native people of the area.

The Lewis and Clark expedition (1803-1805) traveled through this area and opened the door to an influx 

of settlers from the United States (Asotin County 1997; Dayton, Washington 2004; Pasco, Washington 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 27

2003). Marcus and Narcissa Whitman came to the Walla Walla Valley in 1836 to minister to the Cayuse 

and Nez Perce people (Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002). By the 1840s, the Oregon Trail 

was established; by 1860, settlers had arrived in the Pacific Northwest in great numbers. Some were lured 

by gold, but many stayed in the southeast area of Washington to take advantage of its agricultural 

opportunities (Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002). Wheat was an important crop 

throughout the Pacific Northwest, with much of the grain going via river and ocean to the rapidly growing 

settlements in California as well as to Asia (Robbins 1997). The Snake and Columbia rivers became 

important transportation corridors from southeast Washington to the Pacific Ocean.

Today, the economy of the SEWMU is still primarily dependent upon agriculture (Asotin County 1997; 

Dayton, Washington 2004; Pasco, Washington 2003; Walla Walla County 2004; Walla Walla Valley 

Chamber of Commerce 2002; Whitman County 2003). The primary agricultural products in the Walla 

Walla subbasin portion of the SEWMU are spring wheat, winter wheat, and barley. Peas and lentils are 

grown as well as apples, cherries, asparagus, potatoes, onions, alfalfa, and wine grapes. Walla Walla 

sweet onions, developed in this area, are internationally known. Walla Walla and Columbia counties 

support a significant number of cattle. In addition, Walla Walla County boasts two of the world‘s largest 

farms: Snake River Vineyard is the world‘s largest Concord grape vineyard and Broetje Orchards is the 

world‘s largest apple orchard (Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002). Agricultural products, 

particularly wheat, are still transported by barge down the Snake and Columbia rivers to Portland, Oregon 

where they are exported to international markets.

Other economic factors include industry (primarily related to agriculture), education, recreation and 

tourism, and government. Whitman College and Walla Walla College are located in Walla Walla and 

College Place, respectively (Walla Walla County 2004) and Walla Walla Community College has 

facilities in Walla Walla and Clarkston. Washington State University is located in Pullman (Pullman, 

Washington 2003). In many communities, the largest employers are the school districts and various 

government entities (State of Washington 2004).

Tourism is centered on the region‘s natural and historical attributes. Sites of historic interest are found 

throughout the SEWMU. For example, the Whitman Mission National Historical Site and Fort Walla 

Walla are located near Walla Walla (Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002). Dayton boasts 

117 buildings listed on the National Historic Register (Dayton, Washington 2004). The Lewis and Clark 

expedition is commemorated throughout the region; a number of parks and memorials are found along 

their original route (Dayton, Washington 2004; Pasco, Washington 2003).

Boating on the rivers and reservoirs is an important recreational activity and skiing and snowmobiling in 

the Blue Mountains are attractions for winter visitors (Dayton, Washington 2004; Pullman, Washington 

2003). Touring wineries is an important draw in Walla Walla County as are local festivals including 

automobile shows, horse races and rodeos, and hot air balloon events (Dayton, Washington 2004; Walla 

Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 2002; Walla Walla County 2003).

Hunting and sport fishing also bring visitors to the area. Deer, elk, and upland game birds are important 

species to hunters. The Snake River reservoirs are the most popular fishing areas and support a major 

year-round fishery. Hatchery-reared steelhead and salmon are released into the Snake River and 

tributaries and have made the ―Snake one of the best steelhead rivers in the state‖ (WDFW 2003). In a 

recent assessment conducted by WDFW, it is estimated that the steelhead fishery generates $50 million 

annually on the Snake River and when spring Chinook salmon fisheries occur, another $5 million is 

generagted withing the SEWMU. Expanded fisheries are anticipated with the re-introduction of spring 

Chinook salmon in the Walla Walla River and as the abundance of wild salmon increases, we anticipate 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 28

increased fishing opportunity. Recreational fisheries are an economic driver in the SEWMU area. Warm 

water species, including smallmouth bass, channel catfish, and some sturgeon, are caught in the sloughs 

and backwaters of the Snake River. The Grande Ronde River in Asotin County provides hatchery 

steelhead as well as smallmouth bass and channel catfish. Fishing for stocked rainbow trout takes place at 

various ponds throughout the SEWMU. Closures and gear restrictions are in place on most of the major 

rivers and streams to protect native populations of steelhead and salmon.

2.2 GEOGRAPHY

The SEWMU is located in the southeast corner of the State of Washington (Figure 1-3). The region is 

generally bounded by the Washington/Oregon state line on the south, the Columbia River (to the 

confluence with the Snake River) on the west, the Snake River (includes southern flowing tributaries, 

including the Palouse River (downstream of the falls), Alkali Flats Creek, Penawawa Creek, and Almota 

Creek) on the north, and the Snake River on the east (Figure 1-3).

The region is generally characterized by rolling, semi-arid lands flanked by the forested Blue Mountains 

in the south. The major rivers draining the area are the Snake, the Grande Ronde, and the Tucannon, the 

Walla Walla, and Asotin Creek. Elevations at the Snake River range from approximately 400 to 500 feet 

near its confluence with the Columbia River to around 750 feet near Clarkston on the east side of the 

SEWMU. Peaks reaching above 6,000 feet in elevation are found in the Blue Mountains.

Many of the cities and towns of the SEWMU are located along or near rivers and streams. Clarkston, on 

the eastern boundary, is near the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers. Pasco and Burbank, 

which lie just outside the SEWMU‘s western boundary, is on the bank of the Columbia River near its 

confluence with the Snake. The Cities of Walla Walla and College Place occupy the fertile valley of the 

Walla Walla River. The town of Touchet is along the Touchet River near its mouth. Waitsburg is at the 

confluence of the Touchet and Coppei creeks, Pomeroy is located on Pataha Creek, and the City of 

Dayton is near the confluence of the South and East forks of the Touchet River. Clarkston is located on 

the mainstem Snake River opposite of the confluence of the Clearwater and Snake rivers. Asotin is 

located 3 miles south of Clarkston on the west bank of the Snake River. The Snake River provides 

transportation for many of the region‘s products which are barged downstream to the lower Columbia 

River ports for transshipment to national and international destinations. In addition, the region is 

connected internally and externally by an extensive system of highways and railroads.

2.3 CLIMATE

The region‘s climate is influenced by the Cascade Mountains, the Pacific Ocean, and the prevailing 

westerly winds. The Cascades intercept the maritime air masses as they move eastward, creating a rain 

shadow effect that reaches as far as the Blue Mountains. The results are warm and semi-arid conditions in 

the lower elevations of the SEWMU to cool and relatively wet in the higher elevations. In the semi-arid 

portions of the SEWMU, the annual precipitation is less than 15 inches per year while some areas in the 

eastern portion of the region receive as little as 5 inches of rain per year. Rainfall in the Blue Mountains 

can be 45 inches or more (Whiteman et al. 1994). Ninety percent of the precipitation occurs between 

September and May with 30 percent of winter precipitation falling as snow. Snowfall at elevations less 

than 1,500 feet seldom lingers beyond three or four weeks, occasionally melting quickly enough to 

produce severe erosion. Temperatures can range from -20°F in the winter to 105°F in the summer. The 

growing season in the SEWMU is 115 to 155 days.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 29

2.4 GEOLOGY

The SEWMU is located within the Columbia River Plateau and is underlain by thick layers of basalt of 

the Columbia River Basalts Group (Drost and Whiteman 1990). The topography of this area is largely 

defined by structures which have resulted from faulting, folding, and erosion of the basalts. The SEWMU

is dissected by several rivers, including the Snake River, which is a major tributary to the Columbia 

River, and tributaries to the Snake River.

Basalts are rocks that usually originate as lava flows. The Columbia River Basalts erupted from volcanoes 

between 6 million and 17 million years ago. The resulting basalt layers have a combined thickness of 

many thousands of feet and form many of the topographic features of the Pacific Northwest, including the 

rimrock along Hells Canyon and the cliffs of the Columbia River Gorge (Bishop 2003). The Blue 

Mountains were island arcs which arose, sank, and reappeared over geologic time. At times in their 

history, the Blue Mountains rotated as much as 170 degrees from their original position; these movements 

resulted in the basalt layers being compressed and twisted. Combined with erosion from the catastrophic 

floods which spread across the area at the end of the Pleistocene era (10,000 to 20,000 years ago), the 

movement of the rock layers formed many of the landscape features that exist today in southeastern 

Washington.

Sediments (sands, gravels, silts, and clays) deposited by rivers, streams, and volcanoes lie on top of the 

Columbia River Basalts. The thickest sediment layers (hundreds of feet) are found where material was 

deposited in the low-lying portions of folded basalts (Drost and Whiteman 1990). More localized deposits 

occur along rivers and streams.

The SEWMU lies within three physiographic provinces defined by their geologic structures: the Yakima 

Fold Belt, Blue Mountains, and Palouse provinces (Drost and Whiteman 1990). The Yakima Fold Belt 

includes the southwest corner of the SEWMU and is characterized by a series of east-west trending ridges 

and basins. The Walla Walla subbasin is situated in a down-warped fold within this province.

The south-central portion of the region lies within the Blue Mountain province. The Blue Mountains are 

formed by a broad northeast-trending up-folded arch, reaching elevations over 6,000 feet. Within the 

SEWMU, the basalts slope from the crest of the Blue Mountains to the north and northwest. Uplift of the 

basalts in this area has resulted in high plateaus deeply dissected by narrow V-shaped streams. Streams 

and rivers originating in the Blue Mountains include Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, Walla Walla River, 

and Touchet River.

The northern and extreme southeastern portions of the SEWMU lie within the Palouse province, which is 

characterized by gently southwest-sloping basalt flows covered with a veneer of loess (silty soils 

deposited by wind). This area, which is drained by the Palouse River, is part of the channeled scablands 

that were scoured by massive floods of water released during multiple ice dam ruptures of great glacial 

lakes (the Missoula Floods) which occurred at the end of the Ice Age. The loess deposits, which are over 

100 feet thick in places, were formed when wind redistributed the silt derived from the floods into a 

mantle of soil over the basalts. 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 30

2.5 HYDROLOGY

2.5.1 Surface Water

The Snake River originates in Idaho and Wyoming, enters Washington at the far southeast corner of the 

state and forms the border with Idaho. It then turns west and flows over 100 miles until it joins the 

Columbia River near Pasco, Washington. Figure 2-1 shows hydrologic features in the SEWMU, including 

the Snake River and its tributaries and reservoirs formed by the Snake River dams.

2.5.2 Rivers and Streams

Major tributaries to the Snake River in Washington include Asotin Creek and the Tucannon, Grande 

Ronde, and Palouse rivers. The Walla Walla River flows directly into the Columbia River just 

downstream of the Snake River. The SEWMU covers approximately 4,300 square miles and is divided 

into the following Water Resource Inventory Areas - WRIAs.

Lower Snake River Watershed (WRIA 33)

Middle Snake River Watershed, including the lower six miles of the Palouse River (WRIA 35)

Walla Walla River Watershed (WRIA 32)
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 31

The area of each WRIA is given in Table 2-1; details of each are described below.

Table 2-1 Area of Drainage Basins within the SEWMU

Watershed WRIA # Drainage Area within Washington State

Walla Walla 32 1,283 square miles

Lower Snake 33 722 square miles

Middle Snake (including Palouse below 

Palouse Falls)

35, 34 2,250 square miles

Source: Kuttel, Jr. 2001, 2002.

2.5.2.1 Walla Walla River Watershed: 

The Walla Walla River originates in the Blue Mountains at an elevation of approximately 6,250 feet. It 

flows north from the Blue Mountains and enters Washington State just north of Milton-Freewater, 

Oregon. Primary tributaries to the Walla Walla River include the Touchet River and Mill, Birch, 

Cottonwood, Mud, Russell, Yellowhawk, and Dry creeks. The Touchet River drains a majority of the 

northern portion of the Walla Walla watershed. Mill Creek and its primary tributary, Blue Creek, drain a 

significant area in the southern and southeastern portions of the watershed. Mill Creek begins in the 

forested uplands, dips south into Oregon, and returns to Washington where it passes through the City of 

Walla Walla. The total drainage area of the Walla Walla River near the Touchet is 1,657 square miles and 

the average annual runoff is 462,000 acre-feet/year (Saul et al. 2001). The amount and timing of 

precipitation in the Washington portion of the Walla Walla watershed varies. When temperatures warm in 

the spring, rain and snow melt supplement the dwindling precipitation to maintain high flows and 

occasional flooding. Most flooding results from rain-on-snow events in the late winter and early spring. 

As precipitation wanes in early summer, large intermittent streams dry up, reducing the drainage network 

to the streams flowing out of the Blue Mountains. Low flows are due to both natural variability and 

human water use.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 32

Figure 2-1 Hydrologic Features within the Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 33

2.5.2.2 Lower Snake River Watershed: 

The Lower Snake River watershed begins at the confluence of the Palouse and Snake rivers, extending 

downstream to the mouth of the Snake River at the Columbia River. The basin covers approximately 722 

square miles (Kuttel, Jr. 2002) and encompasses portions of Columbia, Franklin, and Walla Walla

counties. There are no perennial tributaries in the Lower Snake River Watershed.

2.5.2.3 Middle Snake Watershed including the Palouse River below Palouse 

Falls:

The Middle Snake watershed encompasses the entire Snake River mainstem from the OregonWashington border downstream to the Palouse River, an area of approximately 2,250 square miles 

(Kuttel, Jr. 2002). The Middle Snake subbasin includes several streams: Grande Ronde River, TenmileCouse Creek, Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, and the lower six miles of the Palouse River. As in the 

Lower Snake Basin, intermittent and/or ephemeral streams are present throughout the watershed, and 

these streams flowing down steep canyons can carry large debris loads during storm events.

Tributaries to the Snake River that have perennial flow include streams draining the north side (Alkali 

Flat, Penawawa, Almota, Wawawai, and Steptoe Canyon creeks), and streams draining the south side 

(Alpowa, Deadman, and Meadow creeks). These streams generally drain an arid landscape. The Deadman 

watershed encompasses the watersheds of Alpowa, Deadman, and Meadow creeks (approximately 336 

square miles) (Kuttel, Jr. 2002). Alpowa Creek originates from springs at the northeast terminus of the 

Blue Mountains at an elevation of 3,280 feet and terminates at the Snake River at RM 131 at about 740 

feet in elevation. Deadman and Meadow creeks flow from springs in the Palouse hills south of the Snake 

River and north of US Highway 12. Both enter the Snake River at RM 83 near State Route 127. The 

topography of this watershed is characterized by deep v-shaped valleys in headwater areas, gradually 

widening into relatively broad valley bottoms on the mainstem of each stream. Intermittent and/or 

ephemeral streams are typically present throughout the watershed. These streams flow down very steep 

canyons and, under typical conditions, do not convey much water; however, during thunderstorms or rainon-snow events they are capable of carrying large volumes of water and debris. The sediment-moving 

capacity of these small streams is easily seen in the extensive alluvial fans deposited at their mouths. 

Maximum stream flow occurs in the spring during snowmelt and minimum stream flow occurs during 

summer and early fall. Summer base flow is contributed by springs.

The Tenmile-Couse drainage encompasses Tenmile (approximately 42 square miles) and Couse 

(approximately 26 square miles) creeks and all tributaries. These creeks originate in the foothills of the 

northeast portion of the Blue Mountains. Tenmile and Couse creeks enter the Snake River at RM 150 

(1,100 feet elevation) and RM 158 (1,200 feet elevation), respectively.

The Asotin subbasin encompasses Asotin Creek in its entirety and all tributaries (approximately 326 

square miles). Asotin Creek originates high in the northeast portion of the Blue Mountains at an elevation 

of 6,200 feet and terminates at RM 145 of the Snake River, about 800 feet in elevation. It has two major 

drainages: the mainstem and George Creek. Much of Asotin Creek has been straightened, diked, or 

channelized (Asotin County Conservation District 2001). Efforts are underway to work with local 

landowners to restore sinuosity to portions of the creek.

The Tucannon subbasin encompasses the entire Tucannon River and all tributaries (approximately 502 

square miles). The stream system originates high in the northeast portion of the Blue Mountains at an 

elevation of 6,234 feet and terminates at RM 62 on the Snake River, at about 540 feet in elevation. 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 34

Tributaries to the Tucannon include Bear Creek, Sheep Creek, Cold Creek, Panjab Creek, Turkey Creek, 

Meadow Creek, Little Tucannon River, Hixon Creek, Cummings Creek, Tumalum Creek, Pataha Creek, 

Kellogg Creek, and Smith Hollow Creek.

The Grande Ronde subbasin encompasses the Grande Ronde River and its tributaries (approximately 340 

square miles). The subbasin contains perennial and intermittent and/or ephemeral streams. The Grande 

Ronde originates in the Blue Mountains at an elevation of 6,380 feet and terminates at the Snake River at 

RM 168.7 at about 1,400 feet elevation. The major tributary to the Grande Ronde is the Wenaha River.

The Palouse River below Palouse Falls flows through a deep canyon cut through the Columbia River 

Basalts during the torrential Spokane Floods that occurred during the Pleistocene time period. Palouse 

Falls are located six miles upstream from the river‘s mouth. The falls‘ 185-foot height presents an 

impassable barrier to salmon, preventing them from entering Cow Creek, Rock Creek, Rebel Flat Creek, 

and the South Fork of the Palouse River.

Reservoirs

The hydrology along the Snake River has been severely altered by the installation of hydroelectric dams. 

The dams operated by the USACE include Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower 

Granite Dams in Washington (Section 2.9). Several other dams are present in the SEWMU, including the 

Starbuck Dam along the Tucannon River, Hofer Dam in the lower Touchet, Dayton Dam in Dayton, City 

of Walla Walla intake dam in upper Mill Creek in Oregon, Headgate Dam in Asotin Creek, Burlingame 

Dam in the Walla Walla River near Walla Walla, and the Mill Creek Project (Bennington Dam) in Mill 

Creek upstream of the City of Walla Walla.

The dams on the Lower Snake River and McNary Dam downstream on the Columbia River impound the 

water of the Snake River in reservoirs. All the lower Snake River reservoirs share the same general shape; 

they are typically shallow with an average depth ranging from 48 to 57 feet deep. The reservoirs generally 

fill the width of the steep-sided canyons. The pooled reaches represent about 83 percent of the Snake 

River from the mouth upstream to the Washington-Idaho border (Kuttel, Jr. 2002).

Wetlands

The vast majority of wetlands in the SEWMU are associated with streams and rivers, although there are 

also a few isolated wetlands dispersed through the croplands. Areas with the fewest wetlands are the steep 

portions of the Blue Mountains and areas with few rivers and streams. Using the USFWS (Cowardin) 

vegetation-based classification system, the wetlands within the SEWMU primarily fall into three 

categories: riverine, palustrine, and lacustrine (USFWS no date). Riverine wetlands are found along rivers 

and streams while lacustrine wetlands are associated with lakes and reservoirs. Palustrine wetlands in this 

area include shrub-scrub and emergent vegetation types.

Wetland functions are often evaluated using the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) method. An HGM 

classification system has been developed for the Columbia River Basin within the SEWMU, excluding 

the Blue Mountains. Wetlands within the SEWMU fall into the HGM classifications of depressional, 

riverine, slope, and lacustrine fringe (Hruby et al. 2000).

Depressional wetlands occur in topographic depressions and may be isolated from other water bodies. 

Often there is no surface water inflow to the wetland or outflow from defined channels although this type 

of wetland may have intermittent surface water flows connecting to other surface waters. Many 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 35

depressional wetlands gain water during the drier months through agricultural irrigation. The predominant 

source of water in the Columbia Basin for depressional wetlands is groundwater discharge. Freshwater 

and alkali depressional wetlands are both present in the Basin.

Riverine systems occur in topographic features such as canyons, floodplains, and riparian corridors 

associated with rivers and steams. This type of wetland is sustained primarily by direct inflow of surface 

water either in channels or as overflows from channels. Slope wetlands consist of sites with groundwaterdominated hydrologic regimes. Although the Columbia Basin does not contain many slope wetlands, 

there are likely some in the Blue Mountains. Lacustrine fringe wetlands are found along the margins of 

lakes and reservoirs. The water tables of lacustrine sites are maintained primarily by the water elevation 

of the adjoining lake.

Natural wetlands within the SEWMU have been altered by human development activities such as 

agriculture, logging, and the spread of noxious weeds. Activities that have negatively impacted wetlands 

include livestock grazing, road building, and draining for agricultural development. Wetlands may also 

have been lost in areas where stream channelization has taken place. It has been estimated that as much as 

98 percent of the natural wetlands in the Palouse subbasin have been drained or altered (Palouse-Rock 

Lake Conservation District 2001).

Water Availability

The Snake River supplies about 20 percent of the Columbia River flow. While Snake River flows are 

controlled by the hydropower system, smaller tributaries are highly variable with seasonal high flows 

coinciding with winter precipitation and spring snowmelt. Summer base flows in Snake River tributaries, 

e.g., Asotin Creek, Touchet River, and Tucannon River, average approximately 20 to 25 percent of peak 

winter/spring flows (Columbia Conservation District 2001; Economic & Engineering Services 2002). 

Many smaller salmonid-bearing streams, such as Patit Creek in Columbia County and Pataha Creek in 

Garfield County, can go dry in summer months in their lower reaches (Columbia Conservation District 

2001; Asotin County Conservation District 2001; Economic and Engineering Services 2002).

In addition to hydropower installations, other activities, such as water withdrawal for irrigation, have had 

substantial impacts on the mainstem Snake River as well as some of its tributaries. Land has been 

developed for irrigated agriculture along the Snake, Walla Walla, Touchet and Tucannon rivers, Asotin 

Creek, and in the Lower Snake River basin (Bauer and Vaccaro 1990). Natural groundwater recharge and 

discharge patterns have been modified by groundwater pumpage and surface water diversion for 

irrigation. Most irrigation water withdrawals occur during the summer dry months when precipitation is 

lowest and demand for water is the greatest.

Irrigation withdrawals have reduced flows in the Walla Walla, Touchet, Grande Ronde, and to a much 

lesser extent, the Tucannon river, and Asotin Creek (Forks to mouth), Tucannon River tributaries of 

Pataha Creek, and the Snake River tributaries of Steptoe, Wawawai, Almota, Little Almota, Penawawa, 

and Alkali Flat creeks.

Many floodplains in the SEWMU have been altered by channelization to reduce flooding and by clearing 

to convert land to agricultural and residential uses. Flood control structures have been constructed on a 

number of streams and rivers, including the Touchet, Tucannon, and Walla Walla rivers and Asotin 

Creek. These have accelerated surface water runoff and decreased groundwater recharge, contributing to 

lower summer stream flows. Road construction, overgrazing, and removal of vegetation in floodplain 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 36

areas have also caused bank erosion, resulting in wide channels that increase the severity of low summer 

flows.

Reports prepared during the WRIA planning process indicate that natural flow regimes appear to be 

present on some streams. In WRIAs 33, 34, and 35, these include Couse Creek, North Fork Asotin Creek, 

North and South Forks of Asotin, Charley Creek, George Creek, Pintler Creek, Pataha Creek (Kuttel, Jr. 

2002). The natural flow regime seems to be present also within these Grande Ronde River fish-bearing 

tributaries in Washington: Joseph, Schumaker, Deer, Buford, Rattlesnake, Cottonwood, Bear, Cougar, 

Menatchee, Grouse, Crooked, Butte, and Beaver creeks, and the North Fork Wenaha River. In WRIA 32, 

natural flow regimes appear to be present in the North Fork Touchet River above Lewis Creek, and the 

upper portion of Mill Creek (Kuttel, Jr. 2001). The upper portion of Mill Creek is protected by the Mill 

Creek watershed and has been closed to public entry since 1954.

Table 2-2 lists the factors that influence water availability for streams and rivers in the SEWMU whose 

flow regimes appear to have been altered.

Table 2-2 Current Flow Regimes within the Southeast Washington Recovery 

Management Unit

Watershed Description of Flow Regime 

Walla Walla River Surface water from numerous streams in the Washington portion of the basin is 

over-appropriated. These streams have been closed to further consumptive 

appropriations since 1977. Many stream reaches have also been altered by 

diking, diversion, and/or channelization. A settlement between the irrigation 

districts and USFWS in 2000 has improved the flow conditions and progress to 

improve stream flows by implementing irrigation efficiencies (center pivots, piping 

ditches, etc) is being made.

Touchet River The entire Touchet River has been closed to further consumptive appropriations 

of surface water between June 1 and October 1 since 1977. Low and/or 

subsurface summer flows have likely been affected by surface water diversions, 

land management practices (timber harvest, road construction) and floodplain 

development. 

Grande Ronde River Irrigation withdrawals in the Oregon portion of the Grande Ronde have 

substantially reduced flows downstream in Washington. Flows generally get very 

low during the summer and early fall, partly the result of natural climate and partly 

due to irrigation diversions in the upper watershed.

Joseph Creek Joseph Creek (a 234 square mile watershed) yields significant higher streamflows 

than the other study streams, and irrigation withdrawals do not appear to exert an 

impact on the system. The headwaters are heavily forested.

Tenmile Creek A constructed pond on upper Tenmile Creek may dampen flood peaks 

downstream and reduce sediment inputs. (Ullman & Barber 2009) Tenmile is a 

42 square mile intermittent stream that is significantly water-limited but sustains a 

steelhead population. The headwaters are not wooded and this is an arid, low 

rainfall area with natural low summer flows.

Tucannon River Irrigation has lowered stream flows and contributed to increased summer water 

temperatures in some areas, but not to the extent found in the Walla Walla 

watershed and most of the irrigation practices are highly efficient; more than 10 

cfs has been trusted through the irrigation efficiency program.

Asotin Creek, forks to below the 

mouth of George Creek

A total of 5 cfs for irrigated agriculture water rights are diverted from this 201 

square mile watershed (excludes George Creek). Not all senior water right 

holders are exercising their full water rights and natural low flows due to a low 

elevation, arid, and low rainfall conditions contribute more to summer low flows 

than the potential 5 cfs of irrigated ag in the lower 4 miles of the mainstem of 

Asotin Creek near the mouth with the Snake River.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 37

Watershed Description of Flow Regime 

George Creek George Creek presents and excellent illustration of an intermittent stream being 

able to produce vibrant steelhead populations. The system is naturally water 

limited, with less than 2 acres of irrigation in the lower 1 mile of the mainstem.

George Creek is a very steep V-shaped valley with an arid, low rainfall regime 

(less than 9 inches in more than 3⁄4 of the watershed). The George Creek 

watershed is 124 square miles with forested headwaters.

Alpowa Creek Alpowa Creek is somewhat unique in that the headwaters are not wooded like 

other streams in the SEWMU. The entire 107 square mile watershed is either 

grazed or farmed. The system has likely become more prone to flash floods due 

to these changes and to the use of irrigation in the lower Alpowa. Alpowa is 

mostly spring flow and maintains a continuous flow year-round (according to 

Ullman and Barber (2009)) and has the most uniform flows measured in their 

study.

Meadow, North and South 

Deadman creeks

Deadman Creek, (a 135 square mile watershed) has been significantly impacted 

by multiple stressors and a recent emphasis on conservation practices in the 

watershed is just starting to elicit a response. It remains unknown to what degree 

the flow regime has changed, but evidence indicates other factors likely played a 

larger role in the systemic degradation of the stream. Irrigation activities do not 

appear to exert a noticeable effect on streamflow, but the recent invasion of 

noxious weeds in the riparian zone has been implicated in altering stream 

hydrology.

Pataha Creek Pataha Creek, (a 185 square mile watershed) has been significantly impacted by 

multiple stresssors including logging, grazing, agriculture and urbanization. It has 

been straightened which has reduced its length and encouraged incision. The 

floodplain is largely perched above the incised channel, making riparian

restoration difficult. Sediment is a major limiting factor along with naturally low 

stream flows and lack of channel complexity. Only a limited number of surface 

water irrigation activiites (less than 200 acres) affect flow. 

Snake River fish-bearing 

tributaries: Steptoe, Wawawai, 

Almota, Little Almota, 

Penawawa, and Alkali Flat 

creeks

Conversion of native prairie vegetation to largely agricultural production is 

suspected to have altered the flow regime, although the effect has not been 

quantified. All these stream systems are located in arid, low rainfall areas and 

their headwaters have no forested areas and are extremely steep V-shaped 

valleys. WDFW is in the process of documenting steelhead use.

Couse Creek Couse Creek epitomizes the paradox found in the Middle Snake watershed, 

wherein sustained steelhead populations exist under flow regimes that typically 

are deemed unable to support salmonids. This is a severely natural water-limited 

system (there is no irrigated agriculture) that is a very steep V-shaped valley and 

is a 28 square mile watershed with limited forested headwaters.

Palouse River below Palouse 

Falls

The pool from Lower Monumental Dam has inundated the Palouse River to about 

River Mile 2.5.

Sources: Kuttel, Jr. 2001, 2002; EES, personal communication; USFWS 2001, Pacific Groundwater Group 1995; Saul et al. 2001, Brad 

Johnson, personal communication.

Planning for future water use requires an understanding of current water use as well as land use and 

project population growth. Table 2-3 presents water usage that was current in 2006, and projected water 

use (projected in 2005) to 2020 within the SEWMU. Data were gathered primarily from watershed plans 

for the Walla Walla and Middle Snake subbasins; no DOE watershed assessment (for WRIA) has been 

completed for the Lower Snake River area (WRIA 33). In general, commercial and industrial uses 

occurring in urban areas were included in the municipal (residential) demand projections. Data were 

based on information presented in the WRIA 32 Level I Assessment (Economic and Engineering Services 

2002).

Until recently, agricultural irrigators have not been required to measure or record their annual water use. 

Changes in the Washington State Water Code require measurement of all water diversions. In addition, a 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 38

compliance plan developed by WDOE calls for water users comprising the top 80 percent of total water 

use in 16 critical fish watersheds to measure and report water use. Funds have been allocated to assist in 

purchasing water measurement devices.

The Level I assessments for WRIAs 32 and 35 contain descriptions of water use estimation methods and 

estimates of agricultural water usage in the Walla Walla and Middle Snake River watersheds

(http://www.wallawallawatershed.org/files/wplan and 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/35.html).

Walla Walla Watershed Irrigation Usage

Within the Walla Walla watershed portion of the SEWMU, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent 

of irrigation needs are met with surface water; the remainder comes from ground water. If current annual 

irrigation usage is estimated using surface water rights, it is estimated that 220,593 acre-feet per year (afy)

may be used for irrigation. Actual water usage is probably considerably less—closer to 93,000 afy 

(WRIA 32, 2002).

Middle Snake River Watershed Irrigation Usage

In the Middle Snake River watershed portion of the SEWMU, it is estimated that 30 percent of irrigation 

water comes from surface water and 70 percent comes from ground water. Based on surface water rights, 

it appears that 9,600 afy may be used for irrigation. Table 2-4 presents a summary of irrigation water 

usage for the Middle Snake Watershed.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 39

Table 2-3 Current and Projected Residential, Commercial and Industrial Water Use within the Southeast Washington 

Management Unit (mgd)

2000* / 2002** 2005 2010 2020

Service Area Population

Mean 

Annual Use Population

Mean 

Annual Use Population

Mean 

Annual Use Population

Mean Annual 

Use

Walla Walla Water District** 38,629 13.20 39,841 14.24 41,862 14.97 46,628 16.41

Port of Walla Walla** 0 0.08 0 0.09 0 0.09 0 0.10

Walla Walla Housing Authority** -- 0.06 -- 0.06 -- 0.06 -- 0.06

Walla Walla College** 875 0.07 875 0.07 875 0.07 875 0.07

College Place Water Dept.** 6,208 0.36 6,403 0.38 6,728 0.40 7,494 0.45

Artesian Water Dist. No. 8** 311 0.02 321 0.02 337 0.02 376 0.03

Consolidate Irrigation Dist. No. 14** 1,367 0.10 1,410 0.11 1,481 0.12 1,650 0.13

City of Prescott* 335 0.09 337 0.09 354 0.10 393 0.11

City of Waitsburg* 1,195 0.31 1,302 0.34 1,367 0.36 1,483 0.39

City of Dayton* 2,495 0.62 2,677 0.66 2,771 0.69 3,032 0.73

City of Asotin* 1,095 0.35 1,137 0.36 1,195 0.37 1,320 0.42

City of Clarkston 

(includes PUD service area too)* 18,661 4.10 19,629 4.10 20,597 4.20 22,643 4.50

City of Pomeroy* 1,517 0.38 1,536 0.41 1,591 0.42 1,706 0.44

City of Starbuck* 165 0.34 165 0.34 165 0.34 165 0.34

Totals 68,828 15.41 71,317 16.59 74,831 17.41 82,857 19.04

* Current data available for 2000.

** Current data available for 2002.

-- No data available.

Sources: EES 1994, 2004.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 40

Table 2-4 Irrigation Summary for the Middle Snake Portion of the SEWMU

Irrigated Crop Acreage Estimated Annual Irrigation (afy) Estimated MGD 

Asotin Region

Hay (Grass) 10 20 0.02

Hay (Alfalfa) 20 50 0.05

Orchard 10 28 0.03

Subtotal 329 676 0.10

Middle Snake Region

Hay (Grass) 50 100 0.09

Hay (Alfalfa) 50 125 0.11

Grain 221 486 0.43

Orchard 70 196 0.18

Subtotal 391 907 0.81

Pataha Region

Hay (Grass) 117 234 0.21

Hay (Alfalfa) 180 450 0.40

Subtotal 297 684 0.61

Tucannon Region

Hay (Grass) 115 464.8 0.42

Hay (Alfalfa) 835 3,167.20 2.83

Pasture 378 1,521.90 1.36

Wheat 596 1,222.90 1.09

Fallow 17 35.5 0.03

Subtotal 1941 6,412.30 5.72

Total 3,286.30 9,597.30 8.07

Source: EES 2002, 2004.

Agricultural water usage is limited in the Asotin area. In 1997, 329 acres of irrigated land were 

documented in the subbasin (C. Sonnen, Asotin County Conservation District, personal communication). 

The majority of irrigation water is diverted from Asotin Creek between May and August. Water use is 

expected to remain fairly constant (M. Heitstuman, WSU Extension Service, personal communication).

A total of 391 acres of cropland are irrigated in the Middle Snake area (D. Bartels, Pomeroy Conservation 

District, personal communication). Diversions occur primarily between May and August from Alkali Flat 

Creek, Alpowa Creek and, to a lesser extent, Deadman, Almota, and Meadow creeks. Because suitable 

irrigated agricultural land is limited in this area, agricultural activity in the subbasin is not expected to 

increase in the future.

In the Pataha subbasin, a total of 625 acres are currently being irrigated with surface water (D. Bartels, 

Pomeroy Conservation District, personal communication). Water is primarily drawn from Pataha Creek 

between May and August. As with the Middle Snake subbasin, agricultural opportunities are limited and, 

therefore, agricultural activity will probably not increase in the future.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 41

The Tucannon subbasin is the most heavily farmed area within the Middle Snake Watershed. Currently 

1,941 acres of cropland are irrigated. Most water is obtained from surface sources and, like the other 

areas, diversions take place primarily between May and August. 

Surface Water Source Limitations

Surface Water Source Limitations (SWSL) have been established by WDOE on waterbodies throughout 

the State of Washington. As a result, minimum flow requirements or closure periods to further water 

appropriations have been established for specific river reaches in the SEWMU. Table 2-5 lists the closure 

areas and periods. To date, low flow restrictions have been applicable only to surface waters, although 

WDOE may eventually require restrictions on placement of wells.

Table 2-5 Closures to Surface Water Appropriation in the Southeast Washington 

Recovery Management Unit

Stream Name Affected Reach Effective Date Period of Closure Limitation

Blue Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption June 1 - Oct 31 --

Mill Creek Mouth to Stateline 2/6/1957 May 1 - Oct 1 --

Walla Walla River Mouth to Stateline Date of adoption May 1 - Nov 30 --

Dry Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption

April 15 - Nov 15 or 

whenever Walla Walla 

River at USGS Gauge 

140185 falls below 91.0 

cfs --

Touchet River Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption June 1 - Oct 31 --

Coppei Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption April 1 - Nov 10 --

Doan Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption June 1 - Oct 31 --

Mud Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption

May 1 - Oct 31 or 

whenever Walla Walla 

River below confluence of 

Mud Creek falls below 

50.0 cfs --

Pine Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption

May 1 - Oct 31 or 

whenever Walla Walla 

River at confluence of 

Pine Creek or Touchet 

River falls below 50.0 cfs --

Stone Creek Mouth to Headwaters Date of adoption May 1 - Oct 31 --

Alkali Flat Creek Not yet adjudicated Low flow All year

Asotin Creek Not yet adjudicated Low flow All year

Pataha Creek Not yet adjudicated Low flow All year

Tucannon River Not yet adjudicated Low flow All year

Alpowa Creek Not yet adjudicated Adjudication

Deadman Creek Not yet adjudicated Adjudication

Meadow Gulch Creek Not yet adjudicated Adjudication

Penawawa Creek Not yet adjudicated Closure

South Meadow Creek Not yet adjudicated Bypass Flow

WaWaWai Canyon Not yet adjudicated Adjudications

Sources: WAC 173-532, WRIA 32 Level 1 Assessment, EES 2002.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 42

2.5.3 Ground Water

Aquifer Units

An aquifer is an underground rock or soil unit that stores and transmits groundwater. Whiteman et al. 

(1994) developed a conceptual model of the major aquifer units in the Columbia River Plateau. There are 

two primary types of aquifers: the Columbia River Basalts and the sedimentary (overburden) units that 

overlie the basalts in low-lying basin areas or along streams.

The locations of overburden aquifers are shown on Figure 2-1. Relatively thick overburden aquifers occur 

in the Walla Walla Subbasin, in the Eureka Flat area between the Snake and Touchet rivers, and along the 

northwestern edge of the SEWMU north of the Snake River near Pasco. More localized occurrences of 

overburden aquifers are present as flood gravels or alluvium along streams and rivers. This type of aquifer 

is present along the Tucannon and Touchet rivers.

Both the Walla Walla and Pasco overburden aquifers are important sources of groundwater for drinking 

water and irrigation. Significant quantities of groundwater are withdrawn through pumping. The Eureka 

Flat area is generally not a major source of groundwater to wells. The Lewiston aquifer (Figure 2-1) was 

identified as a ―sole source‖ aquifer in 1988. Sole source aquifers are established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as protected drinking water supplies.

Overburden aquifers vary widely in their texture and permeability (ability to transmit water). The coarsegrained portions generally store and transmit water readily, and their permeability can be much greater 

than the underlying basalts. In the Walla Walla area, the aquifer is generally coarse-grained (more 

permeable) in its upper portion and finer-grained (less permeable) in its lower portion (Newcomb 1965).

The Columbia River Basalt aquifer consists of many thick individual basalt flows separated by minor 

sedimentary beds that were deposited between flows. The sedimentary beds are not significant sources of 

groundwater because they are discontinuous and of relatively low permeability. Most groundwater flow 

within the basalts occurs at the more porous boundaries between individual flows (interflow zones) that 

are fractured and contain vesicles (bubbles). These porous water-bearing portions of the flows comprise 

about 10 percent of the total basalt layer thickness, but can contain significant amounts of water. Where 

basalts are overlain by loess, the loess assists in recharge to groundwater by allowing rainwater to slowly 

percolate into the underlying basalt.

Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater

Geologic structures, such as folds, control the movement and direction of groundwater flow within the 

uppermost aquifers in the SEWMU. Groundwater flow direction generally tends to mirror topography. 

Most groundwater flow occurs in a direction along the slope of the basalt flows, although it is locally 

influenced by minor surface water features where they intersect the water table. Pumping and irrigation 

also alter groundwater flow directions locally. Areas of folding and faulting, which occur in the Blue 

Mountains, also cause impediments to groundwater flow by disrupting the continuity of adjacent 

interflow zones or by creating low permeability structures such as dikes that also serve as barriers to 

groundwater flow.

Groundwater within the uppermost aquifers typically occurs under ―unconfined‖ or water-table 

conditions. Groundwater in deeper basalt aquifers, however, is under pressure and occurs under confined 

conditions. Over most of the region, the direction of groundwater movement (gradient) is downward, 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 43

except near major surface water features such as the Snake and Columbia rivers, where the gradient is 

upward. Regional groundwater flow within deeper aquifers is generally toward major surface-water 

features such as the Snake and Columbia rivers.

Relationship Between Surface Water and Groundwater 

Overburden and basalt aquifers that occur near the ground surface are generally in hydraulic 

communication with the surface-water bodies that overlie them. At higher elevations, streams typically 

recharge groundwater aquifers during the winter months. In the lower reaches, groundwater aquifers 

typically discharge water to streams and rivers. The Snake River receives inflow from groundwater 

aquifers along its reach, including upper aquifers and deeper basalt aquifers. The minor streams and rivers 

originating in the Blue Mountains typically flow year-round, but may lose water to groundwater in some 

reaches and gain water from seeps and springs in other reaches. For example, in the Tucannon watershed, 

virtually all the base flow comes from groundwater discharge. Thus, the Tucannon River is considered a 

―gaining‖ stream throughout its length (Covert et al. 1995).

There are three primary sources of recharge to groundwater in the Columbia River Plateau: 1) infiltration 

from precipitation, 2) infiltration from irrigation, and 3) seepage from surface water bodies such as rivers 

and creeks. The relative importance of each source varies throughout the year, with precipitation being 

the greatest contributor in the winter and spring months, and seepage and irrigation being more important 

during the summer months. Estimated annual recharge ranges from 10 to 28 inches per year in the Blue 

Mountains to less than 0.5 inches per year in the western portion of the region west of Walla Walla 

(Whiteman et al. 1994). Where basalts are overlain by loess, the loess assists in recharge to groundwater 

by allowing rainwater to slowly percolate into the underlying basalt.

There are three primary sources of discharge from the aquifer system: 1) seepage to surface water bodies, 

including major rivers and creeks and minor springs and seeps along canyons and valley walls, 2) 

evaporation and use by plants, and 3) pumpage and stream diversion. Groundwater withdrawal, primarily

for drinking water and irrigation, increased between the 1940s and 1970s and has decreased since then 

(Bauer and Vaccaro 1990). Most of the groundwater pumped from the SEWMU comes from wells in the 

overburden aquifer and underlying basalt aquifers near Walla Walla, and in the overburden aquifer near 

Pasco. Some pumping from basalt aquifers also occurs from wells scattered throughout the region and 

near Lewiston. Declines in water levels of up to 100 feet due to pumping have been observed in the Walla 

Walla Subbasin (Whiteman et al. 1994).

Natural groundwater recharge and discharge patterns have been modified by groundwater withdrawal and 

irrigation (Bauer and Vaccaro 1990). Land has been developed for irrigated agriculture along the Snake 

River, in the Walla Walla Subbasin in the southwestern portion of the area, and in the Lower Snake and 

Tucannon subbasins in the northeastern portion of the area. Pumping for irrigation occurs during the 

summer dry months when precipitation is lowest and demand for water is the greatest. Because 

groundwater and surface water are typically interconnected, pumping from either shallow overburden or 

basalt aquifers usually has the effect of reducing groundwater discharge to tributaries of the Snake and 

Columbia rivers such as the Walla Walla River while pumping from deeper basalt aquifers typically leads 

to decreased groundwater discharge directly to the Snake and Columbia rivers.

The Walla Walla River illustrates the complex interrelationship between surface water and groundwater 

(Newcomb 1965; Molenaar 1968). In the upper reaches of the tributaries to the Walla Walla River, the 

groundwater table is generally near the bottoms of the most deeply downcut streams. The streams carry 

stormwater runoff and snow melt, and are also fed by perennial springs that discharge where the stream 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 44

valleys intersect groundwater flowing within basalt interflow zones. Further downstream where these 

streams cross the upper portions of the overburden aquifer, some of the stream flow infiltrates into 

groundwater and then discharges as springs in the Walla Walla area.

Groundwater Use

Groundwater within the SEWMU is used for agricultural, domestic, and commercial purposes. Most 

groundwater is used for irrigation, although urban areas rely primarily on groundwater for their needs. 

Actual volumes of groundwater used are not well-documented. Therefore, distribution and trends in 

groundwater usage are based on groundwater rights rather than actual usage.

Approximately 73 percent of water rights in the Middle Snake subbasin are groundwater rights 

(Economic and Engineering Services 2002). Agricultural demand in the rural areas is expected to remain 

fairly constant over the foreseeable future, while groundwater usage is expected to increase at 

approximately the same rate as population growth.

In the Walla Walla subbasin, approximately 63 percent of water rights are for groundwater. As with the 

Middle Snake, it is expected that agricultural demand for groundwater will remain fairly constant and that 

urban demand will rise. However, because urban water demand relies on a slightly lower percentage of 

groundwater, it is expected that the future demand will be slightly less than population growth.

Table 2-6 shows that most groundwater rights have been granted for irrigation in both the Walla Walla 

and Middle Snake subbasins. Given that irrigation demands for agriculture are expected to remain 

constant, the greatest demand for groundwater will come from urban areas. Overall, projected increases in 

population within the SEWMU are expected to be relatively low, and consequent increases in total 

groundwater demand are expected to reflect this trend.

Table 2-6 Summary of Groundwater Rights within the Southeast Washington 

Recovery Management Unit

Purpose of Use

Number of 

Records

Annual Quantity 

(afy)

Instantaneous Rate 

(cfs)

Middle Snake Subbasin Portion of the Recovery Plan

Irrigation 60 15,423 24,402

Commercial 19 4,080 5,803

Municipal 6 1,991 3,919

Domestic 116 5,350 8,612

Railway Maintenance 1 6 100

Fish & Wildlife Propagation 2 1,440 900

Mining 1 NA 100

Subtotal Consumptive 203 26,850 42,936

Subtotal Non-Consumptive 2 1,440 900

Total Primary 205 28,290 43,836

Total Secondary 20 22,102 18,672

Water Right Applications 17 -- --
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 45

Purpose of Use

Number of 

Records

Annual Quantity 

(afy)

Instantaneous Rate 

(cfs)

Walla Walla Subbasin Portion of the Recovery Plan

Irrigation 1,106 240,426 361,485

Commercial 26 39,246 35,321

Municipal 37 38,636 34,962

Domestic 76 8,125 16,937

Railway Maintenance 11 697 1,350

Stock Watering 9 1,329 1,162

Walla Walla Subbasin Portion of the Recovery Plan

Fish & Wildlife Propagation 3 1,478 930

Recreation 5 96 470

Subtotal Consumptive 1,265 328,458 451,217

Subtotal Non-Consumptive 8 1,574 1,400

Total Primary 1,273 330,032 452,617

Total Secondary 380 107,663 126,589

Water Right Applications 229 9,722 222,075

Totals 5,080 1,214,454 1,856,695

Sources: EES 2002, 2004.

2.5.4 Water Quality

Water quality conditions can have detrimental effects on salmon and their habitats. For example, a stream 

may contain adequate vegetative cover, substrate, and flow volume, but if the water temperatures are too 

high or if there are contaminants present in the water, the stream may not support salmon. Primary water 

quality concerns for salmonids in Snake River tributaries include high water temperatures, which can 

cause direct mortality or thermal passage barriers, and high sediment loads, which can cause siltation of 

spawning beds. Total dissolved gas is also an issue on the Snake River mainstem associated with 

hydropower operations. Water plunging from spill events at the Lower Snake River dams entrains 

(captures) air and carries it to depths where hydrostatic pressure forces the gases into solutions at high 

concentrations. High total dissolved gas can cause ―gas bubble trauma‖ in fish resulting in chronic or 

acutely lethal effects (WDOE 2003). Conditions limiting the viability of salmon within the SEWMU are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.0.

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA), adopted in 1972, established a process to identify and clean up 

polluted waters. Every two years, states are required to prepare a list of water bodies that do not meet 

water quality standards. This list is called the 303(d) list because the process is described in Section 

303(d) of the CWA. Section 303(d) also established the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as a 

standard for water quality improvement. Federal law requires states to identify sources of pollution in 

waters that fail to meet state water quality standards and to develop TMDLs to address those pollutants. 

The TMDL establishes limits on pollutants that can be discharged to water bodies while allowing state 

standards to be met.

WDOE has included several water bodies in the SEWMU on its 2003/2004 303(d) list. Table 2-7 lists the 

water bodies and the constituents causing impairment for which a TMDL has been or will be developed. 

The water bodies included in Category 5 are those for which WDOE must develop TMDLs; WDOE has 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 46

already developed TMDLs for those in Category 4a. More information on water quality within the 

SEWMU is available in the Walla Walla, Tucannon, Asotin, and Lower Snake subbasin summaries 

(Columbia Conservation District 2001; Saul et al. 2001; and Asotin County Conservation District 2001).
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 47

Table 2-7 CWA 303(d) Water Quality Impaired Surface Waters within the Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit

Water Quality Parameter

Water Body (WRIA No.)

TemperatureSediment BioassayChlorineDDTHexachlorobenzenepHFecal coliform4,4’-DDEChlordaneDieldrinHeptachlor epoxideTotal PCBsDissolved oxygenDioxinTotal dissolved gasALPHA-BHCAmmonia-NTurbidity

Blue Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Caldwell Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Cold Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Columbia River (WRIA 32) 5 4a

Coppei Creek (WRIA 32) 5

North Fork Coppei Creek (WRIA 32) 5

South Fork Coppei Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Cottonwood Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Doan Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Dry Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Garrison Creek (WRIA 32) 5 5 5 5

Jim Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Lewis Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Little Walla Walla River, East (WRIA 32) 5

Little Walla Walla River, West (WRIA 32) 5

Mill Creek (WRIA 32) 5 4a 5 4a

Pine Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Robinson Creek (Fork) (WRIA 32) 5

Russell Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Touchet River (WRIA 32) 5 5 5

North and East Fork Touchet River (WRIA 32) 5

South Fork Touchet River. (WRIA 32) 5

(continued)
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 48

Table 2-7 CWA 303(d) Water Quality Impaired Surface Waters within the SEWMU (continued)

Water Quality Parameter

Water Body (WRIA No.)

TemperatureSediment BioassayChlorineDDTHexachlorobenzenepHFecal coliform4,4’-DDEChlordaneDieldrinHeptachlor epoxideTotal PCBsDissolved oxygenDioxinTotal dissolved gasALPHA-BHCAmmonia-NTurbidity

Walla Walla River (WRIA 32) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Whiskey Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Wolf Creek (Fork) (WRIA 32) 5

Yellowhawk Creek (WRIA 32) 5

Snake River (WRIA 33) 5 5 5 5 5 5 4a 4a

Palouse River (WRIA 34) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Alkali Flat Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Almota Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Alpowa Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Asotin Creek (WRIA 35) 5 5

North Fork Asotin Creek (WRIA 35) 5

South Fork Asotin Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Charley Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Couse Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Cummings Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Deadman Creek (WRIA 35) 5 5

North Fork Deadman Creek (WRIA 35) 5

South Fork Deadman Creek (WRIA 35) 5

George Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Lick Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Little Almota Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Meadow Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Menatchee Creek (WRIA 35) 5

(continued)
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 49

Table 2-7 CWA 303(d) Water Quality Impaired Surface Waters within the SEWMU (continued)

Water Quality Parameter

Water Body (WRIA No.)

TemperatureSediment BioassayChlorineDDTHexachlorobenzenepHFecal coliform4,4’-DDEChlordaneDieldrinHeptachlor epoxideTotal PCBsDissolved oxygenDioxinTotal dissolved gasALPHA-BHCAmmonia-NTurbidity

Mill Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Pataha Creek (WRIA 35) 5 5 5 4a

Penawawa Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Pintler Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Snake River (WRIA 35) 5 5 5 5 5 4a 4a

Steptoe Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Tenmile Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Tucannon River (WRIA 35) 5 5 5 5

Wawawai Creek (WRIA 35) 5

Legend: 5 = Category 5, on the 303(d) list and requires a TMDL.

4a = Category 4a, TMDL has been established.

Source: Washington Department of Ecology 2002.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 50

Many of the streams and rivers in the SEWMU do not comply with water quality standards for 

temperature, primarily due to lowered summer flows. Past and current agricultural practices, 

manufacturing, erosion, among other activities, have resulted in impaired water quality. Some of these 

activities have also introduced pesticides such as DDT, 4,4‘-DDE, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor 

epoxide, and hexachlorobenzene into the water and have raised levels of fecal coliform and PCBs as well 

as other constituents. In some water bodies, pH has been negatively affected. In groundwater, nitrate and 

coliform bacteria contamination of the overburden aquifer near Walla Walla have been identified and are

believed to be associated with agriculture and/or septic tanks. It must be recognized that the DOE listing 

of these waterbodies was conduced in 2002 and were partially based on information prior to 2002. An 

updated assessment of these designations is warranted considering that signiciant improvements to water 

quality in many of the rivers/streans has occurred since their listing. 

2.6 VEGETATION

Prior to the arrival of settlers in the early 19th century, the Middle and Lower Snake River watersheds 

were covered by prairie and canyon grasslands and shrub-steppe vegetation at low to mid-elevations. 

Forests dominated as elevation and proximity to the Blue Mountains increased. The Walla Walla 

watershed lowlands historically were described as dominated by shrubs, herbaceous plants, and grasses. 

Trees were rarely found on the lowlands except near streams.

The interface between the aquatic and terrestrial environments, i.e., the riparian zone, was normally 

covered with lush vegetation ranging in composition from grasses and forbs to shrubs and large trees, 

depending upon the location within a watershed. In the SEWMU, riparian zones were historically 

dominated by deciduous species such as willow, cottonwood, birch, and alder (Mudd 1975; Meinig 1968; 

Saul et al. 2000). Closer to the Blue Mountains, coniferous trees such as pine and fir, began to dominate 

(Mudd 1975). Riparian vegetation is important to aquatic species because it helps to regulate water 

temperatures by shading the water, it contributes woody debris to the water body, and it provides food for 

aquatic species through debris and leaf litter. 

Since the arrival of settlers in the 19th century, much of the riparian habitat has been lost or modified. 

Today, throughout the SEWMU, much of the herbaceous, prairie grassland, and shrub-steppe vegetation 

has been converted to cropland and livestock pasture. The federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

has successfully assisted farm operators and owners in conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife 

resources. Under the CRP, highly erodable and other environmentally sensitive lands that have produced 

crops are converted to a long-term resource-conserving vegetative cover. Participants in the CRP are 

required to seed native or introduced perennial grasses or a combination of shrubs and trees with native 

forbs and grasses.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 51

Franklin and Dyrness (1988) describe two vegetation provinces in the SEWMU: the Blue Mountain 

Province in the southeast corner and the Columbia Basin Province in the remainder. Two major 

vegetation groups—forested regions and steppe regions—are present in these provinces. The forested 

regions, which are present along the slopes of the Wallowa Mountains at the northeastern end of the Blue 

Mountains and which extend into the southeastern part of the SEWMU, include:

Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) Zone, in the southern portion of the SEWMU, is found along 

the lower elevations of the Wallowa Mountain slopes.

Subalpine forests (including subalpine fir [Abies lasiocarpa] and mountain hemlock [Tsuga 

mertensiana] Zones) in the south central portion of the SEWMU are found at higher elevations of 

the Wallowa Mountain slopes.

The steppe regions, present in the majority of the SEWMU, include:

Steppe (without big sage brush) covers the majority of the SEWMU.

Shrub-steppe (with big sage brush) covers a relatively small area at the southwest corner of the 

SEWMU.

The dominant species in each vegetative zone are presented in Table 2-8. These are the species that 

dominate the vegetative communities within the large vegetation provinces in the SEWMU.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 52

Table 2-8 Dominant Species in Vegetative Zones within the Southeast Washington 

Recovery Management Unit

Pinus ponderosa Zone Subalpine forests Steppe Shrub-steppe

Populus tremuloides

quaking aspen

Abies lasiocarpa

subalpine fir

Agropyron spicatum

bluebunch wheatgrass

Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata

big sagebrush

Abies grandis

grand fir

Picea engelmannii

Engelmann spruce

Poa sandbergii

Sandberg bluegrass

Symphoricarpus albus

common snowberry

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas-fir

Pinus contorta

lodgepole pine

Festuca idahoensis

Idaho fescue

Rosa nutkana

nootka rose

Larix occidentalis

western larch

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas-fir

Symphoricarpos albus

common snowberry

Agropyron spicatum

bluebunch wheatgrass

Pinus monticola

western white pine

Abies grandis

grand fir

Rosa nutkana

nootka rose

Festuca idahoensis

Idaho fescue

Festuca idahoensis

Idaho fescue

Larix occidentalis

western larch

Stipa comata

needlegrass

Purshia tridentata

antelope bitterbrush

Pinus monticola

western white pine

Stipa thurberiana

Thurber's needlegrass

Poa cusickii

Cusick's bluegrass

Sitanion hystrix

Bottlebrush squirreltail

Poa sandbergii

Sandberg bluegrass

Bromus tectorum

downy brome

Lappula redowskii

western sticktight

A surface crust composed of 

crustose lichens and acrocarpous 

mosses

Sources: Kuttel, Jr. 2000, 2002.

2.6.1 Riparian Vegetation

Riparian vegetation is present in relatively small areas within the SEWMU, usually restricted to narrow 

strips along rivers and streams. Dominant riparian vegetation species are shown in Table 2-9.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 53

Table 2-9 Dominant Riparian Vegetation in the Southeast Washington Recovery 

Management Unit

Common Plant Name Scientific Plant Name

Sedges Carex spp.

Rushes Juncus spp.

Douglas hawthorn Crataegus douglasii

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera

Cottonwoods Populus spp.

Willows Salix spp.

Douglas-fir Psuedotsuga menziesii

Grand fir Abies grandis

white alder Alnus rhombifolia

Alder Alnus spp.

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Common mullien Verbascum thapsus

Chicory Chicorium intybus

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

Englemann spruce Picea engelmannii

Western larch Larix occidentalis 

Golden willow Salix alba

Locust Robinia spp.

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Coyote willow Salix exigua

Rose Rosa spp.

Sticky currant Ribes viscosissimum

Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus

Few-flowered spike rush Eleocharis pauciflora

Source: Kuttel Jr. 2002.

WRIA 33 (Lower) and WRIA 35 (Middle) Snake River. WRIA 33 and 35 encompass six subbasins with 

varying riparian conditions. Grasses and a few small shrubs dominate the riparian vegetation along the 

Grande Ronde River mainstem within Washington; the limited tree canopy consists of an occasional pine 

tree. The riparian cover along fish-bearing tributaries to the Grande Ronde within Washington is 

relatively sparse. For example, Joseph Creek has a narrow buffer of deciduous trees about 20 to 30 feet in 

height (Kuttel, Jr. 2002). The upper reaches of Schumaker Creek have shrubs with a few scattered pines; 

the lower reaches have patchy areas of deciduous trees. Rattlesnake Creek has a narrow, but continuous, 

buffer of immature alder trees. Cottonwood Creek has a relatively contiguous buffer of deciduous trees. 

The riparian zones of Grouse, Cougar, and lower Menatchee creeks have generally narrow riparian 

buffers with sparse vegetation which likely provide little shade.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 54

Along Couse Creek in the Tenmile-Couse subbasin, the riparian zone is patchy to absent. The dominant 

riparian vegetation consists of forbs, grasses, sedges, rushes, shrubs, and scattered trees. Tenmile Creek, 

from the headwaters to Mill Creek, has a riparian buffer of alders, cottonwoods, willows, and conifers. 

From Mill Creek to the mouth of Tenmile Creek, the riparian vegetation ranges from partial stands of 

grasses, sedges, and rushes in the understory and deciduous trees in the overstory to no vegetation.

The Asotin subbasin riparian vegetation is a mixture of mature alders, young cottonwood, willow and 

sparce immature connifers in the mid to lower reaches and primarialy mature cottonwood and connifers in 

the upper reaches. Forested riparian vegetation along Asotin Creek and other subbasin streams remains in 

transition, having been affected by flooding events in 1996 and 1997. Damage to riparian cover in the 

upper portion of the watershed reduced the canopy cover by approximately half compared to pre-flood 

(1993) surveys. Douglas-fir and grand fir were the successional dominants in these older stands, with 

alder and ponderosa pine as notable components. Understory shrubs typical of riparian forests include 

red-osier dogwood and willows, significant for their wildlife values (NRCS 2001). Herbaceous 

understory growth demonstrates disturbance in these communities. Cheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, 

mullein, chicory, and Scotch thistle are among the most frequently encountered species.

The Alpowa-Deadman Subbasin includes the lower, middle, and upper reaches of Alpowa and Deadman 

creeks. The Soil Conservation Service described the lower reaches of Alpowa Creek as having been 

heavily grazed within the riparian zone (SCS 1981). The result was poor herbaceous vegetation quality 

and quantity. Shrubby vegetation was described as poor along most of the creek and absent along the 

remainder. The trees were considered to be in poor to fair condition and were described as ―relicts‖ of 

little or no reproductive value.

Livestock grazing and some cultivation are present on the middle reach. Again grazing was described as 

―heavy‖ to ―moderate‖ on the banks. Herbaceous, shrubby, and tree vegetation was characterized as either 

―poor‖ or ―lacking‖ throughout this portion (SCS 1981). Noxious weeds, such as false indigo, have 

invaded the area.

Riparian vegetation is minimal along the upper reach (Mendel et al. 1999). Herbaceous and shrubby 

streambank vegetation was either in poor condition or completely lacking in 1981. Trees were in fair 

condition on more than half of the streambanks and poor on the remainder. This reach contained 

streambanks that were significantly more vegetated and stable than the middle reach (SCS 1981).

Livestock grazing along Deadman Creek and some cultivation occur along the full length of the Deadman 

Creek watershed. Herbaceous, shrubby, and tree vegetation was characterized as either ―poor‖ or 

―lacking‖ throughout the reach.

The Tucannon riparian vegetation is made up of mature alders, young cottonwood, willow and sparce 

immature connifers in the mid to lower reaches and primarialy mature cottonwood and connifers in the 

upper reaches. Tree species present along the streambanks include black cottonwood, white alder, 

Douglas-fir, grand fir, Douglas hawthorn, and Engleman spruce. Common tree species in the riparian 

plant community include western larch, ponderosa pine, golden willow, and locust. Common shrub 

species include chokecherry, coyote willow, wild rose, sticky currant, and snowberry. Few-flowered spike 

rush, various sedge species, and a variety of weedy forbs are common. Conifer species were dominant in 

the higher elevations and deciduous species were dominant in the lower elevations.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 55

Kuttel, Jr. (2002) described the riparian vegetation in the Lower and Middle Snake River as including 

forbs, grasses, sedges, rushes, grazed pasture, and some shrubs and trees. In some areas, the riparian trees 

are as tall as 30 feet and the buffer as wide as 40 feet. Much of the riparian areas are grazed.

Walla Walla River (WRIA 32): Common deciduous trees and shrubs in riparian areas of the Walla Walla 

subbasin include cottonwood, alder, willow, and red osier dogwood (USFS and Bureau of Land 

Management 2000). Cottonwood, white alder, and willow dominate the riparian community in the 

lowlands (USACE 1997b). These species also occur in the upper riparian zone, but coniferous species 

increase in prominence.

The Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors reports prepared for WRIAs 32, 33, 34, and 35 contain 

assessments of the riparian condition along fish-bearing streams within the SEWMU (Kuttel, Jr. 2002). 

The evaluation system was applied to riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and 

other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream‘s water, sediment, 

woody debris, and nutrient delivery systems (Kuttel, Jr. 2001, 2002). This report was based on conditions 

in the 1990‘s and while we do not have a more recent assessment, conditions have improved considerably 

in the last decade, primarily due to implementation of the Conservation Reserve and Enhanceent Program 

(CREP) where nearly 80% of all CREP-eligible/salmon bearing streams now have riparian buffers.

Poor: Riparian areas are fragmented, poorly connected, or provide inadequate protection of 

habitats for sensitive aquatic species, i.e., less than 70 percent of the area is intact and it does not 

provide a refugium for aquatic species. The area does not adequately buffer land use impacts and 

less than 25 percent of the area‘s riparian vegetation is similar to the potential natural community.

Fair: Riparian areas exhibit moderate loss of connectivity or function; there is incomplete 

protection of habitats and refugia for sensitive aquatic species (approximately 70 to 80 percent is 

intact) and moderate buffering of land use impacts; percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the 

potential natural community/composition is 25 to 50 percent or better.

Good: Riparian areas provide adequate shade, large woody debris is present in the water course, 

habitat protection and connectivity is present in subwatersheds. Buffers or known refugia for 

sensitive species are more than 80 percent intact. The zone adequately buffers land use impacts. 

The riparian vegetation is more than 50 percent similar to the potential natural community.

Table 2-10 presents the riparian zone ratings for stream reaches in the SEWMU.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 56

Table 2-10 Riparian Assessment by Stream Reach within the Southeast Washington 

Recovery Management Unit

Key:

P = Average habitat condition considered poor (not properly 

functioning)

F = Average habitat condition considered fair (at risk)

G = Average habitat condition considered good (properly functioning)

1 = Quantitative studies or published reports documenting habitat 

condition

2 = Professional knowledge of the WRIA 32, 34, 53 TAG members

DG = Data Gap

Stream Name Riparian Condition

WRIA 32

Upper Touchet Subbasin

North Fork Touchet River: Headwaters to Lewis Creek F1, 2

North Fork Touchet River: Lewis Creek to Wolf Fork P1

North Fork Touchet River/Touchet River: Wolf Fork to L/C Trail State Park P2

Wolf Fork: Headwaters to Whitney Creek F2

Wolf Fork: Whitney Creek downstream P1, 2

Robinson Fork P1, 2

South Fork Touchet River: Griffin fork to mouth P1

South Fork Touchet River: Griffin, Burnt, Green Forks P1

Lower Touchet Subbasin

Touchet River: L/C Trail State Park to Coppei Creek P1

Touchet River: Coppei Creek to Hwy. 125 P1

Coppei Creek F1, 2

Touchet River: Hwy. 125 to mouth P2

Lower Walla Walla Subbasin

Walla Walla River: Stateline to Mill Creek P2

Walla Walla River: Mill Creek to McDonald Rd. P2

Walla Walla River: McDonald Rd. to mouth F1

Pine and Mud creeks P2

Dry Creek: Headwaters to Hwy. 12 at Smith Rd. F2

Dry Creek: Hwy. 12 at Smith Rd. to mouth P2

Mill Creek: Bennington Lake Dam to mouth P1, 2

Garrison Creek P2

Yellowhawk Creek F2

Cottonwood, Russell, and Reser creeks P2

Upper Mill Creek Subbasin

Mill Creek: Headwaters to Bennington Lake Dam F1-G1

Mill Creek Tributaries (USFS) G1

WRIA 33, 35

Grande Ronde Subbasin

Grande Ronde River : Washington portion F2

Grande Ronde Tributaries : Washington portion F2

Wenaha River Tributaries: within Washington F1-G1
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 57

Key:

P = Average habitat condition considered poor (not properly 

functioning)

F = Average habitat condition considered fair (at risk)

G = Average habitat condition considered good (properly functioning)

1 = Quantitative studies or published reports documenting habitat 

condition

2 = Professional knowledge of the WRIA 32, 34, 53 TAG members

DG = Data Gap

Stream Name Riparian Condition

Tenmile-Couse Subbasin

Couse Creek F1

Tenmile Creek: Headwaters to Mill Creek F1-G1

Tenmile Creek: Mill Creek to mouth P1

Asotin Subbasin

North Fork Asotin Creek F1-G1

South Fork Asotin Creek F2-G2

Asotin Creek: Forks to George Creek P1

Asotin Creek: George Creek to mouth P2

Charley Creek P1-F2

George Creek: Headwaters to Wormell Creek G1

George Creek: Wormell Creek to mouth P1-G1

Pintler Creek F2-G2

Alpowa-Deadman Subbasin

Alpowa Creek: Headwaters to Stember Creek P1-F2

Alpowa Creek: Stember Creek to mouth F2

Meadow Creek P1

North and South Deadman creeks P1

Deadman Creek: Forks to mouth P1

Tucannon Subbasin

Tucannon River: Headwaters to Panjab Creek G1

Tucannon River: Panjab Creek to Marengo P1-G1

Tucannon River: Marengo to U.S. Hwy. 12 P1

Tucannon River: U.S. Hwy. 12 to mouth P1

Pataha Creek: Headwaters to Columbia Center F1

Pataha Creek: Columbia Center to Pomeroy P1

Pataha Creek: Pomeroy to mouth P1

Snake Subbasin

Steptoe Creek P1

Wawawai Creek F1

Almota Creek F1

Little Almota Creek P1-G1

Penawawa Creek DG

Alkali Flat Creek DG

Palouse River below Palouse Falls G2

Source: Kuttel, Jr. 2000, 2002.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 58

It must be noted that the riparian assessment was conducted in 2000 and 2002; considerable 

improvements to many of the rivers/streams has occurred in the last decade and this assessment warrants 

updating. 

2.6.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasives

Two alien species are well adapted to parts of the Columbia Basin Province Steppe Zone: cheatgrass and 

Kentucky bluegrass (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). They invade or increase under heavy grazing and the 

native species are slow to recover, if at all, when grazing is removed. Cheatgrass competes with more 

desirable perennial grasses for moisture because of its winter and early spring growth habit, and after 

maturity, it becomes a nuisance and a fire hazard (Whitson et al. 2001). Kentucky bluegrass is undesirable 

on rangeland because of low production, summer dormancy, and propensity to invade native grasslands. 

Few grasses are able to withstand heavy grazing and cheatgrass, which recovers rapidly on overgrazed 

pastures and ranges (Ehrenreich and Aikman 1963).

The Asotin County Weed Board visually surveys an estimated 130 out of 627 square miles in Asotin 

County on an annual basis. The Columbia County Weed Board visually surveyed approximately 48 miles 

of the Tucannon River, including private and public lands. Invasive species found within these riparian 

areas include members of Asteraceae plant family, notably yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), 

diffuse knapweed (C. diffusa), spotted knapweed (C. biebersteinii), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon

repens). Limited amounts of rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) 

were also observed.

All of the Centaurea species mentioned here were introduced from Europe and represent a threat to 

pastures and rangeland. Russian knapweed is a native of Eurasia and is now widely established in the 

West. It forms colonies in cultivated fields, orchards, pastures, and roadsides (Whitson et al. 2001).

Rush skeleton weed is an introduced species that generally inhabits well-drained, light textured soils 

along roadsides, in rangelands, grain fields, and pastures. Soil disturbance aids establishment. Because of 

its extensive root system, it can be difficult to control (Whitson et al. 2001).

Leafy spurge causes severe irritation of the mouth and digestive tract in cattle and may even result in 

death (Whitson et al. 2001). Seed capsules explode when dry, often projecting up to 15 feet, and seeds 

may be viable in the soil for up to 8 years. The extensive root system and seed viability make this species 

very difficult to control.

The Dayton Weed Board recognizes false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), as a regional problem. This weed 

is classed as a Class B Noxious Weed, which means that it is established in parts of Washington, but its 

distribution is limited or it is absent in other parts of the state (WDOE 2004). False indigo is considered 

an invasive species in the western United States, but is native to the eastern United States. It is often 

planted as an ornamental or for bank stabilization. In eastern Washington, false indigo has spread along 

stream corridors. The plant has a very high water demand.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 59

2.7 FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES

The SEWMU supports a large number of anadromous and resident fish species and provide important 

habitat for terrestrial wildlife. Fish and wildlife species listed as state and/or federally endangered, 

threatened, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are discussed in Section 2.6.3.

2.7.1 Aquatic Species

The SEWMU supports a variety of salmonid and non-salmonid fish. Primary anadromous salmonid 

species in the SEWMU include fall and spring/summer Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, and summer 

steelhead; resident salmonid species include bull trout, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and the nonnative brown trout. Table 2-11 includes a representative list of fish species present within the SEWMU. 

For a complete list of fish species in each subbasin, see the respective subbasin plans for the Asotin, 

Grande Ronde, Lower Snake Mainstem, Tucannon, and Walla Walla subbasins.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 60

Table 2-11 Fish Species Present in the SE Washington Salmon SEWMU

Species Origin

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Native

Spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha)

Native

Fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) Native

Summer steelhead (O. mykiss) Native

Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) Native

Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) Native

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Exotic

Lamprey (Lampetra spp.) Native

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) Native

Speckled dace (R. osculus) Native

Umatilla dace (R. umatilla) Native

Leopard dace (R. falcatus) Native

Chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus) Native

Peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus) Native

Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) Native

Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) Native

Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) Exotic

Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Native

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) Exotic

Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) Exotic

Tadpole madtom (Notorus gyrinus) Exotic

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Exotic

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) Exotic

Largemouth bass (M. salmoides) Exotic

Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) Exotic

Bluegill (L. macrochirus) Exotic

White crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Exotic

Black crappie (P. nigromaculatus) Exotic

Warmouth (L. gulosus) Exotic

Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) Exotic

Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi) Native

Margined sculpin (C. marginatus) Native

Torrent sculpin (C. rhotheus) Native

Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) Native

Sandroller (Percopsis transmontana) Native

Source: Saul et al. 2001.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 61

Life history and habitat information for the salmonid species that are the focus of this plan are found in 

Chapter 3.0. In general, salmon and steelhead species require cold, i.e., less than 64°F (18°C), clean 

streams with adequate cover for migration, spawning, and rearing. Dissolved oxygen must be at or near 

saturation levels for egg and alevin survival. High turbidity levels can adversely affect egg survival and 

emergence, juvenile respiration, feeding behavior, and abrade sensitive tissue such as gills. Following 

emergence, salmonid fry use backwaters and side channels in areas with overhanging branches, adequate 

cover, and food for rearing. The stream gradient in spawning areas should be less than three percent; 

spawning gravel should be free of fines and range in size from pea gravel to large cobbles.

Bull trout have distinct habitat requirements compared to other salmonids. Bull trout spawn in the fall 

after water temperatures drop below 48°F (8.9°C) in streams with unpolluted water, clean gravel/cobble 

substrate, and gentle stream gradients. Many spawning areas are associated with cold water springs or 

areas where stream flow is influenced by groundwater.

Resident fish in the Snake River Basin include both native and introduced species. The basin contains a 

mix of cold water and warm water species. Warm water species include smallmouth bass, largemouth 

bass, yellow perch, black crappie, bluegill, brown bullhead and pumpkinseed. Cold-water species include 

rainbow trout, brown trout, and mountain whitefish. Habitat conditions important to the various resident 

fish vary widely; however, factors such as water quality, flow conditions, abundant riparian vegetation, 

and channel modifications are important to most resident species.

Fish species of both native and exotic origin often compete with, and prey upon, salmonid species. Within 

the SEWMU, northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, and walleye are the primary predators upon other 

fish. Of these three species, only the northern pikeminnow is native. Other predatory resident species 

include channel catfish, yellow perch, brown trout, largemouth bass, and bull trout. Bull trout are native 

species. Smallmouth bass and northern pikeminnow are the dominant predators in the reservoirs of the 

lower Snake River. Northern pikeminnow and perches, as well as smallmouth bass, are primary predators 

in certain reaches of the Snake River system. Walleye are extremely voracious and are most abundant in 

dam tailraces in the Columbia where the potential for impacts to juvenile salmon are high, but few 

walleyes exist in the Snake River.

2.7.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Species

According to the Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), more than 250 species of reptiles, 

amphibians, birds and mammals occur within the SEWMU (IBIS 2004). Big game species present in the 

SEWMU project area include elk, black bear, and deer. Upland game birds include ring-necked pheasant, 

chukar, and wild turkey, among others. Additional information regarding fish and wildlife species in the 

Snake River Basin can be found in the appropriate draft subbasin plans.

Wildlife habitats within the Snake River Basin consist primarily of riparian/floodplain, shrub steppe, and 

agricultural lands. Other important habitats include forest lands and transitional steppe areas near the 

mountains and foothills. The riparian/floodplain habitat lies along the Snake River and its tributaries. The 

shrub steppe and agricultural habitats encompass the uplands and comprise agricultural croplands, 

rangeland, CRP lands, and undeveloped areas. Areas of healthy riparian vegetation in the lower elevations 

are important to wildlife because they provide refuge and habitat. The majority of wildlife is found in 

riparian, forest, and transitional steppe habitats where food and refuge are plentiful. Deer and elk are often 

found in agricultural fields.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 62

Riparian zones are important habitats for a variety of wildlife species. Some species are dependent upon 

riparian zones and some use the areas only for specific life stages. For example, black-crowned night 

herons and great blue herons use riparian areas for nesting. Furbearers, such as mink, muskrat, and 

beaver, are found along rivers and streams in riparian zones. Deer often use riparian zones to have their 

fawns. Neo-tropical birds use riparian zones as they migrate back and forth from Central and South 

America.

Within the SEWMU, fish are an important part of the diets of a variety of wildlife species including giant 

salamander, common loon, grebes, American white pelican, double-crested cormorant, herons, turkey 

vulture, harlequin duck, common and Barrow‘s goldeneye, common and red-breasted merganser, osprey, 

bald eagle, golden eagle, gulls, terns, belted kingfisher, Steller‘s jay, black-billed magpie, American crow, 

common raven, and American dipper. Mammals that consume salmon include Virginia opossum, water 

shrew, coyote, black bear, raccoon, mink, northern river otter, and bobcat. During salmonid freshwater 

rearing, these wildlife species may consume salmonid eggs, juveniles, adults, and/or carcasses.

Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritis) and gulls (Larus sp.) are the principal avian predators 

in the basin. The breeding season for these birds coincides with the juvenile salmon outmigration which 

provides an important source of prey for the birds. Piscivorous (fish-eating) birds often congregate near 

hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin and eat large quantities of migrating juvenile salmonids. 

Diet analyses indicate that juvenile salmonids constitute a major food source for avian predators and that, 

throughout the Columbia River Basin, losses to birds account for a substantial proportion of fish mortality 

each year. Populations of gulls, in particular, have increased throughout the Columbia River Basin as a 

result of creation of nesting and feeding habitats through human activities. Dredge spoil deposited in 

rivers and wetlands, reservoir impoundments, and tailrace outfalls at dams are examples of habitats 

favored by gulls and other fish-eating birds.

Protected terrestrial species of special interest documented to occur within the Snake River SEWMU

include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Washington ground squirrel, and the Canada lynx (Section 

2.6.3). Of these, only the bald eagle has any direct effect upon salmonids. Fish are a major source of food 

for bald eagles and the birds are usually found in proximity to fish-bearing water bodies. Bald eagles are 

present in the SEWMU primarily during the winter.

2.7.3 Federal and State Species Listing

Management of Endangered and Threatened Species

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 with the intent to conserve ―the ecosystems 

upon which endangered and threatened species depend‖ and to conserve and recover listed species. Under 

the law, species may be listed as either ―endangered‖ or ―threatened.‖ Endangered means a species is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened means a species is 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest 

insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. The ESA is administered by the USFWS and 

NMFS. USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while NMFS is 

responsible for marine species, including salmon and steelhead.

WDFW is the regulatory agency responsible for state listed species in Washington. Rule WAC 232-12-

297 was implemented to identify and classify native wildlife species needing protection and/or 

management to ensure their survival as free-ranging populations in Washington and to define the process 

by which listing, management, recovery, and delisting of a species can be achieved.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 63

The ESA requires the federal government to develop recovery plans for listed salmon. NMFS has 

determined that recovery plans must be developed on an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) regional basis. State law also directs development of a statewide strategy to 

recover salmon on an ESU/DPS basis. NMFS has designated ESU/DPSs for different salmon and 

steelhead species and areas. Based on this, five regional organizations have formed to coordinate 

development of draft ESU-level recovery plans within Washington.

Washington‘s salmon and steelhead fisheries are managed cooperatively in a government-to-government 

relationship between the State of Washington and the Indian tribes whose rights were established in 

treaties signed with the federal government in the 1850s. 

Tribal, state, and federal biologists cooperate in estimating the size of fish runs as salmon and steelhead 

migrate back to their native rivers and hatcheries in the Columbia Basin as part of the court mandated 

process under US v OR. This ―in-season management‖ ensures that sport, tribal, and non-Indian 

commercial fisheries are appropriate for the actual salmon returns and allow optimum numbers of fish to 

spawn. The state and tribes have been working closely to develop the scientific tools needed to address 

loss and degradation of freshwater and estuarine habitats. The state and tribes are continuing to work 

cooperatively to develop comprehensive management plans for anadromous species in the Pacific 

Northwest, and additional information on those processes can be found in Appendices D and E.

Listed Species

Table 2-12 lists federal and state species within the Snake River Salmon SEWMU which protected under 

the ESA and the Washington State ruling.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 64

Table 2-12 Federal and State Listings for Aquatic and Terrestrial Species within the 

Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit

Common Name/ESU Federal Status State Status Description of ESU/DPS

Snake River fall Chinook 

salmon

Threatened Species of 

Concern

Natural populations of fall-run Chinook salmon 

in the mainstem Snake River, Tucannon River, 

Asotin Creek, and Grande Ronde River..

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook salmon

Threatened Species of 

Concern

Natural populations of spring/summer-run 

Chinook salmon using tributaries to the 

mainstem Snake River. 

Snake River and MiddleColumbia River 

steelhead

Threatened Species of 

Concern

Naturally spawning populations of steelhead in 

the Snake River and the Tenmile-Couse, 

Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, AlpowaDeadman, Touchet, Walla Walla and Grande 

Ronde subbasins. Additional spawning occurs 

in small tributaries as well.

Bull trout Threatened Species of 

Concern

Exists primarily in the headwaters, but 

migrates to lower elevations during winter 

months. Very sensitive to elevated water 

temperatures.

River lamprey Species of Concern Candidate Status unknown. May be present in limited 

numbers.

Pacific lamprey Species of Concern None Present but limited numbers observed

Margined sculpin Species of Concern Sensitive Present

Columbia spotted frog Candidate Candidate No populations reported specifically in the 

Snake River region. Believed to be extirpated 

from the region due to the loss and 

degradation of wetlands and the introduction 

of the predatory bull frog. 

Western toad Species of Concern Candidate Presence unknown

Northern leopard frog Species of Concern Endangered Presence unknown

Columbia spotted frog Species of Concern Candidate Spotted frog populations have declined in the 

basin due to lose of wetlands and standing 

water. The current estimated population of the 

Columbia spotted frog is unknown.

Rocky mountain tailed 

frog

None Candidate Presence unknown

Sagebrush lizard Species of Concern Candidate Presence unknown

Striped whipsnake None Candidate Presence unknown

Golden eagle None Candidate Declining population

Bald eagle Threatened Threatened Primarily in the region for winter habitat and 

foraging, depending on the severity of the 

winter weather.

Northern goshawk Species of Concern Candidate Presence unknown

Ferruginous hawk Species of Concern Threatened Presence unknown

Peregrine falcon Species of Concern Sensitive Present but rarely found in eastern 

Washington during the winter months

(continued)

Sharp-tailed grouse Species of Concern Threatened Historical presence documented but no 

current observations.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 65

Common Name/ESU Federal Status State Status Description of ESU/DPS

Sage-grouse Candidate Threatened Historical presence documented but no 

current observations.

Sandhill crane None Endangered Historical presence documented but no 

current observations.

Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Candidate Presence unknown

Burrowing owl Species of Concern Candidate Presence unknown

Flammulated owl None Candidate Presence likely

Vaux’s swift None Candidate Presence likely

Lewis’ woodpecker None Candidate Presence likely

Pileated woodpecker None Candidate Presence likely

White-headed 

woodpecker

None Candidate Presence likely

Black-backed 

woodpecker

None Candidate Presence likely

Oregon vesper sparrow Species of Concern Candidate Presence likely

Pallid Townsend’s bigeared batSpecies of Concern Candidate Presence likely

White-tailed jack rabbit None Candidate Presence unknown

Washington ground 

squirrel

Candidate Candidate Due to loss of habitat in the region, no ground 

squirrels have been observed in recent years.

Townsend’s ground 

squirrel

None Candidate Presence unknown

Brush prairie pocket 

gopher

None Candidate Presence unknown

Gray wolf Threatened

Experimental 

Population, NonEssential

Endangered Presence unknown

Pacific Fisher Species of Concern Endangered Presence unknown

Wolverine Species of Concern Candidate Presence unknown

Canada Lynx Threatened Threatened Documented in National Forest Lands in 

southeast Washington

Source: NOAA ESA Status Reviews and Listing Information: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no 

date a; WDFW no date.

Fish species of importance to the recovery plan include Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, bull trout, 

and lamprey. 

Both fall and spring/summer Snake River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawytscha) are listed as 

threatened. A number of factors have led to the decline of these populations and are detailed in Chapters 3 

and 5.

Fall Chinook salmon were historically present as far upstream on the Snake as Shoshone Falls (RM 615). 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon will not be discussed within this plan. That ESU will be discussed in 

detail within the comprehensive Snake River recovery plan.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 66

Steelhead were historically present in large numbers throughout the Snake River Region (Kuttel, Jr. 

2002). They are the most widely distributed salmonid in the watershed and are found throughout a large 

proportion of the basin‘s streams. The Snake River and Middle Columbia River steelhead were listed as 

threatened in June 1998 and August 1999, respectively.

Bull trout were listed as threatened under the ESA in June 1998. In the Snake River region, they are 

present in the Grande Ronde, Asotin, Tucannon, Walla Walla, and Snake subbasins as well as the Snake 

River mainstem. Spawning and rearing are confined to headwater areas of those watersheds (Kuttel, Jr. 

2002). 

The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) spends up to six years in the stream and an unknown time in 

saltwater, where it grows up to 30 inches. The river lamprey (L. ayresi) has a similar life history, but 

grows only to 12 inches. The western brook lamprey (L. richardsoni) rarely exceeds seven inches. All 

lamprey spawn in clean gravel and cool flowing water. Pacific lamprey spawn in June and July. Brook 

and river lampreys spawn in April, May, or June. The adults of all three species die after spawning. The 

young hatch in two to three weeks. Since their life histories are much the same as spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, lamprey suffer some of the same impacts. NMFS considers lamprey a species of concern. Only 

40 adults were counted going upstream through Ice Harbor Dam in 1992; 10 were seen at Lower Granite 

Dam.

Wildlife species of greatest concern within the SEWMU include bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Washington 

ground squirrel, gray wolf, and Canada lynx. Of these, only the bald eagle is ecologically connected to 

salmonids in the Snake River system.

Bald eagle populations use the Snake River Basin primarily for winter habitat and foraging, depending on 

the severity of the winter weather. Although no nesting has been recorded in the basin it is anticipated in 

the future. Maintaining high quality habitat for prey species, fish, and waterfowl and protecting potential 

nesting and winter roost sites are critical to encourage and perpetuate eagle use of the area (Stinson et al 

2001). Bald eagles were listed federally as threatened in March 1967.

The peregrine falcon hunts other birds, and nests in cliffs and rocky areas often along rivers and lakes. It 

has been re-introduced in Asotin County, but is still scarce within the SEWMU (Hayes and Buchanan 

2002).

Washington ground squirrel colonies are declining in the region due to the loss of shrub steppe and 

grassland habitats as a result of agricultural development and livestock grazing. Sites containing 

historically known colonies were surveyed in 1997, but no ground squirrels were observed.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 67

The gray wolf was federally listed as threatened in March 11, 1967, in the Western Distinct Population 

Segment. Currently, the gray wolf is not known to occur in the SEWMU; it was extirpated from the 

region by the early 1900s, but there is a known pack in the Imnaha Basin in Oregon, and it is conceivable 

that they could migrate and establish themselves again in the Blue Mountains. Potential wolf habitat 

occurs in the forested lands of the subbasins and it is generally assumed wolves will soon reoccupy the 

area. Wolves prefer areas with few roads, generally avoiding areas with a road density greater than one 

mile per square mile.

The current population status and distribution of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the SEWMU is 

unknown. Surveys failed to detect the lynx within and adjacent to the basin in 1999 and the species may 

have been extirpated from the area. The lynx was listed federally as threatened, but is naturally rare in the 

subbasin (Stinson et al. 2001). Preferred habitat for the lynx consists of high elevation (greater than 4500 

feet) stands of cold and cool forest types with a mosaic of structural stages for foraging and denning.

2.8 LAND USE, LAND OWNERSHIP, AND JURISDICTION

2.8.1 Land Use

The SEWMU is dominated by cropland/pastures, mixed rangelands, and forestlands with some 

residential, wildlife and recreational areas (USGS no date) (Figure 2-2). The section of the SEWMU 

within the Blue Mountains is generally forested, with cropland (both dry land and irrigated) and pasture 

occurring over most of the remaining areas. Areas adjacent to streams and rivers were often used as 

rangelands, but since inception of the USDA Conservation Reserve and Enhancement Program in the late

1990‘s, nearly 80% of all salmonid bearing streams in the SEWMU area have been revegetated with 

native species and protected from impacts. Walla Walla is the most populous city, with smaller cities and 

towns located mostly along U.S. Highway 12 and Highway 124. Table 2-13 shows land use by county. 

Most of the land (55 percent or 2,421 square miles) is used for cropland and pasture followed by mixed 

rangeland (21 percent or 1,175 square miles). Evergreen forestland is the third most common land use at 

715 square miles or 16 percent.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 68

Figure 2-2 Land Use in the Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 69

Table 2-13 Land Use by County in the Southeast Washington Recovery Management 

Unit.

Area In Square Miles

Description Asotin Columbia Franklin* Garfield

Walla 

Walla Whitman* Total

Commercial Services 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.6 0.2 5.3

Confined Feeding Operations 0.1 0.1

Cropland and Pasture 159.6 364.6 244.8 336.5 1025.7 290.4 2421.6

Evergreen Forest Land 140.0 341.6 0.4 168.1 64.3 714.4

Forested Wetlands 1.1 1.1

Herbaceous Rangeland 1.0 1.0

Industrial 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.8

Lakes 0 1.1 1.1

Mixed Rangeland 326.1 159.3 161.7 207.3 156.3 164.8 1175.5

Mixed Urban or Built-Up Land 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5

Non-forested Wetlands 0.2 0.2

Orchards 0.3 4.5 4.8

Other Agricultural Land 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Other Urban or Built-Up Land 1.0 0.1 0.2 0 1.0 0.2 2.5

Reservoirs 0.4 4.4 8.6 4.2 25.2 16.3 59.1

Residential 5.8 1.0 0 0.7 9.3 0 16.8

Shrub and Brush Rangeland 0.7 0.7

Streams and Canals 1.4 1.4

Strip Mines 0.2 0 0.7 0 0.9

Transitional Areas 0.1 0 1.6 0.4 2.1

Transportation 0 0 1.3 1.3

Total 635.2 872.7 418 717.2 1296.6 472 4412.4**

Source: USGS no date.

*Includes only those portions of the county in the SEWMU.

** Total area shown on Tables 2-1 and 2-2 does not agree because the figures were derived from different sources.

In the SEWMU, land use is closely tied to water use. Land use practices affect water availability by 

modifying recharge and runoff patterns and by intercepting water flows. Land uses also differ 

significantly in the amount of water required. For example, un-irrigated rangeland or dry farm land uses 

considerably less water than irrigated crop land. Table 2-14 shows the acreages occupied by irrigated 

crops in each of the SEWMU counties. Note that the figure for Whitman County includes areas outside 

the SEWMU; most of the county within the SEWMU is classified as rangeland.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 70

Table 2-14 Irrigated Crop Acreage within the Southeast Washington Recovery Management 

Unit.

Crop Asotin Columbia Franklin Garfield Walla Walla Whitman*

Corn -- 51 11,337 -- -- 101

Wheat 21,110 77,740 109,627 71,689 239,200 478,098

Barley 10,205 17,547 -- 36,082 22,100 160,110

Hay - alfalfa 4,671 4,178 72,728 2,826 17,400 12,637

Vegetables -- 1,787 30,145 -- 38,300 5,792

Orchards 141 -- 14,679 -- 6,911 25

Vineyards -- -- -- -- 950 --

Total Irrigated Acres 329 3,565 221,145 693 97,136 5,469

Source: U.S. Dept. Agriculture 1997.

* Available data includes portions outside the SEWMU.

Asotin County

Asotin County lies entirely within the SEWMU. Commercial activities in the county are clustered around 

the City of Clarkston; residential development occurs primarily between Clarkston and the City of Asotin. 

The main transportation corridors are Washington Highway 129 which runs north-south and U.S. 

Highway 12 running east-west. The Port of Clarkston operates a 120-acre waterfront industrial site in 

Clarkston on the mainstem Snake River. The remainder of the county is characterized by mixed 

rangelands and cropland/pasture. The southwestern portion of the county contains parts of the Umatilla 

National Forest and the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area. In addition, the Asotin and Chief Joseph 

wildlife areas managed by WDFW encompass approximately 30,000 acres.

Garfield County

Garfield County lies entirely within the SEWMU. Commercial activities are grouped around the town of 

Pomeroy which is served by U.S. Highway 12. The rest of the county is mixed rangeland and 

cropland/pasture. Evergreen forests cover the southern parts of the county which are within the Umatilla 

National Forest and the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area.

Columbia County

Commercial activities within Columbia County, which is entirely within the SEWMU, are centered at 

Dayton. U.S. Highway 12 is the main transportation corridor in the county. The rest of the county is 

dominated by mixed rangeland and cropland/pasture except in the southern regions which lie within the 

Umatilla National Forest and the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area. The 16,000 acre Wooten Wildlife 

Area is also in the county. These areas are dominated by evergreen forestland. The approximately 11,000 

acre Rainwater Wildlife Area was established in September 1998 by the CTUIR under the NPPC Fish and 

Wildlife Program and Washington Interim Wildlife Mitigation Agreement to protect, enhance, and 

mitigate wildlife impacted by development of the John Day and McNary hydroelectric dams. In 2009-

2010 significant land purchases were made that added approximately 2400 acres to the pre-2009 

Rainwater Wildlife Area boundary. The project is located in the upper South Fork Touchet River drainage 

in the Walla Walla River Subbasin approximately 8 miles south of Dayton, Washington adjacent to the 

Umatilla National Forest. The area was selected by the CTUIR and BPA as a regional mitigation project 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 71

because of its large size, location in the upper headwaters of the Touchet River watershed, and its ability 

to provide anadromous fish, resident fish, and wildlife benefits in a watershed context. 

The project area includes approximately 8,300 acres of upland and riparian coniferous forest, 2,500 acres 

of native and native-like grasslands, and 200 acres of deciduous riparian habitat. The Wildlife Area also 

provides 10 miles of headwater spawning and rearing habitat for Threatened summer steelhead, bull trout, 

and resident trout. The project provides 5,161 baseline Habitat Units (HU's) and an estimated 1,500 

enhancement HU's for seven target mitigation species.

Walla Walla County

Walla Walla County lies entirely within the SEWMU. The cities of Walla Walla and College Place are 

the center of commercial activities; the remainder of the county is a mix of rangeland and 

cropland/pasture. Vineyards and orchards account for more than 1,000 acres and 2,800 acres of land 

within the county, respectively. U.S. Highway 12 is the main transportation corridor; the Port of Walla 

Walla was built following the completion of McNary Dam on the Columbia River.

Whitman County

The southern part of Whitman County is within the SEWMU. Pullman, just north of the SEWMU 

boundary, is the center of commercial activity for the county; major transportation corridors are U.S. 

Highway 195 and Washington highways 26 and 127. The primary land uses in the county are mixed 

rangeland and cropland/pasture.

Franklin County

The southeastern portion of Franklin County is within the SEWMU. Pasco, which lies outside the 

SEWMU, is the main city and the center of commercial activity. The remainder of the county is in 

rangeland and cropland/pasture. U.S. Highways 12 and 395 are the main transportation corridors. There 

are no salmon-bearing streams within the portion of Franklin County that lies within the SEWMU.

2.8.2 Land Ownership

Land ownership patterns within the SEWMU vary by county, although private landowners hold the 

majority of land in all counties (Figure 2-3, Table 2-15). A large amount of federal land is found in 

Franklin County (only the portion of Franklin County within the SEWMU was included), with the 

majority held by the Bureau of Land Management. Total acreage of privately held land is greatest in 

Walla Walla County which is home to the largest city in the SEWMU. The federal and state governments 

also are large landholders. The State of Washington manages a number of parks and wildlife management 

areas; the USFS is the largest federal landowner in the SEWMU.

The largest amount of federal land is found in Columbia County, primarily in the U.S. Forest Service‘s 

Umatilla National Forest. The Umatilla National Forest also encompasses parts of Asotin, Garfield, 

Columbia, and Walla Walla counties. The Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area is included in the national 

forest. Approximately 62 percent (111,048 acres) of the wilderness area is in the SEWMU. Roads and 

mechanized activities are not allowed in the wilderness area.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 72

Table 2-15 Estimated Ownership by County (Square Miles) within the Southeast 

Washington Recovery Management Unit.

Agency Asotin Columbia Franklin* Garfield

Walla 

Walla Whitman* Total

Bureau of Land Management 11.5 29.7 41.2

Bureau of Reclamation 3.4 0.6 4

Department of Defense 0.3 0.5 0.8

Private 500.8 601 372 555.3 1268 465.5 3762.6

ST/CNTY/CITY 39.3 23.7 12.7 14.8 23.4 6.6 120.5

U.S. Forest Service 88.1 248.9 148 3.8 488.8

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 0.9 0.9

Tribal Lands 16.5

Total 639.7 890.1 418.1 718.1 1297.2 472.1 4435.3**

Source: USGS no date.

* Includes only those portions of the county in the Snake River Salmon SEWMU.

** Areas on Tables 2-1 and 2-2 differ because the data for the tables were derived from different sources.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 73

Figure 2-3 Major Ownership of land within the Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 74

The USFWS manages the McNary Wildlife Refuge in Walla Walla County. The refuge is located south 

of the Snake River southeast of Pasco, Washington, and encompasses over 15,000 acres, including 

riverine wetlands and shoreline bays (USFWS 2004).

The Bureau of Land Management manages the Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area in the western portion of

the SEWMU. The Juniper Dunes Wilderness area is approximately 7,140 acres located in Franklin 

County north of the Snake River. They also manage lands near the lower Grande Ronde River.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) operates over one hundred park facilities in its Walla Walla 

Recreation District; many of which are in the SEWMU (USACE 2004b). Management of the parks is 

often by other government agencies or contractors. USACE parks within the SEWMU include:

Charbonneau Park, located on the east side of the Snake River near the confluence of the Snake 

and Columbia rivers

Hood Park, located on the east side of the Columbia River near its confluence with the Snake 

River

Windust Park on the north bank of Lake Sacajawea in the lower Snake River

Fishhook Park on the south bank of Lake Sacajawea

Lyons Ferry, located in Whitman County along the Palouse River (1,282 acres)

Chief Timothy State Park, located on an island in the Snake River eight miles west of Clarkston

Central Ferry on the Snake River between Whitman and Garfield counties

The State of Washington owns a significant amount of land within the SEWMU. At statehood, the U.S. 

Congress provided 3 million acres of trustland to Washington. Trustlands were typically in sections 16 

and 36 of each township (WDNR, no date), accounting for the ―checkerboard‖ appearance of state-owned 

lands on Figure 2-3. State-owned lands within the SEWMU are primarily managed by the WDNR, 

although several other state agencies also manage land in this area. For example, the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the following wildlife areas:

William Wooten Wildlife Area (16,000 acres) located in Columbia and Garfield counties south of 

Pomeroy

Grouse Flats Wildlife Area (640 acres) located in Garfield County south of Clarkston

Chief Joseph Wildlife Area (13,415 acres) in Asotin County south of the city of Asotin

Asotin Creek Wildlife Area (30,000 acres) in Asotin County west of the city of Asotin (ACCD

2004)

The Washington State Parks Department (WSPD) also manages a number of large parks in the SEWMU:

Sacajawea State Park, a 284-acre marine and day use park, located at the confluence of the Snake 

and Columbia rivers; includes 9,100 feet of shoreline

Lewis and Clark Trail State Park, located on the shoreline of the Touchet River in Walla Walla 

County; includes 1,333 feet of shoreline

Palouse Falls State Park (105 acres) in Whitman County along the Palouse River

Field Springs State Park (793 acres) in Asotin County within the Blue Mountains
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 75

2.8.3 Jurisdiction

The State of Washington regulates use of land and water in the SEWMU through various programs 

including the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the Aquatic 

Resources Use Authorization Permit, and the State Environmental Protection Act. The State requires the 

counties to protect critical areas and natural resources through comprehensive plans and zoning 

ordinances. Federal agencies also influence land use through the Clean Water Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and jurisdictional control by USACE over commercial waterways. Figure 2-4 shows 

jurisdictional boundaries within the SEWMU.

Management of Water and Water Bodies

Shoreline Management: The State of Washington exercises control of development on state shorelines 

through the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), adopted in 1972. SMA is intended to ―prevent the 

inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state‘s shorelines.‖ All counties in 

the SEWMU have adopted shoreline management programs and are the primary regulators of those 

programs. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) has the authority to review local programs 

and permit decisions (WDOE 1999a).

State shorelines are defined as all marine waters and streams with a mean annual flow greater than 20 

cubic feet per second, water areas of the state larger than 20 acres, and the upland areas that are 200 feet 

landward from the edge of these waters. Additionally, the SMA governs areas that are associated with 

these aquatic resources such as wetlands, river deltas, and 100-year floodplains (WDOE 1999a).

In 2003, the Washington legislature amended the SMA and required all local governments to amend their 

existing SMA programs according to the WDOE guidelines. All counties in the SEWMU are required to 

have their SMAs updated on or before December 1, 2013.

Water Resource Inventory Areas: The Snake River Salmon SEWMU includes the Water Resource 

Inventory Areas (WRIAs) of the Lower Snake (WRIA 33), Middle Snake (WRIA 35), and Walla Walla 

(WRIA 32), as well as the portion of the Palouse River (WRIA 34) that is accessible to anadromous fish. 

The Middle Snake watershed includes the Tucannon River and Asotin Creek and their tributaries. Figure 

2-4 shows WRIA boundaries.

Other Programs: WDFW is responsible for preserving, protecting, and perpetuating all fish and shellfish 

resources of the state under the Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100-160). Any construction activity near 

waterways must comply with the terms of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). The HPA regulates 

activities occurring below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or waters of the state.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) also requires projects that cross or impact 

the bed, tidelands, or shore lands of a navigable water to submit notification under the Aquatic Resources 

Use Authorization. According to the Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA), notification is 

required because the State of Washington owns the commercially navigable waterways below the 

OHWM. Though WDNR owns the navigable waterways, the USACE regulates dredging and other 

activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Some activities require consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 76

Figure 2-4 Jurisdictional Boundaries within the Southeast Washington Recovery Management Unit.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 77

In addition, the State requires agencies to consider the environmental consequences of proposed activities 

before they are implemented under the regulations of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA 

requires that all state and local governments ―identify and develop methods and procedures, in 

consultation with the department of ecology and the ecological commission, which will insure that 

presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in 

decision making along with economic and technical considerations‖ (RCW 43.21C 2B).

Special Area Management

GMA requires state and local governments to manage growth by ―identifying and protecting critical areas 

and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, and preparing comprehensive plans‖ (WRC 

1990). The GMA states that counties meeting certain criteria are required to participate:

Counties with populations greater than 50,000 which before May 1995 had greater than a 10 

percent increase in the previous decade

Counties which after May 1995 had a population increase of greater than 20 percent within 10 

years

Counties that choose to plan

Counties that do not meet these criteria and have chosen not to participate are still required to manage for 

critical areas and natural resources via development of regulations at the city and county levels. ―Critical 

areas‖ are defined by GMA as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge 

areas, frequently flooded areas, or geologically hazardous areas. Natural resources are forest, agricultural, 

and mineral lands (RCW Title 36.70A 1990). Most counties and cities generally use maps provided by 

WDOE, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, the state shorelines list of aquatic resources, and 

USGS topographic maps to identify and regulate uses of critical areas.

The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB), which operates within the 

SEWMU, was established to deal with dispute settlement between land use applicants and local 

governments. The following describes how each county within the SEWMU is implementing the GMA 

and current planning practices.

Asotin County does not participate in Washington‘s GMA and has not implemented any growth 

controls or comprehensive plans. The county has a zoning ordinance. Asotin County plans for 

critical areas via Resolution 9.12.3, which identifies critical areas for shorelines, floodplains, and 

best management practices in conjunction with the Soil Conservation District (Asotin County 

1992). A hearings board does not guide Asotin County (D. Caputo, personal communication). 

The cities of Asotin and Clarkston also have zoning ordinances. These two cities are bordered by 

lands along the Snake River owned by USACE and the Port of Clarkston.

Columbia County voluntarily participates in Washington‘s GMA and manages growth via 

comprehensive plans and zoning. Columbia County is guided by the EWGMHB (J. Lapinski, 

personal communication). Columbia County implements the State‘s critical areas guidelines on a 

permit-by-permit basis. The county has a critical areas ordinance that requires wetland buffers. 

Planners for the city and county refer to wetland maps, topographic, and floodplain maps 

provided by WDOE and the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) to determine 

compliance with the SMA and GMA (J. Lapinski, personal communication).
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 78

Walla Walla County participates in Washington‘s GMA and regulates land use through a 

comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The EWGMHB guides Walla Walla County (K. 

Kuhn, personal communication). The county has a critical areas ordinance which maps special 

wetland, aquatic resource areas, and other critical areas including upland areas. This ordinance 

requires 25 to 100 foot protection zones of undisturbed native vegetation for critical areas (Walla 

Walla County 1995). The lands under the jurisdiction of the Port of Walla Walla exactly 

correspond to the area contained in the county. The Port manages 3,000 acres of which 20 percent 

is developed; development has been increasing 2 to 3 percent annually in recent years. The Port 

of Walla Walla does not manage any on-water facilities or facilities touching the shoreline with 

river access (P. Gerola, personal communication). USACE manages ports on the Snake River in 

the Walla Walla County area.

Garfield County participates in GMA and has implemented a comprehensive plan and a zoning 

ordinance. Garfield County is guided by the EWGMHB (D. Deal, personal communication).

Whitman County does not participate in Washington‘s GMA; however, Whitman County does 

have a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and does plan for critical areas and natural 

resources. The county plans for four types of critical areas and wetlands: 1) wetlands requiring 

special buffer protections, 2) floodplains identified by FEMA, 3) aquifers (two are identified in 

this county), and 4) sensitive habitat areas identified by the WDOE Priority Habitats and Species 

Database. In addition, The Port of Whitman County (PWC), which encompasses the entire county 

and extends along the Snake River from RM 83 to RM 138, has published a comprehensive plan 

(PWC 2000).

Franklin County participates in Washington‘s GMA and regulates land use through a 

comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. The EWGMHB guides Franklin County (Franklin 

County Planning, personal communication). The county manages critical areas by following 

guidelines established by the SEPA process (G. Wendt, personal communication).

Treaty Trust Obligations

In 1855, the United States government entered into treaties with the tribes inhabiting the eastern part of 

the Oregon Territory. In exchange for the preponderance of their lands, the tribes reserved certain rights, 

among them, ―...the exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering 

said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and 

accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory.‖ Exercising those rights proved to be 

somewhat problematical, and a series of court actions sought to re-establish the tribes‘ rights. Probably 

the most definitive case was the United States v Washington 1974, otherwise known as the Boldt Decision 

after the presiding judge. This case established that the treaty tribes were entitled to the opportunity to 

catch up to fifty percent of the harvestable fish.

In U.S. v Oregon, the rights of treaty tribes to an equitable supply of the harvestable surplus of salmon in 

the Columbia Basin were re-affirmed. Harvest levels are set by the tribes, state agencies, and federal 

fisheries agencies. Management of the harvest is depicted more in Appendix E and the Harvest Module.

Treaty tribes within the SEWMU are the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation. Members of these tribes have a reserved right to fish for anadromous fish in the treaty 

area and, therefore, a major interest in the health and well-being of fish, particularly salmon, in the Snake 

River system. Salmon are of great importance to the tribes for ceremonial, subsistence, and economic 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 79

purposes. The tribes, as co-managers, have been, and continue to be, active in planning, management, and 

other efforts aimed at increasing the numbers, viability, and range of salmon within the SEWMU.

2.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

2.9.1 Population and Growth

The Snake River Salmon SEWMU is generally sparsely populated, with residents scattered throughout 

the area in communities of less than 1,000 people or clustered in a few larger cities. Garfield County is 

the least populous with 2,300 persons and Walla Walla County has the highest population with 55,180. 

Table 2-16 shows the populations of the counties and major towns in the SEWMU.

Table 2-16 Population of Largest Communities within Southeast Washington 

Management Unit Counties in 2005.

City/Town Population County Population

Walla Walla 29,686 Franklin 49,347

Pullman 24,948 Walla Walla 55,180

College Place 8,690 Whitman 40,740

Clarkston 7,337 Asotin 20,551

Dayton 2,655 Columbia 4,064

Pomeroy 1,517 Garfield 2,397

Source: State of Washington 2005

Development and growth within the SEWMU varies by county. Growth trends are as follows:

Asotin County: Most residents live in the area between Asotin and Clarkston in the valley created by the 

confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers. The Asotin County population grew 45 percent between 

1970 and 1999 with the majority of growth occurring in the 1990s. During the 1990s, population in 

unincorporated areas grew 21.5 percent while incorporated cities grew 3.5 percent (Weeks 2000). The 

total population of Asotin County in 2000 was 20,551. Of this, 19,256 lived in the cities of Asotin and 

Clarkston and surrounding areas (Economic and Engineering Services 2004).

Garfield County: The southern portion of Garfield County‘s panhandle is densely forested and contains 

portions of the Umatilla National Forest and Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area. Garfield County‘s 

population, the smallest in Washington, declined at an annual rate of 8 percent between 1970 and 1990. 

However, during the 1990s, Garfield‘s population grew 2.3 percent in Pomeroy, the county‘s only 

incorporated city, and 2.3 percent in unincorporated areas (Weeks 2000). In 2000, Pomeroy‘s population 

was 1,517. Although there are identified urban growth boundaries, population growth has not yet resulted 

in a need for those areas (D. Deal, personal communication).

Columbia County: Steady economic growth has occurred in Columbia County and is attributed to an 

increase in tourism dollars (J. Lapinski, personal communication). Destinations include historic buildings 

on the national register, a ski resort at the base of the Blue Mountains in the Umatilla National Forest, and 

other natural resource facilities such at the Wooten Wildlife Area or Camp Wooten (an environmental 

learning center). Between 1970 and 1999, the population decreased by 9.9 percent (Weeks 2000). During 
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 80

the 1990s, the population in incorporated cities increased by 7.8 percent, but decreased by 9.5 percent in 

unincorporated areas (Weeks 2002). Dayton is the largest town in Columbia County, with 2,707 residents 

in 2000 (Weeks 2002). The county has experienced a loss of population over the past 40 years; there were 

4,569 residents in 1960 and 4,064 in 2000.

Walla Walla County: Between 1970 and 1990, the population of Walla Walla County increased by 29 

percent. About 70 percent of the county‘s population lives in one of four incorporated cities (College 

Place, Prescott, Waitsburg, Walla Walla); 30 percent live in unincorporated areas. Growth during the 

1990s in both unincorporated areas and incorporated cities was 9 percent (Bodeutsch 1999). MiltonFreewater, Oregon, is located within the Walla Walla Basin, but outside the SE Washington recovery 

area.

Whitman County: The population of Whitman County increased 9 percent between 1970 and 1990. About 

84 percent of the county‘s population resides in incorporated cities. Between 1990 and 1999, incorporated 

areas grew by 8 percent and unincorporated areas grew by 1 percent. It should be noted that there are no 

population centers within the part of Whitman County included in the SEWMU.

Franklin County: Between 1970 and 1999, Franklin County grew by 78 percent. Population in the 

incorporated cities grew by 35 percent during 1990s while in the unincorporated areas, it grew by 3 

percent. No data was available for the community of Burbank, which is within the SEWMU.

Table 2-17 shows projected population growth to the year 2025 for the unincorporated and incorporated 

portions of the counties within the SEWMUs. The Washington State Office of Financial Management 

(OFM) calculates projected population changes for unincorporated portions of the state in an effort to 

estimate future water demands. For the SEWMU, a moderate rate of growth was assumed by OFM for 

Asotin, Columbia, and Whitman counties. It should be noted that only small areas of Whitman and 

Franklin counties lie within the SEWMU; however, due to the lack of data specific to the SEWMU, data 

from the entire counties were used where available.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 81

Table 2-17 Historic, Current, and Projected Populations in the Southeast Washington 

Recovery Management Unit

County 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Asotin 17,605 19,574 20,551 21,466 22,582 23,569 24,650 25,671

Columbia 4,024 4,704 4,064 3,914 4,000 4,150 4,126 4,092

Franklin 37,473 45,756 49,347 52,642 56,392 60,216 64,687 68,997

Garfield 2,248 2,170 2,397 2,436 2,510 2,596 2,668 2,734

Walla Walla 48,439 53,269 55,180 57,475 60,030 62,398 64,856 67,158

Whitman 38,775 40,138 40,740 40,445 41,149 42,342 43,651 44,856

City/Town 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Walla Walla 26,482 28,870 28,940 31,509 33,081 34,658 35,892 44,528

College Place 6,308 6,735 7,430 7,628 8,012 8,398 9,566 12,786

Prescott 275 305 335 337 354 371 393 505

Waitsburg 990 1,145 1,195 1,302 1,367 1,432 1,483 1,965

Dayton 2,468 2,520 2,495 2,677 2,771 2,901 3,032 3,516

Asotin 981 1,072 1,095 1,137 1,195 1,256 1,320 1,388

Clarkston 16,096 17,447 18,661 19,629 20,597 21,565 22,643 23,797

Pomeroy 1,393 1,491 1,517 1,536 1,591 1,647 1,706 1,766

Starbuck 170 165 165 165 165 165 165 165

Sources: EES 2002, 2004; USDA 1997.

2.10 HATCHERY FACILITIES

Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery (LFH) was built in 1982 by the USACE as part of the Lower Snake River 

Compensation Plan (LSRCP). The hatchery is operated by WDFW, owned by USFWS, and funded by 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). LFH and other facilities are shown in Figure 2-5. The goal of 

the hatchery program is to restore dam-related losses of steelhead and Chinook salmon and the loss of 

fishing opportunity for anadromous and resident fish. Hatcheries are further discussed in detail in 

Appendix D and the Hatchery Module within the Snake River comprehensive recovery plan.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 82

Figure 2-5. Hatchery and major hydropower facilities within the Southeast Washington 

Management Unit.

2.11 HYDROPOWER FACILITIES AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT DAMS

There are four major hydroelectric dams located within the SEWMU (Figure 2-5). The USACE operates 

four dams on the mainstem Snake River: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower 

Granite. USACE also operates the Mill Creek Project for flood control on the Walla Walla River. 

Starbuck Dam is located on the Tucannon River and was owned by the Starbuck Power Company. It is no 

longer operated as a hydroelectric facility, but does continue to be used to divert flows for irrigation.

The dams in the SEWMU were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation (inland 

navigation), irrigation water, and flood control. The Lower Snake River slack-water navigation project 

was implemented to develop a navigation channel in the Snake River from its mouth near Pasco, 

Washington (confluence with Columbia River), to Lewiston ID. 

The four Snake River dams were authorized by Section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945 (Public 

Law 79-14, 79th Congress, 1st Session) and were approved March 2, 1945. The act authorized the 

construction of dams and open channel improvements for the purpose of providing slack water navigation 

and irrigation in accordance with House Document 704, 74th Congress, 3rd Session. It also specified that 

all surplus electrical power be delivered to the federal government.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 83

There are also two dams that affect SEWMU that lie outside of the SEWMU. Hells Canyon Dam 

Complex affects water quality of the mainstem Snake River as it flows through the SEWMU. The 

reservoirs upstream of the dams act as a heat sink and elevates temperatures downstream. On the North 

Fork of the Clearwater River is Dworshak Dam, which has been used in recent years to modify the 

temperatures of the lower Snake River to make it more compatiable to adult salmonids as they ascend the 

Snake back to their natal stream.

Lower Granite Dam 

The Walla Walla District of the USACE owns and operates the Lower Granite Dam which is located at 

RM 107.5 on the Snake River. Above the dam, the impounded Snake River is called Lower Granite Lake; 

below the dam is Lake Bryan. The dam is about 3,200 feet long with an effective height of 100 feet. 

Lower Granite Lake extends up the Snake River about 39.3 miles to Lewiston, Idaho, the upper terminus 

of the authorized Lower Snake River slack-water navigation project. Construction began in July 1965, 

with operations beginning in 1975.

The Lower Granite Dam has facilities to accommodate both juvenile and adult fish passage. Juvenile fish 

facilities include both a bypass system and a fish transportation system, in which fingerlings are moved 

by a barge or truck from the reservoir above the dam to a downstream site. Adult fish passage is 

accommodated with a fish ladder along the south shore with entrances on the north and south shores.

Little Goose Dam

The Little Goose Dam is at RM 70.3 on the Snake River. This dam forms Lake Bryan which extends 37.2 

miles to the Lower Granite Dam. Construction started in June 1963 and the project was open to 

navigation in May 1970. The dam complex includes a juvenile fish collection facility.

The dam‘s juvenile fish facilities consist of a bypass system and juvenile transportation facilities. The 

adult fish passage facilities at Little Goose are composed of one fish ladder on the south shore and 

entrances on both the south and north shores. The powerhouse collection system consists of two 

downstream entrances and one side entrance into the spillway basin on the north end of the powerhouse, 

and a common transportation channel.

Lower Monumental Dam

The Lower Monumental Dam is located at RM 41.6 on the Snake River. It is owned and operated by the 

Walla Walla District of the USACE. Construction of the project began in June 1961 and it became 

operational in 1969. The Lower Monumental Dam forms Lake Herbert J. West which extends upstream 

28.1 miles to Little Goose Dam. The dam is 3,791 feet long, with an effective height of 100 feet.

The Lower Monumental Dam provides facilities for both juvenile and adult fish passage. The juvenile 

facilities consist of fish passage structures and a transportation system. The adult fish passage facilities at 

Lower Monumental are composed of north and south shore fish ladders and collection systems with a 

common auxiliary water supply. The north shore fish ladder connects to two north shore entrances and the 

powerhouse collection system. The south shore fish ladder has two downstream entrances and a side 

entrance into the spillway basin. The dam complex includes a juvenile fish collection facility.
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 84

Ice Harbor Dam

The Ice Harbor Dam is located at RM 9.7 on the Snake River. The dam, owned and operated by the Walla 

Walla District of USACE, forms Lake Sacajawea which extends 32 miles upstream to Lower 

Monumental Dam. Construction of the Ice Harbor Project began in December 1955 and the project began 

operation in December 1961. The dam is 2,822 feet long, with an effective height of 100 feet.

This dam has two fish ladders, on the north and south shores, for passing adult migratory fish. In addition, 

there are facilities for juvenile fish passage. 

Starbuck Dam

The Starbuck Dam is located on the Tucannon River about 5.5 miles upstream of the river mouth near 

Starbuck, Washington. The dam, which is about 6 feet high and 95 feet long, was built prior to 1909 to 

support a small hydroelectric plant at Starbuck, as well as supply irrigation water to surrounding farms. 

The hydroelectric plant was abandoned in 1944, but the dam continues to provide water for irrigation.

Until the early 1990s, the Starbuck Dam blocked fall Chinook salmon and delayed spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead upstream migrations. In 1992-1993, BPA funded WDFW to improve fish passage at 

the dam. Improvements included the placement of a notch in the dam to allow passage for steelhead as 

well as modifications to the existing fish ladder to provide adequate access for Chinook salmon. The 

modified fish ladder was designed to remain open during the spring and fall to allow passage for Chinook 

salmon, but close during the winter to prohibit northern pikeminnow from migrating upstream, competing 

with salmon for spawning habitat, and preying on young salmon and steelhead.

Mill Creek Project

The Mill Creek Project dam and reservoir is operated by the USACE Walla Walla District. It is located in 

the drainage off Mill Creek west of the City of Walla Walla. A diversion on Mill Creek (Bennington 

Dam) sends water to be impounded behind the dam for flood control and recreation purposes. The dam is 

800 feet wide at the base, 3,200 feet long at the crest and 125 feet high.

Construction of the dam and its associated works was completed in 1942. An auxiliary outlet channel 

from the dam to Russell Creek, and additional drainage facilities at the toe of the dam, were completed in 

1944. Sealing the lake bottom, additional work on the drainage system in the foundation, and installation 

of an upstream outlet gate were completed in 1950.

Bennington Lake is the off-stream reservoir containing the diverted floodwaters of Mill Creek. The 

reservoir has a maximum storage capacity of 8,300 acre-feet at elevation 1265, with a five-foot freeboard. 

The reservoir is the only public lake within 45 miles of the City of Walla Walla.

The Mill Creek Project has two fish ladders, one at the Bennington Lake diversion dam and one at the 

first division works where water is diverted to Yellowhawk and Garrison creeks. Although they were 

designed to allow fish to pass during much of the year, there are times when fish cannot pass or when 

passage conditions are not adequate (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

Mill Creek/Twin Reservoirs Project (City of Walla Walla Water Intake Dam)
Chapter 2: Description of SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 85

The City of Walla Walla applied to add hydroelectric generation to its Mill Creek municipal water facility 

in 1987. Hydroelectric generation is approved as a water use subordinate to other uses such as municipal 

water withdrawal and provision of adequate instream flows for aquatic life. The City of Walla Walla 

agreed to ensure that minimum flows will be maintained in Mill Creek‘s natural channel ―immediately 

below the diversion intake‖ (Economic and Engineering Services et al. 1998).

This section includes information only on the Snake River mainstem dams and major tributary dams 

currently impacting salmonids in the SE Washington SEWMU. Other dams in the SEWMU include 

Headgate Dam in Asotin Creek, Burlingame in the Walla Walla River, and Nursery and Cemetery dams 

on the Oregon side of the Walla Walla. For more detailed descriptions of dams and historical operations, 

see the Asotin, Grande Ronde, Lower Snake Mainstem, Tucannon, and Walla Walla subbasin plans

(Hofer dam was identified as a passage barrer in the 2005 subbasin plan but has since been retrofitted 

with NOAA/WDFW compliant fish passage facilities).
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 86

3 BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 POPULATION IDENTIFICATION AND STRUCTURE

3.1.1 Important Concepts in Salmon and Steelhead 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 evolutionary significant unit (ESU) or steelhead distinct population segment (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 
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 87

characteristics than those in the next stream over. Fish whose natal streams are separated by hundreds of 

miles will have less genetic similarity.

3.1.2 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.

3.1.3 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, or 

―major population groups‖ (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 3-1. 

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.”
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 88

Figure 3-1. Hierarchical levels of salmonid species structure as defined by the TRTs 

for ESU/DPS recovery planning

3.2 KEY SPECIES AND LISTING STATUS

The key species for the Southeast Washington Management Unit (SEWMU) were chosen because of their 

status under the Endangered Species Act (Table 3-1). In addition, all of the key species in the SEWMU 

are listed as ―Species of Concern‖ by the State of Washington.

Table 3-1 ESA Status of Key Species and Stocks within Recovery Region

Species Stock/Race ESU or DPS

ESA Listing 

Status Listing Date Critical Habitat

Bull trout N/A Columbia River DPS Threatened June, 1998 September, 2010

Steelhead trout Summer Snake River DPS Threatened August, 1997 September, 2005

Summer Mid-Columbia River 

DPS Threatened March, 1999 September, 2005

Chinook 

salmon Spring/summer Snake River ESU Threatened April, 1992 October,1999

Spring/summer Mid-Columbia River 

ESU Not warranted N/A N/A

Fall Snake River ESU Threatened April, 1992 December, 1993

ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS = Distinct Population Segment.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 89

Chinook Salmon

Snake River Spring-Summer Chinook are considered by NMFS to be one ESU, and fall Chinook another 

(see Section 3.3.2). Steelhead in the Snake River DPS contain fish from southeast Washington, northeast 

Oregon, and Idaho (see Section 3.3.3 for further information).

Snake River Chinook salmon (spring/summer and fall-runs1) were listed as threatened on April 22, 1992, . 

As a result of record low adult returns in 1994 and low projected returns for 1995, an emergency interim 

rule was announced August 18, 1994, to reclassify the Snake River spring/summer run and Snake River 

fall run as endangered; however, both Snake River Chinook salmon ESUs were subsequently classified in 

a final ruling as threatened (50 FR 37160). NMFS determined in March 1998, that listing was not 

warranted for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Middle Columbia River ESU. These listings 

decisions were reaffirmed in 2005 (Good et al. 2005; 50 FR 37160).

Steelhead 

Steelhead within the Snake River DPS were designated as threatened initially in August 1997 (at that 

time, steelhead populations were still considered an ―ESU;‖ 62 FR 43937), and the Middle Columbia 

River DPS was listed as threatened in March, 1999 (64 FR 14517). In 2006, NMFS affirmed the middleColumbia and Snake River steelhead populations, now considered DPSs, as threatened (71 FR 834).

Critical habitat was initially designated for all steelhead and salmon populations within the SEWMU in 

2008 (70 FR 52630).

Bull Trout

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a final rule listing the Columbia River population of 

bull trout as a threatened species on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). A final rule was issued for critical 

habitat on September 10, 2010 (75 FR 63898) The Washington portions of the Snake River, Grande 

Ronde River and the Umatilla-Walla Walla Bull Trout Recovery Unit are part of the Columbia River 

DPS. The Snake River Washington Recovery Unit encompasses selected tributaries of the mainstem 

Snake River from Lower Monumental Dam at RM 42 upstream to the mouth of the Grande Ronde River 

(RM 169). The Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit encompasses the entire drainages of the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla rivers. The Grande Ronde Recovery Unit includes bull trout from one watershed: the 

Grande Ronde River. Although most of this watershed is in Oregon, the lower portion of the Grande 

Ronde River and the tributaries to the lower portion (including tributaries to the mainstem Wenaha River, 

a major tributary of the Grande Ronde) are located in Washington.

 

1

Snake River fall Chinook salmon will be discussed in a separate appendix of the comprehensive Snake River 

salmon recovery plan, and therefore will not be discussed within this chapter.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 90

3.3 SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT SALMONID POPULATION 

STRUCTURE2

3.3.1 Spring/summer Chinook Salmon 

Spring/summer Chinook salmon in the SEWMU belong to two MPGs (Table 3-2; Figure 3-2). The Lower 

Snake spring/summer Chinook MPA is composed of independent populations in the Tucannon and Asotin 

subbasins and is entirely in SE Washington. The ICTRT (2007) considers the Asotin Creek population 

functionally extinct. The Wenaha population is partially in SE Washington and is part of the Grand Ronde 

MPG. From Ford et al. (2010):

The status of the Asotin Creek endemic population is uncertain and was classified as 

functionally extirpated based on redd surveys that have averaged only one redd per year 

between 1985 and 2003 (SRSRB 2006). The stock history of the relatively small number 

of spawners reported for the basin is not known, although WDFW is currently examining 

the genetics of spawners captured there in recent years.3

 

2

Sockeye salmon pass through the SEWMU, but have no spawning or rearing life histories within the SEWMU, and 

therefore are not discussed in this chapter.

3WDFW completed the genetic analysis after this was written by the ICTRT, (Blankenship and Mendel 2010) and

most adults apparently are strays from the Tucannon River, although Imnaha and other stocks were also represented.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 91

Figure 3-2. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU. Major population 

groups (MPGs) with extant populations (from Ford et al. 2010).

Spring/summer Chinook in the Walla Walla River are considered functionally extinct and were not 

included by NMFS in the Middle Columbia River ESU. 
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 92

Table 3-2 Major Population Groups for the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU

(based on ICTRT 2007a).

Major Population Group Populations Populations within the SEWMU

Lower Snake Tucannon Rivera, Asotin Creek (extirpated) Tucannon River, Asotin Creek

Grande Ronde

Upper Grande Ronde, Wallowa/Lostine, 

Imnaha, Catherine Creek, Minam, Wenaha, Big 

Sheep Creek, Lookingglass Creek

Wenaha (portion in Washington state)

S.F. Salmon River S.F. Salmon, Secesh, Little Salmon Tribs, E.F. 

S.F. Salmon

M.F Salmon River

Upper Middle Tribs, Chamberlin Creek/Tribs, 

Big Creek, Bear Valley/Elk Creek, Marsh 

Creek, Loon Creek, Camas Creek, Lower 

Middle Fork Tribs, Sulphur Creek

Upper Salmon River

Lemhi, Upper Salmon and Tribs, Pahsimeroi, 

Upper Salmon Lower, Panther Creek, E.F. 

Salmon River, N.F. Salmon River, Valley 

Creek, Yankee Fork

a

Includes hatchery fish as part of the ESU

3.3.2 Steelhead 

Steelhead from both the Middle Columbia River DPS (Walla Walla basin) and Snake River DPS 

(Tucannon, Asotin, lower Grande Ronde, Joseph) are found within the SEWMU. The Snake River 

Steelhead DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss populations in streams in the Snake 

River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho as well as six artificial production 

conservation programs4: the Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East 

Fork Salmon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery steelhead hatchery programs

(Table 3-3; Figure 3-3).

The Lower Snake steelhead MPG also consists of nine small tributaries to the Snake River that are 

considered as part of the Tucannon or Asotin steelhead populations (Alkali Flat, Almota, Alpowa, Couse, 

Deadman/Meadow, Penawawa, Steptoe, Tenmile and Wawawai creeks; Table 3-3).

 

4 The programs listed in this paragraph are part of the DPS, but additional steelhead programs are currently 

operational in the SEWMU.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 93

.

Figure 3-3. Snake River steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) populations -

current status ratings based on ICTRT criteria (from Ford et al. 2010).

Steelhead within the Middle Columbia River 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, the Walla Wall River Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake 

River Basin (Figure 3-4). Major drainages in this DPS are the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Walla 

Walla, Yakima, and Klickitat river systems (Table 3-3; Figure 3-4). 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.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 94

Figure 3-4. Middle Columbia steelhead DPS populations and major population groups

(from NMFS 2009).
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 95

Table 3-3 Major Population Groups for the Snake River and Mid-Columbia Steelhead 

DPSs (based on ICTRT 2003).

Major Population Groups Populations Populations within the SEWMU

Snake River DPS

Lower Snake River

Tucannon River (includes production from 

Penawawa, Alkali Flat, Deadman and Meadow 

creeks) a

Asotin Creek (includes production from Almota, 

Tenmile, Steptoe, Couse, Alpowa, Wawawai 

creeks)

Tucannon Basin (includes production 

from Penawawa, Alkali Flat, Deadman 

and Meadow creeks)a

Asotin Creek (includes production from 

Almota, Tenmile, Steptoe, Couse, 

Alpowa, Wawawai creeks)

Grande Ronde/Imnaha rivers

Upper Grande Ronde, Lower Grande Ronde 

(including the Wenaha River and Grande Ronde 

tributaries below the Wenaha confluence), 

Wallowa, Imnaha, Joseph Creek.

Lower Grande Ronde (including 

production from the Wenaha River 

Basin within Washington, and Grande 

Ronde tributaries in WA below the 

Wenaha confluence), Joseph Creek 

(portion within Washington State)

S.F. Salmon River

Lower Middle Fork, Upper Middle Fork, Upper 

Mainstem, Lemhi, S.F. Salmon, Little 

Salmon/Tribs, Chamberlain Creek/Tribs, Panther 

Creek, E.F. Salmon, Pahsimeroi, N.F. Salmon, 

Secesh, and Hells Canyon Tribs.

Mid-Columbia DPS

Cascade Eastern Slope 

Tributaries

Klickitat, Fifteen Mile, Deschutes (east and 

west), White Salmon, Rock Creek

John Day Lower mainstem Tribs, N.F. John Day, M.F. 

John Day, S.F. John Day, Upper Main John Day

Umatilla/Walla Walla Umatilla, Walla Walla, Touchet Walla Walla (in WA), Touchet

Yakima Naches, Yakima River Mainstem, 

Satus/Toppenish

a- Fish in Penawawa, Alkali Flat , Deadman, Meadow, Almota, Tenmile, Steptoe, Couse and Alpowa Creeks were not considered by NMFS to be 

separate populations. Fish production from these streams is included in the Tucannon River or Asotin Creek populations.

Figures 3-2 - 3-4 show that the subbasins covered in this plan make up only a small portion of the Snake 

River and Middle Columbia River ESUs/DPSs. Because of this, the plan will not be able to determine if 

proposed actions lead to recovery at the ESU scale. This management unit plan will be part of the 

comprehensive Snake River recovery plan and middle Columbia steelhead recovery plan, which will 

evaluate ESU-DPS recovery. 
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 96

3.3.3 Population Subdivisions: Major and Minor Spawning Areas

One additional level of geographic distinction is necessary to describe the steelhead and Chinook salmon 

populations covered in this recovery plan: the identification of Major Spawning Areas (MaSAs) and 

Minor Spawning Areas (MiSAs). This distinction is necessary because the intrinsic viability of a 

population increases with the number of discrete spawning areas and the complexity of their geographic 

distribution. Local catastrophes are less likely to decimate an entire population if it consists of a large 

number of spawning aggregations located in different watersheds. Moreover, such spatially complex 

populations are more likely to develop a wide variety of genotypes and phenotypes in response to local 

differences in environmental conditions. This genetic diversity represents a hedge against unpredictable 

environmental fluctuations. Therefore, all of the distinct populations of steelhead and spring/summer 

Chinook were subdivided by the ICTRT into MaSAs and MiSAs on the basis of estimates of the amount 

suitable habitat in contiguous reaches during historical times (ICTRT 2004).

The ICTRT, in an updated memorandum on procedures for estimating population level abundance and 

spatial structure (ICTRT 2004), states the following:

“The Tributary habitats associated with specific Interior Columbia Basin stream type 

Chinook and steelhead populations varied considerably in size and complexity [during 

historical times]. Within-population spatial structure is an important consideration in 

assessing risk levels relative to localized (watershed level) catastrophic events. In 

addition, the presence of multiple, relatively discrete spawning areas within a population 

can increase the potential for development and expression of within population 

phenotypic and genotypic diversity. The relative size of discrete spawning areas within 

the tributary habitat used by a particular population is also an important consideration. 

The ICTRT developed...an estimate of the minimum amount of tributary spawning habitat 

needed to support 500 spawners as a metric for use in characterizing within population 

spatial structure. Populations that include multiple, relatively discrete areas each 

capable of sustaining 500 or more spawners are hypothesized to be at less overall risk 

than populations with one such spawning area.”

MaSAs within a population are those that the ICTRT estimates to have had the capability of supporting at 

least 500 spawners historically. MiSAs are areas estimated to have had the ability to support fewer than 

500 spawners. In the SEWMU, this Plan recognizes MiSAs as having had the historical ability to support 

between approximately 50 and 500 spawners.

For spring/summer Chinook, the total area of stream habitat constituting a MaSA is defined as greater 

than or equal to 100,000 m2. A MaSA for steelhead is greater than or equal to 250,000 m2. The number 

and spatial arrangement of the MaSAs present in a subbasin impact the extinction risk for each fish 

population. The higher the number of MaSAs present, the lower the risk of population extinction. 

Extinction risk is reduced further if the MaSAs are not connected ―in series‖ (with one MaSA located 

directly upstream of another), thereby reducing risks associated with catastrophic floods or other events 

that affect everything downstream.

It is important to note that the SR RTT prioritizes habitat projects based on MaSA and MiSA designations 

and based on local knowledge, has reassigned, or provided greater detail than the ICTRT did when 
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 97

designating the major and minor spawning areas. For the ICTRT, the exact designations do not factor 

into risk extinction to a great deal, but they were more concerned with being consistent throughout the 

Columbia Basin. 

Table 3-4 lists the major and minor spawning areas for the steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon 

populations in SEWMU, and compares the designation between those assigned by the ICTRT and the 

modifications from the SR RTT. Figures 3-5 - 3-13 depicts the ICTRT designations of each MaSA and 

MiSA in the SEWMU. The summer steelhead populations include the Walla Walla River, Touchet River, 

Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, Lower Grande Ronde River, and Joseph Creek populations. The 

spring/summer Chinook populations include those in Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, and Wenaha River.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 98

Table 3-4 Major and Minor Spawning Areas within the SE Washington Recovery 

Region

DPS/ESU Population

ICTRT designated SR RTT designated

MaSA MiSA MaSA MiSA

Mid-Columbia 

Steelhead DPS

Walla Walla

Walla Walla Mud-Dry Creeks

Walla Walla River 

and tributaries, 

excluding Mill 

Creek and 

Touchet River 

watersheds 

Pine-Dry Creek, 

Dry Creek (Dixie)

Mill Creek 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Mill Creek and all 

tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters 

Pine-Dry Creeks 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Touchet

Upper Touchet 

(includes 

upstream of 

Prescott and all 

tributaries)

Middle Mainstem 

Touchet River and 

all tributaries from 

Coppei Creek to 

Patit Creek 

confluence 

exclusive of Patit 

Creek

Patit Creek

Upper Touchet 

and all tributaries 

upstream of Patit 

Creek confluence

Snake River 

Steelhead DPS Tucannon

Tucannon (from 

mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Pataha and 

Penawawa creeks

Tucannon River 

and all tributaries 

upstream of 

Pataha Creek 

(exclusive of 

Pataha Creek).

Penawawa and Alkali 

Flats creeks including 

all tributaries from 

mouth to headwaters, 

Kellog, Smith Hollow 

Creeks, and lower 

Tucannon mainstem 

below Pataha Creek,

Deadman/Meadow 

Creek and all 

tributaries from mouth 

to headwaters

Pataha Creek and 

all tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters,
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 99

DPS/ESU Population

ICTRT designated SR RTT designated

MaSA MiSA MaSA MiSA

Asotin

Asotin Creek 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Tenmile, Almota, 

Tammamay (ID), 

Steptoe, and 

Tenmile Canyon 

creeks.

Asotin Creek 

mouth to 

headwaters 

including George 

Creek

Almota, Wawawai, 

and Steptoe creeks 

including all 

tributaries from mouth 

to headwaters,

Tenmile Creek and all 

tributaries from mouth 

to headwaters

Couse Creek and all 

tributaries from mouth 

to headwaters

George Creek and 

all tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters

Alpowa Creek 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Alpowa Creek and 

all tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters

Lower Grande 

Ronde

Wenaha River, 

Mud Creek (in 

OR) 

Courtney, 

Grossman, 

Menatchee (WA), 

Bear, and Elbow 

creeks

Wenaha River 

All tributaries and 

mainstem Grande 

Ronde River 

(Cougar Creek, 

Menatchee Creek, 

Cottonwood 

Creek, Buford 

Creek, Deer 

Creek, 

Rattlesnake 

Creek, Courtney 

Creek (OR), 

Grossman Creek

(OR), Bear Creek, 

Grouse Creek, and 

Shumaker Creek, 

Crooked Creek)

Joseph Creek

Joseph Creek 

(upstream of 

confluence of 

Elk Creek), 

Swamp Creek, 

Elk Creek 

Cottonwood 

Creek, Lower 

Joseph Creek

(downstream of 

Elk Creek)

Joseph Creek and 

all tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 100

DPS/ESU Population

ICTRT designated SR RTT designated

MaSA MiSA MaSA MiSA

Snake River 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook ESU

Tucannon

Upper 

Tucannon 

(upstream of 

Pataha Creek, 

and all 

tributaries)

Tucannon River 

mainstem to 

headwaters and all 

tributaries from 

Pataha Creek to 

headwaters 

exclusive of 

Pataha Creek

Asotin 

Asotin Creek 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Asotin Creek 

mouth to 

headwaters 

including 

Wenaha

Wenaha River 

(from mouth to 

headwaters and 

all tributaries)

Wenaha River and 

all tributaries from 

mouth to 

headwaters

Butte Creek
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 101

Figure 3-5. Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook salmon major and minor 

spawning areas (Damon Holzer, NMFS, personal communication). Note: spring Chinook 

currently spawn annually in the mainstem Tucannon River from several miles above 

Willow Creek upstream to Sheep Creek, or slightly above on some large return years.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 102

Figure 3-6. Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon major and minor spawning 

areas (Damon Holzer, NMFS, personal communication - this population is considered 

functionally extinct). Note that spring Chinook currently only spawn above Charlie Creek 

and in the North Fork.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 103

Figure 3-7. Wenaha River spring/summer Chinook salmon major and minor spawning 

areas (Damon Holzer, NMFS, personal communication). Note: that spring Chinook 

currently spawn annually in NF Wenaha to just above the state line, plus Butte Creek has 

annual spring Chinook spawning from the mouth up to at least confluence of E and W 

Butte creeks.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 104

Figure 3-8. Walla Wall steelhead major and minor spawning areas (Damon Holzer, 

NMFS, personal communication). Note that steelhead have been documented spawning 

in Walla Walla River above Mill Creek, in Mill Creek and Blue Creek, upper Dry Creek (in 

WA) , Cottonwood Cr, Yellowhawk Creek, plus in the Oregon portions of the basin. Some 

spawning is likely in mainstem Walla Walla between upper Dry Creek (in WA) and Mill Cr.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 105

Figure 3-9. Touchet River steelhead major and minor spawning areas (Damon Holzer, 

NMFS, personal communication). Note steelhead spawning has been documented in 

recent years in Touchet River upstream of Coppei Creek, in Coppei Cr, in Whiskey Cr, 

upper Patit Cr, and the Touchet River and tributaries upstream of Dayton. Some 

spawning is likely between Prescott and Coppei Cr, at least some years.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 106

Figure 3-10. Tucannon River steelhead major and minor spawning areas (Damon Holzer, 

NMFS, personal communication). Steelhead are known to spawn in mainstem Tucannon 

River from near the mouth upstream to beyond Panjab Creek (and into its tributaries), in 

Cummings Creek and Little Tucannon River (recent), and suspected in Tumalum Creek. 

Steelhead are known to spawn in upper parts of Pataha Creek, and in Penawawa Cr and 

Deadman Cr. They are suspected to spawn in Alkali Flat Cr.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 107

Figure 3-11. Asotin Creek steelhead major and minor spawning areas (Damon Holzer, 

NMFS, personal communication). Steelhead have been recently documented spawning 

in Almota Creek, Wawawai Cr, Knoxway Canyon?, Alpowa Cr, Tenmile and Couse 

creeks, and Asotin Creek and its tributaries (George Cr, Pintler Cr, Charley Cr, SF and NF 

Asotin Creeks.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 108

Figure 3-12. Joseph Creek steelhead major and minor spawning areas (Damon Holzer, 

NMFS, personal communication). Steelhead are suspected of spawning in lower Joseph 

and Cottonwood creeks within WA.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 109

Figure 3-13. Grand Ronde Lower Mainstem steelhead major and minor spawning areas

(Damon Holzer, NMFS, personal communication). Steelhead are documented to spawn in 

Rattlesnake Cr and Cottonwood Cr, and suspected to spawn in Cougar Cr, lower 

Menatchee Cr, Bear Cr, Buford Cr, and Grouse Cr. They may spawn in Shumaker Cr and 

several tributaries to the Wenaha River (particularly Crooked Creek).
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 110

3.4 GENERAL LIFE HISTORY OF SALMONIDS

Anadromous Pacific salmonids share similar life histories, although each species has developed its own 

variations and geographic preferences, which allow them to coexist in the same general environment. 

Salmon and steelhead hatch and rear in freshwater streams and lakes5, but migrate to the ocean to grow 

and mature. Anadromous salmonids typically remain in or near their natal stream during rearing and feed 

primarily on aquatic invertebrates such as stoneflies and mayflies. The length of time juvenile fish remain 

in freshwater streams before migrating to the ocean (outmigrating) varies with species and population. 

For example, some Chinook salmon emigrate shortly after the yolk sac is absorbed (Myers et al. 1998), 

while steelhead may reside in their natal stream for up to 7 years (Peven et al. 1994). Migration timing 

appears to be influenced by several factors including distance to the marine environment, stream stability, 

stream flow and temperature regimes, stream productivity, moon phase, and general weather conditions 

(Myers et al. 1998, Cheng and Gallinat 2004). Prior to outmigrating, juvenile salmonids undergo 

physiological and morphological changes that prepare them for the transition from a freshwater to a 

marine existence. This adaptation, known as ―smoltification,‖ is the most significant process in the 

juvenile phase of an anadromous salmonid‘s life history. Once in the ocean, salmon feed primarily on 

crustaceans and other species of fish. They grow rapidly and generally attain peak size prior to re-entering 

freshwater. The length of ocean residence varies by species, but generally ranges from 1 to 4 years.

Anadromous salmonids complete their life cycle by returning to their natal streams to spawn. The timing 

of re-entry into freshwater varies widely both among and within species; anadromous salmonids can be 

found migrating in mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers during all months of the year. However, 

seasonal peaks in migration, referred to as ―runs‖ or ―races‖, have been identified and are used to 

differentiate between members of the same species within the same geographic area, e.g., spring/summer 

and fall Chinook salmon (Sections 3.3 and 3.4). If flow and temperature conditions are suitable, returning 

adults typically will hold in their natal stream until they are ready to spawn. If conditions in their natal 

stream are unsuitable, fish will hold in a nearby river, delaying entry until flows increase and/or 

temperatures decrease. Adult Pacific salmon generally do not feed during migration and spawning.

All Pacific salmonids spawn in cold, flowing water with high levels of dissolved oxygen. Generally, they 

prefer pool ―tail-outs‖ with clean gravel and cobble substrates. Snake River Chinook spawn in the fall 

and steelhead spawn in the late winter and spring. With the exception of bull trout (Section 3.7) and a 

small percentage of steelhead (Section 3.6), all Pacific salmon die shortly after spawning.

Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life-history strategies. Resident bull trout complete their 

entire life-cycle in the tributary streams in which they spawn. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary 

streams where juvenile fish rear for one to four years before migrating either into a lake (adfluvial form) 

or river (fluvial form) and returning upstream to spawn in natal waters. In coastal streams (outside the 

recovery region), some bull trout may migrate into salt water (anadromous form) (USFWS 2002a).

Salmon and bull trout require good water quality, high concentrations of dissolved oxygen, cool or cold 

water temperatures, sufficient flows, stable stream channels, clean spawning gravels, diverse instream and 

riparian habitat, a sufficient and diverse food supply, access to spawning and rearing habitat, and barrier-

 

5 Note that no salmon or steelhead rear in lakes within the SEWMU.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 111

free migration corridors. Each of these factors is essential to the health and survival of individual fish and 

the population as a whole (CDFG 2002).

3.4.1 Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

3.4.1.1 Life History

Chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake basins are divided into spring, summer, and fall runs based 

on their migration timing. Spring/summer Chinook salmon generally pass Bonneville Dam from March 

through May. Summer Chinook salmon begin their freshwater journey a few months later; generally 

passing Bonneville Dam during June and July, with fall Chinook salmon following during August, 

September, and October (Matthews and Waples 1991). Other than variations in run-timing, spring and 

summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin exhibit similar life history characteristics and will be 

referred to in this document as ―spring/summer Chinook‖. NMFS also considers these two groups as one 

ESU; for recovery to occur under the ESA, both forms must meet recovery requirements.

Differences between the runs or races, are evident in juvenile outmigration characteristics. In the Snake 

River Basin, spring/summer Chinook salmon emigrate to the ocean as yearling smolts from March 

through June, while fall Chinook salmon generally emigrate as subyearlings from July through August, 

but some are observed migrating as late as the fall (Matthews and Waples 1991). These variations are 

used to classify Chinook salmon as ―stream-type‖ and ―ocean-type‖ respectively. Ocean-type fish 

emigrate as subyearlings, whereas stream-type fish spend an additional year (occasionally more) in fresh 

water before outmigration. Stream-type Chinook salmon predominate in colder latitudes and higher 

elevations, and ocean-type fish are more common in warmer areas, usually associated with larger stream 

systems. In general, Snake River fall Chinook salmon are ocean-type, although recent studies have shown 

that some fish overwinter in Snake River reservoirs and emigrate the following spring as yearlings 

(Connor et al. 2005).

The final differentiation between the Chinook salmon runs is in terms of preferred spawning habitat. In 

the Snake River Basin, spring/summer Chinook salmon use medium-sized streams at relatively high 

elevations. Fall Chinook salmon prefer large, low elevation rivers such as the lower mainstem Grande 

Ronde, Tucannon and mainstem Snake. Due to these distinct spawning habitat preferences, individual 

stream reaches typically support spawning by either fall or spring/summer Chinook salmon, and therefore 

produce either ocean-type or stream-type juveniles. In streams where both spring and summer Chinook 

salmon co-exist, spring Chinook salmon generally spawn earlier and in the upper portions of available 

spawning habitat, whereas summer Chinook salmon spawn later and in lower reaches. The earlier 

spawning timing for spring Chinook salmon is thought to be an adaptive trait acquired in response to the 

extended incubation period required in colder water (Matthews and Waples 1991).

Adult spring/summer Chinook salmon spawners typically enter Asotin Creek and the Tucannon, Walla 

Walla, and Grande Ronde rivers from late April through late June or early July. Adults move upstream to 

areas with adequate flow and sufficiently cool water to hold until spawning. Spawning lasts from late mid 

August (in the Wenaha Basin) to the end of September, with a peak in early to mid-September in the 

Tucannon River. By early October, all spawners have died (ACCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & 

WWWC 2004).

Most natural-origin Tucannon spring/summer Chinook salmon spawn at age 4 (~68 percent) or age 5 (~28 

percent); however, a small percentage (~4 percent) may spawn at age 3 (Gallinat and Ross 2009). While 
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 112

age 6 spawners do exist, they are rarely documented (CCD 2004). The age composition of hatchery-origin 

adults is younger, where about 67% are age 4, 23% are age 3, and 10% are age 5 (Gallinat and Ross 

2009). The age composition of spring/summer Chinook salmon spawners in Asotin Creek and the Walla 

Walla and Wenaha rivers are similar to that of spawners in the Tucannon River (ACCD 2004, WWWPU 

& WWWC 2004, and ODFW file data for Wenaha R).

As discussed previously, juvenile spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin rear in or 

near their natal stream for approximately one year and are therefore classified as stream-type Chinook 

salmon (CCD 2004, Behnke 2002). The outmigration is generally bimodal; with one mode occurring in 

the fall, and the other peak from March through May (ACCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & WWWC 

2004). Numerous factors affect outmigration timing including water temperature, spring ―freshets‖, and 

flow (Cheng and Gallinat 2004).

Once in the ocean, Chinook salmon grow rapidly as a result of a rich diet composed primarily of fish and 

crustaceans. Spring/summer Chinook salmon remain in the ocean for one to three (rarely four; primarily 

two) years before maturing sexually and returning to freshwater (Behnke 2002). 

3.4.1.2 Habitat Usage

Habitat within the Snake River basin is different from that found in other areas inhabited by Chinook 

salmon. For example, Snake River basin Chinook salmon migrate up to 900 miles from the ocean (farther 

than most Chinook populations in the world) and the Snake River flows through terrain that is typically 

warmer and drier than other ecoregions containing Chinook salmon. The Tucannon spring Chinook 

population spawns at lower elevations than other Snake Basin spring Chinook. This warmer climate, 

combined with highly erodible soils, in southeast WA produces a river system that is warmer, more 

turbid, and has higher alkalinity, than most systems in the species' range.

Table 3-5 shows the habitat preferences for spring/summer Chinook salmon during various life stages.

Table 3-5 Habitat Preferences for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

Life Stage

General Area 

Found Channel Units Flow Velocity Depth

Temperature 

Range Substrate

Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon 

Rearing

Mainstem 

reaches with 

suitable habitat 

conditions. 

Typically not 

found in 

tributaries.

Edge habitat 

along the main 

channel with a 

variety of cover 

types

Slow but 

flowing Max of 4 feet

53°F - 60°F 

(max of 77°F 

for short 

periods)

Variable

Pre-spawn 

Holding

Deep holes

Log jams Variable

Min of 5 feet 

(Min of 3 feet 

if significant 

cover 

available)

53°F - 60°F 

(max of 77°F 

for short 

periods)

Variable

Spawning Pool or glide 

tail-outs Min of 3 ft/sec 20-36 inches

42°F - 51°F 

(max of 

60.8°F)

1 to 4 inches

Source: USACE 2004a.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 113

Chinook salmon spawn in areas with generally stable substrates so that shifting gravel and cobbles do not 

damage eggs. Since salmon spawn in the fall and their offspring don‘t emerge from the gravel until the 

following spring, streambed stability is critical for survival. Juveniles rear in areas with a variety of cover 

types that provide protection. Smolts are found primarily in mid-channel in water of varying velocities; 

they usually outmigrate at night to avoid predators. Adults returning to spawn are found in areas with 

complex habitat features which offer protection from predators. More specific information about habitat 

attributes of individual streams may be found in the Asotin, Tucannon, Lower Snake River, Grande 

Ronde and Walla Walla subbasin plans (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & WWWC 

2004).

3.4.1.3 Historical Populations

Information about historical Chinook distribution in the Washington portion of the Snake River ESU is 

limited. However, anecdotal accounts suggest that spring and/or summer Chinook salmon spawned in 

virtually all accessible and suitable habitats in the Snake River basin (Matthews and Waples 1991). 

Because habitat use and migration currently are limited by culverts, dams, seasonally dewatered stream 

reaches, and unsuitable water quality in some areas, it is likely that historic distribution exceeded current 

distribution. Historical abundance of spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin may have 

exceeded 1.5 million adults during the 19th century (ACCD 2004, CCD 2004). 

Information on the historical distribution and abundance of Tucannon spring/summer Chinook is not 

available, although the Tucannon Subbasin Plan (CCD 2004) cites an estimate of 30,000 adult spawners 

in the Tucannon River prior to 1916 and approximately 5,000 in the 1950s. 

3.4.2 Steelhead Trout

3.4.2.1 Life history

Steelhead in the SEWMU are classified as summer steelhead, which enter freshwater in a sexually 

immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn. Snake River summer steelhead are 

further subdivided into ―A-run‖ and ―B-run‖ fish. A-run steelhead begin migrating up the Columbia River 

from June to August, generally passing Bonneville Dam by August 25 and Lower Monumental Dam 

between June and the following spring (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & WWWC 

2004). Adult B-run steelhead enter freshwater from late August to October and are an average of 3 to 4 

inches larger than A-run fish of the same age, due primarily to a longer residence time in the ocean (CCD 

2004). The majority of steelhead within the Snake River basin exhibit A-run characteristics, and aside 

from a few B-run fish that might enter some tributaries within the SEWMU, they are primarily native to 

the Clearwater and Salmon River basins in Idaho.

Low water conditions and warm temperatures in smaller streams and rivers within the SEWMU during 

summer and fall usually cause returning adults to hold in the Snake River or Columbia River until 

conditions are right to allow entry into their natal streams (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, 

WWWPU & WWWC 2004). In larger tributaries such as the Tucannon, Walla Walla, and Grande Ronde 

rivers, adults begin to enter as early as June or early July; most enter during fall through spring (CCD 

2004, WWWPU & WWWC 2004). In Asotin Creek, peak entry occurs from February through April 

(Mayer et al. 2010). Spawning begins as early as February, lasting until May with a peak in early to midApril (ACCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & WWWC 2004).
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 114

The majority of Snake River basin steelhead return to spawn after one year in the ocean. Monitoring has 

shown that slightly more fish spend one year in the ocean. Between 2000-2008 in the Tucannon and 

1994-2008 in the Touchet, Bumgarner and Dedloff (2009) documented 49.5% (Tucannon River) and 

56.6% (Touchet River) of the fish sampled had spent one year in the ocean. The rest of the fish sampled 

were two-ocean age fish. In some return years two-ocean steelhead predominate.

Steelhead differ from other members of the genus Oncorhynchus in that individuals may spawn more than 

once, although the majority of individuals die after spawning the first time. Between 2000 and 2008, less 

than one percent of Tucannon River summer steelhead were repeat spawners (Bumgarner and Dedloff 

2009). Mayer et al. (2005, 2006, 2010) and Mayer and Schuck (2009) found that between 0.4% and 2.9% 

of the adult natural-origin steelhead sampled in Asotin Creek are repeat spawners, and all repeat spawners 

were female. In the Walla Walla and Touchet rivers, repeat spawners can comprise up to 5-8% of the 

spawning population (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009, and Mahoney et al. 2009). 

Juveniles emerge from spawning gravels in late May or June and typically rear in or near their natal 

stream for one to four years before outmigrating (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009). The majority of fish in 

the Tucannon and Touchet rivers spend two years in freshwater prior to migrating to the ocean, while 

Mayer et al. (2010) showed the same general pattern in Asotin Creek. Bumgarner and Dedloff (2009) 

found the following age structure:

Freshwater age Tucannon River Touchet River

Age 1 15.2% 6.2%

Age 2 76.3% 78.7%

Age 3 7.5% 14.6%

Age 4 0.4%

Outmigration occurs primarily from February through June (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, 

WWWPU & WWWC 2004), with a peak in most portions of the basin in April (ACCD 2004). Numerous 

factors affect outmigration timing including water temperature, spring ―freshets‖, flow, and moon phase.

Relationship of Steelhead DPS to Resident O. mykiss

The impact of an interbreeding rainbow trout population on the viability of a steelhead population has not 

been determined. ―Steelhead‖ is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of the species 

Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common names of the non-anadromous form are rainbow trout and redband 

trout (interior populations). When NMFS originally listed the Snake River steelhead as threatened on 

August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), 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 Snake 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, although WDFW manages them similarly regarding habitat needs and fishing regulations in the 

anadromous zones of the SEWMU.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 115

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 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). The co-managers and other stakeholders may identify 

research and monitoring needs to better understand the status and trends of resident rainbow trout in order 

to address these data gaps within the SEWMU.

3.4.2.2 Habitat Conditions and Usage

Habitat conditions in the Snake River basin differ from those found in other regions inhabited by 

steelhead. For example, the Snake River basin contains suitable spawning habitat at elevations higher than 

those seen in other areas (up to 6,000 feet) and the Snake River flows through terrain that is typically 

warmer and drier than other areas containing steelhead. This warmer climate, combined with highly 

erodible soils, produces a river system that is warmer, more turbid, and has higher pH and alkalinity, than 

most systems in the species' range. Smaller streams in the SEWMU also have irregular stream flows. This 

is particularly true during spring and summer, when highly variable flows create dewatering and rewatering issues during critical life history stages, such as spawning and egg incubation (G. Mendel, 

WDFW, personal communication).

Steelhead prefer different habitats during each life history stage as shown on Table 3-6 (CDFG 2002, 

USACE 2004a).

Table 3-6. Habitat Preferences for steelhead.

Life Stage

General Area 

Found Channel Units Flow Velocity Depth

Temperature 

Range Substrate

Steelhead 

Rearing

Tributaries and 

mainstem, 

depending on 

age and time of 

year.

Edges and 

pocket water of 

main channel 

flow (protected 

areas behind 

large boulders)

Variable Variable

53°F - 64°F 

(max of 77°F 

for short 

periods)

Variable

Pre-spawn 

Holding

Tributaries and 

mainstem Pool-like runs Variable 2-6 feet

53°F - 64°F 

(max of 77°F 

for short 

periods)

Variable

Spawning

Primarily in 

small 

tributaries and 

side channels. 

Tail of pool, 

long runs, and 

in areas of 

spring 

upwelling

Variable 1-2 feet 50°F - 60°F 1 to 3 inches

Source: USACE 2004a.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 116

Steelhead are particularly effective at accessing stream reaches with suitable habitat and generally use all 

accessible reaches within the Snake River basin with suitable temperatures and flow (G. Mendel, WDFW, 

personal communication, May 2004). However, distribution is limited seasonally due to dewatering, 

degraded habitat quality, and migration barriers (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & 

WWWC 2004).

G. Mendel (WDFW, personal communication, May 2004) states that many of the smaller systems in the 

basin suffer from a substantial lack of water due to a combination of natural and manmade causes. 

Reaches within many of these small streams are dewatered during portions of the year and others are too 

warm for steelhead during summer and fall months (ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & 

WWWC 2004). Pintler, George, and Tenmile creeks are examples of creeks that contain reaches that are 

periodically or completely dewatered during portions of the year. Dewatered sections are serious barriers 

to fish passage and greatly reduce the amount of habitat available to steelhead throughout the year. 

Although most of the passage barriers are not complete impediments, they often limit juvenile and adult 

migration and maximum distribution to periods of high flow. This is particularly detrimental during 

summer and early fall when significant reaches are dewatered, thereby rendering them unavailable for 

juvenile rearing and limiting the carrying capacity of the system (ACCD 2004). It is important to note 

that the SRSRB has focused habitat restoration efforts over the last 10 years to ameliorate some of the 

problems discussed in this paragraph, with much success in some areas. The SRSRB will continue to 

focus on fixing these types of threats in the future.

3.4.2.3 Historical Populations

Data regarding historical steelhead distribution in the Washington portion of the Snake River DPS are 

limited. However, because habitat use and migration currently are limited in some areas by culverts, 

dams, seasonally dewatered stream reaches, and unsuitable water quality or habitat, it is likely that 

historic distribution significantly exceeded current distribution.

The limited data available regarding historic abundance clearly indicate that run sizes were significantly 

greater prior to the 20th century (WWWPU & WWWC 2004). Dams, harvest, and land management 

practices including timber harvest, road construction, agriculture, and urban development, have severely 

depleted anadromous salmonid stocks in the region. For example, historical estimates place Tucannon 

River adult escapement prior to 1970 at 3 percent (approximately 3,400 adults) of the Snake River basin‘s 

total steelhead return (CCD 2004). 

3.4.3 Bull Trout

3.4.3.1 Life History

Bull trout are categorized as either resident or migratory. Stream-resident bull trout complete their entire 

life cycle in their natal streams. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where the juveniles 

usually spend from one to four years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial) or lake (adfluvial) 

where they rear before returning to the headwater tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989). 

Adfluvial bull trout are generally larger than their fluvial counterparts which, in turn, are larger than 

resident forms. Migratory forms occur where conditions allow movement from spawning locations to 

downstream waters that provide greater foraging opportunities and more temperate conditions during 

winter (Hemmingsen et al. 2002, Faler at al. 2004). They return to their natal streams as a refuge from 

warm summer temperatures and to spawn. Resident and migratory forms may occur together and either 

form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 117

Bull trout prefer stream reaches with cold water and loose clean gravel for spawning, which begins in late 

August and continues through the first part of October (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Although emergence 

typically takes place in the spring, it may occur as late as August in some cold-water headwater areas. 

Thus, bull trout eggs or fry may be in the gravels at any time of the year (Saul et al. 2001). In addition, 

juvenile bull trout are typically found near or within the stream bottom (Buchanan et al. 1997). This yearround reliance on the streambed makes bull trout more susceptible than other salmonids to the effects of 

sedimentation and channel instability, and the SRSRB has begun to focus on restoration problems with an 

understanding of these issues. 

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat components that 

influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and 

stability, substrate for spawning and rearing, and migratory corridors. Bull trout are found in colder

streams and require colder water than most other salmonids for incubation, juvenile rearing, and 

spawning. Spawning and rearing areas are often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater 

infiltration, and/or the coldest streams in a watershed (USFWS 2002a).

3.4.3.2 Historical Distribution and Populations

Data describing the historic distribution of bull trout throughout the Washington portions of the Snake 

and Grande Ronde rivers and the Umatilla-Walla Walla recovery units are limited. Observations indicate 

that mainstem reaches and many tributaries within the Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, Walla Walla, 

Touchet and Grande Ronde watersheds were, or still are, used by bull trout at various life stages. Weeber 

et al. (2007), Faler et al. (2008), and Mahoney et al. (2011) found that bull trout from tributaries in the 

Walla Walla River, Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, and Asotin Creek watersheds migrate into the 

mainstem Snake River (Columbia River from the Walla Walla River), presumably to forage and 

overwinter.

No data exist regarding historic distribution of bull trout in any of the subbasins listed above. The Snake 

River Washington Bull Trout Management Unit Team believes that before the habitat was significantly 

modified, fluvial bull trout from both the Tucannon River and Asotin Creek migrated into the Snake 

River to forage and overwinter (G. Mendel, WDFW, personal communication). WDFW suspects that bull 

trout were likely present, at least during the winter and spring, in George Creek, Charley Creek, and the 

North and South Forks of Asotin Creek and some of their major tributaries, as well as in the Asotin Creek 

mainstem. 

Migrations between the Touchet and Walla Walla systems may have occurred prior to the mid- to late 

1800s (WDFW 1998). Fluvial bull trout were likely present prior to the arrival of pioneers and probably 

moved freely throughout the Walla Walla and Touchet systems (WDFW 1998). Radiotelemetry data and 

other evidence reported by Baxter (2002) indicate that migratory bull trout also exist in the Wenaha and 

migrate into the Grande Ronde rivers, and some may use use the Snake River for foraging and 

overwintering.
Chapter 3: Biological Background

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 118

3.4.3.3 Habitat Usage

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other trout and salmon (Rieman and McIntyre 

1993). These habitat requirements include a diverse range of cover types, low turbidity, and water 

temperatures colder than those generally found in the lower reaches of southeastern Washington 

watersheds. Table 3-7 shows bull trout habitat preferences for different life stages.

Table 3-7 Bull Trout Habitat Preferences by Life Stage

Life Stage General Area Found Channel Units Flow Velocity Depth

Temperature 

Range Substrate

Rearing

Complex cover areas that 

provide dark shaded areas 

such as large wood debris, 

undercut stream banks, 

boulders, etc.

Edge habitat and 

log jams

Pockets of slow 

water within swift 

stream flow

Variable

44°F to 47°F 

and above 56°F 

is a limit

Variable

Adult Resident Swiftly flowing 2-ft to 4-ft 

44°F to 47°F 

and above 56°F 

is a limit

Variable

Spawning

Only in headwaters and 

tributaries. Low gradient 

stream reaches with loose, 

clean gravel.

Pool or glide 

tail-outs Variable To 2.6-ft 40 to 46°F 1-in to 2-in

Rieman and McIntyre 1993.

Research indicates that water temperature influences bull trout distribution more consistently than any 

other factor (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Temperatures in excess of 15°C (approximately 60°F) are 

thought to limit bull trout distribution (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993); however, 

field studies indicate that even colder temperatures (less than 12°C [~54°F]) are required for bull trout 

populations to effectively compete with other species (Haas 2001). Even colder temperatures are required 

for spawning (5-9°C [41-48.2°F]), rearing (7-8°C [44.6-46.4°F]), and egg incubation (2-4°C [35.6-

39.2°F]) (Goetz 1989). These thermal limitations generally restrict bull trout to the upper reaches of a 

watershed.

Bull trout also are extremely sensitive to competition from, and hybridization with, introduced, non-native 

species such as brook trout. However, in some areas with suitable temperature regimes, bull trout 

successfully co-exist with native species such as cutthroat trout (O. clarki ssp.) and resident and 

anadromous rainbow trout (O. mykiss ssp.) (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). In addition, bull trout are 

considered easier to catch than most salmonids because of their aggressive nature, and therefore are more 

susceptible to overharvest from sport fishing.

Because of their specific habitat requirements, bull trout are particularly susceptible to habitat 

degradation, such as altered flow regimes, impaired water quality, and physical habitat modifications. 

Examples of human activities responsible for these modifications include timber harvest, livestock 

grazing, irrigated agriculture, road development, mining, and urban development.
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 119

4 RECOVERY AND RESTORATION GOALS AND DELISTING CRITERIA

4.1 SALMON AND STEELHEAD

In this chapter we describe in greater detail the recovery and restoration goals in the SEWMU and the 

delisting criteria NMFS will use in future reviews of the SEWMU populations (as part of the larger ESUs 

and DPSs). The recovery goals that are incorporated into a locally developed recovery plan may include 

delisting and other ―broad sense‖ goals - in the SEWMU, the broad sense goals are known as ―restoration 

goals.‖ The delisting criteria are a NMFS determination and may include both technical and policy 

considerations. Delisting criteria must meet the ESA requirements, while restoration may be defined more 

broadly. Broad sense 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. Recovery scenarios are combinations of viability status for individual populations 

within the ESU/DPS that will meet the ICTRT criteria for overall ESU/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 
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 120

factors detailed in the ESA (Figure 4-1). The threats criteria define the conditions under which the listing 

factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or mitigated. Together these make up the ―objective, 

measurable criteria‖ required under section 4(f)(1)(B) for the delisting decision.

Figure 4-1. NMFS listing status decision framework.

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

current understanding of the ESU/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 ESU/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 this Plan, and NMFS may review the 

criteria if appropriatee during its 5-year reviews of the ESU/DPS. 

In accordance with 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. NMFS intends to rely on status reviews of the 

species and of the threats that incorporate best available science and current information, including 

information provided by the ICTRT and salmon recovery implementers, e.g. recovery boards. Such 

evaluations will take into account the following: 

The biological recovery criteria (ICTRT 2007a) and listing factor (threats) criteria.

The management programs in place to address the threats.

Principles presented in the Viable Salmonid Populations paper (McElhany et al. 2000).
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 121

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.

4.1.1 Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT)

Beginning in the early 2000s, NMFSs‘ Northwest Fisheries Science Center convened and chaired a 

collaborative, mulit-agency Technical Recovery Team to develop recommendations on biological 

viability criteria for interior Columbia Basin ESUs/DPSs and their component populations. The purpose 

of the ICTRT was to provide scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts, and to 

provide scientific evaluations of recovery plans. The intent of establishing the ICTRT was to seek unique 

geographic and species expertise and to develop a solid scientific foundation for the recovery plans. The 

ICTRT established their own criteria, but were guided (as all TRTs were) by the viable salmonid 

population (VSP) parameters (McElhany et al. 2000; see below for further discussion on VSP). 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, 71 FR 26052, and 72 FR 57303).

The ICTRT defined the status of a salmonid ESU or DPS expressed in terms of likelihood of persistence 

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 ESU/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 overall risk level.

4.2 BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY CRITERIA

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). 

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

(population growth rate), spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally self-sustaining, 

with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year time period. Each TRT made recommendations 

using the VSP framework, based on data availability, the unique biological characteristics of the 

ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, and the members‘ collective experience and expertise. Although 

NMFS has encouraged the TRTs to develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and 

identifying factors limiting recovery, all the TRTs are working from a common scientific foundation. 

Viability criteria are an important part of recovery goals.

1 The ESA, under Section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of 

threatened and endangered species at least once every five years. After completing this review, the Secretary must 
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 122

determine if any species should be: (1) removed from the list; (2) have its status changed from threatened to 

endangered; or (3) have its status changed from endangered to threatened. The most recent listing determinations for 

salmon and steelhead occurred in 2006 and 2011.

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

Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs (ICTRT 2007a). The ICTRT calculated varying levels of risk of 

extinction and related the risk levels to their criteria. An evaluation of the status of all Columbia basin 

salmonids is in the process of being updated through the required 5-year updates.

The following defines the VSP parameters:

Abundance is the number of fish produced by natural processes that have spent their entire life cycle in 

nature (i.e., natural-origin fish). This is often referred to as gravel-to-gravel survival or fish originating 

from naturally spawning parents that hatch in a stream‘s gravel and that survive to spawn naturally 

themselves years later. 

Productivity is a measure of reproductive effectiveness at the population level. Typically it is stated as 

the number of adult offspring (recruits; which adds the number of adults harvested or taken for 

broodstock to the number actually arriving on the spawning grounds – this primarily applies to salmon as 

there is no recreational harvest of wild steelhead) produced per parent (spawner). In its most basic form it 

is calculated by dividing the total number of spawners in any year into the number of adult recruits that 

are subsequently produced by these spawners. Although it is used as an indicator of population health 

and resilience, it is only appropriate to do so if it has been standardized for two very strong confounding 

effects: 1) yearly variations in survival rates (e.g. marine conditions), and 2) yearly variations in the 

density of spawners relative to habitat capacity. Once a means is developed to standardize for these two 

confounding effects, values obtained for population productivity are indicative of a population‘s 

resilience and likelihood of persistence. A population with a low standardized productivity is at greater 

extinction risk than one with a high standardized productivity. 

Spatial structure is the range or distribution of wild fish within a population‘s habitat range. Any viability 

evaluation must consider spatial structure within a population (or group of populations) because spatial 

structure affects extinction risk (McElhany et al. 2000). 

Diversity refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations of salmon and steelhead. These 

traits include anadromy, morphology, fecundity, run timing, spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at 

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

molecular genetic characteristics. A combination of genetic and environmental factors largely causes 

phenotypic diversity. Variation or diversity in these and other traits is important to viability because a) it 

allows fish to take advantage of a wider array of environments; b) it spreads the risk (e.g., different ocean 

distribution patterns mean not all fish are at risk from local or regional varying ocean conditions); and c) 

genetic diversity allows fish to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Habitat, harvest, and hatchery 

factors can all affect diversity. In the case of hatchery programs, gene flow influences patterns of diversity 

within and among salmon and steelhead populations. 
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 123

4.2.1 ESU/DPS Viability Criterion 

Since major population groups (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 ESU/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/DPS 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/DPS 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 longterm evolutionary potential for adaptation to changing conditions (ICTRT 2007a).

4.2.2 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 4-2). 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 MPG- level 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).
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 124

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 4-2. 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 ESU/DPS would result 

in sustainable production across a substantial range of environmental conditions. This distribution would 

preserve a high level of diversity within the ESU/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).

4.2.3 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 and Chinook salmon 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).
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 125

The ICTRT categorized historical population sizes as Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large, and set 

minimum abundance thresholds for viable salmonid populations of each type (Table 4-1). The abundance 

thresholds are associated with minimum productivity thresholds, based on modeling studies described in 

ICTRT 2007a and 2007b. Abundance and productivity are linked, within limits; above a certain threshold, 

higher productivity can compensate for lower abundance and vice versa. 

Of the nine SEWMU populations (including the Asotin spring/summer Chinook salmon functionally 

extinct)2three are categorized as Basic, and six as Intermediate. No populations are classified as, Large 

or as Very Large (ICTRT 2007a). Table 4-1 shows the minimum abundance and productivity thresholds 

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

4.2.3.1 Abundance and productivity

The ICTRT defined abundance and productivity criteria for SEWMU 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 (Table 4-1). 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 (or, in the case of 

Tucannon spring/summer Chinook salmon, < 1% risk6). Abundance thresholds are 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 

2,250 for population sizes of Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very Large, respectively.

 

2 A functionally extinct population has so few remaining fish that there are not enough fish or habitat in suitable 

condition to support a fully functional population. Because the Lower Snake River Chinook salmon MPG consists of 

the Tucannon and Asotin Creek populations and Asotin Creek is functionally extinct, the ICTRT suggests that the 

for the MPG to be viable, the Tucannon needs to meet high viability criteria.
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 126

Table 4-1. Abundance and Productivity Thresholds (ICTRT 2007a) for populations 

within the Southeast Washington Management Unit (some MPGs have more populations 

than listed within the table)

Major Population 

Grouping SEWMU Population

Population

Size

Minimum 

Abundance 

Threshold

Productivity

Threshold

Lower Snake River 

spring/summer 

Chinook

Tucannon River Intermediate 750 2.10a

Asotin Creek (functionally 

extinct) Basic 500 1.90b

Grande 

Ronde/Imnaha

spring/summer 

Chinook

Wenaha Intermediate 750 1.76

Umatilla / Walla 

Walla Rivers 

steelhead

Walla Walla R. Intermediate 1000 1.35

Touchet R. Intermediate 1000 1.35

Lower Snake River 

steelhead

Tucannon R. Intermediate 1000 1.20

Asotin Cr. Basic 500 1.20

Grande Ronde

steelhead

Lower Grande Ronde. Intermediate 1000 1.14

Joseph Cr. Basic 500 1.27

a Because the Lower Snake River spring/summer Chinook MPG consists of only two populations, and that the Asotin is 

considered functionally extinct, the ICTRT recommends that the Tucannon spring/summer Chinook population should 

be at a ―Very Low Risk‖ level of abundance and productivity (< 1%) for the MPG to meet delisting criteria. 

b The ICTRT considers the Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon population to be functionally extinct.

4.2.3.2 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).
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 127

4.3 BULL TROUT

Recovery goals and metrics for bull trout are similar, but not the same as for steelhead and Chinook. The 

USFWS, which has regulatory authority for bull trout, developed a goal and objectives for bull trout 

recovery throughout its range (USFWS 2002a). The goal for all populations is:

. . . ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups (or 

multiple local populations that may have overlapping spawning and rearing areas) of 

bull trout distributed across the species' native range. 

The USFWS recognized that recovery of bull trout will also require reducing threats to the long-term 

persistence of populations, maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the 

diverse habitats of their native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history strategies (e.g., 

resident or migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat adaptations).

To recover bull trout, the USFWS identified four objectives:

Maintain current distribution of bull trout within core areas as described in recovery unit chapters 

and restore distribution where recommended in recovery unit chapters.

Maintain stable or increasing trend in abundance of bull trout.

Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies.

Conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange.

Specific recovery criteria for each bull trout core area is identified below.

4.4 RESTORATION GOALS

As stated in section 1.1 of the Introduction, the primary purpose of this recovery plan is to present 

implementable actions that can lead to the de-listing of populations of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout 

within the SEWMU. This recovery plan adopts the ICTRT minimum abundance thresholds as de-listing 

goals. However, the recovery board and regional fish managers are clearly interested in more than delisting. The ultimate goal of the fish restoration effort is to create conditions allowing the establishment of 

salmonid populations that are both viable, harvestable, and of sufficient abundance to meet other socioeconomic goals. Thus, de-listing salmonid populations is the first step on the road to restoring populations 

within the SEWMU.

The restoration goals summarized in Table 4-2 are aimed at achieving healthy, sustainable and 

harvestable salmonid populations. The goals are expressed in terms of adult abundance and exceed the 

values needed for ESA delisting. The restoration goals in Table 4-3 were proposed in tribal recovery 

plans, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, and other documents. It is important to note that 

restoration goals, and the proportion of hatchery and naturally-produced fish that would comprise the 

goals, have not been agreed to by the fishery co-managers at this time.
Chapter 4: Recovery & Restoration Goals & Delisting Criteria

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 128

Table 4-2. Comparison between de-listing goals and restoration goals for Steelhead 

and Spring/Summer Chinook Populations within the SEWMU. Note that delisting goals 

are natural-origin only and restoration goals are hatchery- and natural-origin returning 

adults. ID = insufficient data.

Subbasin 

De-listing Goal Current Statusa Restoration Goal Source for 

Steelhead Chinook Steelhead Chinook Steelhead Chinook Restoration goals

Asotin 500 500 587 ID 2,776-3,114 500

from LSRCP , NPT goal, 

etc., and spring Chinook = 

NPT/CRITFC goal

Tucannon River 1,000 750 308 371 1,823-3,400 2,400-3,400 from LSRCP goals and 

NPT goal

Lower Grande 

Ronde Rivera

1000 ID

1,855-5,101

from NMFS 2002 goal 

and proportion in Lower 

Grande Ronde and 

CRITFC

Wenaha Riverb

750 441 NA 1,335

from LSRCP goal and 

proportion in the Wenaha 

basin

Joseph Creek 500 2,208 2,149-5,909

from NMFS Grande 

Ronde goal and 

proportion of basin in 

Joseph Creek

Touchet River 1,000 461 1,563-2,205 ?

from LSRCP goals and 

CTUIR goal

Walla Walla 

River 1,000 860 1,875-3,395

5,500 or 1,110 

NOF, and 2,750 

HOF

CTUIR goal to mouth of 

the Walla Walla R is 

5,500, but 3,850 in the 

Walla Walla River, 

excluding Touchet and 

Mill Creek

a Current status based on full data set, see Appendix B. It is important to note that the current status review was 

conducted in 2011 but reflects data only as recent as 2008 or 2009; the current, i.e., 2009 through 2011 abundace is 

higher for many of the populations.

b The Lower Grande Ronde River population includes the Wenaha River and tributaries, Mud, Courtney, Grossman, 

Menatchee, Bear, and other lower Grande Ronde tributaries, and Elbow creeks.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 129

5 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS

Historic and current human activities and governmental policies acting in concert with natural events have 

affected abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of SEWMU spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations. A brief discussion follows of factors that limit the 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, 

and bull trout in the SEWMU. It is important to the SRSRB that the reader of this recovery plan 

understand what the historical conditions were in SEWMU, and what the causes were for salmonid 

population decline, but more importantly is that the reader understand the current conditions, actions that 

have been taken to ameliorate past problems, and the actions recommended to be taken to address limiting 

factors and threats that remain.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the actions discussed in Chapter 6 and Appendix A are meant as 

recommendations to address the limiting factors and threats identified in this chapter and are not 

mandatory, nor should they be associated with any regulatory actions.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 130

5.1 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS

The habitat elements salmonids require to complete their entire life cycle and allow for the expression of 

all life history strategies were presented in Section 3.2. Salmonids require good water quality, high 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen, cool water temperatures, sufficient stream flows, relatively stable 

stream channels, clean spawning gravels, diverse instream and riparian habitat, an adequate and diverse 

food supply, access to spawning and rearing habitat, and barrier-free migration corridors. Degradation or 

elimination of any of these habitat elements will alter the viability of salmonid populations. As described 

in McElhaney et al. (2000), a population‘s viability is entirely determined by its unique combination of 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity.

Until Euro-American settlers arrived, the streams and rivers of the SEWMU were essentially relatively 

untouched.7Salmonids are assumed to have been able to exploit all suitable habitats below natural 

barriers. The streams and creeks within the SEWMU were probably fairly similar to one another. 

According to the subbasin plans, a typical stream arose in the high elevations of the Blue Mountains and 

flowed through the semi-arid lower elevations to the Grande Ronde, Snake, or the Columbia rivers, or one 

of its tributaries. In general, stream banks in the lower elevations were likely heavily covered by 

cottonwood groves and brushy vegetation. Creek channels were fragmented into intricate networks of side 

channels and sloughs by beaver dams and log jams. Scour pools, dammed pools, and pools on the outside 

of meanders are thought to have constituted at least 50 percent or more of the channels. Following the 

streams upriver, the number of beaver dams would probably have decreased as the elevation increased, 

although riparian areas would still have supported cottonwood thickets, which would have gradually 

given way to mixed conifers at the higher elevations. The presence of cottonwoods and conifers along the 

length of the creek would have assured a steady supply of woody debris to the stream course.

At the higher elevations, streams flowed through meadows interspersed throughout the mixed conifer 

forest. The meadows retained snow-melt and rain water, gradually releasing it to the stream through the 

warmer months. Peak stream flows would have been moderated by this gradual release. The stream 

structure in the higher elevations was likely quite complex due to the abundance of large woody debris. 

Fallen logs would have created step pools and temperatures would have remained relatively cool during 

the summer months due to relatively narrow channels and shading by the forest canopy. In steeper areas 

of the mountains, the stream structure would have been predominately pool/riffle with cobble/gravel 

substrates.

Although, in general, the soils in the SEWMU are prone to erosion, the periods of high suspended 

sediment and turbidity were believed to have been less numerous and shorter in duration, allowing fines 

to be flushed from the system before harming eggs, juveniles, or food organisms.

In addition to the freshwater environment, Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead must pass through 

the estuary at the mouth of the Columbia River on their way to the ocean. The estuary represents key 

habitat for juveniles who must make the critical physiological shift from a freshwater to a marine 

existence. Environmental conditions in the ocean are also critical during the first year of residency there. 

A significant portion (steelhead may spend up to 7 years in freshwater and only 1 or 2 in salt) of a 

 

7

Impacts from Native Americans inhabiting the area are considered to have been negligible because they lived preindustrial, subsistence lifestyles and because the human population was a fraction of what it is today.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 131

salmon‘s life is spent in the ocean and they accumulate most of their body mass in the marine 

environment. It is assumed that the Columbia River estuary was also unimpaired and in equilibrium with 

hydrologic and geologic processes prior to Euro-American settlement of the area.

Snake River salmon range across a vast area of the Northeast Pacific Ocean from the Columbia River to 

southeast Alaska (Healey 1991). Salmon and steelhead feed on zooplankton, herring, and sardines in the 

ocean. Salmon and steelhead populations in the ocean were subject to the same natural climatological, 

oceanographic, and geologic processes that occur today. However, prior to settlement of the west coast of 

North America by Euro-Americans, it is assumed that harvest of marine species and impairment of the 

marine environment by man was minimal.

The Columbia River Basin stream systems, prior to human development, probably carried the largest 

number of salmonids they could naturally support. Various estimates exist for the number of salmon and 

steelhead present in the Columbia River system prior to human development. The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council estimated historical abundance based on the extent of salmon habitat loss in the 

Columbia Basin (PFMC 1979). Using an assumed current abundance of between 2.5 to 3 million fish 

annually, PFMC estimated the pre-development abundance of salmon (excluding steelhead) to be around 

6 million fish.

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council used a variety of methods to estimate salmon and 

steelhead abundance including catch records and estimates of aboriginal consumption of salmon (FPC 

1986). They arrived at a range of 10 to 16 million fish annually. Chapman (1986), using records of early 

harvests and assumed harvest rates, estimated that the size of pre-development salmon and steelhead runs 

was between 7.5 and 8.8 million fish. What caused the decline of the salmonid populations within the 

recovery region? To put it as simply as possible, the cause was development by Euro-American settlers. 

Native Americans had inhabited the region for thousands of years and engaged in salmon and steelhead 

harvest. However, because the viability factors were still essentially intact, the effect of this harvest was 

likely minimal.

Since the mid-19th century, however, salmon, and steelhead numbers have dropped to their current low 

levels (e.g., average Bonneville Dam counts for all salmonids from 2005-2010 = 1,256,063 (DART)) 

despite attempts to bolster them through use of artificial production. Bull trout numbers have also 

decreased. The primary causes of this decline are the four ―Hs‖: habitat degradation within the subbasins 

and the Columbia River estuary, harvest, direct and indirect mortalities associated with the mainstem 

hydroelectric system, and various unintended impacts associated with the construction and operation of 

hatcheries.

It is important to understand that the factors limiting population viability rarely occur in isolation. 

Salmonids and their habitats have been, and continue to be, subjected to many of these factors, sometimes 

several at any one time. Some factors can produce lethal results on their own. For example, excessive 

stream temperatures can kill salmon or salmon eggs in the absence of any other negative factor. However, 

in many cases, salmon that have returned to their spawning grounds to discover excessive water 

temperatures may have already experienced impediments to migration, presence of pollutants and fines in 

the water, and low water levels, among other impacts. Each factor, if excessive, can result in mortalities; 

together at lower levels, they produce an accumulation of weakening effects and increase the effects of 

disease, which can reduce the strength of individuals and eventually, populations. Although this chapter 

discusses the factors affecting viability individually, it must be understood that Walla Walla and Lower 

Snake River salmonids are most likely to experience many of these factors, sometimes simultaneously.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 132

Because natural events can reduce abundance, productivity, spatial structure and life history diversity 

enough to threaten the long-term survival of a population, the impact of natural variation must be 

reflected in VSP criteria (McElhaney et al. 2000). This Plan will describe strategies leading to protection 

and restoration actions that are likely to increase the performance of a population to the point at which 

viability criteria are met.

5.2 GENERAL CAUSES OF SALMONID POPULATION DECLINE IN THE SEWMU

The SEWMU has experienced a variety of impacts to salmonids and salmonid habitat since the arrival of 

Euro-American settlers in the 19th century. Fur trappers were some of the first Euro-Americans to enter 

the area. The subsequent decimation of the beaver population in the 1830s and 1840s reduced an 

important source of large woody debris and pools in streams. The settlers, who began arriving in the late 

1840s and 1850s, were attracted by the agricultural possibilities and agriculture remains an important land 

use today. Logging and urbanization have also affected salmonids and their habitat, as have construction 

and operation of hydroelectric dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers or their tributaries. Harvest, which 

occurs primarily outside the SEWMU, has also affected the abundance of salmon and steelhead.

General causes of salmonid population declines include irrigation diversion dams (especially during 

historical times), hydroelectric generation, hatcheries, agriculture, logging, urbanization (including 

residential and industrial development), recreation, and harvest. Activities associated with these 

endeavors have removed riparian vegetation, increased stream water temperatures and effects of parasites 

and diseases, altered and/or dewatered stream courses, introduced pollutants into streams and wetlands, 

and blocked or impeded fish passage both up- and downstream. Fish populations have been depleted by 

over-harvest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hatcheries have introduced fish with different run 

timing and fish that prey upon or compete with non-hatchery fish. Diseases carried by hatchery fish are 

also a concern.

Although impacts from all of the factors discussed can be difficult to effectively mitigate, the SRSRB 

believes that fixing urban-induced problems is the most difficult. This is because of the large number of 

people that are affected by proposed actions and the costs associated with the actions. Throughout the 

term of the SRSRP, the SRSRB will continue to work with and encourage land use planners to develop 

policies to protect riparian and stream habitat from effects of urban and rural development.

5.2.1 Agriculture

Agriculture can negatively affect salmonid habitat in a variety of ways. Water needed for irrigating crops 

was historically diverted from streams by dams or other structures that often present partial or total 

passage barriers to adults and/or entrainment hazards to emigrating juveniles. In some cases, historic 

irrigation diversions were so large as to totally dewater downstream stream reaches; in others, the small 

quantity of water that was left in the natural stream channel is easily heated to unhealthy or near-lethal 

levels by the sun. Cropping practices in upland areas, the roads, stream crossings, and drainage systems 

that serve these areas have increased erosion rates and contributed large quantities of fine sediment to 

spawning riffles. Chemicals and pesticides used to increase crop production can enter the stream as 

pollutants harmful to fish.

Historically, grazing by livestock can negatively affect salmonid habitat in a variety of ways, such as by 

removing riparian vegetation and eliminating natural shade. The lack of shade frequently results in 

increased water temperatures. The reduced input of leaves, insects, and other organic material limits the 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 133

amount of food available to fish and their prey. Trampling of stream banks by grazing livestock can cause 

the banks to collapse, increasing the input of fine sediment. Fecal material from livestock can introduce 

excessive concentrations of nutrients which, in warm, slow-moving streams, can result in low levels of 

dissolved oxygen (eutrophication). Grazing encourages channel incision as grasses and shrubs are 

removed from the riparian zone. Channel incision causes the riparian corridor to narrow and the water 

table to recede. However, recent grazing practices have eliminated these negative effects to a large 

degree in most areas.

Conversion of bunch grass prairie to production of annual crops has led to erosion of fine sediments into 

streams and increased intensity of runoff events, and increased channel bank erosion because of the 

abrasive nature of the runoff. The sediment is deposited primarily in the lower reaches of streams. Recent 

changes in agricultural practices, such as no till/direct seed farming, are aimed at reducing soil erosion 

and improvement of precipitation filtration into the soil.

Historic construction of dikes and levees to protect cities and cropland from flooding alter stream 

conditions and remove riparian habitats (see Section 5.2.3 for more effects of dikes and levees). Lowering 

the water table negatively affects riparian vegetation because it reduces natural revegetation because 

seedling roots cannot grow deep enough to reach water and prevent the plant from dying of dehydration. 

Established trees and shrubs also can be killed by lack of water due to a lowered water table.

5.2.2 Logging

Logging can involve a number of practices harmful to salmonids and their habitats. Historically, when 

trees along stream courses are removed, the forest canopy no longer adequately shades the entire stream, 

resulting in higher water temperatures. Trees can be removed by logging or by removal for road 

construction. Logging access roads often parallel or cross streams. Improperly sized and placed stream 

crossings can fail and dramatically increase the introduction of sediment into streams as well as block fish 

passage. Runoff from roads that parallel streams may allow sediment and road oils to enter the stream. 

Removal of riparian vegetation also reduces plant and animal inputs into the stream as food sources, root 

structure that maintains bank stability, and reduces the source of large woody debris important to 

maintenance of suitable in-stream conditions. Harvest of trees can affect hydrology and stream discharge 

dynamics.

In the past, logging in the Pacific Northwest involved practices that were devastating to salmonid streams. 

For example, in some cases, streams were used to transport logs to larger rivers. Streams were dammed 

and filled with logs from bank to bank awaiting the winter or spring floods. When the water rose, the 

dams were blasted and great rafts of logs were washed down the stream removing gravels, salmonid eggs, 

insects, riparian vegetation, and anything else in their way. Large boulders and logs were removed 

downstream to improve transportation of the stored logs. Though these types of practices have been 

discontinued, logging legacy effects are still evident in many areas and logging still can be a source of 

serious impact to salmon habitats. Current logging practices have been changed to allow for protection of 

sensitive fish and wildlife habitat.

5.2.3 Urban and Rural Development

Although heavy urban development has been confined to a relatively small portion of the salmon 

recovery region, it has had a disproportionately large impact. The growth of towns and cities can affect 

streams in numerous ways. As with logging roads, urban and rural roads built across or along streams can 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 134

introduce fines and toxic substances such as motor oil into the water. Improperly designed and 

constructed stream crossings can block or impede fish passage. Paving of parking lots and roads increases 

the amount of impervious surface and reduces the infiltration of precipitation into the aquifer. As a 

consequence, streams draining watersheds with a high proportion of impervious surface area tend to be 

flashy, unstable and embedded with fine sediments. Pollutants can also enter streams as a result of lawn 

and garden fertilization or cultivation, or from factories or other businesses.8

Stream areas that attract concentrations of people can lead to harassment of fish and illegal fishing 

(poaching). Fish on spawning beds are particularly susceptible to intentional harassment as well as to 

unintentional disturbances from human activities such as boating and swimming. Continued disturbance 

can cause spawning adults to abandon a good spawning area and to either spawn in poor habitat or to die 

before spawning.

All of the preceding development-related impacts occur to one degree or another in various portions of 

the recovery region. Flood control projects and associated structures, however, have had a much greater 

impact on salmonids. Large portions of the Tucannon, Touchet and Walla Walla rivers have been 

channelized and confined by levees and dikes to protect nearby roads, buildings and fields and farms that 

have been repeatedly damaged by floods. The cumulative impact of these projects destabilize the rivers 

by increasing their erosive power (Hecht et al. 1982). As a consequence, the Tucannon River is now 

actively degrading its banks and bed and causing serious problems with regard to fine sediment 

deposition and habitat complexity.

The Walla Walla River, and especially its Mill Creek tributary, has also been severely impacted by flood 

control projects. On June 28, 1938, the Flood Control Act was passed in Congress, which called for two 

projects to be built in the Walla Walla Valley: the Mill Creek Flood Control Plan and the Mill Creek 

Channel. The purpose of the flood control plan was to divert water from Mill Creek away from the City of 

Walla Walla, while the purpose of the channel project was to reinforce the channel of Mill Creek where it 

flowed through the downtown area. The Mill Creek Flood Control Plan was completed in 1943 and 

included two dams: Bennington Dam and the Yellowhawk Diversion Dam. Bennington Dam, built across 

Mill Creek east of the City of Walla Walla, is capable of diverting up to 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

into a nearby flood storage reservoir. A return canal drains water from the reservoir back into Mill Creek 

when flooding danger subsides. Fish passage facilities were not constructed for Bennington Dam until the 

mid-1980s, but these facilities have proven insufficient to adequately pass salmonids (Glen Mendel, 

WDFW, personal communication). The Yellowhawk Diversion Dam is located approximately half a mile 

downstream from Bennington Dam where Yellowhawk Creek splits off from Mill Creek. The purpose of 

the Yellowhawk dam is to divert water from Mill Creek into Garrison and Yellowhawk creeks, re-routing 

these flows to the Walla Walla River south of the city, primarily to provide irrigation water for Gardena 

Farms Irrigation District (at Burlingame Dam on the Walla Walla River).

The USACE completed the Mill Creek Channel project in 1943. This project channelized about 9.7 miles 

of Mill Creek though the heart of the city, beginning at Gose Street Bridge on the western outskirts and 

ending at Bennington Dam. Concrete barriers, walls, floors, and weirs were built throughout this reach, as 

 

8 This discussion does not include the following, which may also increase pollutants in streams: clearing for homes 

and yards that often extends to the water‘s edge, dumping of yard wastes, chemicals, ornamental objects, etc. within 

the stream and regulation of stream flows or channelizing the streams to prevent damage to homes, yards, roads, etc.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 135

well as a long series of gabions intended to dissipate the energy of floodwaters on both ends of the flood 

control project.

Both of these projects have prevented flood damage to the City of Walla Walla, but at a considerable cost 

to the fisheries resources of Mill Creek and the subbasin as a whole. Passage is obstructed to varying 

degrees at numerous points from the beginning of the channel project to Bennington Dam, habitat 

complexity is virtually non-existent through the channelized section, and portions of Mill Creek are 

partially dewatered and subjected to excessive temperatures on an annual basis when flows are re-routed 

down Yellowhawk Creek.

5.2.4 Hydroelectric Generation

Construction of the mainstem dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers profoundly altered the Basin‘s 

ecosystem (Independent Scientific Group 2000). The dams blocked, to varying extents, both adult fish 

passage upstream to spawning areas and juvenile fish passage downstream to the estuary and the ocean. 

In addition, dams can cause mortalities to fish caught in the turbines and through introduction of nitrogen 

and other dissolved gases into the blood of salmon attempting to move through the turbulence created by 

the spill ways.

All dams below Hell‘s Canyon on the Snake River and the Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River 

were constructed with facilities to allow adult fish to pass upstream. None of the dams were built with 

facilities dedicated passing juvenile or adult fish downstream; however, all the lower Snake and Columbia 

River dams have since been retro-fitted with some juvenile fish passage facilities. The Hell‘s Canyon 

complex of dams has blocked access to spawning areas in the upper Snake River and altered water flow 

patterns and water temperature regimes, as well as the movement and replenishment of bedload that forms 

gravel bars and spawning gravels. Construction of dams on the Snake River also involved creation of 

reservoirs in the lower Snake River, mostly within southeast Washington. The reservoirs have altered 

instream habitat, changing it to a deep, slow water environment with potentially higher temperatures. The 

slowed waters release their sediment loads, burying natural gravels and cobbles. The changed 

environment has encouraged growth of populations of native and non-native species such as northern 

pikeminnow, walleye, and smallmouth bass, which prey upon juvenile salmonids. These reservoirs also 

have inundated significant fall Chinook spawning areas in the lower Snake River and the dams prevent or 

reduce downstream movements of adult salmon and steelhead that temporarily migrated upstream, or 

overwintered, or spawned upstream (e.g. steelhead kelts).

Completion of the Snake River dams in the mid-1970s and construction of upstream reservoirs shifted the 

focus of fish passage concerns. Estimates of mortality for downstream migrants during the mid-1970s 

were in excess of 90 percent in some years (NOAA 2000). These high mortalities coincided with reduced 

ocean survival conditions. Consequently, the abundance of Snake River salmon and steelhead plummeted 

to the point where initial petitions for listing the fish under the Endangered Species Act were filed. In 

response, the USACE devised various passage technologies including screens to collect juvenile fish for 

transport around the dams. These technologies have resulted in an increase of juvenile survival, estimated 

at 50 to 60 percent by the late 1990s in the area extending from Bonneville Dam to above Lower Granite 

Dam. Survival of some stocks of juvenile salmonids at some dams exceed 98%, but not all stocks and all 

dams have similar downstream passage survival for juveniles.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 136

5.2.5 Hatcheries

As salmon numbers declined over time, managers looked for ways to increase fish abundance without 

affecting land use and development activities, while maintaining harvest in the Columbia and Snake River 

basins. The answer appeared to be artificial production. Hatchery facilities for salmon were first built in 

the Columbia River Basin in 1875. The 1940s and 1950s saw a great increase in hatchery construction in 

the Lower Columbia River as fish runs continued to decline. Another increase in hatchery programs 

occurred in the 1980‘s, primarily as mitigation for Idaho Power‘s Hell‘s Canyon dams, Dworshak Dam, 

and the lower Snake River dams (as part of the Lower Snake River Compensation Program). The primary 

purpose of these hatcheries was to provide fish for commercial harvest.

Hatcheries can have negative effects on wild fish populations from the ecological, biological, and genetic 

standpoints. The interactions of natural and artificially produced fish are complex and, in some cases, not 

well understood. However, recent studies have begun to shed some light onto the relationships of 

hatchery-bred fish to their environments.

There is little information available regarding the effects of in-region hatcheries and releases on the 

survival of SEWMU ESA-listed populations. What information is available indicates that the presence of 

hatchery adults on the spawning grounds may decrease naturally produced fish fitness and survival (e.g., 

Araki et al. 2008, Chilcote et al. 2011). Over the last 30 years, at least small numbers of hatchery adults 

and juveniles have been observed in virtually all stream reaches within the recovery area. Some streams 

such as Alpowa Creek have 40% or more hatchery steelhead on the spawning grounds annually. More 

information on the current number of hatchery fish present in the recovery area, as well as their impact 

upon naturally produced fish, will continue to be collected as part of present and future monitoring 

efforts.

5.2.6 Harvest

Salmon and steelhead have been harvested in the Columbia Basin as long as there have been people 

inhabiting the region. For thousands of years, Native Americans have fished for salmon and other species 

in the mainstem and tributaries of the Columbia River for ceremonial and subsistence use and for barter. 

A wide variety of gear and methods were used, ranging from hoop and dip nets at cascades such as Celilo 

and Willamette falls to spears, weirs, and traps in smaller streams and headwater areas.

Development of non-Indian fisheries began about 1830; by 1861, commercial fishing was an important 

economic activity. Salmon were harvested for the newly developing canning industry. The early 

commercial fisheries used gill nets, seines hauled from shore, traps, and fish wheels. Later, purse seines 

and troll (using hook and line) fisheries developed. Recreational fishing burgeoned in the late 1800s 

(ODFW and WDFW 1998).

Initially, non-Indian fisheries targeted spring and summer Chinook salmon; these runs dominated the 

commercial harvest during the 1800s. As technology improved, commercial fishers became more efficient 

at harvesting salmon. Eventually, the combined ocean and freshwater harvest rates for Columbia River 

spring and summer Chinook salmon exceeded 80 percent and sometimes 90 percent of the run –

accelerating the species‘ decline. From 1938 to 1955, the average harvest rate dropped to about 60 percent 

of the total spring/summer Chinook salmon run and appeared to have a minimal effect on subsequent 

returns (NMFS 1991). Until the spring of 2000, when a relatively large run of hatchery spring/summer 

Chinook salmon returned and provided a small commercial tribal fishery, no commercial season for 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 137

spring/summer Chinook salmon had taken place since 1977. As fish populations declined throughout the 

Columbia Basin, harvest reduction was one of the first actions taken (also includes hatchery production). 

Today, most fisheries have been reduced to a small percentage of their historical magnitude.

Historically, illegal harvest (poaching) was a problem (e.g., in the Tucannon and Walla Walla subbasins). 

This was particularly true for fall spawning spring Chinook salmon and bull trout. Current outreach 

programs are aimed at reducing the impacts of potential illegal harvest.

Within the Snake River Washington Recovery Unit, over-fishing has reduced bull trout populations in 

some southeast Washington streams, including the Tucannon River, as some anglers targeted bull trout 

when the fish were concentrated below stream barriers or on spawning grounds and were vulnerable just 

prior to, or during, spawning. In addition, bull trout may have been historically considered an unfavorable 

species by anglers, as occurred in other areas, and been specifically targeted for removal. Current anglerrelated threats to bull trout in the Snake River Washington Recovery Unit could occur through 

misidentification and accidental harvest, intentional poaching, or hooking mortality (USFWS 2002a).

It should be noted that most harvest occurs outside the recovery region, primarily in the Pacific Ocean, 

Columbia River estuary, and in the lower Columbia River (below McNary Dam). The average harvest 

rate on upriver spring Chinook salmon from 1938-1973 was 55% (NMFS 2008b). As the stocks declined 

it became apparent that these harvest rates were not sustainable. By the mid-1970s, the spring season 

fisheries that targeted upriver stocks were largely eliminated by the state and tribal managers. Harvest 

rates in all mainstem commercial, recreational, and ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) fisheries have 

averaged just over 8% since then (NMFS 2008a). Harvest of Chinook within the SRWRU was generally 

closed from the 1970‘s until 2001.

Snake River (SR) fall Chinook are caught in ocean and in-river fisheries. SR fall Chinook are broadly 

distributed and caught in fisheries from Alaska to California, but the center of their distribution and the 

majority of impacts occur in fisheries from the west Coast of Vancouver Island to central Oregon. The 

total ocean fishery exploitation rate averaged 46% from 1986 to 1991, and 31% from 1992 to 2006 

(NMFS 2008b). Ocean fisheries have been required since 1996, through ESA consultation, to achieve a 

30% reduction in the average exploitation rate observed during the 1988 to 1993 base period (NMFS 

2008c). In the early to mid 1990‘s, downriver and ocean harvest often exceeded 70% or the adult returns 

of Snake River fall Chinook (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

SR fall Chinook are also caught in fall season fisheries in the Columbia River with most impacts 

occurring in Non-Tribal and treaty Tribal fisheries from the river mouth to McNary Dam. Since 1996, 

fisheries have been subject to a total harvest rate limit of 31.29%. This represents a 30% reduction from 

the 1988 to 1993 base period harvest rate. Ocean and in-river standards are separate, and the fisheries are 

managed independently subject to their respective own standard.

Commercial harvest of steelhead in non-Treaty fisheries has been prohibited since 1975. From 1938 

through the mid-1960s, the commercial catch of steelhead ranged from 100,000 to nearly 300,000 

steelhead per year. From the mid-1960s until the non-Treaty commercial fisheries were closed, the catch 

of steelhead was approximately 50,000 fish per year (WDFW and ODFW 2002). These essentially were 

all wild fish since hatchery production of steelhead was still relatively limited at the time.

Since 1986, recreational anglers in the Columbia Basin have been required to release unmarked, wild 

steelhead. Wild steelhead are still subject to mortality associated with catch-and-release, but 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 138

implementation of mark-selective fisheries has greatly reduced the impact to wild steelhead from 

recreational fisheries.

Beginning in 1988, the CRFMP provided a framework for managing the mainstem fisheries that impacted 

steelhead. The Plan limited tribal fishery impacts during the fall season management period to 15% for Arun steelhead, and 32% for B-run steelhead. Although the CRFMP was not formally completed until 

1988, fisheries were managed subject to these harvest rate limits as of 1986.

After the ESA listing of SR fall Chinook in 1992, fall fisheries, where most of the steelhead impacts 

occur, were subject to further constraints in order to reduce the impacts to SR fall Chinook salmon. While 

the CRFMP limited tribal fishery impacts during the fall season management period to 15% for A-run and 

32% for B-run steelhead, the constraints to reduce impacts to SR fall Chinook resulted in reductions in 

the incidental catch of steelhead.

Snake River steelhead and Upper Columbia River steelhead were ESA listed in August 1997. Fall 

fisheries managed under U.S. v. Oregon were reviewed first through ESA consultation in late 1997 and in 

more detail in 1998. These consultations addressed the incidental impacts on listed steelhead. Beginning 

in 1998, non-Treaty fall season fisheries were subject to a specific harvest rate limit of 2%, a provision 

that applied to the SR steelhead DPS and the MCR steelhead DPS that were later listed in 1999. 

Similarly, beginning in 1998, treaty-Indian fall season fisheries were subject to a harvest rate limit of 

15% for B-run steelhead; a reduction from the prior 32% limit in the CRFMP. This further limitation on 

B-run steelhead indirectly reduced the impacts to A-run steelhead as well.

5.3 SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DECLINE DUE TO HABITAT ALTERATIONS FOR 

POPULATIONS WITHIN THE SEWMU 

A primary focus of this recovery plan is on actions to restore fish production by improving habitat 

conditions within the subbasins. The focus, established by the SRSRB, does not mean that the dominant 

limiting factors are confined to the subbasins within the SEWMU. In fact, the subbasin plans for all of the 

populations in the SEWMU concluded that 45 percent of the abundance restoration potential for Walla 

Walla steelhead, 54 percent of the abundance restoration potential for Tucannon steelhead, and 72 percent 

of the abundance restoration potential for Asotin steelhead lies outside the subbasins. 

Discussion of specific causes of decline in populations for all species due to factors outside the SEWMU 

subbasins are well covered (and basically up to date) in the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c). 

Further information on the specific factors related to hydro, harvest, and hatcheries can be found in that 

document. 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 139

In the following section, the specific information for habitat factors is illustrated through local knowledge 

and EDT modeling. The section begins with general factors identified through the EDT modeling9

process, which relate to all geographic areas within the SEWMU. Then, each geographic area is 

discussed in terms of three subtopics:

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006),

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline, and 

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors.

It is important to understand that some of the limiting factors that occur today are ―legacy effects‖ from 

past actions and natural events that still affect SEWMU salmonid population viability. Land use actions, 

such as grazing (effects to riparian habitat), mining (leaching of pollutants, removal of gravel, etc.), 

forestry practices (increase in sediment load from harvest and road building), channelization and diking as 

flood control measures (loss of stream connectivity to floodplain) are examples of actions taken by man, 

primarily in the past but no longer occur or to a much lower extent, that potentially have lasting impacts.

Natural events, such as flooding and fires can have impacts that potentially affect salmonid viability for 

decades. Some examples of natural events and human responses that persist include, 1) the 1930s flood 

in Walla Walla prompted flood control measures that included a flood control dam, artificial lake for 

diverted flood waters, and a highly modified and channelized waterway for Mill Creek and 2) a 

straightened, simplified river channel and many miles of levees along the Tucannon River as a response 

to the 1964 flood.

Current impacts can also be caused by human actions and natural events. Continuing to remove water for 

agriculture, additional urban or rural development, as well as many other land use activities are actions 

that can potentially negatively affect viability, while draught, fire, or other natural events can limit 

salmonid productivity too.

5.4 FACTORS AFFECTING HABITAT

The EDT model provides a way to systematically summarize empirical data and expert opinion on habitat 

condition using sixteen habitat factors related to the restoration of salmonid habitat (Table 5-1). Each of 

these habitat factors is related to the suite of conditions comprising suitable salmon habitat. 

Table 5-1. EDT Habitat Factors.

Factor Description

Channel Stability 

Stability of the reach with respect to its streambed, banks, and its channel shape 

and location. The more unstable the channel, the lower the survival of eggs and 

juvenile fish.

Stream Flow

The amount, pattern, or extent of stream flow fluctuations. Both too much and too 

little flow in the stream channel can reduce salmon performance. High flows may 

cause juveniles to leave a stream; low flows may eliminate all production from the 

stream.

 

9 The EDT modeling was performed in the mid 2000s, and was originally presented in the 2006 draft Plan. It was 

not updated for this revised plan.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 140

Factor Description

Habitat Diversity 

The extent of habitat complexity within a stream reach. Complexity is the opposite 

of uniformity; greater complexity increases survival. Streams with large amounts 

of wood, boulders, undercut banks, and pools provide better habitat than those that 

do not.

Sediment Load

The amount of sediment present in, or passing through, the stream reach. Fine 

sediment can smother incubating eggs and reduce the quality of juvenile rearing 

habitat.

Stream Temperature 

Water that is too cold or hot can reduce salmon survival at all life stages. In 

general, fish sensitivity to temperature decreases as fish move from egg to smolt to 

adult. 

Predation The relative abundance of predators that feed upon fish. Predators can be fish, 

mammals, or birds.

Chemicals Concentrations of toxic chemicals and conditions (such as pH) from point and 

non-point sources. 

Competition With 

Other Species

The relative abundance of other species that compete with salmon for food and 

space in the same stream reach.

Competition with 

Hatchery Fish

The relative abundance of hatchery fish that compete with salmon for food and 

space in the same stream reach.

Obstructions Physical structures, such as dams, weirs, or waterfalls, that impede the use of a 

stream reach by fish.

Water Withdrawals 

Water removed from stream channels for irrigation, city water supply, or other 

uses. Water removal can affect fish by entraining juveniles on pump intakes or 

lowering water levels. Low water levels can impede fish passage, reduce available 

habitat, and result in high water temperatures.

Food The amount, diversity, and availability of food available to the fish community. 

Food sources include macro invertebrates, salmon carcasses, and terrestrial insects.

Oxygen Mean concentration of dissolved oxygen in the stream reach. Low oxygen levels 

reduce fish survival at all life stages.

Pathogens 

The abundance, concentration, or effects of pathogens on fish in the stream reach. 

For example, the presence of a fish hatchery or large numbers of livestock along 

the reach could cause unusually high concentrations of pathogens.

Key Habitat

The amount of the key habitat present in the stream for each life stage. An 

example of key habitat would be riffles in which salmonids spawn. If key habitats 

are limited, the stream can support fewer salmonids.

Harassment/Poaching 

Humans may reduce the survival of salmonids though such activities as 

swimming, boating, and poaching, i.e., catching fish illegally. The effects of legal 

harvest on salmonids are not considered in this factor.

The Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, Walla Walla River, Grande Ronde and Lower Snake Mainstem 

subbasin plans present detailed discussions of stream habitat conditions limiting salmonid populations 

(ACCD 2004, PCD 2004, CCD 2004, WWWPU & WWWC 2004, Nowak 2004). The analyses contained 

in the plans are based on the results of habitat modeling using the EDT Model (Appendix F) (Lestelle et 

al. 1996). The EDT analysis looked at the relationships between habitat and fish production for 

spring/summer Chinook, fall Chinook salmon, and summer steelhead. Impacts to bull trout habitat were 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 141

derived from the Washington bull trout management plan (WDFW 2000a) and the draft federal bull trout 

recovery plan (USFWS 2002a). The subbasin plans can be viewed on the web at www.nwcouncil.org.

The results of EDT analyses are presented in figures throughout this section. It must be noted that EDT 

was conducted in 2004 and was based off information prior to that year; the EDT assessment warrants 

updating as considerable improvements have been made to many of the rivers/streams in the last decade. 

The figures show the geographic area under consideration, the factors limiting viability and their relative 

importance, and the relative importance of each geographic area. The Protection/Restoration columns 

represent the relative importance of specific geographic areas to production if the area were fully restored 

to assumed historical conditions. The relative importance is presented as ―scaled‖ and ―unscaled‖ 

benefits. Scaled benefits are the mean benefit per kilometer of habitat; unscaled benefits are an absolute 

measure of mean benefit. Benefits and negative or adverse factors are represented by circles of graduated 

size; the larger the circle, the greater the effect.

5.5 SEWMU DPS/ESU

5.5.1 Snake River DPS/ESU Asotin Creek Steelhead and Asotin Creek 

Spring/Summer Chinook Populations

The Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead populations were analyzed 

independently, but are similar enough that they are presented together in this section. However, spring 

Chinook salmon probably never were produced in George Creek and upper SF Asotin, Upper NF Asotin 

and Charley creeks. This is consistent with the Asotin Creek Subbasin Plan which also presents the two 

species together. Limiting factors and specific impacts on viability parameters will be described for the 

major sub-watersheds supporting these populations. The subbasins are all quite different from one another 

and will be described individually.

5.5.1.1 Asotin Creek Mainstem and George Creek

In the 2006 Plan (SRSRB 2006), sediment load, channel stability, key habitat quantity, and habitat 

diversity were identified as the primary factors limiting the abundance and productivity of steelhead and 

spring/summer Chinook in the Asotin Creek mainstem and the George Creek watershed (Figure 5-1 and 

Figure 5-2). Flow and temperature were identified as secondary factors, although temperature is believed 

to be significant only in the upper reaches of the Asotin mainstem and in the George Creek mainstem. It 

should be noted that temperature was not considered a limiting factor in the EDT analysis because the 

assessment team (in the mid 2000s) considered it to be a natural condition in this stream reach. However, 

high temperatures were considered to continue to limit production to some degree even after full 

restoration. EDT does not identify conditions as ―priority restoration factors‖ if they are considered to 

depress production even under historical/normative conditions and are thus ―inevitable‖.10

 

10 EDT identifies factors which would most benefit production if they were to be restored to normative conditions, 

rather than strictly identifying limiting factors. Because temperature in the lower Asotin mainstem was assumed to 

remain excessive even after full restoration although historic temperatures were not based on empirical data, it was 

not flagged as a priority attribute for restoration, even though it clearly is a ―limiting factor‖.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 142

Most of the limiting factors appear to decrease with distance upstream. Temperature and channel stability 

were identified in the 2006 Plan to be the exceptions to this correlation.

Figure 5-1. Factors Affecting Viability of Asotin Steelhead.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 143

Figure 5-2. Factors Affecting Viability of Asotin Spring/Summer Chinook (2004).

In the mainstems of Asotin and George creeks, inadequate key habitat conditions are believed to affect 

primarily fry and holding adults; impacts are most likely more severe for spring/summer Chinook salmon 

than steelhead. Both species probably experience similar effects with regard to habitat diversity. Lack of 

habitat diversity is believed to suppress the survival of all juvenile life stages, especially fry and 

overwintering pre-smolts. The effect of low habitat diversity on holding adults is potentially much more 

substantial for spring/summer Chinook salmon than steelhead because of the time of year that they are 

staging prior to spawning. For both species, the severity of the impact of sedimentation and the number of 

life stages affected most likely decreases with increasing distance from the mouth.

It is likely that steelhead incubation, fry, and overwintering as well as spring/summer Chinook salmon 

spawning, overwintering, and incubation are substantially impaired by sedimentation near the mouth of 

Asotin Creek. For both species, incubation is the only life stage that can be significantly impaired by 

sedimentation in the upper portions of Asotin and George creeks. Channel instability most likely has an 

extreme impact on incubation for both species in the lower mainstem of Asotin and George creeks. The 

EDT model predicted that a strong impact on incubation persists in upper George Creek for steelhead, but 

not for spring/summer Chinook salmon, and the impact of channel stability probably diminishes for both 

species in the upper Asotin mainstem. It is likely that increased peak flows significantly depress survival 

of fry and overwintering pre-smolts for both species in the lower reaches, but this effect decreases 

considerably in the upper portion of the mainstem. High temperature is believed to have a relatively small 

impact on spring/summer Chinook salmon spawners in the middle reaches of the mainstem, but could 

have a significant impact on steelhead spawners and/or incubation throughout all of the mainstem except 

for upper George Creek.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 144

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

From the late 19th century to about the middle of the 1960s, Headgate Dam had severe impacts on adult 

access and juvenile emigration, and is still in need of improvement... Historically, grazing, crop 

production, and residential development were believed to be primarily responsible for the limiting factors 

in this portion of the subbasin.

Pasture and rangelands cover 43 percent (36,582 hectares, or 90,393 acres) of the entire Asotin Creek 

watershed. In some locations, the stream has been used as a watering station for livestock for nearly a 

century; severe overgrazing has been documented in the past. Historically, the lack of riparian canopy 

cover greatly increased stream temperatures in all of these streams, especially in the summer. 

In 2001, the Asotin County Conservation District (2001) estimated 44,420 tons of sediment was being 

delivered annually to Asotin Creek from all sources. More than 50 percent of this sediment came from 

agricultural and grazing practices in George and Pintler creeks and from croplands adjacent to lower 

reaches of the mainstem of Asotin Creek (Asotin County Conservation District 2001).

Loess soils predominate in this watershed and can be highly susceptible to erosion with any kind of soil 

disturbance. Increased sediment delivery historically caused filling and scouring in the stream bed, which 

in turn suffocated or physically destroyed incubating eggs and pre-emergent juveniles. 

Residential development has historically been identified as a significant limiting factor in the lower 

portion of the Asotin Creek watershed. Much of the stream channel within the residential areas has been 

confined by riprap and dikes to protect property from floods. Flood control structures, bank protection 

measures, and heavy animal and human use of the streambanks historically caused extensive damage to 

riparian cover, wood recruitment, pool habitat, and stream attributes necessary for successful fish 

migration (ACMWP 1995; USFS 1998b). 

Development of the transportation system and rural residences in the Asotin subbasin has affected habitat 

complexity, sedimentation and embeddedness, riparian function, and fish passage. The Asotin Creek 

mainstem has been diked, straightened, and relocated in numerous locations in order to protect Asotin 

Creek Road and nearby structures. In the upper watershed, the road network crosses the stream many 

times, each requiring the use of culverts and each having potential impacts on fish passage. 

Grazing, crop production, residential development, and road construction historically all contributed to 

the loss of habitat diversity and key habitat quantity. Grazing, crop production in or adjacent to riparian 

areas, and residential development, especially diking and channelization to protect roads and property, 

historically all reduced the production of large woody debris. These same factors reduced riparian 

function and increased confinement, reducing habitat diversity and increasing channel instability. Finally, 

increased sediment supply, reduced woody debris, and channel straightening appear to have eliminated 

pools of various types, resulting in a lack of key habitat for both juveniles and pre-spawning adults.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 145

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in Asotin and George Creek have worked proactively with local 

landowners over the past fifteen years to improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and 

salmon/steelhead productivity. Currently, obstructions in the basin have been largely removed with only 

one partial barrier currently being addressed. Farmers and ranchers have participated in a number of 

federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, 

fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins in problem areas and 

installed off channel water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and 

reduced streambed embeddedness. To address high stream temperatures project implementers and 

landowners have planted riparian areas, conducted irrigation efficiency projects and conducted in-stream 

work to reduce channel width. Increased flow and channel depth/width ratios in conjunction with riparian 

trees have reduced high summer water temperatures extending salmon rearing habitat further downstream 

into lower elevations than at the time of listing. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key 

habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate 

stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Asotin and George Creek salmon and steelhead continue to be suppressed by reduced habitat diversity, 

key habitat, elevated sediment load, and obstructions. Encroachment on the floodplain caused by the 

construction of dikes (historically), roads, single family dwellings and the activities that are associated the 

encroachment continues to threaten Asotin Creek. Reduced stream channel complexity and floodplain 

function caused by channel straightening, incision and loss of historic riparian forests/large wood debris 

source has reduced key habitats such as rearing and wintering habitat. Fine sediments originating on 

steep valley slopes remain a concern and have potential to have continued impacts on salmon habitat. 

Much of the Asotin and George Creek drainage have high potential for increasing fine sediment loads, so 

protection of existing conditions will remain high priority.

5.5.1.2 Charley Creek

In the Charley Creek drainage, the aquatic assessment in the mid 2000s, identified habitat diversity, key 

habitat quantity, channel stability, flow and temperature as the major limiting factors for both steelhead 

and spring/summer Chinook salmon. A lack of key habitat for adult migrants and adults holding prior to 

spawning depressed production in the lower two reaches. It appears that sediment and low flow limits 

production and juvenile life stages in the uppermost reach. In the analysis, temperature had high impacts 

on spring/summer Chinook salmon spawners and steelhead incubation in the lower reaches of Charley 

Creek, but minimal effects in the upper watershed.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006),

Historically, factors limiting viability of salmonids in Charley Creek were somewhat different from those 

affecting the Asotin mainstem and George Creek because of a relatively greater impact associated with 

logging in the Charley Creek watershed. Between 1970 and 1995, approximately 4,520 acres of forest 

were clear-cut in the entire Asotin Creek watershed within the Charley Creek, South Fork Asotin Creek, 

and Cougar Creek drainages. 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 146

Historical impacts from logging within Charley Creek include increased delivery of sediment to the 

stream channel due to the construction of logging roads. Some estimates indicate that historically, more 

than 50 percent of the sediment delivered into Asotin Creek from timber-harvest activities was 

attributable to roads. Some of the forested drainages in the Charley Creek drainage had road densities as 

high as 4.1 to 5.0 miles per square mile, whereas the average for forested lands within the Asotin 

watershed is less than 2.0 miles per square mile.

The U.S. Forest Service, as part of the Asotin Creek Technical Advisory Committee in the mid 2000s, 

summarized the primary limiting factors to fish production in Charley Creek as follows:

1. High stream temperatures (even though stream temperatures are generally much cooler on 

National Forest lands than in privately held lands lower in the watershed);

2. Low numbers of large pools; and

3. Sediment deposition in spawning areas (ACMWP 1995).

Even with these historical limiting factors, the U.S. Forest Service believed that fish habitat conditions on 

Umatilla National Forest lands in Asotin Creek are still good to excellent. 

Charley Creek was also affected by two small impoundments constructed for a put-and-take recreational 

trout fishery. In 1948, Charley Creek was impounded at RM 4.0 by two small earthen dams. The dams 

were 15 feet high and completely blocked access to upper Charley Creek for 16 years until a flood in 

1964 destroyed them and sent a plume of sediment down Charley Creek and into Asotin Creek. Fish 

passage to upper Charley Creek is now possible. 

Agriculture has historically impacted Charley Creek to a certain extent. The lower four to five miles of 

the creek were severely damaged by cattle which were allowed direct access to the stream channel.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Salmon habitat restoration implementers have worked to reduce the impacts of past land management 

activities in Charley Creek by conducting restoration actions which address the following limiting factors 

for salmon recovery, sediment load, habitat diversity, stream temperature, and key habitat features. Fine 

sediments have been reduced through riparian restoration/protection, livestock exclusions, forest road 

removal, construction of sediment basin and changes in forest management practices. As riparian habitat 

continues to mature benefits to sediment, stream temperature, and habitat complexity will continue to 

improve as large wood recruit into the channel and reestablish natural function. 

Note: Charley Creek has been identified as the treatment stream for the Asotin Creek Intensively 

Monitored Watershed (IMW) which is scheduled for extensive riparian, floodplain, and complexity 

restoration and monitoring activities through 2018.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Charley Creek salmon and steelhead numbers continue to be suppressed by reduced habitat diversity, and 

key habitat largely as related to large wood debris and floodplain function. Rearing habitat including 

pools and winter habitat remain limiting in the drainage. Though fine sediments have been reduced 

through land management actions elevated sediment loads remain a concern in the drainage.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 147

5.5.1.3 North Fork and South Fork Asotin Creek

Asotin Creek‘s lower South Fork was historically impacted by sediment load and key habitat quantity, 

and secondarily by habitat diversity, channel stability, low flow, and excessive temperature. The upper 

South Fork experienced similar impacts, except that temperature and sedimentation are no longer 

limiting. 

Many reaches in the North Fork mainstem were moderately limited by a lack of key habitat quantity and 

channel stability (upper North Fork only) or experienced low impacts from flow, habitat diversity, and 

sedimentation (lower North Fork only). Steelhead production in the upper North Fork tributaries, on the 

other hand, was believed to be strongly limited by channel stability and a lack of key habitat quantity and 

secondarily limited by low habitat diversity, altered flow, and introduction of sediment. 

Historically, the primary limiting factors for spring/summer Chinook in the both the South and North 

forks of Asotin Creek was believed to be key habitat quantity and habitat diversity which impacted all life 

stages at moderate to extreme levels. Sediment load was believed to be secondary in the lowermost 

reaches of the forks, possibly impacting incubation and most other life stages at low to moderate levels. 

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

The human actions that were likely most responsible for habitat degradation in the North and South forks 

of Asotin Creek watershed are historical logging operations, roads, farming, and ranching (cattle grazing) 

on the tops of ridges in the South Fork drainage. Road construction produced negative impacts to riparian 

zones including increases in sedimentation. A natural factor that has the potential to significantly impact 

fish production, especially in the headwaters area of the forks, is the very high gradient of many reaches

(4 percent or greater). 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the North and South Fork of Asotin Creek have worked 

proactively with local landowners over the past seven years to improve factors limiting salmon habitat 

quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. Farmers, ranchers and state agencies have participated in a 

number of federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till 

agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins in problem 

areas and installed off channel water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment 

loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. Elevated stream temperatures have been addressed by 

planting riparian areas, conducted irrigation efficiency projects and in-stream work to reduce channel 

width. Increased flow and channel depth/width ratios in conjunction with riparian trees have reduced 

high summer water temperatures and contributed to extending salmon rearing habitat further downstream 

in the mainstem. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved 

through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until 

floodplains and riparian cover matures. 

Note: 8km reaches of both the North and South Fork of Asotin Creek have been identified as the control 

streams for the Asotin Creek Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) which will restrict restoration 

activities in these reaches to passive actions such as upland actions and maturation of existing riparian 

through 2018.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 148

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The North and South Forks of Asotin Creek salmon and steelhead continue to be suppressed by reduced 

habitat diversity, key habitat, and elevated sediment load. Reduced stream channel complexity and 

floodplain function caused by channel straightening, incision and loss of historic riparian forests/large 

wood debris source has reduced habitat diversity and key habitats such as rearing and wintering habitat. 

Fine sediments originating on seep valley slopes remain a concern and have potential to have continued 

impacts on salmon habitat.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 149

5.5.1.4 Asotin Creek Steelhead Tributary Populations

The Asotin steelhead population contains fish located in seven different subbasins (the Almota, Alpowa, 

Couse, George, Steptoe, Tenmile, and Wawawai creeks subbasins) as well as a ―core population‖ in the 

Asotin Creek MaSA. 

EDT habitat assessments were completed for Almota Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Deadman Creek 

(considered part of the Tucannon steelhead population) during subbasin planning in the Lower Snake 

Subbasin Plan (PCD 2004). It was assumed that the habitat conditions in these three streams were similar 

to conditions in six other small tributaries that were not analyzed (Alkali Flat, Alpowa, Couse, Penawawa, 

Steptoe, and Wawawai creeks). The Lower Snake Subbasin Plan addressed all nine of these tributaries, 

directly or by inference from the three tributaries analyzed.

Based on the assessments, it was thought that the habitat factors most impacting abundance and 

productivity in the three Asotin tributaries analyzed were sediment, low flow, a lack of pool habitat, poor 

habitat diversity associated with scarce large woody debris and anthropogenic confinement, poor riparian 

function, excessive temperature, and obstructions. 

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historically, most of the limiting factors for Almota and Tenmile creeks were believed to be the direct or 

indirect result of the impacts of roads and agricultural practices, including grazing and cropping, on the 

riparian zone and associated uplands. Sedimentation and low flows were believed to be attributed to crop 

production and grazing near the riparian corridor and in the uplands. Lack of pools was attributed to the 

scarcity of woody debris due to riparian degradation caused by crop production, grazing, and roads.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Asotin Creek Steelhead Tributary Populations watersheds 

have worked proactively with local landowners over the past seven years to improve factors limiting 

salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. All major obstructions have been addressed 

and many irrigation diversions have been screened. Farmers, ranchers and state agencies have 

participated in a number of federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to 

minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins 

in problem areas and installed off channel water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine 

sediment loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. Elevated stream temperatures have been 

addressed by planting riparian areas. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key habitats 

although improved through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate stream 

temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 150

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Asotin Creek Steelhead Tributary Population watersheds continue to be suppressed by reduced 

habitat diversity, key habitat, stream temperature, and elevated sediment load. Reduced stream channel 

complexity and floodplain function caused by channel straightening, incision and loss of historic riparian 

forests/large wood debris source has reduced habitat diversity and key habitats such as rearing and 

wintering habitat. Fine sediments originating on seep valley slopes remain a concern and have potential 

to have continued impacts on salmon habitat. 

Note: The Asotin Creek Steelhead Tributary Population watersheds are all considered priority protection 

watersheds with the exception of Alpowa Creek.

Bull Trout

It is assumed that actions designed to improve habitat conditions for steelhead and spring/summer 

Chinook salmon will provide benefits to bull trout as well. 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 151

5.5.2 Mid-Columbia DPS: Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead

The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (WWWPU & WWWC 2004) concluded that sediment load, habitat 

diversity, and obstructions were the most common and severe limiting habitat factors in the SEWMU. 

High water temperatures, channel stability, instream flow, and a lack of key habitat were also significant 

limiting factors. The relative magnitude of these and other habitat factors are summarized by geographic 

area in Figure 5-3. 

Figure 5-3. Factors Limiting the Viability of the Walla Walla Steelhead Population.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 152

5.5.2.1 Lower Walla Walla Mainstem (Mouth to Dry Creek)

Low flow, temperature, sedimentation, a lack of pool habitat, and habitat diversity were identified in the 

Walla Walla Subbasin Plan as the major factors limiting steelhead production in the lower Walla Walla 

mainstem. Secondary limiting factors identified in the EDT analysis included competition with hatchery 

fish, pathogens, food, predation, and channel stability.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

The subbasin plan attributed sedimentation problems to historical residential and agricultural land uses, 

poor riparian condition, increased width-to-depth ratio,11 road drainage systems, and overgrazing. 

Historically, hydropower and irrigation diversion dams on the lower mainstem Walla Walla (Nine Mile 

Dam), the upper Walla Walla (Nursery Bridge Dam) and the lower Touchet River (Hofer and Maiden 

Diversions) played a much larger role than they do at present. Although Nine Mile and Maiden Dams no 

longer exist, both were instrumental in the precipitous decline of salmon and steelhead populations in the 

early 20th century. Although the impact of Nine Mile Dam was thought to be large, cumulative impacts of 

other diversions on the middle and upper mainstem Walla Walla River were also believed to be 

significant. 

This part of the SEWMU was historically, and continues to be heavily used for agriculture. Agricultural 

activities originally consisted almost wholly of sheep and cattle ranching which began as early as the 

1860s. After the success of initial attempts at dry-land wheat farming, ranching was less dominant. 

Historically, practices related to crop production were ranked (in the EDT modeling process) as among 

the top contributors to sedimentation problems throughout the subbasin. Past agriculture practices 

resulted in removal of riparian vegetation, which can contribute to erosion and decreases the filtering 

effect riparian buffers have on streams. Although the earliest agricultural activities focused on the midsection of the Walla Walla River near the first settlements, agricultural land use today extends from the 

mouth to the forested headwaters.

Roads and railroads have also historically affected sedimentation in the subbasin. The construction of 

roads increases the total amount of impervious surfaces present, which in turn increases the quantity of 

water during storm runoff as well as the rate at which sedimentation is delivered to nearby streams. Bank 

erosion and sedimentation can be exacerbated by increased storm flows.

The reduction in the number and size of pools was also historically a key limiting factor in the entire 

Walla Walla subbasin as well as the lower mainstem. The subbasin plan estimates that cumulative pool 

area was reduced by approximately 75 percent as a result of stream channel straightening, unstable banks, 

high width-to-depth ratios, poor riparian conditions leading to lack of woody debris in the stream 

channels, removal of woody debris in stream channels in developed areas, and decreased base flows 

which decrease the area of all habitat types. 

 

11 The term ―width-to-depth ratio‖ refers to the ratio of channel width to mean depth. Typically, natural undisturbed 

channels have relatively low width-to-depth ratios, whereas channels with unstable banks have ratios that are 

considerably higher, indicating a reach that is unnaturally wide and shallow.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 153

Residential/urban impacts have historically occurred primarily in the Walla Walla/College Place, 

Waitsburg, and Dayton areas within the recovery region.

Grazing has also historically been identified as a factor that has degraded riparian zones in the SEWMU. 

Historically, grazing occurred primarily near the early settlements in the river valleys, but has 

subsequently occurred throughout the Walla Walla watershed.

Over the past 150 years, water appropriation and inadequate fish passage conditions have heavily 

impacted salmon, steelhead, and bull trout in the Walla Walla subbasin. HIstorically, many reaches of the 

Walla Walla River and some of its tributaries went dry on an annual basis, often leaving fish stranded in 

pools. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Lower Walla Walla River downstream from Dry Creek 

have worked proactively with local landowners over the past seven years to improve factors limiting 

salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. All major obstructions have been addressed 

and many irrigation diversions have been screened. Farmers, ranchers and state agencies have 

participated in a number of federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to 

minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins 

in problem areas and installed off channel water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine 

sediment loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. Elevated stream temperatures have been 

addressed by planting riparian areas. Stream flows have been improved through better coordination 

efforts among state planners and irrigators, in addition to irrigation efficiency and aquifer recharge. 

Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved through restoration 

actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and 

riparian cover matures. 

Note: This reach of the Walla Walla has not been prioritized for salmon restoration actions outside of 

improving passage for migrating salmonids.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Lower Walla Walla River downstream from Dry Creek continues to be suppressed by low flow, 

habitat diversity, stream temperature, and elevated sediment load. Reduced stream channel complexity 

and floodplain function caused by channel straightening, incision and loss of historic riparian forests/large 

wood debris source has reduced habitat diversity and key habitats such as wintering rearing habitat. Fine 

sediments originate on surrounding agricultural land, in tributaries and on banks as the river channel 

continues to express its natural meander width.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 154

5.5.2.2 Upper Walla Walla Mainstem and Forks

In the upper mainstem of the Walla Walla River, flow (decreased baseflow) and habitat diversity are 

believed to be the dominant limiting factors for steelhead. Secondary limiting factors include channel 

stability, harassment, obstructions, and, to a lesser degree, food and temperature. 

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Habitat diversity in the upper Walla Walla mainstem was historically degraded by agricultural 

development and its impacts on water quantity, riparian function, large woody debris, and stream 

confinement. In the upper mainstem, urban development was also an important cause of degraded fish 

habitat. 

The ultimate causes of the key habitat and sedimentation problems in the upper mainstem are essentially 

the same as for the lower mainstem. However, the reductions of base flows historically seen in the upper 

mainstem most likely played a relatively greater role in reducing key habitat because the low flows reduce 

the total area of stream habitat.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Upper Mainstem Walla Walla River and Forks have 

worked proactively with local landowners over the past seven years to improve factors limiting salmon 

habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. Currently, obstructions in the basin have been largely 

removed and many irrigation diversions have been screened. Farmers and ranchers have participated in a 

number of federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till 

agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins in problem 

areas, removed and setback river levees (in limited sites) and installed off channel water sources to 

livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. To 

address high stream temperatures project implementers and landowner have planted riparian areas, 

conducted irrigation efficiency projects, conducted aquifer recharge, purchased and leased water rights 

and conducted in-stream work to reduce channel width. Increased flow and improved channel 

depth/width ratios in conjunction with riparian trees have reduced high summer water temperatures 

extending salmon rearing habitat further downstream and improved fish passage. Damaged stream banks, 

low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to 

produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures. As 

an interim step to increase stream habitat diversity and key habitat features in-stream restoration actions 

such as channel reconfiguration and large wood debris placement actions have been implemented 

increasing complexity in limited sites.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Upper Mainstem Walla Walla River and Forks steelhead population continue to be suppressed by 

reduced habitat diversity, key habitat, elevated sediment load, low flow and stream temperature. 

Encroachment on the floodplain caused by the construction of single family dwelling and the activities 

that are associated the encroachment continues to threaten floodplain and riparian function. Reduced 

stream channel complexity and floodplain function caused by past channel straightening, incision and loss 

of historic riparian forests/large wood debris source has reduced key habitats such as rearing and 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 155

wintering habitat. Fine sediments originating on steep agricultural lands and from damaged stream banks 

continue to impact salmon habitat. Stream flow, although improving, remains a factor limiting available 

habitat and stream temperature particularly in the low reaches of the drainage.

5.5.2.3 Mill Creek

Mill Creek is a special case relative to the Walla Walla steelhead population. A small fraction of the 

drainage, located above a series of physical obstructions, contains excellent habitat, but the majority of 

the drainage provides habitat ranging in quality from fair to very poor. Mill Creek has been a protected 

watershed since the early 1900s above the Walla Walla municipal water intake (RM 26.9). In this area 

(upstream of RM 26.9), it is in nearly pristine condition. This area, however, represents only 17 to 33 

percent of the watershed in terms of miles, depending on whether the Yellowhawk/Garrison Creek 

complex is included. The quality of most of the rest of the drainage is relatively poor (SRSRC 2004).

Fish habitat in the 6.9 miles from Bennington Dam downstream to the beginning of the flood control 

project at Gose Street can be described as severely limited. Bennington Dam (which has inadequate fish 

passage facilities) is capable of diverting up to 4,000 cfs into a flood control channel that empties into 

Bennington Lake.

All of the reach between Gose Street and the Bennington Dam Geographic Area is confined between 

concrete walls or gabions, often with a concrete floor. Many velocity barriers and poorly designed ladders 

are present, as well as a long, unlighted subterranean section. It is believed to be extremely difficult for an 

adult salmon or steelhead under its own power to pass from Gose Street to Bennington Dam. In addition, 

the Yellowhawk Diversion Dam, about a mile below Bennington Dam, diverts nearly all of the flow in 

Mill Creek during the summer into the Yellowhawk Creek distributary system. This diversion eliminates 

any possibility of upstream passage between Gose Street and Bennington Dam and partially or totally 

dewaters a large portion of lower Mill Creek.

Finally, although it is possible for adult steelhead (and perhaps spring/summer Chinook salmon) to gain 

access to upper Mill Creek via Yellowhawk Creek, they have to swim about five miles up the mainstem 

Walla Walla River and then turn into Yellowhawk Creek, and then negotiate more than eight miles of 

confined and highly urbanized stream. However, in recent years, fish have been observed migrating 

upstream of Bennington Dam (Mahoney et al. 2009).

Much of the habitat between Bennington Dam and the municipal water intake is of marginal quality. This 

area experiences major sedimentation and temperature problems affecting both steelhead and 

spring/summer Chinook salmon as well as significant problems related to flow, habitat diversity, and key 

habitat quantity. However, there are currently assessments and designs underway for Mill Creek to 

provide adequate passage. In addition, the SR RTT reclassified Mill Creek upstream of Bennington Dam 

as a priority restoration reach with the vision that passage will get restored soon.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Mill Creek watershed have worked proactively with local 

landowners, irrigators and local governments over the past seven years to improve factors limiting salmon 

habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. Currently, obstructions in the basin are being

addressed (6 mile section through Walla Walla) while several of the larger ones (Gose Street and 

Kooskooski) being removed and many irrigation diversions have been screened. Damaged stream banks, 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 156

low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to 

produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures. As 

an interim step to increase stream habitat diversity and key habitat features in-stream restoration actions 

such as channel reconfiguration and large wood debris placement actions have been implemented 

increasing complexity in limited sites.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Mill Creek steelhead population continues to be suppressed by reduced habitat diversity, key habitat, 

and obstructions. Encroachment on the floodplain caused by the construction of single family dwelling 

and the activities that are associated the encroachment continues to threaten floodplain and riparian 

function. Reduced stream channel complexity and floodplain function caused by past channel 

straightening, incision, loss of historic riparian forests and loss of large wood debris source has reduced 

key habitats such as rearing and wintering habitat. Stream temperature in the lower river is also impacted 

by poor riparian habitat, confinement and poor floodplain and channel function.

5.5.2.4 Walla Walla Headwaters (South and North Fork)

The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan lists habitat diversity and key habitat quantity as the primary factors 

limiting steelhead production in the lower South Fork of the Walla Walla River (mouth to Elbow Creek); 

channel stability, flow, sedimentation, and temperature were identified as secondary factors. 

The potential impact of low habitat diversity is considered high on steelhead spawners and fry in the 

lower reaches of the South Fork, but low elsewhere. Increased peak flows most likely have high impacts 

on steelhead fry, while decreased base flows have small impacts on steelhead parr. Channel stability, 

sediment load, and temperature most likely affect steelhead incubation in the lower reaches.

The North Fork appears to be most heavily impacted by a lack of habitat diversity. The productivity of fry 

and overwintering pre-smolts is believed to be consistently depressed by a lack of habitat diversity. Flow 

(increased peak flow and decreased base flow), sedimentation, and channel stability are also limiting 

factors. Increased peak flows most likely depress the productivity of fry and overwintering pre-smolts in 

every reach of the North Fork, while decreased base flows probably impact subyearlings. Channel 

stability and sedimentation are believed to have low but consistent impacts on fry and overwintering presmolts. Temperature is probably a factor only in the lowermost reach of the North Fork where it has 

minor impacts on subyearlings.

Limiting factors are quite similar for the North and South forks of the Walla Walla River. In both forks, 

habitat diversity is believed to be the major limiting factor; flow, sedimentation, and channel stability play 

secondary roles. Temperature is most likely a minor issue in the lower reaches of both streams. The South 

Fork, especially the upper South Fork and its tributaries, appears to afford slightly better habitat than the 

North Fork.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historically, low woody debris recruitment associated with logging operations and sediment inputs 

associated with roads were responsible for current habitat conditions in the Walla Walla headwaters. 

These factors are believed to have depressed production throughout all of the upper reaches in the Walla 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 157

Walla subbasin (including the Touchet River). In addition, a number of dams that formerly existed on the 

mainstem Walla Walla (e.g., Marie Dorian, Cemetery, Nine Mile dams) had a profound impact on salmon 

production.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Please see the NE Oregon portion of the Snake River Comprehensive Recovery Plan for information 

concerning this section.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Please see the NE Oregon portion of the Snake River Comprehensive Recovery Plan for information 

concerning this section.

5.5.2.5 Touchet River Mainstem

In the Touchet River Mainstem, the major current limiting factors for steelhead are believed to be 

sedimentation, habitat diversity, flow, channel stability, and temperature. Secondary limiting factors 

include predation and a lack of key habitat (primarily pools). The major environmental limiting factors 

identified in the EDT modeling process, and their relative degree of impact, are shown by geographic area 

in Figure 5-4. 

Figure 5-4. Factors Limiting the Viability of the Touchet River Steelhead Population.

The impacts of sedimentation to all life stages of steelhead are believed to be high or extreme below 

Coppei Creek; sediment impacts to incubation remain high throughout the mainstem and in Whiskey 

Creek. Inadequate habitat diversity most likely affects all steelhead life stages to some degree, but the 

impacts on spawners, fry, and parr are greater than for other life stages. Excessive stream temperatures 

probably cause a large loss in productivity for steelhead spawners, incubating eggs, and fry in the lower 

mainstem and possibly continue to have strong impacts on incubation through the length of the stream to 

the forks. Prominent among limiting factors is flow. Increased peak flows have the potential to have high 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 158

impacts on steelhead fry in virtually every reach, whereas decreased base flows adversely impact 

subyearling steelhead in most reaches.

The EDT analysis identified competition with hatchery fish, pathogens, and food as minor limiting 

factors. 

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historically, adult passage, juvenile entrainment, dewatering and temperature problems associated with 

Hofer Dam and the former Maiden Dam diversions, as well as the generalized impact of Nine Mile Dam 

on the lower Walla Walla, were the major limiting factors. However, currently, adequate passage has 

been restored at Hofer Dam and Nine Mile Dam no longer exists. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Touchet River from the mouth to the confluence with 

Coppei Creek have worked proactively with local landowners, irrigators and local governments over the 

past seven years to improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. 

Obstructions in the reach have been addressed and many irrigation diversions have been screened. The 

result of a barrier free mainstem has been steelhead moving upriver earlier in the fall/winter than at the 

time of listing. Farmers and ranchers have participated in a number of federal and state programs to 

improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock out of 

sensitive habitats, and installed off channel water sources to livestock. These actions have reduced 

sediment loads in the mainstem improving rearing habitats. The majority of the river reach has 

experienced increased riparian forests due to high levels of riparian restoration. Damaged stream banks, 

low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to 

produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures. As 

an interim step to increase stream habitat diversity and key habitat features in-stream restoration actions 

such as channel reconfiguration and large wood debris placement actions have been implemented 

increasing complexity at limited sites.

Note: Downstream from the confluence of the Whetstone drainage the primary restoration action has 

been to remove obstructions, screen irrigation diversions, improve riparian conditions and reduce fine 

sediments.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Touchet River from the mouth to the confluence with Coppei Creek habitat continues to be 

suppressed by channel stability, reduced habitat diversity, key habitat, flow, stream temperature and 

sediment load. Encroachment on the floodplain caused by the construction of single family dwelling and 

the activities that are associated the encroachment continues to threaten floodplain and riparian function. 

Reduced stream channel complexity, confinement and floodplain function caused by past channel 

straightening, incision, loss of historic riparian forests and loss of large wood debris source has reduced 

key habitats such as rearing and wintering habitat. Stream temperature in the lower mainstem are also be 

elevated due to reduced riparian, confinement and poor floodplain and channel function
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 159

5.5.2.6 Touchet River Headwaters

The Touchet headwaters include the North Fork, South Fork, and Wolf Fork. The Walla Walla Subbasin 

Plan identified habitat diversity, sedimentation, temperature, and flow as the major limiting factors for 

steelhead in the North Fork Touchet River. Although not mentioned in the subbasin plan, the EDT 

analysis indicated that various combinations of these same factors, plus channel stability, are also primary 

limiting factors for steelhead in the South Fork and the Wolf Fork. Habitat diversity is a primary limiting 

factor in almost all reaches of the North Fork and Wolf Fork, where it significantly decreases the survival 

of spawners (lower North Fork), fry (North and Wolf Forks), and subyearlings (Wolf Fork).

Sedimentation, temperature, and flow have similar and significant impacts in all three forks. 

Sedimentation has a substantial negative impact on incubation and smaller impacts on subyearlings. 

Temperature, increased peak flow, and decreased base flow also have the same general impacts in all 

three forks: temperature strongly depresses incubation in the lower reaches; increased peak flows impact 

fry negatively, and decreased base flow impact subyearlings in virtually every reach of all three forks. 

Channel stability strongly impacts egg survival in the lower South Fork and most reaches of the Wolf 

Fork, but has comparatively little impact in the North Fork.

Excessive peak flows and a lack of key habitat depress fry productivity in virtually every reach of the 

Wolf Fork. Similarly, a lack of key habitat (pools) and inadequate habitat diversity depresses the 

productivity of holding adults throughout the Wolf Creek watershed. Increased sedimentation 

significantly depresses incubation productivity in most reaches of the Wolf Fork.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historically, agricultural, residential development, blockages, and dewatering associated with diversion 

dams were responsible for the initial decline in production of salmonids in the Touchet River. However, 

the primary causes of habitat degradation in the Touchet headwaters were historical logging operations 

and the impacts of roads and dikes. 

Historical logging operations resulted in a lack of large trees in the riparian corridor, decreased 

recruitment of woody debris, and ultimately, a lack of large woody debris in stream channels. Past 

logging operations have also resulted in increased water temperatures in basin streams due to the removal 

or alteration of riparian habitat. Historical timber harvests in the Touchet headwaters may have altered 

stream flow by increasing peak flows and reducing summer base flows. 

The EDT analysis assumed slight to moderate increases in peak flows and flow flashiness because of 

historical watershed disturbances in the Touchet headwaters, as well as slight to moderate decreases in 

base flows. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Touchet River headwaters from Coppei Creek upriver 

have worked proactively with local landowners, irrigators and local to improve factors limiting salmon 

habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. Obstructions in the reach have been addressed with 

only one remaining in the upper-most watershed, and many irrigation diversions have been screened. The 

result of a barrier free mainstem and upper watershed has been increased spawning and rearing habitat for 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 160

steelhead compared to the time of listing. Farmers and ranchers have participated in a number of federal 

and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, fenced 

livestock out of sensitive habitats, and installed off channel water sources to livestock. These actions 

have reduced sediment loads originating in the upper watershed improving spawning and rearing habitats. 

The majority of the river reach has experienced increased riparian forests due to high levels of riparian 

restoration resulting in decreased summer high temperatures and over the last few years the reach has 

experienced preferred temperatures above Dayton. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity, and key 

habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate 

stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures. One critical factor limiting river 

channel and floodplain function in this reach is channel confinement caused by formal and informal river 

levees and channel training. As an interim step to increase stream habitat diversity and key habitat 

features in-stream restoration actions such as channel reconfiguration and large wood debris placement 

actions have been implemented increasing complexity at localized sites.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

The Touchet River headwaters habitat continues to be suppressed by channel stability, reduced habitat 

diversity, key habitat, and sediment load. Encroachment on the floodplain caused by the construction of 

single family dwelling and the activities that are associated the encroachment continues to threaten 

floodplain and riparian function. Reduced stream channel complexity, confinement and floodplain 

function caused by past channel straightening, incision, loss of historic riparian forests and loss of large 

wood debris source has reduced key habitats such as rearing and wintering habitat. Stream temperature in 

the lower mainstem downstream from Dayton may also be elevated due to reduced riparian cover, 

confinement and poor floodplain and channel function.

Bull Trout

It is assumed that actions taken to improve habitat conditions for spring/summer Chinook salmon and 

steelhead will benefit bull trout. 

5.5.3 Snake River DPS/ESU: Tucannon River Steelhead and Spring/Summer 

Chinook Salmon Populations

The major factors limiting the viability of the Tucannon River steelhead and spring/summer Chinook 

salmon populations are believed to be sediment, large woody debris, anthropogenic confinement and 

riparian function and their impacts on habitat diversity and channel stability, key habitat (pools and pool 

tail-outs), summer water temperature, and flow. 

5.5.3.1 Lower Tucannon (Mouth to Pataha) and Pataha Creek

As shown in Figure 5-5, key habitat quantity and sedimentation are believed to be the primary limiting 

factors for summer steelhead in the Lower Tucannon mainstem (mouth to Pataha Creek) and in the Pataha 

Creek mainstem, according to the Tucannon River Subbasin Plan (CCD 2004). Habitat diversity, flow, 

channel stability, predation, pathogens, and temperature are listed as strong secondary limiting factors. 

Figure 5-6 shows limiting factors for spring/summer Chinook salmon. The EDT analysis attributes the 

largest proportion of the impact to spring/summer Chinook salmon populations to temperature, a lack of 

key habitat quantity, and sedimentation, and a lesser proportion to a lack of habitat diversity. Channel 

stability, flow, food, pathogens, and predation account for the smallest proportions.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 161

An EDT analysis of the production potential of spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Pataha Creek 

mainstem indicated that habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, and sedimentation are most likely the 

dominant limiting factors for Chinook salmon in the mainstem of Pataha Creek, while flow and 

temperature are secondary factors. The impact of temperature is most pronounced below the town of 

Pomeroy.

Figure 5-5. Factors Limiting the Viability of the Tucannon River Steelhead Population.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 162

Figure 5-6. Factors Limiting the Viability of Tucannon River Spring/Summer Chinook.

The EDT analysis indicated that high impacts to steelhead fry and holding adults are attributed to the loss 

of key habitat quantity (pools) which also depresses the productivity of subyearling and overwintering 

spring/summer Chinook salmon juveniles. Sedimentation probably impacts virtually all life stages of both 

species, but has very high impacts on fry and overwintering pre-smolts. Although reduced habitat 

diversity impacts most life stages of both species according to the EDT analysis, it affects spring/summer 

Chinook salmon somewhat more than steelhead, potentially depressing fry production. Decreased stream 

flows likely reduce the productivity of subyearlings for both species, but relatively more so for steelhead. 

Analysis suggests that temperature has an impact on spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Tucannon 

mainstem below the Pataha confluence, potentially limiting the survival of holding adults and spawners. 

The same impacts are identified in the Pataha mainstem, although the impact lessens above Pomeroy. For 

steelhead, excessive temperature in the lower Tucannon mainstem and in Pataha Creek most likely affects 

primarily incubating eggs, fry, and subyearlings. Predation appears to also be a problem near the stream‘s 

confluence with the Snake River because exotic species (e.g., smallmouth bass) invading the Tucannon 

from the Snake River feed on fry or subyearlings of both species. 

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historical impacts to the lower Tucannon River were largely attributable to dams and, to a lesser degree, 

the poaching that was made easier by dams, and barriers to passage (G. Mendel, personal 

communication,). Starbuck Dam (RM 5.5) and De Ruwe Dam (RM 16) were both built between 1900 and 

1910, and both played major roles in the early decline of anadromous salmonids in the Tucannon River. 

These dams dewatered a mile or more of the mainstem during the summer and fall, were ineffectively 

laddered, and probably entrained or killed by impingement a high proportion of juveniles during times of 

peak diversion (USFWS 2002d).
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 163

Historical grazing practices added to the sedimentation problem by eliminating riparian vegetation and 

causing bank sloughing, channel widening, and gully erosion in the lower Tucannon and Pataha 

drainages.

Historically, two dams restricted adult access and reduced the survival of outmigrating smolts and fluvial 

bull trout. Starbuck Dam was constructed at RM 5.5 in 1907 and De Ruwe Dam was constructed in 1900 

at RM 16. Both dams were originally hydropower projects, and both diverted all or most of the flow in 

the river during the summer months (Bryant and Parkhurst 1950). Starbuck Dam was equipped with a 

ladder, but the entrance was immediately below the dam and fish were unable to find it. The De Ruwe 

Dam also had a ladder which was apparently not properly maintained. By 1935, the ladder was choked 

with mud and gravel, overgrown with willows, and was probably impassable.

Besides blocking adult salmonid passage, both dams represented major smolt entrainment hazards. An 

unscreened irrigation diversion withdrawing 11 cfs was operated in the pool above Starbuck Dam. 

Though the penstock at Starbuck Dam was screened, the mesh size was probably too wide to exclude 

smaller juveniles and impingement was almost certainly a problem for juveniles of all sizes. In 1935, De 

Ruwe Dam had been converted to an irrigation diversion (Bryant and Parkhurst 1950). At that time, 

virtually all stream flow and any migrating fish were diverted into an unscreened ditch during the summer 

months. The De Ruwe Dam was washed out by the 1964 flood, but Starbuck Dam, although modified, is 

still in place. In 1992, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife built a new fish ladder at Starbuck 

Dam. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Lower Tucannon River downstream from Pataha Creek 

have worked proactively with local landowners to improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and 

salmon/steelhead productivity. All major obstructions have been addressed and many irrigation 

diversions have been screened. Farmers, ranchers and state agencies have participated in a number of 

federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, 

fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins in problem areas and 

installed off channel water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and 

reduced streambed embeddedness. Elevated stream temperatures have been addressed by planting 

riparian areas. Stream flows have been improved irrigation efficiency and trusting of saved water. As a 

direct result of increased flows and maturing riparian trees salmonids spawning and rearing has been 

observed farther downstream than at the time of listing. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and 

key habitats although improved through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and 

elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures. The CCD has completed seven 

irrigation efficiency contracts, "Trusted" a total of 11.104 cfs and 951.38 af with 1134.6 acres served. 

Pataha Creek portion is .635 cfs, 63.5 af and 64 acres served. 

Note: This reach of the Tucannon River was changed to a priority restoration reach in the Snake River 

Salmon Recovery Plan beginning in 2010. It is anticipated this change will increase restoration actions in 

the lower river in future years.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Currently, much of the sedimentation problem in the lower Tucannon mainstem is attributable to 

agricultural practices along the lower Tucannon mainstem and in the Pataha Valley upstream. This 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 164

situation is exacerbated by a poorly designed road system and extremely unstable and incised (~20 feet) 

stream banks in the Pataha watershed. The lack of habitat diversity is primarily caused by a lack of large 

woody debris, channel confinement and/or channelization, and poor riparian function. In turn, these 

factors are attributable to current and historical crop production and grazing practices, historical 

decimation of beaver populations, and to the elimination of many riparian trees by past logging operations 

and a series of catastrophic floods. Temperature problems are attributable to riparian damage within the 

reach and upstream (reduced shading), to low flows caused by hydrological disruption of the upper 

watershed, and to upstream irrigation diversions. The lack of pools and pool tail-outs is caused by very 

low quantities of large woody debris and the filling of pools with transported sediment. Finally, pathogens 

are believed to be a minor problem because of elevated water temperatures, generally stressful conditions, 

and the presence of a hatchery complex upstream.

Elevated water temperatures throughout the Tucannon drainage are primarily attributable to a widespread 

lack of shading associated with riparian degradation, loss of stream channel and floodplain function (loss 

of subsurface flow) but are exacerbated by irrigation withdrawals. The proportion of the natural river flow 

that is diverted for irrigation is higher in dry years when the river is already low and needs to retain 

volume to remain within temperature tolerance levels for fish. Unfortunately, natural summer base flows 

are well below the volume allocated in combined irrigation permits. A cursory review of irrigation system 

data indicates that the overall conveyance efficiency of the irrigation system is only 65 percent (TRMWP 

1997). By 1995, the Washington Department of Ecology had issued 68 surface water rights for the 

Tucannon River, for a total diversion of 60 cubic feet per second to irrigate 1,147 acres (Covert et al. 

1995; TRMWP 1997). All new applications for surface water rights since 1995 have been denied.

Sedimentation problems in the Pataha watershed are exacerbated by the existing road system (USFWS 

2002d). The road network in the watershed is largely a non-engineered system more than a century old. 

Most of the 361 miles of roads run parallel to Pataha Creek and cross many smaller tributaries. Few of 

these roads are equipped with settlement basins and sediment in runoff from adjacent lands is funneled 

directly into Pataha Creek. Some of the sediment delivered to Pataha Creek via road drainage is 

attributable to poor construction and/or maintenance, but most of the sediment originates from upland 

agricultural operations.

The natural hydrological regime represents a constraint on fish production in Pataha Creek that has not 

yet been fully documented. The Tucannon Subbasin Summary (Columbia Conservation District 2001) 

reports that flows in Pataha Creek are the result of melting snow in the Blue Mountains. This is in marked 

contrast to the Tucannon mainstem, which is totally sustained by groundwater at baseflow. During years 

when the mountain snowpack is subnormal, Bihmaier Springs can provide as much as half of the flow in 

Pataha Creek during the summer. During droughts, some sections of Pataha Creek have been known to go 

dry. Due to the low flows, adult fish passage in the lower Pataha is impaired at the Delaney culvert (30 

percent maximum blockage in May and August), Dodge Bridge (20 percent maximum in August), and the 

20th Street sewer line (30 percent maximum in May and August). Davis Shelf was considered a minor 

barrier to adult fish passage in the upper Pataha mainstem (10 percent blockage in August). In addition, 

stream temperatures increase significantly when flows fall below 9 cfs.

Residential development also affects fish habitat in the Pataha drainage. The City of Pomeroy is located 

along Pataha Creek; city roads and infrastructure are located in the creek‘s floodplain. Within Pomeroy, 

significant portions of the streambank on both sides have been converted to vertical walls reinforced with 

concrete or riprap. The stream has been straightened and there is no floodplain function in this reach. 

Large trees and other riparian vegetation are largely missing because of channel modification within the 

city limits and because of upstream land use activities, resulting in severe headcutting and erosion. In 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 165

1998, canopy cover in Pataha Creek ranged from 5 to 15 percent from Pomeroy downstream to its 

confluence with the Tucannon River (Kuttel Jr. 2002). Abandoned concrete slabs covered with mud and 

vegetation are blocking the stream channel downstream of the Pomeroy well site, and the 20th Street 

sewer line partially blocks adult passage. Finally, historical illegal harvest (poaching) activities were also 

likely to have reduced adult production dramatically since European development.

5.5.3.2 Tucannon River, Pataha Confluence to Marengo

For the Tucannon mainstem from Pataha Creek to Marengo, the Tucannon Subbasin Plan identified key 

habitat quantity as the primary factor limiting steelhead production. Habitat diversity, flow, channel 

stability, sediment, and temperature were identified as secondary limiting factors. Primary limiting factors 

for spring/summer Chinook are temperature, key habitat quantity, and habitat diversity; secondary factors 

are flow, channel stability, sediment, and food.

The loss of key habitat impacts steelhead fry and holding spring/summer Chinook adults, resulting in 

depressed survival of most steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon life stages. Inadequate habitat 

diversity also impacts the productivity of almost all life stages of both species, with especially large 

impacts on spring/summer Chinook salmon fry in the reach from Tucannon Falls to the steelhead release 

facility at Einrich. Temperature has large impacts on spring/summer Chinook salmon migrant adults and 

spawners and on incubating steelhead eggs in this geographic area. Increased peak flows have moderate 

impacts on both spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead fry; decreased base flows have moderate 

impacts on steelhead subyearlings and holding spring/summer Chinook salmon adults. Sedimentation 

affects spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead similarly, moderately reducing the survival of fry 

and overwintering pre-smolts in all reaches and strongly impacting incubation in the lowermost reach.

For steelhead, the EDT analysis identified minor limiting factors, including competition with hatchery 

fish and pathogens that were not discussed in the subbasin plan. For spring/summer Chinook salmon, the 

plan noted that reduced food availability was not a major factor in any one reach, but might be 

cumulatively significant as a minor factor throughout the watershed.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

The initial decline of salmon and steelhead production through the subbasin is attributable to the 

problems associated with historical diversion dams and poaching. During the past several decades, the 

Tucannon River has undergone fundamental changes in flow regime, bed conditions, water quality, and 

habitat values. It was estimated that 33 to 55 percent of the riparian woodland present in 1937 had been 

lost by 1978, much of it to floods and the installation of protective dikes in the basin after the 1964 flood. 

Some of the woodland loss was attributed to encroachment of other land use practices, principally 

irrigated fields and pastures. As wooded riparian zones were replaced with open areas, shade was 

diminished and the riverbanks became less stable. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Tucannon River upstream from the Pataha Creek 

confluence to Marengo have worked proactively with local landowners over the past nineteen years to 

improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. All major 

obstructions have been addressed and many irrigation diversions have been screened. Farmers, ranchers 

and state agencies have participated in a number of federal and state programs to improve grazing 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 166

practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, 

constructed sediment retention basins in problem areas and installed off channel water sources to 

livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. The 

reduction of sediment load in this reach has been drastic in that sediment basins constructed to capture 

fines routing from upslope agriculture are no longer needed. Elevated stream temperatures have been 

addressed by planting riparian areas. Stream flows have been improved irrigation efficiency and trusting 

of saved water. As a direct result of increased flows, reduce with to depth ratios and maturing riparian 

trees salmonids spawning and rearing has been observed farther downstream than at the time of listing. 

Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key habitats although improved through restoration 

actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate stream temperatures until floodplains and 

riparian cover matures. Noteworthy is that water temperature in the Tucannon River at Marengo exceeded 

72 farenhiet on average 24 days per year from 1982 through 2002. Since 2005, the water temperature has 

not reached 72 farenheit at any time at Marengo. 

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Currently, floodplain connectivity and function is restricted by diking or levees along an estimated 34 

percent of the reach from the mouth to Cummings Creek (RM 34.5) (Columbia Conservation District 

2001). In this reach, the river has been significantly straightened and has lost about 30 percent of its pre1960s flood length, which has resulted in higher water velocities and fewer pools. To maximize land use, 

agriculture, development, and transportation, the floodplain has been isolated from the river by the 

construction of dikes and levees.

5.5.3.3 Tucannon River: Marengo to Little Tucannon River

In the mainstem Tucannon River reaches between Marengo and the Little Tucannon River, habitat 

diversity and key habitat quantity are considered by the subbasin plan to be the primary limiting factors 

for summer steelhead. Flow and channel stability are secondary limiting factors. Moderate losses of 

productivity attributable to habitat diversity were apparent across most life stages, with high losses to fry 

in the uppermost reach. The poor habitat diversity in these areas is the result of poor riparian condition 

and a lack of large woody debris. Loss of key habitat quantity has had large impacts on all steelhead life 

stages, with extreme impacts on holding adults. Much of the key habitat impact is attributed to a lack of 

pools, which, in turn, is the result of channel straightening and the scarcity of large woody debris.

Several minor limiting factors for steelhead identified by the EDT analysis that were not discussed in the 

subbasin plan include competition with hatchery fish, pathogens, maximum temperature, and 

harassment/poaching.

The dominant limiting factors identified by EDT for spring/summer Chinook salmon in this portion of the 

Tucannon River are a lack of habitat diversity and key habitat (pools). Secondary limiting factors include 

temperature (the impact of which decreases substantially in the upstream reaches) and minor impacts

attributable to channel stability, flow, and food.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 167

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Historically, agricultural, residential development, blockages, and dewatering associated with diversion 

dams were responsible for the initial decline in production of salmonids in the Tucannon River. However, 

the primary causes of habitat degradation in the Tucannon headwaters were historical logging operations, 

grazing, and the impacts of roads and dikes. 

Historical logging operations resulted in a lack of large trees in the riparian corridor, decreased 

recruitment of woody debris, and ultimately, a lack of large woody debris in stream channels. Past 

logging operations have also resulted in increased water temperatures in basin streams due to the removal 

or alteration of riparian habitat. Historical timber harvests in the Tucannon headwaters may have altered 

stream flow by increasing peak flows and reducing summer base flows. 

The EDT analysis assumed slight to moderate increases in peak flows and flow flashiness because of 

historical watershed disturbances in the Tucannon headwaters, as well as slight to moderate decreases in 

base flows. 

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

Habitat restoration project implementers in the Tucannon River upstream from the Marengo to the Little 

Tucannon confluence have worked proactively with local landowners and state agencies over the past 

seven years to improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. All 

major obstructions and irrigation diversions screens have been addressed. Farmers, ranchers and state 

agencies have participated in a number of federal and state programs to improve grazing practices, 

convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock out of sensitive habitats, constructed 

sediment retention basins in problem areas and installed off channel water sources to livestock. The 

result has been reduced fine sediment loads and reduced streambed embeddedness. The reduction of 

sediment load in tis reach has been drastic in that sediment basins constructed to capture fines routing 

from upslope agriculture are no longer needed. Elevated stream temperatures have been addressed by 

planting riparian areas although forest fires in 2005 have reduce riparian forests in the upper middle 

reaches of the drainage particularly on state and federal lands. The loss of riparian cover has had one 

large benefit in that a large increase in large woody debris has been recruited in the stream channel on 

levels not seen since land management practices began. Additional wood augmentation restoration 

actions have begun to dramatically improve wood retention in the upper drainage driving the formation of 

floodplain connectivity and side channels in some reaches. Stream flows have been improved through 

irrigation efficiency and trusting of saved water. As a direct result of increased flows, reduce with to 

depth ratios and maturing riparian trees salmonids spawning and rearing has been observed farther 

downstream than at the time of listing. Damaged stream banks, low habitat diversity and key habitats 

although improved through restoration actions will continue to produce fine sediment and elevate stream 

temperatures until floodplains and riparian cover matures.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Limiting factors for this reach include reduced channel stability, low habitat diversity, reduced key habitat 

quantity, and temperature. The river is inhibited by legacy effects of intense land management which has 

straightened and confined the river into a single channel reducing floodplain connectivity, riparian forests 

and minimizing complexity. River levees currently confine the channel minimizing side channels and 

transporting large wood debris from the reach inhibiting recovery.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 168

Forest lands in this area receive a high level of recreational use; in fact, recreation may be the dominant 

land use, particularly in the National Forest‘s Wenaha Wilderness area and on WDFW lands. Because the 

uplands are dominated by steep slopes, most recreational use is concentrated in riparian areas. Nearly 

400,000 visitors per year enjoy camping, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and hiking in the WDFW 

wildlife area or nearby wilderness area. During major holidays, between 3,000 and 5,000 people visit 

each day. WDFW currently manages seven campgrounds in the area and the Forest Service manages five. 

Federal planners are considering an additional campground near the Tucannon guard station.

Camp Wooten, a 160-acre environmental learning center, is located within the 16,728-acre W.T. Wooten 

Wildlife Area, owned by WDFW and managed by Washington State Parks. Camp Wooten is leased and 

operated by the Washington State Parks Department. Thousands of school and 4-H children visit the 

camp every year to learn about natural resource conservation topics.

Above RM 34.5, on public land owned by WDFW and USFS, floodplain connectivity and function are 

restricted by dikes or levees. The floodplain has been isolated from the river to protect infrastructure, 

including Camp Wooten Environmental Learning Center (Washington State Parks), man-made fishing 

ponds, the Tucannon Fish Hatchery and acclimation facility, roads, and campgrounds. Isolating the 

floodplain has resulted in a poor and narrow riparian zone and lack of shade. It is believed that elevated 

water temperature is an unnatural condition which began with the reduction of shade from riparian 

vegetation during the flood of 1964-1965. It is also assumed that subsequent floods and channelization 

have exacerbated the problem. 

5.5.3.4 Tucannon River: Little Tucannon to Bear Creek (“Mountain Tucannon”)

The EDT analysis of the Tucannon subbasin identified a lack of key habitat (primarily pools) as the 

dominant limiting factor for steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon in the headwaters of the 

Tucannon River, with minor impacts attributable to channel stability and habitat diversity. This area was 

referred to as the ―Mountain Tucannon‖ in the Tucannon Subbasin Plan as it includes the uppermost 

reaches of the mainstem in the foothills of the Blue Mountains. The impact of all limiting factors in this 

area was minimal, affecting primarily subyearling steelhead and fry and overwintering spring/summer 

Chinook salmon. The impacts of limiting factors in the Panjab Creek watershed were also minimal in the 

EDT analysis. For both steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon, the dominant limiting factor was a 

lack of key habitat attributable to a decrease from historical levels in the quantity of pools of various 

types. Inadequate habitat diversity and channel instability had very minor impacts, as did a minimal 

increase in peak flows. Fry and incubating eggs were the primary steelhead life stages affected, while 

spring/summer Chinook salmon fry and holding adults were most affected.

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

Habitat degradation in the Tucannon River headwaters is primarily attributed to inadequate quantities of 

large woody debris which are the result of past logging and flood control operations. Stream and riparian 

damage occurred because logs were often moved downhill in stream channels and floodplains. 

Agriculture has had a minimal effect on this area. Cattle grazing has been excluded from upper reaches of 

the Tucannon since the early 1990s. Recreational activities such as camping, hunting, and ―fourwheeling‖ have also impacted stream habitat in this area.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 169

With the exception of one privately owned in-holding, this reach is owned by the USFS. Channel 

restoration including in-stream structures and riparian planting have occurred on both USFS and private 

lands in this reach to improve factors limiting salmon habitat quality and salmon/steelhead productivity. 

All major obstructions have been addressed (Little Tucannon culvert replaced with a bridge). Grazing 

allotments have been fenced out of sensitive habitats, and forest roads contributing fine sediments are 

benign modified or removed. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and reduced streambed 

embeddedness. 

Note: This reach of the Tucannon River is primarily on USFS lands and much is located in the Wenaha 

Wilderness area.

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Factors currently limiting salmon recovery in the Tucannon River headwaters include habitat diversity 

and key habitat quantity. These limiting factors are largely legacy effects of past stream channel and 

riparian management practices where riparian forests were logged, grazed and snags were removed from 

the water course

Bull Trout

Bull trout spawn and rear in the headwaters of the Tucannon River and most of its tributaries, but some 

fish migrate downstream as far as the Snake River. It is assumed that actions taken to improve habitat 

conditions for spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead will benefit bull trout. 

5.5.4 Snake River ESU/DPS

5.5.4.1 Wenaha Spring/Summer Chinook and Lower Grande Ronde Steelhead 

Populations

Except for its lowermost portions, the Wenaha watershed is relatively pristine (it has only been a 

wilderness area since the 1960s and had cattle grazing until 1990s). Accordingly, the Grande Ronde 

Subbasin Plan (Nowak 2004) reported very few limiting factors for the drainage, all of which are 

confined to the lowermost reaches in the Wenaha mainstem. For spring/summer Chinook salmon, the 

EDT analysis suggested that key habitat quantity is a very minor limiting factor, affecting overwintering 

pre-smolts, subyearlings, and smolts. Production of spring/summer Chinook salmon in the lower Grande 

Ronde below the Wenaha confluence is moderately impacted by a lack of habitat diversity and key habitat 

quantity (pools). Very slight impacts due to predation and flow are also noted. The results of the EDT 

analysis for the Wenaha spring/summer Chinook salmon population are presented in Figure 5-7.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 170

Figure 5-7. Factors Affecting the Viability of the Wenaha River Spring/Summer 

Chinook Population.

The Lower Grande Ronde steelhead population includes the Wenaha River drainage and lower Grande 

Ronde River as well as a number of tributaries to the lower Grande Ronde, the largest of which are Mud, 

Courtney, Grossman, and Wildcat creeks. EDT limiting factors analysis for this population indicates that 

there are very few habitat problems within the Wenaha drainage, but that there are significant impacts in 

the lower Grande Ronde mainstem and the lower Grande Ronde tributaries (Figure 5-8). Within the 

Wenaha drainage, steelhead subyearlings and incubating eggs are very slightly impacted by sedimentation 

and, to an even lower degree, by temperature and a lack of key habitat (pools). In the lower Grande Ronde 

River and its tributaries, the largest impacts are due to sedimentation and key habitat quantity (pools), 

with lesser impacts attributable to excessive temperature. Lesser impacts were attributed to habitat 

diversity, low flow, and fish pathogens. Within the lower Grande Ronde River mainstem, the largest 

impacts affect overwintering juveniles and are attributable to a lack of habitat diversity and key habitat 

(pools). Sedimentation, icing, bed scour, and occasional temperature effects on incubating eggs were 

almost always the major impacts identified in the lower Grande Ronde tributaries.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 171

Figure 5-8. Factors Affecting the Viability of the Lower Grande Ronde Steelhead 

Population.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 172

Historical Causes for Decline (summarized from SRSRB 2006)

It is speculated that historical logging and grazing may have impacted salmonid populations in the past.

The Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (Nowak 2004) attributed the lack of habitat diversity in the lower 

Grande Ronde mainstem primarily to anthropogenic confinement, the importation of suspended sediment 

from upstream, and a lack of large woody debris. They also noted, however, that much of this area is a 

natural transport zone due to a high degree of natural confinement and that increasing woody debris 

loading would likely be difficult. The plan also attributed most of the sediment and temperature problems 

in the tributaries to riparian degradation associated with streamside roads and grazing.

Actions and Improvements That Have Taken Place to Address Original Causes for Decline 

The lower Grande Ronde River has benefited from salmon habitat restoration actions performed in the 

drainage which reduced sediment load, removed obstructions, and improved riparian habitat in the 

tributaries. Farmers, ranchers and state agencies have participated in a number of federal and state 

programs to improve grazing practices, convert tilled lands to minimum till agriculture, fenced livestock 

out of sensitive habitats, constructed sediment retention basins in problem areas and installed off channel 

water sources to livestock. The result has been reduced fine sediment loads and reduced streambed 

embeddedness. 

Current Impacts and Limiting Factors

Factors limiting in the Lower Grande Ronde and tributaries include habitat diversity including large 

wood debris caused by past land management and limited riparian, fine sediment, stream temperature and 

key habitat quantity. 

5.5.4.2 Joseph Creek Steelhead Population

Figure 5-9 shows the results of the EDT limiting factors analysis for the entire Joseph Creek watershed, 

but only the ―Lower Joseph Creek‖ geographic area, which includes the Washington portion of the 

drainage (as well as some of the lowermost Oregon reaches), is applicable to this analysis.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 173

Figure 5-9. Factors Affecting the Viability of the Joseph Creek Steelhead Population.

Figure 5-9 shows that sedimentation is the dominant limiting factor in the Lower Joseph Creek 

geographic area, with pathogens, predation, temperature and a lack of key habitat (pools) playing minor 

roles. Incubation and overwintering are the life stages most affected by sedimentation in these reaches.

The Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (Nowak 2004) states that lower Joseph Creek flows through mostly 

private lands in a relatively confined canyon, and is partly paralleled by a road. They note some grazing, a 

reasonably intact riparian corridor, no logging, and isolated ranches. They conclude that the sediment and 

other impacts affecting this area likely are caused by activities upstream, and therefore that actions taken 

strictly within lower Joseph Creek are unlikely to improve conditions appreciably.

5.6 SUMMARY OF KEY LIMITING FACTORS

The key factors limiting the viability of salmonid populations in the recovery area are summarized for 

each of the four ―Hs.‖ Chapter 6 will present strategies to address, as appropriate, each factor. Note that 

NMFS has developed more detailed analyses of impacts from the hydroelectric system, hatcheries, 

harvest, and Columbia River estuary habitat (NOAA Fisheries 2008). The strategies and actions described 

in the FCRPS BiOp are currently being implemented, or planned for implementation.

5.6.1 Key Factors Related to Habitat

5.6.1.1 Habitat within the SEWMU

The watersheds in the SEWMU have similar salmonid habitat limitations due to similarities in 

topography, geology, vegetation, and land use. Agriculture (including grazing), logging, and urbanization 

have increased sediment and water temperatures, decreased riparian condition, and caused major changes 

in channel form and function. The key habitat factors affecting the recovery region are lack of large 

woody debris, stream confinement, reduction or elimination of riparian functions, increased sediment, 

reduction in quality habitat (lack of pools and reduced habitat diversity), alterations to stream flows, and 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 174

high water temperatures. Table 5-2 shows the key factors for the major streams and stream reaches in the 

recovery region.

Table 5-2. Key Limiting Habitat Factors in SEWMU Subbasins.

Geographic Area

Limiting Habitat Attributes

Large 

Wood Confinement

Riparian 

Function Sediment

Key 

Habitat 

(Pools) Flow

Bed 

Scour TemperatureaOther

Upper Asotin 

(Headgate Dam to 

Forks)

X X X X X X

Lower George Creek X X X X X X X X

Lower NF Asotin X X X X X X

Charley Creek X X X X X X

Lower SF Asotin X X X X X X

Tucannon, Pataha 

Creek to Marengo X X X X X X X

Tucannon, Marengo to 

Tumalum Creek X X X X X X

Tucannon Tumalum 

Creek to Hatchery 

Dam

X X X X X X

Tucannon, Hatchery 

Dam to Little 

Tucannon

X X X X

Tucannon, Little 

Tucannon to Bear 

Creek

X X X X

Walla Walla, Mill to E 

Little Walla Walla X X X X X X X X

Walla Walla, E. Little 

Walla Walla to 

Tumalum Bridge

X X X X X X X X

Walla Walla, Tumalum 

Bridge to Nursery 

Bridge

X X X X X X

Walla Walla, Nursery 

Bridge to Little Walla 

Walla Diversion

X X X X X X

Walla Walla, Little 

Walla Walla Diversion 

to forks

X X X X X X

SF Walla Walla, mouth 

to Elbow Creek X X X X X X X X

NF Walla Walla, 

mouth to L. Meadows 

Canyon Creek (plus L. 

Meadows)

X X X X X X X X

Coppei Drainage X X X X X X X X

Touchet, Coppei to 

forks (plus Whiskey X X X X X X X X

SF Touchet Mainstem X X X X X X X X
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 175

Geographic Area

Limiting Habitat Attributes

Large 

Wood Confinement

Riparian 

Function Sediment

Key 

Habitat 

(Pools) Flow

Bed 

Scour TemperatureaOther

SF Touchet Tributaries X X X X X

NF Touchet Mainstem X X X X X

NF Touchet Tributaries 

(excluding Wolf fork) X X

Wolf Fork, mouth to 

Coates (plus Robinson 

& Coates)

X X X X X

Wolf Fork, Coates to 

access limit (plus 

Whitney)

X X X X X

Almota Creek X X X X X

Deadman Creek X X X X X

Grande Ronde, below 

Wenaha Wilderness X X X X X Predation

aTemperature ―problems‖ as identified by EDT represent a negative impact relative to historical conditions, not 

necessarily an existing negative impact. Thus, if historical conditions were assumed to include a negative impact due 

to a particular environmental factor, and if the same degree of impact were present currently, EDT would not 

indicate a ―problem‖. This situation arises relatively frequently with regard to high temperatures in Snake River 

tributaries. Specifically, negative impacts attributable to high water temperatures are recognized in many areas (e.g., 

the lower Walla Walla mainstem, lower Touchet River, Deadman Creek, etc.), but are not emphasized as a problem 

because impacts nearly as severe were assumed to occur historically.

5.6.1.2 Habitat Outside the Recovery Region

The Columbia River Estuary has been extensively modified by man. Key factors affecting salmonid 

habitat are the following.

The annual hydrograph in the Columbia River has been significantly altered; winter and spring 

high flows have been moderated and summer-fall flow has increased. These changes have 

impacted the estuary food web upon which salmon depend for food.

The size of the Columbia River estuary has been reduced by 24 percent as a result of diking and 

elimination of back and side channels. This has likely reduced the carrying capacity of the estuary 

to support large numbers of juvenile salmonids.

Alteration of flow and upriver dams has significantly altered the input of sediment and organic 

matter, including large wood, to the estuary. These actions have reduced habitat complexity and 

food abundance.

Although water quality has improved, the Columbia River estuary does have increased levels of 

most metals as well as DDT and PCBs. These chemicals may reduce juvenile survival and other 

species these fish rely on as a food source.

The ocean environment has a significant effect on salmonids. Among factors affecting salmonid survival 

are the following:

Abundance of Snake River salmon and steelhead is highly dependent on conditions in the ocean.

Ocean conditions cycle at 15 to 30 year periods producing long-term cycles in salmon abundance. 

These cycles must be accounted for in determining the success or failure of actions designed to 

increase salmon abundance.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 176

Shorter term oscillations such as El Niño result in significant variation in returns from year-toyear.

5.6.2 Key Factors Related to Hydroelectric Installations

Salmon and steelhead populations addressed in this recovery plan are directly impacted by four to eight 

hydroelectric dams depending on the location of the subbasin from which they originate. Some of the key 

impacts from hydro include the following.12

Stocks are negatively impacted by flow regulation from dams in the upper Columbia and Snake 

Rivers. Spring flows are lower and summer flows are generally higher.

The major loss of spawning and rearing habitat above Hells‘ Canyon Dam, and the loss or 

alteration of habitat for spawning and rearing in the lower Snake River (for Snake River fall 

Chinook primarily)

Flow impacts attributable to Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams13.

Juvenile bypass systems at the Snake River dams collect the majority of juvenile migrants and 

divert them into transport barges or trucks which transport and release the fish below Bonneville 

Dam. This activity may result in increased stress, descaling, and mortality.

Some dams may prevent fish that have ―overshot‖ their natal tributary from returning to that 

tributary.

Recent survival of adult fish from Bonneville Dam to above Lower Granite Dam is estimated 

between 65 to 96 percent, for an estimate of per project survival between 95 and 99 percent.

5.6.3 Key Factors Related to Hatcheries

Populations of the key species addressed in this recovery plan are impacted by releases of juvenile fish 

from hatcheries throughout the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam. Approximately 33 hatcheries 

release over 29 million juvenile salmon and steelhead into the Snake River annually. Hatcheries can cause 

a number of potentially negative impacts to wild fish, most of which can be mitigated through proper fish 

husbandry practices. Potential negative impacts are:

Competition for limited space and resources in streams and estuary

Predation of wild fish by hatchery fish or an increase in predation as a result of predators being 

attracted to hatchery release points

Disease transmission from hatchery fish to wild fish

Ecological effects in streams as a result of segregation of hatchery populations from the stream 

including the loss of salmon carcasses containing marine-derived nutrients

Genetic effects resulting from hybridization of domesticated hatchery fish and wild fish leading 

to the loss of local adaptations in wild populations or reduced productivity or reduced survival

5.6.4 Key Factors Related to Harvest

Impacts to the key species as a result of harvest occur mostly outside the recovery region. Factors 

affecting SEWMU populations include the following.

 

12 Additional detailed information can be found in the Hydro Module.

13 Additional releases from these dams of cool water during critical periods have increased the
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 177

Salmon and steelhead are impacted by commercial, sport, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence 

fisheries in the Lower Columbia River. Spring Chinook salmon are linked to the lower Columbia 

for ESA impacts and terminal harvest opportunities.

All fisheries are currently managed to reduce or minimize impacts to listed Upper Columbia or 

Snake River populations. 

Outside the SEWMU, fisheries impacting one or more of the populations addressed in this 

recovery plan occur in the ocean and in the Columbia River.

Within the recovery region, fisheries appear to have minimal impacts on populations addressed 

by this recovery plan.

There are no directed recreational fisheries on ESA listed fish within the SEWMU. Recreational 

fisheries target non-listed hatchery fish; others must be released.

No fisheries for bull trout currently are authorized in the SEWMU.

Columbia River harvest of Snake River steelhead has declined over the past several years.

Columbia River spring/summer Chinook salmon harvests are minimal and vary with the projected 

run size.

5.7 CURRENT THREATS

The previous sections identified factors that led to the decline of SEWMU spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. In this section the plan summarizes current threats to the continued 

existence of the three species. These threats are organized according to the five categories as set forth in 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and all apply to this recovery plan:

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

3. Disease or predation.

4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

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

The information outlined in this section comes from the Federal Register Rules and Regulations, subbasin 

plans, and discussion through the SR RTT (Table 5-3).

Table 5-3. Summary of current threats by listing factor and category (from SR RTT).

Listing Factor

Status of Threats 

Associated with: Threat Comment

Present or threatened 

destruction, modification 

or curtailment of the 

species‘ habitat or range

Habitat

Prior allocation of ground 

and surface water

Catastrophic wildfire 

Improperly designed, 

installed and maintained 

roads and road right-ofways as it pertains to 

sediment 

Impervious surface and 

storm water runoff

Invasive riparian weeds 

and competition
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 178

Listing Factor

Status of Threats 

Associated with: Threat Comment

Inadequate or future loss 

of refuge 

watersheds/sanctuaries

Current and future 

channel confinement

Hydropower

Loss of mainstem Snake 

River habitat and water 

quality including fall back 

impacts and passage 

survival

Over-utilization for 

commercial, recreational, 

scientific or educational 

purposes

Harvest

Ocean and Lower 

Columbia River 

overharvest 

Disease or predation Disease and Predation

Predation by avian species

Predation from native and 

exotic fish species.

Inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms Regulatory mechanisms

Inadequate land use 

regulations and 

enforcement necessary to 

protect the floodplain and 

channel migration zone

Other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its 

continued existence

Hatchery programs

Natural Catastrophic wildfire

Manmade

In addition to the threats listed above (Table 5-3), additional concerns are noted in Table 5-4 

concerning various factors that could be affecting the viability of SEWMU populations.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 179

Table 5-4. Additional concerns that could affect the viability of SEWMU populations.

Concerns Comment

Balancing habitat needs with cooperative landowners 

and local governments.

Tilled field edges, lack of grass waterways/cut-slopes, 

public road right-of–way damage

There has been much progress with working with 

individual land owners, local governments and state 

governments in the SEWMU, but this will be a 

continuing challenge. Public road ―shoulders‖ and right 

of ways are a significant contributor and/or routing 

network of fine sediment.

Out-of-region overharvest (elevated/over-estimated preseason run forecasts result in ―premature‖ harvest levels 

in lower Columbia and consumption of ESA impact rate 

followed by continued non-sport harvest upriver)

While harvest managers attempt to refine their 

forecasting methods, it is important that additional take 

is not allowed to occur of SEWMU populations in the 

areas open to harvest downstream of the SEWMU; the 

more terminal the harvest the more precise the 

management.

ecological impact of exotic mussels

Diligence to ensure that exotic mussels are not 

introduced into the Columbia basin is of prime 

importance.

Loss of federal farm conservation programs , primarily 

CREP and CRP

These five concerns are very important and whatever 

can be done to ensure that they are taken care of will be 

supported by the SRSRB and SR RTT.

Funding certainty, level and societal support

Public frustration with bureaucratic process /permitting 

and contradictory agency mission

Reduction in recreational sport fisheries may result in 

the loss of public and landowner support for salmon 

recovery

Monitoring – in the absence of monitoring we do not 

know pHOS in wilderness areas, for example; spatial 

structure and abundance in remote or unsampled 

tributaries, and productivity in these same tributaries is 

largely unknown. De-listing could be met but data is not 

available to reach that conclusion.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 180

5.7.1 Spring Chinook Salmon

5.7.1.1 The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 

its Habitat or Range

Although land and water management activities have improved, factors such as dams, diversions, 

roads and railways, agriculture (including livestock grazing), residential development, and 

historic forest management continue to threaten spring Chinook salmon and their habitat in some 

locations in the SEWMU.

While most water diversions without proper passage routes have been fixed, they could disrupt 

migrations of adult spring/summer Chinook salmon.

While most unscreened diversions have been fixed, they could trap or divert juvenile

spring/summer Chinook salmon resulting in reduced survival.

Hydroelectric passage mortality has been reduced substantially in the last 15 years; it still can 

reduce abundance of migrant spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Sedimentation from land and water management activities is a cause of habitat degradation in 

some salmon streams.

Confinement and loss of floodplain function has lead to loss of habitat complexity, off-channel 

habitat, and large, deep pools due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as 

boulders and large woody debris threatens spring/summer Chinook salmon and their habitat in 

some locations in the SEWMU.

5.7.1.2 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes

The effects of recreational fishing on naturally produced spring/summer Chinook salmon may be 

heightened during fisheries for hatchery produced Chinook salmon in the Lower Columbia River.

Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock fisheries and commercial fisheries in the Lower 

Columbia River contributes to the loss of naturally produced spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Illegal harvest (poaching) continues to threaten spring/summer Chinook salmon.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 181

5.7.1.3 Disease or Predation

The presence of non-native (exotic) species (e.g., walleye and smallmouth bass) has resulted in 

increased predator populations that prey on spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Increased predation by northern pikeminnow affects the survival of downstream migrating 

spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Avian predation is a threat to spring/summer Chinook salmon populations.

Predation by pinnipeds is also a major concern in the Lower Columbia River.

Disease transmission from hatchery fish to wild fish in unknown, but may be detrimental.

Hatchery-reared smolts can prey directly on wild salmon.

Releases of hatchery fish can help to support an increased predator population, thereby increasing 

predation rates on wild fish.

5.7.1.4 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The implementation and enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve 

fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat have not been entirely 

successful in preventing past and ongoing habitat degradation.

Although the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act 

(SMA) have been significantly changed to improve management, conditions and protection 

efforts for listed species, local regulatory improvements, and compliance monitoring 

(enforcement) have lagged behind because of political support and a lack of funding.

The ―base‖ State of Washington Forest Practice Rules do not adequately address large woody 

debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank integrity and channel networks within 

floodplains, and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitat that 

are properly functioning for all life stages of spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act has not been completely successful in protecting 

spring/summer Chinook salmon, particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution.

Current Washington State fishing regulations are geared towards managing exotic walleye and 

smallmouth bass for trophy, or conservation purposes. More liberal management of these two 

species has the potential to reduce predation impacts on juvenile salmonids, primarily in the 

mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 182

Existing federal regulations are occasionally at odds (e.g. The USACE dike vegetation 

management policy vs ESA and Clean Water policies).

5.7.1.5 Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence

Natural climatic conditions (e.g., fires, floods, droughts, landslides, etc.)14 can exacerbate the 

problems associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Drought conditions reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat.

Poor ocean conditions (e.g., less upwelling, warm surface waters, etc.) negatively affect 

spring/summer Chinook salmon production.

The collection of naturally produced spring/summer Chinook salmon for hatchery broodstock 

may harm small or dwindling natural populations if not done with best management practices (see 

HSRG 2004)15.

Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery 

introductions may reduce the productivity and survival of naturally produced spring/summer 

Chinook salmon16.

The use of non-localy derived broodstock for hatchery programs may negatively affect genetic 

integrity of natural stocks.

Collection of naturaly produced spring Chinook salmon for hatchery broodstock may harm small 

or dwindling natural populations; conversely a safety net program may be required in some 

instances.

Competition and genetic introgression resulting from hatchery introductions may reduce the 

productivity and survival of naturally produced salmon. 

 

14 Natural disturbance is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, species richness and diversity are higher in areas with 

some disturbance (―Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis‖; Connell 1978). However, when disturbances occur too 

often (resulting from the cumulative effects of both natural and un-natural disturbances), species richness and 

diversity decrease because some species go extinct.

15 Using natural broodstock can also reserve genetic resources when population status is low.

16 Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission are critical uncertainties and further information 

(research) is needed.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 183

5.7.2 Steelhead

5.7.2.1 The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 

its Habitat or Range

Although land and water management activities have improved, factors such as dams, diversions, 

roads and railways, agriculture, residential development, and historic forest management continue 

to threaten steelhead and their habitat in some locations in the SEWMU.

While most water diversions without proper passage routes have been fixed, they could disrupt 

migrations of adult steelhead.

While most unscreened diversions have been fixed, they could trap or divert juvenile steelhead 

resulting in reduced survival.

Hydroelectric passage mortality has been reduced substantially in the last 15 years; it still can 

reduce abundance of migrant steelhead.

Sedimentation from land and water management activities is a cause of habitat degradation in 

some steelhead streams.

Confinement and loss of floodplain function has lead to loss of habitat complexity, off-channel 

habitat, and large, deep pools due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as 

boulders and large woody debris threatens steelhead and their habitat in some locations in the 

SEWMU.

5.7.2.2 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes

The effects of recreational fishing on naturally produced steelhead may be heightened during 

fisheries for hatchery produced steelhead in the Lower Columbia River.

Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock fisheries and commercial fisheries in the Lower 

Columbia River contributes to the loss of naturally produced steelhead.

Illegal harvest (poaching) continues to threaten steelhead.

5.7.2.3 Disease or Predation

The presence of non-native species (e.g., walleye and smallmouth bass) has resulted in increased 

predator populations that prey on steelhead.

Increased predation by northern pikeminnow affects the survival of downstream migrating 

steelhead.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 184

Avian predation is a threat to steelhead populations.

Predation by pinnipeds is also a concern.

Disease transmission from hatchery to wild fish is unknown, but may be detrimental.

Hatchery released smolts can prey on wild juveniles.

Releases of hatchery fish can help to support an increased predator population, thereby increasing 

predation rates on wild fish.

5.7.2.4 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The implementation and enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve 

fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat have not been entirely 

successful in preventing past and ongoing habitat degradation.

Although the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMS) and Shoreline Management Act 

(SMA) have been significantly changed to improve management, conditions and protection 

efforts for listed species, local regulatory improvements, and compliance monitoring 

(enforcement) have lagged behind because of political support and a lack of funding.

The ―base‖ State of Washington Forest Practice Rules do not adequately address large woody 

debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank integrity and channel networks within 

floodplains, and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitat that 

are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.

Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act has not been completely successful in protecting 

steelhead, particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution.

Current Washington State fishing regulations are geared towards managing exotic walleye and 

smallmouth bass for trophy, or conservation purposes. More liberal management of these two 

species has the potential to reduce predation impacts on juvenile salmonids, primarily in the 

mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers.

Existing federal regulations are occasionally at odds (e.g. USACOE dike vegetation management 

policy vs. ESA and Clean Water policies).

5.7.2.5 Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence

Natural climatic conditions (e.g., fires, floods, droughts, landslides, etc.) can exacerbate the 

problems associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Drought conditions reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 185

Poor ocean conditions (e.g., less upwelling, warm surface waters, etc.) negatively affect steelhead 

production.

The use of non-locally derived broodstock for hatchery programs may negatively affect genetic 

integrity.

The collection of naturally produced steelhead for hatchery broodstock may harm small or 

dwindling natural populations if not done with best management practices (see HSRG 2004).

Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery 

introductions may reduce the productivity and survival of naturally produced steelhead.

The use of non-localy derived broodstock for hatchery programs may negatively affect genetic 

integrity of natural stocks.

Collection of naturaly produced steelhead for hatchery broodstock may harm small or dwindling 

natural populations; conversely a safety net program may be required in some instances.

Competition and genetic introgression resulting from hatchery introductions may reduce the 

productivity and survival of naturally produced salmon. 

5.7.3 Bull Trout

5.7.3.1 The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 

its Habitat or Range

Although land and water management activities have improved, factors such as dams, diversions, 

roads and railways, agriculture, residential development, and historic forest management continue 

to threaten bull trout and their habitat in some locations in the SEWMU.

While most water diversions without proper passage routes have been fixed, they could disrupt 

migrations of adult bull trout.

While most unscreened diversions have been fixed, they could trap or divert juvenile bull trout 

resulting in reduced survival.

Passage through hydroelectric projects may reduce abundance of migrant bull trout.

Sedimentation from land and water management activities is a cause of habitat degradation in 

some bull trout streams.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 186

Loss of habitat complexity, connectivity, channel stability, decreased in-stream flow, and 

increased water temperatures due to land and water management activities threatens bull trout in 

some locations in the SEWMU.

5.7.3.2 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes

Illegal and incidental harvest may reduce the abundance of bull trout in the SEWMU.

Harvest as a result of misidentification continues under existing fishing regulations.

Poaching can be especially detrimental to small, isolated, local populations of migratory bull 

trout.

5.7.3.3 Disease or Predation

The presence of non-native species (e.g., bass, walleye, etc.) has resulted in increased predator 

populations that prey on juvenile bull trout.

5.7.3.4 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The implementation and enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve 

fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat have not been entirely 

successful in preventing past and ongoing habitat degradation.

Although the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMS) and Shoreline Management Act 

(SMA) have been significantly changed to improve management, conditions and protection 

efforts for listed species, local regulatory improvements, and compliance monitoring 

(enforcement) have lagged behind because of political support and a lack of funding.

The ―base‖ State of Washington Forest Practice Rules do not adequately address large woody 

debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank integrity and channel networks within 

floodplains, and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitat that 

are properly functioning for all life stages of bull trout.

Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act has not been completely successful in protecting 

bull trout, particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution and water temperature.

Current Washington State fishing regulations are geared towards managing exotic walleye and 

smallmouth bass for trophy, or conservation purposes. More liberal management of these two 

species has the potential to reduce predation impacts on juvenile salmonids, primarily in the 

mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 187

5.7.3.5 Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence

Natural climatic conditions (e.g., fires, floods, droughts, landslides, etc.) can exacerbate the 

problems associated with degraded and altered riverine habitat.

Drought conditions can reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat.

Introduction of non-native species for recreational fisheries may increase incidental catch and 

illegal harvest of bull trout.

Recent activities to address threats and reverse the long-term decline of spring/summer Chinook salmon, 

steelhead, and bull trout in the SEWMU are being initiated at Federal, State, and local levels (e.g., 

restrictive harvest regulations, adoption of various land management rules, and development of 

conservation strategies and plans). While these efforts are important to the conservation and recovery of 

ESA-listed species, additional work is needed to minimize threats to recovery.

5.8 UNCERTAINTIES

The preceding sections described many of the important factors that have, and continue to, reduce the 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, 

and bull trout in the SEWMU. It is clear that actions must be taken in all Hs (not just habitat) in order to 

recover listed populations. However, there are ―key‖ areas of uncertainty17 identified in FCRPS BiOp, 

USFWS Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council documents that 

can affect the success of actions implemented within each of the Hs. Resolution of uncertainties will 

greatly improve chances of attaining recovery goals outlined in this plan. These ―key‖ uncertainties are 

highlighted below.

5.8.1 Ocean Productivity and Natural Variation

Global-scale processes in the ocean and atmosphere can regulate the productivity of marine, estuarine, 

and freshwater habitats of Chinook salmon and steelhead. Although managers cannot control these 

processes, natural variability must be understood to correctly interpret the response of salmon to 

management actions. For example, assessing needed survival improvements based on spawner returns 

from 1980-1999, during periods of below average climatic and other background conditions (Coronado 

and Hilborn 1998), has the effect of projecting these generally poor ocean conditions into the future. 

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 

SEWMU populations persist over the full range of environmental conditions they are likely to encounter.

 

17 Key uncertainties identify important gaps in our knowledge about the resources and functional relationships that 

determine fish viability.
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 188

5.8.2 Global Climate Change

The potential impacts of global climate change are recognized at national and international levels 

(Beamish 1995). 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 listed fish populations in the SEWMU. The risks of global climate 

change are potentially great for SEWMU stocks because of the sensitivity of salmon stocks to climaterelated shifts in 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). Bull trout 

are particularly sensitive to water temperatures and it is uncertain how global climate change will affect 

their habitat. More research is needed to address the effects of climate change on ocean circulation 

patterns, freshwater habitat, and salmon and trout productivity.

5.8.3 Hatchery Effectiveness

Uncertainties exist regarding the potential for both benefits and harm of hatchery-produced fish on 

naturally spawning 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. NOAA Fisheries 

evaluated survival requirements using a broad range of 20 to 80% historical effectiveness of hatcheryorigin spawners to cover this uncertainty. It is difficult to address the uncertainties and potential risks 

associated with hatcheries, because experimental methods for obtaining this information will take several 

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.

5.8.4 Invasive Species

Another critical uncertainty is the effect of invasive species on the viability of listed populations in the 

SEWMU. One such species, American shad, may affect the abundance and survival of spring Chinook 

and steelhead in the lower Columbia River. It is possible that the growing population of shad is 

competing directly with juvenile Chinook and 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 salmon and steelhead. Shad may be sustaining large populations of predators during periods 

when salmon and steelhead are not available to the predators, and, as a result, more and larger predators 

are present during periods when salmon and steelhead are moving through the lower Columbia River.

Research is needed to assess the direct and indirect effects of invasive species (including invasive plants) 

on the abundance and survival of spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout in the 

SEWMU.

5.8.5 Effects of Dams on Bull Trout

The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a) has identified dams as an important factor for the 

decline of bull trout in the SEWMU. Although it is true that dams can affect salmonids by delaying or 
Chapter 5: Limiting Factors & Threats

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 189

impeding migration of adults and by injuring or killing juveniles that pass downstream, there is currently 

little information on the effects of dams on bull trout in the SEWMU. 

5.8.6 Interaction between Resident and Migrant Bull Trout Life-History Types

The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002a) proposes recovery criteria for bull trout based on 

connectivity, abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of migrant (fluvial and adfluvial) life-history 

types. A critical uncertainty is the role of resident life-history types in maintaining viable populations of 

bull trout. Little is known about the abundance and spatial structure of resident forms in the SEWMU, and 

even less is known about their contribution to migrant life-history types. Research is needed to assess the 

spatial structure and importance of resident types in maintaining viable populations of bull trout in the 

SEWMU.

5.8.7 Interaction between Resident and Anadromous Rainbow (steelhead) Trout 

Life-History Types

Understanding how resident rainbow trout contribute to anadromous steelhead populations is a key 

uncertainty throughout their range. Recent work in the Hood River, OR (Christie et al. 2011) suggests 

that approximately 20% of the anadromous genes‘ come from resident fish each generation. Obtaining 

information in other areas will assist managers with understanding the population dynamics and potential 

contribution of resident fish to anadromous fish viability.

5.8.8 Effects of Harvest, Hatchery, Hydropower, and Habitat 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 Hs (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.

5.8.9 Effects of Human Population Growth

Human population growth in the SEWMU and its effects on recovery of listed species is a critical 

uncertainty. The size of the human population within the SEWMU region is expected to increase in the 

next two decades, with more most likely occurring in incorporated areas. 18 It is important to note that 

additional development along stream reaches has more direct potential to affect SEWMU salmonid 

populations. A high degree of coordination among agencies, tribes, and counties will be needed to 

maximize recovery efforts.

 

18 See http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 190

6 RECOVERY STRATEGIES AND GENERAL ACTIONS

6.1 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 SEWMU steelhead and Chinook salmon populations. This information helps inform us 

how to formulate strategies to get to recovery and restoration. 

The overall goal for recovery and restoration, as described in Chapter 4 of this plan, is to have all extant 

populations at either viable (low risk) or highly viable 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 most SEWMU populations is considered at high risk of 

extinction (Ford et al. 2010). One population, Joseph Creek steelhead, is currently at very low risk or 

―highly viable,‖ and the Walla Walla steelhead population and possibly the Lower Grande Ronde 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 191

steelhead populations are considered ―maintained.‖ As mentioned in Appendix B, long term data sets do 

not exist for most of the steelhead populations. For Asotin Creek steelhead population, which is managed 

natural production only, recent information suggests that abundance may be close to, or exceeding 

viability criteria, but additional years of monitoring are needed. 

If, as discussed in Chapter 5, the decline of the SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon and summer 

steelhead populations is due to widespread habitat degradation, impaired mainstem passage, hatchery 

effects, mainstem fisheries, and predation/ competition/ disease, then actions taken to improve, change, 

mitigate, and reduce those factors will result in reduced risks and increased survival. Because of the 

species‘ complex life cycle, and the many changes that have taken place in their environment, the factors 

limiting their 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. Each population and MPG contributes greatly to the wellbeing of the species. The intent for 

this plan is to build upon, help to coordinate, and add to the ongoing efforts.

NMFS' 2005 and 2006 listing decisions 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 salmonid 

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 SEWMU populations, the actions of individuals 

on their land, as well as city and county codes and ordinances promoting conservation, are also essential.

The recovery strategies for SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon and summer steelhead populations 

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 addressed within this plan.. This SEWMU Plan 

describes the overall strategy, summarizes the MPG- and population level strategies, and refers to 

Appendix A for more site-specific, population level actions.

Achievement of the recovery and restoration goals will ultimately lead to the desired future condition as 

defined by the SRSRB‘s vision statement. The goals will be achieved through actions or sets of actions; 

the actions are selected by and consistent with the approach, or strategy, chosen by the local stakeholders. 

Strategies are rules and guidelines that are used to guide accomplishment of the ―mission.‖

The strategic guidelines adopted by the SRSRB 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 

which 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.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 192

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.

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 10-year planning period 

of this plan.

6.2 ESU/DPS LEVEL RECOVERY STRATEGY

The recovery strategy for the SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon and summer steelhead 

populations is made up of the following elements:

Affirm and address the 2005 and 2006 listing decisions recommendations regarding the limiting 

factors for the ESU/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 this plan.

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 this plan. 

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 2008c). 

Address ecosystem imbalances in predation, competition, and disease through the strategies and 

actions in this plan, 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.

The SRSRB believes that if this strategy is implemented and the biological response is as expected, the 

SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon and summer steelhead populations are 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.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 193

6.3 HABITAT

Actions to protect and improve habitat in the tributaries and the Snake and Columbia mainstems are 

essential to achieving recovery objectives for the SEWMU populations. Spring/summer Chinook and 

steelhead are ―stream-type‖ salmonids; so they use mainstem tributary, upper tributary, and side channel 

habitats for spawning, juvenile rearing, and overwintering. Bull trout populations are particularly 

susceptible to the effects of degraded freshwater habitat because, like most steelhead, spend one or more 

years in their natal streams before migrating. While improving survival in the mainstem Snake and 

Columbia Rivers and estuary is also an important part of ESU/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 SEWMU 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 (outside of SEWMU) factors remain 

as they are today.

6.3.1 Columbia/Snake River

Relatively little information is available concerning SEWMU populations‘ use of mainstem Snake and 

Columbia River habitat upstream of Bonneville Dam, 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.

6.3.2 Tributary

The tributary habitat strategy proposed by the SRSRB is aimed at addressing habitat actions at the MaSA 

level, and are grouped under ―Approach Categories.‖ These categories define the approach to be taken to 

implementing overarching strategies (restoration or protection) discussed in Section 6.1 in order to 

achieve the desired future condition and recovery goals (Chapter 4). These approaches are designed to 

improve upland habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain functions, instream habitat, water quantity, and 

water quality. The selected approaches were prioritized using the following criteria:

Effectiveness: What is the probability that implementing this strategy will achieve the objective?

Technical Feasibility: How feasible is the strategy from a technical perspective?

Cost/benefit: Are the benefits to fish habitat large relative to the cost of the strategy?

The approach categories were given priority values on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Habitat factors 

(attribute) are correlated with sets of approaches, each of which is prioritized. On Table 6-1, it can be seen 

that the approach to improving embeddedness will rely on actions involving improvement of riparian 

areas (highest priority) to improving water quantity (lowest priority). Actions to achieve these 

improvements will be defined for each MaSA and each habitat factor in Appendix A.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 194

Table 6-1. Prioritization of Approaches to Habitat Restoration.

Habitat Factor

Approach Categories

Improve 

riparian 

areas

Improve 

uplands

Improve 

channel and 

floodplain 

function

Improve 

instream 

habitat

Improve 

water 

quantity

Substrate 

Embeddedness 5 4 3 2 1

Large Woody Debris 4 0 5 3 0

Pools 4 0 5 3 2

Riparian Function 5 0 4 0 3

Confinement 4 0 5 0 0

Maximum 

Temperature 5 0 3 2 4

Bedscour 4 2 5 3 0

Summer Flow 3 4 2 0 5

TOTAL 34 10 32 13 15

The habitat factors were then arranged in order, from the most important to least important for each 

MaSA (Table 6-2). In most cases, attributes were combined to obtain a single value for a habitat factor. 

For example, the value for the habitat factor ―embeddedness‖ is the total of the related attributes turbidity, 

percent fines, and embeddedness. Table 6-2 also contains restoration and protection objectives for habitat 

factors. For example, the restoration objective for temperature is to achieve a stream condition where the 

water temperature does not rise above 72oF for more than four days per month. Protection objectives for 

each habitat factor are maintenance of existing conditions.

The actions proposed to improve stream conditions in each MaSA and MiSA are presented in Appendix 

A. The table includes information on action type, the number of units (acres, miles of stream etc.) affected 

by the action, annual costs, and the expected costs over the 10-year planning period. The tables in 

Appendix A detail the habitat factors and proposed actions for each population and MaSA. Table A-1 

contains the habitat factors and general proposed actions for each population. Table A-2 contains the 

habitat factors and detailed action strategy for each MaSA.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 195

Table 6-2. Summary of habitat factors, and associated objectives for each SEWMU 

MaSA.

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

I. Increase Stream Flow

Mainstem Walla 

Walla River

II. Temperature: not more than 4 days above 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

IV. Embeddedness: less than 10% embeddedness 

V. Riparian Function: 40 to 90% of maximum 

VI. Channel Confinement: reduce to 40% to 60% of stream length 

Mill Creek

I. Embeddedness: < 10%

II. Temperature < 4 day > 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width 

IV. Riparian: 40 to 90% of maximum

Middle Touchet 

River (mainstem 

from Coppei Creek to 

Patit Creek)

I. Embeddedness: Less than 10% 

II. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

IV. Confinement: <15 to 40% of stream bank length

Upper Touchet River 

(Patit Creek 

Upstream to Touchet 

Headwaters)

I. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

II. Riparian: >62 to 82% of maximum

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

IV. Confinement: < 10 to 40% of streambank length 

Upper Tucannon 

River (from Pataha 

Creek Upstream to 

Tucannon 

Headwaters)

I. Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

III. Confinement: < 25 to 50% of streambank length 

IV. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

Lower Tucannon 

River MiSA (from 

Pataha Creek 

downstream to 

Tucannon mouth)

I. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF 

II. Embeddedness: < 20% 

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width 

IV. Riparian: >40 to 75% of maximum 

V. Confinement: < 25 to 50% of stream bank length 

Alpowa Creek

I. Riparian: > 80% of maximum

II. Embeddedness: < 10% 

III. Temperature: : < 4 day > 72oF
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 196

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

IV. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

Joseph Creek

Joseph Creek lies primarily in Oregon. Therefore, priority actions for the 

portion of Joseph Creek within Washington are to address imminent 

threats.

Lower Grande Ronde

Taken from 

draft NE OR 

recovery plan

Restore degraded habitat in the lower reaches of the system, primarily in 

the lower Grande Ronde River, to address water quantity and quality 

issues, as well as habitat structure and complexity factors affecting the 

Wenaha population during its migration to and from the ocean.

Wenaha River

Taken from 

draft NE OR 

recovery plan

The vast majority of the Wenaha River lies entirely within a wilderness 

area administered by the USFS. The proposed action for this river is to 

continue protective status.

Asotin Creek MSA 

(mouth to headwaters 

including all 

tributaries except 

George Creek)

I. Large Woody Debris: >1 piece per channel width

II. Embeddedness: < 20%

III. Bed Scour: Reduce to < 10 cm

IV. Riparian: >75% to 90% of maximum

George Creek 

(tributary of Asotin 

Creek)

I. Embeddedness: < 10%

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

III. Riparian: >75% of maximum

IV. Temperature: No more than 4 days above 72oC

Pataha Creek MaSA 

(tributary of 

Tucannon River)

I. Embeddedness: Protect existing condition

II. Temperature: Protect existing condition

III. Riparian: Protect existing condition

IV. Large Woody Debris: Protect existing condition

V. Confinement: Protect existing condition

6.4 IMPAIRED FISH PASSAGE

Problems in migratory corridors for juvenile and adult steelhead in the mainstem Snake and Columbia 

Rivers and tributaries are being addressed through the FCRPS (see below) to improve survival.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 197

6.4.1 Impaired Fish Passage in Mainstem Columbia River

Although the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is a major limiting factor for steelhead and 

salmon 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 River 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 

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 2008c) and is 

available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/FinalBOs.cfm. 

Current Snake/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 2008d), 

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 Snake and Columbia Rivers, including the SEWMU salmonid 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 SEWMU salmonid populations. 

The current plan for operation of the FCRPS through 2018 (NMFS 2008c) contains the following actions 

intended to address the needs for survival and recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead:
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 198

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. 

6.4.2 Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries

The basic strategies to improve fish passage in tributaries and the prioritized areas can be found in Section 

6.3 above.

6.5 HATCHERIES

The hatchery strategy proposed by the SRSRB is intended to be reflective of current plans and legally 

binding processes, and are ensured to assist in meeting overarching recovery objectives. The SRSRB 

hatchery strategy recognizes that, not only can hatcheries play an important role in recovering fish 

populations, but they can contribute to providing fish needed to meet tribal, commercial, and sport 

harvest, as well as recovery and restoration goals. The strategy attempts to balance risks to recovery of 

listed fish populations with the achievement of harvest objectives. 

Two strategies for hatchery production are proposed: integrated hatcheries and segregated programs. 

Integrated programs, which use native broodstock to reduce genetic risk to a specific population, are 

proposed for most subbasins and populations. The exception is the Walla Walla subbasin summer 

steelhead program, which is proposed to be managed as both integrated and segregated (to provide 

harvest opportunities while maintaining genetic integrity). The Wenaha River and Joseph Creek, in the 

Grande Ronde River subbasin, as well as Asotin Creek are reserved for natural production only.

Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMP‘s) will be developed for each hatchery program, and will 

define to a greater degree the detailed components, facilities, and other important information concerning 

these hatchery programs. HGMP‘s are coordinated by NOAA and developed by the operating entities to 

describe the hatchery impacts on listed species. NOAA uses the HGMP‘s as a basis for providing ESA 

coverage of hatchery operations through Section 7 consultations and Section 10 permits. 

6.5.1 Adult management of hatchery-origin fish

It is important to understand that management of adult returning hatchery-origin fish is complicated and 

co-managers are not necessarily in agreement on all hatchery management actions listed within this Plan. 

Some studies have shown that excess hatchery-origin adults spawning in the wild may reduce natural 

population productivity (e.g., Araki et al. 2008). However, this issue is still considered a critical 

uncertainty, and as such, proper management actions are still in development until additional information 

is obtained.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 199

Current management for the SEWMU will be to control the number of hatchery fish allowed to spawn in 

the wild to the extent possible in certain streams. For example, all hatchery-origin fish that are collected 

in trapping facilities at the Touchet, Tucannon and Asotin adult traps are removed from the spawning 

population, while adults from the endemic program are currently released to spawn naturally or collected 

as brood stock. The overall adult management strategy is designed to reduce potential negative effects of 

non-native hatchery fish on naturally produced fish populations. However, it is important to note that the 

percentage of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds is not directly related to viability criteria. It is 

possible to have greater than, for example, 30% naturally spawning hatchery-origin fish (of endemic 

origin) on the spawning grounds and still meet viability criteria, IF it can be demonstrated that the 

population would meet viability criteria if the hatchery fish were removed.

To categorize population biological significance, the HSRG (2009) adopted the classification system 

developed by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB), where salmonid populations were 

classified as either Primary, which are targeted for restoration to high productivity and abundance; 

Contributing, where small to medium improvements are needed; or Stabilizing, populations that may be 

maintained at current levels (Table 6-3). These criteria are broader and different than those used by the 

ICTRT. However, some linkages are inferred (Figure 6-1).

Table 6-3. HSRG recommendations for population categories of Primary, 

Contributing, and Stabilizing (HSRG 2009)19.

Category

Hatchery Program 

Type PNI pHOS

Primary

Segregated NA ≥ 0.05

Integrated ≥ 0.67 < 0.30

Contributing

Segregated NA < 0.10

Integrated ≥ 0.50 < 0.30

Stabilizing

Segregated NA Existing

Integrated Existing Existing

 

19 It is important to note that the criteria from this table are not agreed upon by the co-managers in the SEWMU. 

This table is shown for illustrative purposes only.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 200

Figure 6-1. Comparison of the risk of extinction in 100 years, major population group 

viability criteria (ICTRT 2007a) and potential designation of populations as primary, 

contributing, and stabilizing (per HSRG 2009). 

It is important to note that the population designations used by the HSRG are not as stringent as the 

ICTRT criteria, but designating populations as Primary, Contributing, or Stabilizing could be used to 

assist managers and policy makers in management of the populations.

It is important to note that one of the biggest uncertainties concerning hatchery fish is their affect on 

natural productivity when they spawn naturally in the wild, or interbreed with natural-origin fish on 

the spawning grounds. While most programs in the SEWMU use natural-origin broodstock to varying 

degrees (and are thus integrated with the natural population, as suggested by HSRG and HRT), 

uncertainty remains concerning their affect on natural populations. How the hatchery programs are 

implemented affects harvest strategies within the SEWMU and the SRSRB suggests that as further 

information is collected and analyzed concerning the affects of hatchery-origin natural spawners, that 

harvest is adaptively managed.

Specific short- and long-term hatchery strategies and actions for anadromous SEWMU fish species is 

presented in Appendix D. The proposed hatchery programs for each subbasin are based partly on the 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 201

HGMPs being developed by the resource agencies and NMFS. It should be noted that hatchery programs 

are not proposed for bull trout in the recovery area. In addition, strategies for Snake River fall Chinook 

salmon will not be captured in this section of the plan. Those strategies will be coordinated through the 

larger comprehensive roll up of the Snake River Basin Recovery Plan.

As previously stated, the proposed strategy attempts to balance risks to recovery of listed fish populations 

with the achievement of harvest objectives and mitigation goals. Because of these harvest objectives and 

mitigation goals it is unlikely that hatchery programs will be withdrawn even if populations in the 

recovery area increase to the point of recovery.

Noteworthy is that three of the populations in the SEWMU are currently managed as wild fish sanctuaries 

that have no direct supplementation with smolts or adults. The Joseph Creek and Asotin Creek steelhead 

populations and the Wenaha spring Chinook salmon populations will continue to be managed as wild fish 

sanctuaries. This management strategy, which was implemented by local co-managers in areas that don‘t 

negatively impact harvest and local economies, embraces the ICTRT recommendation to minimize or 

terminate hatchery production to assist meeting recovery goals.

6.6 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.

6.6.1 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 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 are 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 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 202

populations of non-native species (both predators and competitors), especially those that directly 

or indirectly interact with juvenile and adult salmonids (ISAB 2007). The SRSRB 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 2008c) 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 pre-approved 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 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
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 203

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.‖ 

Research and monitoring

The SRSRB supports research and monitoring to track trends in predator populations, understand their 

impacts on SEWMU populations, and development of appropriate management techniques to reduce 

predation.

6.6.2 Competition – Density Dependent Mortality

As described earlier, 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 is planning to 

better define and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions of hatcheryorigin and natural-origin salmonids. 

See also Appendix C of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

6.6.3 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. 

6.7 HARVEST

Although the SRSRB has focused their planning efforts on habitat within the SEWMU, it is necessary 

also to consider harvest strategies, particularly those outside the SEWMU. Existing and proposed harvests 

management strategies within the SEWMU must be described insofar as they relate to habitat restoration 

at the subbasin level. This information can be found in Appendix E. Additional information on harvest 

outside of the SEWMU can be found in the Harvest Module. 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.

General strategies that relate to all management units are:

The U.S. v. Oregon agreement for 2008-2018 will maintain current low impacts on SEWMU 

populations in the lower mainstem and treaty mainstem fisheries. (See Harvest Module)

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 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 204

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.

Tribal resource management plans (TRMPs) are also submitted by the SEWMU tribal interests 

and are approved by NMFS under the 4(d) rules of the ESA.

Other increases in monitoring and evaluation will help to reduce uncertainties concerning 

fisheries impacts on SEWMU populations:

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

6.8 ESTUARY AND COLUMBIA RIVER PLUME

Although juvenile steelhead and spring Chinook salmon 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 construction of dikes 

and levees in the estuary. The main effects of flow on SEWMU 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 

SEWMU populations. 

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 SEWMU populations:

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.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 205

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 system-wide, and power management (NMFS 2007).

6.9 CLIMATE CHANGE

A strategy for addressing the effects of climate change on SEWMU populations 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 4 of this plan, as well as the strategies described in this chapter 

to address the factors limiting SEWMU population viability, as these are currently understood. NMFS 

supports the ISAB‘s recommendations for mitigating the effects of climate change (ISAB 2007).

The ISAB notes, ―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 salmonid 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 6.3, 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 SEWMU populations:
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 206

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. These actions are likely to have an impact on SEWMU populations because these water 

sources are near enough to the species‘ migration corridor, while they are migrating in the Snake River 

mainstem. 

Use of removable surface weirs to reduce the time juvenile salmonids spend in the warm water of 

the forebay.

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 SEWMU populations 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. 

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. Monitoring for 

Climate change is discussed in Appendix C.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 207

6.10 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 SEWMU populations. Benefits of coordination include: 

Dealing with shared migration areas consistently.

Developing coherent MPG-level strategies where populations are in two states (Grande Ronde 

MPGs; Umatilla/Walla Walla steelhead MPG), or the same population is in both states (Walla 

Walla steelhead population).

Promoting consistent methods for setting recovery objectives, evaluating strategies, and 

monitoring progress across populations, MPGs, and the ESU/DPS.

This coordination is currently being implemented through the SRSRB, and associated subcommittees and 

teams. In addition, other processes, like the LSRCP also assist in regional coordination.

6.10.1 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. Appendix A of this Plan discusses specific areas and actions 

associated with those areas for preservation and restoration, and it is coordinated through the RTT. The 

monitoring plan is discussed in more detail in Appendix C.

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 SEWMU spring Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery. These 

are described in greater detail in Appendix C of this Plan.

6.10.2 Summary of Recovery Strategies 

The following sections summarize the recovery strategy for spring/summer Chinook and steelhead MPGs. 

Table 6-4 shows the SEWMU populations within each MPG and the overall MPG risk assessment from 

the ICTRT.

Table 6-4. Summary of ICTRT viability risk assessment for each MPG in the SEWMU.

MPG SEWMU Population ICTRT Risk Status

Lower Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook

Tucannon River

Asotin Creek (functionally High risk

extinct)

Grande Ronde/Imnaha 

spring/summer Chinook Wenaha High risk
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 208

MPG SEWMU Population ICTRT Risk Status

Umatilla / Walla Walla 

Rivers steelhead

Walla Walla R. Moderate Risk

Touchet R. High risk

Lower Snake River 

steelhead

Tucannon R.

High riska

Asotin Cr.

Grande Ronde steelhead

Lower Grande Ronde Low-moderate risk (?)b

Joseph Cr. Very Low

a

It is important to note that for Asotin Creek, abundance appears to meet TRT criteria for moderate to low risk, but 

information is lacking for productivity.

b

 The RTT disagrees that any risk category can be applied to the Lower Grande Ronde population since there is not 

enough information.

Only one population in the SEWMU meets the criteria for viable status (Joseph Creek); one (Walla Walla 

River) is assigned a moderate risk, and one is uncertain and may be either moderate or low risk (Lower 

Grande Ronde steelhead). One population is extirpated (Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon).

6.10.3 Delisting and Recovery Scenarios

Populations within an ESU or DPS are the units whose risk levels collectively determine MPG viability 

and the likely persistence of the ESU/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 

ESU/DPS; the ESU/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 

ESU/DPS to meet the viability criteria are called ―delisting or recovery scenarios.‖

The ICTRT offered a detailed discussion of possible scenarios for each MPG that would allow an 

ESU/DPS to meet the viability 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 (except in the case of the Lower Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook salmon MPG), because of the uncertainties of any population‘s response to recovery efforts. The 

ICTRT cautioned against closing off the options for any population prematurely. 

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 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 209

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). The SR RTT agrees with this approach 

and suggests that meeting the Highly Viable status for each population within SEWMU would be needed 

to meet the restoration goals that the region desires.

Table 6-5 shows how the ICTRT applied their MPG-level criteria to the one extinct and eight extant 

populations of the SEWMU ESUs/DPSs. 

Table 6-5. Recovery Scenarios: Application of ICTRT Viability Criteria to SEWMU 

MPGs: Options for Viability (all populations within each MPG are shown for context of 

how SEWMU populations aid recovery for each MPG) and comparison to 

recommendations of the SRSRB (RTT).

MPG & 

Population

Size 

Category

Role in 

Viability 

Scenario Considerations

SRSRB (RTT) 

Recommendations

Lower Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook 

MPG: Applying ICTRT 

viability criteria, for this MPG 

to be viable, both populations 

should meet viability criteria, 

and one should be highly viable. 

Tucannon River Intermediate

Need for 

Viable 

status

Only spring/summer population 

in MPG, needs to reach high 

viability

High viability

Asotin Creek 

(functionally 

extirpated)

Basic

Need for 

Viable 

statusa

Initial recovery efforts should 

focus on improving the status of 

the extant Tucannon River 

population

The Asotin population is

extirpated. Should be considered 

as an expansion of the Tucannon 

Population.

Grande Ronde/Imnaha 

spring/summer Chinook

MPG: Applying ICTRT 

viability criteria, for this MPG 

to be viable, the Imnaha and 

two of three large, and one of 

two intermediate populations 

should meet viability criteria.

Wenaha River Intermediate Option

One of two intermediate 

populations needed for Viable 

status.

Continue to manage as wild fish 

sanctuary. Required for viability 

(increase monitoring in WA 

tributaries)

Lostine/Wallowa 

Rivers (Oregon) Large Option Two of the three Large size 

categories are needed for MPG 

No recommendation on these 

populations because they are in 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 210

MPG & 

Population

Size 

Category

Role in 

Viability 

Scenario Considerations

SRSRB (RTT) 

Recommendations

recovery. OR.

Minam River

(Oregon) Intermediate Option

One of two intermediate 

populations needed for Viable 

status.

Upper Grande 

Ronde River

(Oregon)

Large Option

Two of the three Large size 

categories are needed for MPG 

recovery.

Catherine Creek

(Oregon) Large Option

This population is treated as an 

―intermediate‖ population 

because the 

abundance/productivity analyses 

are conducted based only on 

spawners in Catherine Creek. 

The quantity of habitat within 

Catherine Creek, which excludes 

Indian Creek and the mainstem 

Grande Ronde River near Indian 

Creek, results in an intermediate 

size designation.

Imnaha River

(Oregon) Intermediate

Need for 

Viable 

status

Only spring/summer type in 

MPG; the rest are considered 

spring.

Lookingglass 

Creek (Oregon) Basic Extinct

Big Sheep Creek

(Oregon) Basic Extinct

Umatilla/Walla Walla 

summer steelhead 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

(Oregon) Large

Need for 

Viable 

status

Only Large population Concur – needed for recovery

Walla Walla 

River (Wa and 

Oregon)

Intermediate Option

Need one of two Intermediate 

populations – Walla Walla is 

now closer to meeting criteria 

than Touchet

Ensure coordination between OR 

and WA. Needs to be viable.

Touchet River Intermediate Option Need one of two Intermediate 

populations Needs to be viable.

Willow Creek 

(Oregon) Intermediate Extinct Concur

Lower Snake River summer 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 211

MPG & 

Population

Size 

Category

Role in 

Viability 

Scenario Considerations

SRSRB (RTT) 

Recommendations

steelhead MPG: Applying 

ICTRT viability criteria, for this 

MPG to be viable, two 

populations should meet 

viability criteria, and one should 

be highly viable.

Tucannon River Intermediate

Need for 

Viable 

status One of populations should reach 

Highly Viable status for MPG to 

be viable.

Needs to be viable.

Asotin Creek Basic 

Need for 

Viable 

status

Continue to manage as wild fish 

sanctuary. Needs to be highly 

viable.

Grande Ronde River summer 

steelhead MPG: Applying 

ICTRT viability criteria, for this 

MPG to be viable, one large and 

one intermediate population 

must meet or exceed 

population-level viability 

criteria, and one population in 

the MPG must meet highly 

viable criteria.

Lower Grande 

Ronde River Intermediate Option

ICTRT considers this population 

as Maintained (but with question 

because of lack of specific data)

Needs to be viable (insufficient 

information for current 

designation – data gap).

Joseph Creek Basic Option ICTRT considers this population 

as Highly Viable 

Continue to manage as wild fish 

sanctuary. Needs to be highly 

viable.

Wallowa River

(Oregon) Intermediate Option

ICTRT considers this population 

at High Risk (but with question 

because of lack of specific data) No recommendation on these 

populations because they are in 

Upper Grande OR.

Ronde River

(Oregon)

Large

Need for 

Viable 

status

ICTRT considers this population 

as Maintained 

a Note - the SR RTT disagrees that Asotin Creek should be needed for the MPG to be viable since they are extinct.

6.10.4 Spring/summer Chinook Salmon 

6.10.4.1 Lower Snake River MPG

The overall goal set by the SRSRB for recovery and restoration of the Lower Snake spring/summer 

Chinook MPG is to have both the extant Tucannon population at highly viable status and a reintroduced 

Asotin Creek population at least viable (low risk), with representation of all the major life history 

strategies present historically. 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 212

Population ICTRT Risk Level Desired Status

Tucannon River High Very Low Risk

Asotin Creek Functionally extirpated Reintroduced and Moderate 

Risk

Recovery Scenario: 

For the Lower Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon MPG to be considered viable, the Tucannon 

population will need to achieve highly viable status (Ford et al. 2010). MPG viability could be further 

bolstered if reintroduction of spring/summer Chinook salmon into Asotin Creek succeeds. The ICTRT 

suggests focusing on achieving highly viable status of the Tucannon for MPG viability, and then 

introduction to Asotin Creek. However, the co-managers are interested in ―jump-starting‖ the Asotin 

Creek population in the near term to begin reintroduction with appropriate stock of spring/summer 

Chinook salmon (most likely Tucannon River). 

Restoration Scenario: 

For restoration, as defined in Chapter 4, all populations within each MPG need to meet restoration 

criteria.

Gap: 

The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions and 5 percent risk) for 

the Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Asotin Creek is functionally extinct) is 1.23 

(meaning that a 123 percent increase in average life-cycle survival is required to achieve 5 percent risk in 

a 100-year time period). Exceeding the 1% risk curve for the Tucannon spring/summer Chinook salmon 

would require a 2.48 (248%) improvement in cumulative life cycle survival. 

Threats and Limiting Factors 

Mainstem passage and the survival concerns described in Chapter 5 that apply to all species

Habitat degradation in tributaries

Possible effects of hatchery production/straying

Harvest, depending on abundance

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy: 

The proposed actions for the spring/summer Chinook salmon populations in the lower Snake River MPG 

are based on restoring important tributary habitat functions in areas that likely supported historical 

production. The particular actions proposed for each population are predicated upon restoring natural 

conditions, to the extent possible, supporting summer rearing and overwintering in high potential reaches. 

For the Lower Snake River MPG, reducing embeddedness, increasing recruitment of large woody debris, 

reducing temperature and the restoring riparian habitats are common elements. For several populations, 

restoring sufficient flow, addressing high summer water temperatures, and other water quality issues are 

also key components (Table 6-6). 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 213

Table 6-6. Summary of habitat factors, and associated objectives for the Lower Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook salmon MPG.

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Upper Tucannon River 

(from Pataha Creek 

Upstream to Tucannon 

Headwaters)

I. Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

III. Confinement: < 25 to 50% of streambank length 

IV. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

Asotin Creek MSA 

(mouth to headwaters 

including all 

tributaries except 

George Creek)

I. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

II. Embeddedness: < 20%

III. Bed Scour: Reduce to < 10 cm

IV. Riparian: > 75% to 90% of maximum

George Creek 

Tributary of Asotin 

Creek)

I. Embeddedness: < 10%

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

III. Riparian: >75% of maximum

IV. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oC

EDT 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 (Chapter 7). Current and future increases in Chinook salmon 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 Tucannon hatchery program has been using adaptive management processes since its inception and 

continues to evolve based on information obtained through monitoring and evaluation and other regional 

mediated processes. The use of hatchery fish to reintroduce fish in Asotin Creek is currently being 

discussed with the regions co-managers and NMFS.

The recovery strategy for the Tucannon River population involves reducing straying of fish over Lower 

Granite Dam. Current information documents this phenomenon (see Appendices on hatchery management 

and current status), but the causal mechanisms are not clear, so management actions cannot be taken until 

these mechanisms are understood. Further research is needed to understand the causal mechanisms of this 

phenomenon.

An important element across all of the SEWMU populations is to continue to manage harvest in a manner 

that supports recovery efforts. SEWMU populations are subject to harvest in mainstem Columbia River 

fisheries (at 5 to 17 percent total harvest rate, depending on abundance) (NMFS Harvest Module, 

indevelopment) and in tributary fisheries directed at hatchery-origin fish. Fisheries in each geographic 

area are currently managed under impact limits for natural-origin fish and all recreational fisheries 

prohibit retention of natural-origin fish.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 214

Key actions proposed (see Tables 6-2 and 6-10 for additional information):

Protect, improve, and increase freshwater habitat for Chinook salmon production. Improvements 

to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific limiting factors in specific areas as 

described in Chapter 5 of this plan.

Conduct research to determine the cause of straying of Tucannon natural- and hatchery-origin 

fish that continue upstream of Lower Granite Dam instead of into the Tucannon River.

Reduce straying of Tucannon natural- and hatchery origin fish upstream of Lower Granite Dam.

Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

Continue hatchery management practices that minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced fish.

Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers for sequencing of recovery actions and 

monitoring for adaptive management. 

6.10.4.2 Grande Ronde/Imnaha (Wenaha) MPG

The overall goal set by the SRSRB for recovery and restoration of the Grande Ronde/Imnaha 

spring/summer Chinook MPG is to have the Wenaha population at viable status, with representation of all 

the major life history strategies present historically. The remaining populations in this MPG are in 

Oregon.

Population

ICTRT Risk 

Level Desired Status

Wenaha River High Risk Low Risk

Lostine/Wallowa 

Rivers High Risk See NE OR Recovery Plan

Minam River High Risk See NE OR Recovery Plan

Upper Grande Ronde 

River High Risk See NE OR Recovery Plan

Catherine Creek High Risk See NE OR Recovery Plan

Imnaha River High Risk See NE OR Recovery Plan

Recovery Scenario: 

The Wenaha spring/summer Chinook salmon population is one of three intermediate sized populations 

within the MPG. The ICTRT (2007b) recommends that within the Grande Ronde basin, the Wenaha or 

the Minam population (the other intermediate populations) needs to meet viability status, while the 

Imnaha population (intermediate) is ―required‖ for viability of the MPG.

Restoration Scenario: 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 215

For restoration, as defined in Chapter 4, all populations within each MPG need to meet restoration 

criteria.

Gap: 

For the Wenaha population, the ICTRT estimated that a gap of 1.38 (138%) improvement in survival 

would be needed.

Threats and Limiting Factors: 

Mainstem passage and the survival concerns described in Chapter 4 that apply to all species

Harvest, depending on abundance

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy: 

Because the Wenaha River population is part of the larger Grande Ronde MPG (that is mostly in Oregon), 

the Wenaha could be one of the two populations, besides the Imnaha population that needs to meet 

viability criteria.

Key actions proposed (see Tables 6-2 and 6-10 for additional information): 

The vast majority of the Wenaha River lies entirely within a wilderness area administered by the USFS. 

The proposed action for this river is to continue protective status.

6.10.4.3 Lower Snake River Steelhead MPG

The overall goal set by the SRSRB for recovery and restoration of the Lower Snake steelhead MPG is to 

have the Tucannon population at viable status and Asotin Creek population at very low risk, with 

representation of all the major life history strategies present historically. 

Population ICTRT Risk Level Desired Status

Tucannon River High Risk (??) Low Risk

Asotin Creek Maintained (?) (High Risk??) Very Low Risk

Recovery Scenario: 

For the Lower Snake River MPG, the ICTRT suggests that one of the two populations should be highly 

viable. 

Restoration Scenario: 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 216

For restoration, as defined in Chapter 4, all populations within each MPG need to meet restoration 

criteria.

Gap: 

The ICTRT did not have enough information to determine a gap for either population. 

Threats and Limiting Factors: 

Mainstem passage and the survival concerns described in Chapter 4 that apply to all species

Habitat degradation in tributaries 

Possible effects of hatchery production/straying

Harvest, depending on abundance

Key actions proposed (see Tables 6-2 and 6-10 for additional information):

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 Chapter 5. 

Conduct research to determine the cause of straying of Tucannon natural- and hatchery-origin 

fish that continue upstream of Lower Granite Dam instead of into the Tucannon River.

Reduce straying of Tucannon natural- and hatchery origin fish upstream of Lower Granite Dam.

Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

Continue hatchery management practices that minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced fish.

Continue to manage the Asotin Creek population for natural production only.

Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers for sequencing of recovery actions and 

monitoring for adaptive management. 

Summary of Recovery Strategies for steelhead: 

The proposed actions for the steelhead populations in the Lower Snake River MPG are based on restoring 

important tributary habitat functions in areas that likely supported historical production. The particular 

actions proposed for each population are predicated upon restoring natural conditions, to the extent 

possible, supporting summer rearing and overwintering in high potential reaches. For the Lower Snake 

River MPG, reducing embeddedness, increasing recruitment of large woody debris, reducing temperature, 

and restoring riparian habitats are common elements. Restoring sufficient flow, addressing high summer 

water temperatures and other water quality issues are also key components (Table 6-7). 

Table 6-7. Summary of habitat factors, and associated objectives for the Lower Snake 

River steelhead MPG.

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Upper Tucannon River 

(from Pataha Creek 

Upstream to Tucannon 

I. Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 217

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Headwaters)

III. Confinement: < 25 to 50% of streambank length 

IV. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

Asotin Creek MSA 

(mouth to headwaters 

including all 

tributaries except 

George Creek)

I. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

II. Embeddedness: < 20%

III. Bed Scour: Reduce to < 10 cm

IV. Riparian: > 75% to 90% of maximum

Alpowa Creek

I. Riparian: > 80% of maximum

II. Embeddedness: < 10% 

III. Temperature: < 4 day > 72oF

IV. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

EDT 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 (Chapter 7). 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 recovery strategy for the Tucannon River population involves reducing straying of fish over Lower 

Granite Dam. Current information documents this phenomenon, but the causal mechanisms are not clear, 

so management actions cannot be taken until these mechanisms are understood.

Hatchery reform strategies have been, or are being planned within the Lower Snake River MPG. For 

example, the use of Lyons Ferry steelhead stock is not used in the Tucannon as of 2011, with the hatchery 

program relying on Tucannon basin fish only. Other proposed changes can be seen in Appendix D.

An important element across all of the Lower Snake River MPG populations is to continue to manage 

harvest in a manner that supports recovery efforts. Lower Snake River MPG populations are subject to 

harvest in mainstem Columbia River fisheries and in tributary fisheries directed at hatchery-origin fish. 

Fisheries in each geographic area are currently managed under impact limits for natural-origin fish and all 

recreational fisheries prohibit retention of natural-origin fish.

6.10.4.4 Grand Ronde Steelhead MPG

The overall goal set by the SRSRB for recovery and restoration of the Grande Ronde steelhead MPG is to 

have the Lower Grande Ronde population at viable status and Joseph Creek maintained at very low risk, 

with representation of all the major life history strategies present historically. 

Population ICTRT Risk Level Desired Status
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 218

Lower Grande Ronde Maintained (?) Low Risk

Joseph Creek Very Low Very Low Risk

Upper Grande Ronde Maintained See NE OR Recovery Plan

Wallowa High Risk (??) See NE OR Recovery Plan

Recovery Scenario:

For the Grande Ronde MPG, one large and one intermediate population must meet or exceed populationlevel viability criteria, and one population in the MPG must meet highly viable criteria. 

Restoration Scenario:

For restoration, as defined in Chapter 4, all populations within each MPG (in Washington State) need to 

meet restoration criteria.

Gap:

The ICTRT did not have enough information to determine a gap for the Lower Grande Ronde or Wallowa 

populations. In addition, there is obviously no gap for Joseph Creek, since that population is considered 

highly viable.

Threats and Limiting Factors (from the NE OR Recovery Plan)

Aside from the limiting factors and threats that affect all populations (hydro, hatcheries, and harvest 

related), the following habitat limiting factors and threats are identified in the NE OR Recovery Draft 

Plan.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 219

Table 6-8 Summary of habitat limiting factors and threats from the NE Oregon Draft 

Recovery Plan

Population Primary Limiting Factor Threats

Joseph Creek (RM 0-49) Water quality (high summer 

temperatures); Excess fine sediment 

Livestock grazing; Roads; 

Agricultural practices 

Lower Grande Ronde River 

Mainstem—Mouth to Wenaha 

River (RM 0-46) 

Limited habitat quantity/diversity 

(primary pools, glides, and spawning 

gravels); Excess fine sediment; and 

to a lesser extent, Predation; Water 

quality (high summer temperatures); 

Water quantity (low summer flows) 

Agricultural practices, Livestock 

grazing, Roads, Recreation, and 

Residential development 

Lower Tributaries to the Lower 

Grande Ronde River: These 

streams are the smaller Lower 

Grande Ronde River tributaries 

below the Wenaha River confluence 

and include: Shumaker, Deer, 

Rattlesnake, Buford, Cougar, Bear 

(1st), Menatchee, Grouse, Squaw 

Canyon, and Bear (2nd) creeks. 

Menatchee, Bear (1st), Buford 

creeks provide MiSA habitat. Bear 

Creek (2nd) lies within the Wenaha 

MaSA. 

Excess fine sediment; Water quality 

(high summer temperatures);

Degraded riparian condition; 

Limited habitat quantity/diversity 

(large wood); Fish passage; Water 

quantity (low summer flows due to 

upstream withdrawals) 

Agricultural activities, Livestock 

grazing, Timber harvest, and Roads 

Courtney, Mud, Grossman, and

Wildcat Creeks: Courtney, Mud, 

Grossman, and Wildcat creeks are 

the larger tributaries to the Lower 

Grande Ronde (excluding Wenaha 

River and Joseph Creek) 

Limited habitat quantity/diversity 

(large wood); Water quality (high 

summer temperatures); Excess fine 

sediment; Degraded riparian 

condition; Water quantity (high 

flows) 

Livestock grazing, Roads, 

Agricultural activities, Timber 

harvest, Recreation (ATV use) 

Wenaha River Mainstem: The 

mainstem of the Wenaha River 

extends from the river‘s mouth at the 

town of Troy to the forks of the 

Wenaha (RM 22.1) 

Limited habitat quantity/diversity 

(large wood and pools) Recreation, Natural causes 

Wenaha River Forks and 

Tributaries: These Wenaha River 

tributaries include the North and 

South Forks, and the tributaries that 

contain summer steelhead habitat, 

including Crooked Creek and 

tributaries (Cross Canyon, Weller, 

Butte, Rock, Slick Ear, Beaver and 

Milk), and the North and South 

Forks of the Wenaha River and their 

tributaries. 

Little data available. Legacy effects 

from past land uses 

Historic livestock grazing and 

timber harvest; Dispersed recreation 

(minor effect) 

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy:
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 220

The proposed actions for the steelhead populations in the Grande Ronde River MPG are based on 

restoring important tributary habitat functions in areas that likely supported historical production, and will 

primarily be implemented through the NE OR Recovery Plan. The particular actions proposed for each 

population are predicated upon restoring natural conditions, to the extent possible, supporting summer 

rearing and overwintering in high potential reaches. Since Joseph Creek lies primarily in Oregon, priority 

actions for the portion of Joseph Creek within Washington are to address imminent threats. Objectives for 

the Lower Grande Ronde can be found in the Northeast Oregon Snake River Recovery Plan. 

EDT 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 (Chapter 7). 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.

Key actions proposed (see Tables 6-2 and 6-8 for additional information):

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 Chapter 5 of this plan.

Maintain protection for the Wenaha Basin.

Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

Continue hatchery management practices that minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced fish.

Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers for sequencing of recovery actions and 

monitoring for adaptive management.

6.10.4.5 Umatilla/Walla Walla Steelhead MPG

The overall goal set by the SRSRB for recovery and restoration of the Umatilla/Walla Walla steelhead 

MPG is to have the Touchet and Walla Walla river populations at viable status, with representation of all 

the major life history strategies present historically. 

Population ICTRT Risk Level Desired Status

Umatilla River Maintained See mid-Columbia Recovery 

Plan

Touchet River High Risk Low Risk

Walla Walla River Maintained Low Risk
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 221

Recovery Scenario:

For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to be viable, two populations should meet viability criteria, and one 

should be highly viable.

Restoration Scenario:

For restoration, as defined in Chapter 4, all populations within each MPG need to meet restoration 

criteria.

Gap:

The median survival gap (assuming recent ocean and base hydrosystem conditions and 5 percent risk) for 

the Walla Walla mainstem population is 0.34 (meaning that a 34 percent increase in average life-cycle 

survival is required to achieve 5 percent risk in a 100-year time period). The ICTRT did not have enough 

information for the Touchet population to determine a gap.

Threats and Limiting Factors 

Mainstem passage and the survival concerns described in Chapter 4 that apply to all species

Habitat degradation in tributaries 

Possible effects of hatchery production/straying

Harvest, depending on abundance

Summary of MPG Recovery Strategy:

The proposed actions for the steelhead populations in the Umatilla/Walla Walla steelhead MPG are based 

on restoring important tributary habitat functions in areas that likely supported historical production. The 

particular actions proposed for each population are predicated upon restoring natural conditions, to the 

extent possible, supporting summer rearing and overwintering in high potential reaches. For the 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG, reducing embeddedness, increasing recruitment of large woody debris, 

reducing temperature and the restoring riparian habitats are common elements. For several populations, 

restoring sufficient flow, addressing high summer water temperatures, and other water quality issues are 

also key components (Table 6-9).

Table 6-9. Summary of habitat factors, and associated objectives for the Umatilla/Walla Walla 

steelhead MPG.

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

I. Increase Stream Flow

Mainstem Walla Walla 

River

II. Temperature: not more than 4 days above 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: 0.5 to 1 pieces per channel width

IV. Embeddedness: less than 10% embeddedness 

V. Riparian Function: 40 to 90% of maximum 

VI. Channel Confinement: reduce to 40% to 60% of stream length 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 222

MaSA Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Mill Creek

I. Embeddedness: < 10% 

II. Temperature < 4 day > 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width 

IV. Riparian: > 40 to 90% of maximum 

Middle Touchet River 

(mainstem from 

Coppei Creek to Patit 

Creek)

I. Embeddedness: < 10% 

II. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

IV. Confinement: <15 to 40% of stream bank length

Upper Touchet River 

(Patit Creek Upstream 

to Touchet 

Headwaters)

I. Temperature: < 4 days > 72oF

II. Riparian: >62 to 82% of maximum

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 piece per channel width

Confinement: <10 to 40% of stream bank length 

Key actions proposed (see Tables 6-2 and 6-10 for additional information):

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 Chapter 5 of this plan.

Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

Continue hatchery management practices that minimize impacts from hatchery releases on 

naturally produced fish.

Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers for sequencing of recovery actions and 

monitoring for adaptive management.

6.10.5 Summary of General Actions and Strategies for SEWMU Populations

In the following table (6-10), all of the general actions and strategies are summarized for SEWMU 

populations. Some of the descriptions of the strategies and actions are not exactly stated as above, but all 

of the components are illustrated.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 223

Table 6-10. Recovery Strategies and Actions for the SEWMU Spring/summer Chinook Salmon and steelhead populations. Detailed, 

site-specific actions are shown in Appendix A.

Strategies

(Not necessarily in 

order)

Populations 

Affected

and 

Addressed Key Actions

VSP Parameters 

Addressed

Limiting Factors

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, 

especially 

protection for 

Wenaha basin.

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

Degradation of tributary habitat-forming processes and functions 

(loss of channel structure, floodplain connectivity, riparian 

vegetation and LWD recruitment)

Restore passage and 

connectivity to habitats 

blocked or impaired by 

artificial barriers.

Tucannon basin

Reduce straying of Tucannon 

River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon and steelhead upstream of 

Lower Granite Dam

Abundance,

Productivity,

Spatial Structure

Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead have been 

observed in recent years to be migrating past the Tucannon River, 

upstream of Lower Granite Dam. Local managers are concerned 

that this could be caused by the hydrosystem, where fish are 

potentially unable to locate the Tucannon River, or return back to 

the Tucannon once they migrate past Lower Granite Dam.

Restore floodplain 

connectivity and function. All populations 

Reconnect side channels and offchannel habitats to stream 

channels.

Restore wet meadows.

Reconnect floodplain to channel.

Relocate or improve floodplain 

infrastructure and roads.

Abundance,

Productivity,

Spatial Structure

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function (loss of off-channel 

habitat, side channels and connected hyporheic zone)

Restore channel structure and 

complexity. All populations 

Place stable wood and other large 

organic debris in streambeds.

Stabilize stream banks.

Abundance,

Productivity

Degraded channel structure and complexity (loss of spawning and 

rearing habitat, LWD, pools) 
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 224

Strategies

(Not necessarily in 

order)

Populations 

Affected

and 

Addressed Key Actions

VSP Parameters 

Addressed

Limiting Factors

Addressed

Restore natural channel form.

Restore riparian condition 

and LWD recruitment . All populations 

Restore natural riparian vegetative 

communities.

Develop grazing strategies that 

promote riparian recovery.

Abundance,

Productivity

Degraded riparian condition (native riparian vegetative 

communities, LWD recruitment)

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 

identified in strategies above.

Employ BMPs for forest, 

agriculture and grazing practices 

and road management. 

Protect and/or rehabilitate springs.

Abundance,

Productivity

Altered hydrology (low summer flow, scouring peak flows due to 

degraded watershed conditions and/or streamflow alterations and 

withdrawals for irrigation and other uses)

Improve degraded water 

quality. All populations 

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 

Abundance,

Productivity

Degraded water quality (abnormal temperatures or fine sediment, 

nutrients from runoff, pesticides and other chemicals, and/or 

degraded because of water withdrawals that reduce natural stream 

flows)
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 225

Strategies

(Not necessarily in 

order)

Populations 

Affected

and 

Addressed Key Actions

VSP Parameters 

Addressed

Limiting Factors

Addressed

control basins.

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. 

Monitor and evaluate effects of 

tributary harvest.

Abundance,

Productivity

Not a primary limiting factor.

Use harvest to reduce 

abundance and proportion of 

stray hatchery spawners.

Currently for 

steelhead 

populations only.

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 of Out-of-DPS hatchery fish into natural spawning areas.

Reduce illegal harvest on 

ESA- listed species. All populations 

Eliminate illegal harvest by 

enforcing sport and Tribal 

regulations.

Abundance,

Productivity

Not a primary limiting factor.

Hatchery

Determine origin of hatchery 

strays and increase ability to 

recognize hatchery-origin 

fish.

Potential risk for 

all populations.

Implement representative codedwire-tagging (CWT) program so 

that all hatchery stocks have 

adequate CWT groups released 

annually.

Mark all hatchery fish released in 

Columbia River Basin to enable 

non-tribal fisheries and determine 

hatchery-origin fish on the 

spawning grounds (not all comanagers agree with this 

recommendation).

Recommend development of 

alternative broodstocks to reduce 

Diversity, Productivity Straying of Out-of-DPS hatchery fish into natural spawning areas.
Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies & General Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 226

Strategies

(Not necessarily in 

order)

Populations 

Affected

and 

Addressed Key Actions

VSP Parameters 

Addressed

Limiting Factors

Addressed

stray rates for programs that 

contribute significantly to stray 

problem.

Reduce uncertainty in 

abundance and proportion of 

hatchery strays spawning 

naturally.

Primarily concerns 

steelhead

Increase efforts to monitor 

incidence of hatchery fish on 

spawning grounds through 

additional stream surveys and other 

methods.

Diversity, productivity Out-of-DPS and Inside-DPS hatchery strays in tributary natural 

spawning grounds 

Reduce abundance and 

proportion of stray hatchery 

fish that spawn naturally.

All populations Construct, improve trapping 

facilities and expand operations.

Abundance,

Productivity,

Diversity

Out-of-DPS and Inside-DPS hatchery strays in tributaries 

Review effect of current 

hatchery practices and 

releases.

All populations Continue or increase current 

monitoring.

Abundance, 

productivity,

diversity

Not a primary limiting factor
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 227

7 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS

This chapter presents an analysis of the potential effects of actions on the performance of SEWMU 

salmonid populations.20 Projected levels of effectiveness are analyzed using the ecosystem diagnosis and 

treatment (EDT) model.21 Results are expressed as changes to population abundance and productivity 

parameters, as they were defined by the ICTRT for baseline conditions for each population (Chapter 4). 

 

20 It is important to note that this analysis was performed in 2004, and has not been updated. One major factor for 

consideration is that the ICTRT had not developed their de-listing criteria when this analysis was performed.

21 For information pertaining to EDT, please see Appendix F.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 228

7.1 METHODS

Based on EDT analysis that was performed in 2004, the actions proposed in this recovery plan are 

expected to substantially increase the abundance, productivity and diversity of listed species in the 

recovery area. Until the actions are implemented and their effectiveness are determined empirically, 

actual benefits to fish must be considered a working hypothesis to be tested and monitored over time (See 

Adaptive Management and RM&E appendix).

Because salmonid recovery is dependent on meeting the VSP criteria presented in Chapter 4, it was 

necessary to convert EDT estimates of adult abundance and productivity to points that could be placed on 

the viability curves developed by the ICTRT. The method used to make this conversion is presented in 

Appendix F and the actual EDT results are presented in Appendix F. The results are presented by 

subbasin and species below. Empirical data22 available on the number of adults returning to the basin 

were included on the viability curves to provide comparisons with EDT adult estimates. The empirical 

data are presented as averages for the period of record. Due to changing ocean and freshwater

environmental conditions, the number of adults returning each year might vary by an order of magnitude. 

For example, natural adult spring/summer Chinook adult returns to the Tucannon River have ranged from 

11 to 611 fish from 1985 to 1999. The origin of the restoration goals presented for each population can be 

found in Chapter 4. 

An EDT analysis was conducted for each MaSA identified by the ICTRT in the SEWMU by species in 

order to demonstrate how the spatial structure and diversity of the populations would change with the 

implementation of the recovery plan. This analysis was designed to demonstrate that proposed recovery 

plan actions are designed to improve fish performance in all major fish-producing areas in an effort to 

meet the spatial structure and diversity criteria established by the ICTRT. The numbers presented for each 

MaSA should be considered indicators of the expected change in fish performance. The actual change in 

VSP parameters will be determined empirically through the monitoring program (See Adaptive 

Management and RM&E appendix).

It should also be noted that the EDT analysis and results use the following assumptions:

Results reflect the number of adults that would return to the basin if ocean and freshwater 

fisheries were eliminated. In general, harvest rates on the listed spring/summer Chinook and 

steelhead species are less than 10 percent. If harvest were to continue at this rate, then the EDT 

run size to the basin would be reduced by 10 percent.

The model does not account for any competition that may occur due to the presence of hatchery 

fish, or hatchery fish spawning with wild fish as these impacts have not been quantified. If 

hatchery/wild fish interactions reduce the fitness of the wild population, then adult returns to the 

basin would be lower than the EDT estimate.

When comparing EDT model estimates of adult abundance in a stream to empirical data, it must 

be remembered that the EDT estimate does not account for hatchery fish. Empirical estimates 

may include both wild and hatchery production as it is not always possible to distinguish between 

the two (although this has been improving in recent years).

 

22 It is not always clear where the empirical data used in the 2004 analysis came from. As such, it is important to 

consider the information in light of the current assessment of SEWMU salmonids that appears in the Current Status 

Assessment of SEWMU Populations, Appendix B of this Plan.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 229

No improvements are expected in estuarine survival of juvenile fish. If estuary conditions 

improve from actions taken by entities in the lower Columbia River, then juvenile and possibly 

adult survival would also improve. Improved survival would result in an increase in the number 

of adults returning to the recovery region.

Hydrosystem survival is assumed to remain unchanged for the 10-year planning period. A change 

in hydrosystem survival would result in more or fewer adults returning to the spawning grounds, 

dependent on the direction (higher or lower) of the change.

Habitat improvements occur in Oregon portions of the basin, where applicable. The EDT analysis 

relies on the subbasin plans which assumed that stream habitat conditions improve in Oregon 

controlled portions of the basins. If Oregon stream habitat does not improve over time, then EDT 

estimated benefits from the recovery plan would be optimistic.

The effects of low flow (and thus the need for remediation) may not have been adequately 

described in the habitat inputs used in modeling. Flow issues will be addressed through the 

watershed planning processes. Because of this, new flow related actions will likely be proposed 

which should increase the effectiveness of the SRSRP.

All migration barriers have been removed in the recovery plan.

The expected level of improvement as estimated by EDT assumes that the habitat objectives in 

Chapter 6 have been fully achieved. Although biologists know what type of actions would best 

meet the objectives, they do not know what level of improvement will actually be achieved. 

Therefore, the numbers presented for the recovery plan assume that all habitat objectives are 

achieved within 10-years.

7.2 QUALIFICATIONS OF ANALYSES BELOW

Abundance and productivity

A number of additional points must be made about figures and analyses that follow below. First, the 

figures below include both empirical and EDT-based estimates of current abundance and productivity. 

However, because data were not available in all basins to develop empirical estimates of intrinsic 

productivity, the EDT model result intrinsic productivity value was used. The assumptions behind the 

EDT results were described above. For comparison purposes with EDT generated estimates, only the 

average number of adults returning to the basin is shown in the figures for the empirical data. In reality, 

adult returns to each of the basins has varied by an order of magnitude. In addition, the empirical data 

were generated using various methodologies each of which has different levels of error associated with it. 

Finally, because not all hatchery fish are marked, the number of adult fish returning to some basins 

consists of a mixture of wild and hatchery fish. Thus, wild production may be overestimated in some 

years.

The figures below also include EDT-generated abundance and productivity estimates under Properly 

Functioning Conditions (PFC) and historical conditions (with the FCRPS in place), as well as a range of 

rebuilding goals expressed solely in terms of abundance. The latter is displayed as a grayed band labeled 

―Restoration‖. The point labeled ―PFC‖ denotes ―Properly Functioning Conditions‖ for all habitat 

variables and represents for each habitat variable a condition that maintains the long-term viability of the 

population.

PFC represents an environmental scenario under which, for each habitat variable, conditions are of 

sufficient quality to maintain the long-term viability of the population (this is strictly habitat based). The 

PFC analysis does not consider improved habitat conditions to exceed those which existed historically. 

For example, if stream maximum temperatures were high historically in August, PFC does not assume 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 230

that these conditions have been eliminated. The PFC values for each subbasin and population are 

presented because they represent likely WDFW and tribal long term (more than 30 years) habitat goals. 

PFCs are discussed further in Appendix F.

The intrinsic productivity values associated with EDT simulations were not produced by the EDT model 

directly; rather, they represent a mathematical transformation of the Beverton-Holt productivity parameter 

produced by the EDT model. Details of the mathematical transformation can be found in Appendix F.

Also, because of the uncertainty associated with model inputs and assumptions, predictions of future fish 

performance should not be taken as an absolute.

Diversity and spatial structure

Rather than defining diversity, the ICTRT describes the mechanisms that determine it. 

Specifically, the ICTRT describes diversity as the result of the interaction of four basic mechanisms: 

preservation of endemic genotypes and phenotypes (preservation of distinctive life histories, 

age distributions, heterozygosity indices, and allele frequencies, etc.)

preservation of natural patterns of gene flow (proportion of non-local spawners and the 

frequency of interbreeding among spawning aggregates)

preservation of local adaptations (indexed to the diversity of habitat conditions occupied), and

preservation of the integrity of natural systems (indexed by a lack of selection for a subset of 

genotypes or phenotypes because of anthropogenic habitat modifications). 

The net result of these four aspects of diversity is a self-sustaining population with multiple spawning 

locations, ages of spawners, juvenile migration patterns, local adaptations, times of river entry and 

spawning, and so on. To the degree that the determinants of diversity under current conditions match the 

determinants under historical conditions, the population is considered capable of adapting to 

environmental fluctuations and local catastrophes and is, therefore, at lower risk of extinction.

In the EDT model, diversity is also indexed in terms of the number of self-sustaining life history patterns. 

Fish habitat is conceived of as a space/time matrix in which rows represent successive portions of habitat 

in subbasin, the mainstem Snake/Columbia, the estuary, and the ocean while the columns represent time 

and successive life stages. A unique life history pattern consists of the trajectory through this matrix that 

starts and ends at the same spawning reach and time: with parents spawning in reach X at time Y and 

progeny moving through all subsequent places and times of freshwater rearing, outmigration, marine 

rearing, adult migration, and holding and finally spawning in reach X at time Y. Every distinct trajectory 

represents a unique life history pattern and the proportion of self-sustaining trajectories is a reasonable 

measure of the functional life history diversity of the population.

Thus, the proportion of EDT life history patterns that are viable, i.e., that produce at least one returning 

adult per spawner, can be seen as the net result of the operation of four mechanisms that promote or 

diminish life history diversity. In other words, the ICTRT assesses diversity in terms of the robustness of 

the underlying mechanisms, while EDT assesses diversity directly, in terms of self-sustaining unique life 

history patterns. To the degree that input data for EDT simulations are accurate, it can be expected that 

diversity as conceived by EDT and by the ICTRT will vary in parallel. That is, both EDT and the 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 231

ICTRT‘s approach will predict improvement in diversity at the same time even though their underlying 

approaches are different.

It should be noted that in order to produce the data for figures below that pertain to diversity, the EDT 

Model had to be run multiple times under varying assumptions about spawning distribution. Therefore, 

the abundance values presented for the viability analysis may be different than the sum of the spawning 

areas. This is just one of the reasons that the numbers presented should be considered index values.

An additional caveat concerning quantitative EDT results should be noted. Some of the values reported 

differ to some degree from the values reported in the subbasin plans and annual reports. These differences 

reflect slightly different assumptions made in the two planning efforts. One of the major differences 

concerns the ―fitness‖ of the populations modeled. In subbasin planning, many of the populations were 

not assumed to be as fit as wild fish. Fitness was assumed to be 100 percent only for Asotin Creek

steelhead and spring/summer Chinook, Wenaha spring/summer Chinook, Lower Grande Ronde steelhead, 

and Joseph Creek steelhead. All other populations were assumed to have a fitness of 90 percent, meaning 

that 10 percent fewer offspring are produced per spawner because of assumed hybridization with hatchery 

fish. Fitness in the recovery plan was assumed to be 100 percent in all cases.

Conditions in the mainstem Snake and Columbia were also modeled differently in subbasin planning and 

the recovery plan. In subbasin planning, estimated historical conditions were assumed for the mainstem 

Snake and Columbia for ―historical‖ simulations for most subbasins (Asotin, Tucannon, and Walla 

Walla). In the recovery plan, current mainstem conditions were assumed even for historical simulations in 

order to emphasize the role of the subbasin. There are other minor differences between the simulations 

performed during subbasin plan and the recovery plan including the changes in spawning distributions 

mentioned in the previous paragraph.

7.3 RESULTS

7.3.1 Bull Trout

Determining the effect recovery plan implementation will have on bull trout populations is not possible 

because there are currently no models available to forecast the change in bull trout abundance, 

productivity, or diversity resulting from habitat actions in any of the subbasins. Therefore, the recovery 

plan focuses on implementing actions that reduce known threats to bull trout. This approach is consistent 

with the bull trout biological opinion developed by the USFWS for recovery area populations (USFWS 

2002a). USFWS (2002a) states that:

“...recovery for bull trout will entail reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations and 

their habitats, ensuring the security of multiple interacting groups of bull trout, and providing habitat 

conditions and access to them that allow for the expression of various life-history forms.”

USFWS hypothesizes that bull trout will recover to healthy sustainable levels if all known threats to the 

population are reduced or eliminated. To address the threats, USFWS identified actions that need to be 

taken in each subbasin of the recovery area that currently support (or historically supported) bull trout. 

Those actions proposed by the USFWS for Washington waters have been incorporated into this recovery 

plan. The effect the actions have on bull trout abundance will be determined as part of the monitoring 

program discussed in Appendix C.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 232

7.3.2 Asotin Creek 

The expected benefits of the recovery plan to listed fish species in Asotin Creek are discussed below. The 

discussion focuses on the change in VSP parameters as they affect population viability, abundance, 

intrinsic productivity, and life history diversity.

7.3.2.1 Summer Steelhead

Population Viability

Figure 7-1 shows the viability analysis for steelhead in the Asotin Creek subbasin. EDT simulations 

indicate that the abundance of the Asotin steelhead metapopulation under the recovery plan will increase 

from 577 to 947, while intrinsic productivity increases from 1.28 to 1.38. With the information used for 

this exercise, the current abundance and productivity is meeting the ICTRT minimum threshold levels 

(Figure 7-1). Increases of abundance productivity based on EDT output will ensure that the population 

remains viable (at the 5% risk level), but potential additional actions may need to occur for the population 

to become highly viable, or to meet restoration goals (Figure 7-1). 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 233

Figure 7-1. Revised (to compensate for revised minimum abundance threshold) EDT 

Viability Analysis (2004) for Asotin Summer Steelhead.

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

VSP index values for Asotin summer steelhead major and minor spawning aggregations are presented in 

Figure 7-2, which shows that the recovery plan improves all VSP parameters in all spawning areas. 

Therefore, to the degree that the viability of all major and minor spawning aggregations is improved, the 

habitat restoration actions proposed by the recovery plan increase the viability of the metapopulation as a 

whole in terms of its spatial structure.

Figure 7-2 shows that the majority of the summer steelhead production both currently and in the recovery 

plan is being produced in Asotin Creek (mainstem and forks) and Tenmile Creek. George Creek, Alpowa, 

Almota, and Couse creeks are able to support a limited run of summer steelhead, albeit at relatively high 

productivity with plan implementation. Thus, during periods of poor ocean or freshwater survival, or low 

stream flows that block passage, there may still be years when no adults return to some of these streams. 

In addition, there currently appears to be a high number of hatchery-origin fish that stray into these 

tributaries. That high stray rate may make it more difficult for the Asotin Population to reach the 

diversity criteria of the ICTRT.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 234

Figure 7-2. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Asotin Summer Steelhead Under Current and 

SRSRP Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 235

Summary of Conclusions

The data presented in Figure 7-1 show that, currently, Asotin Creek steelhead abundance and productivity 

values are likely meeting the viability curve defined by the ICTRT. The actions proposed in the SRSRP 

(recovery plan on graph) are forecast by EDT to increase overall Asotin Creek adult steelhead abundance 

by 64 percent. The resulting adult production is above the current minimum viability criteria, but below 

restoration goals, although the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds is higher than desired. 

However, as pointed out repeatedly in this document, the conclusion is based on modeling results that 

have a high degree of uncertainty associated with them.

7.3.2.2 Spring/Summer Chinook

Population Viability

EDT simulations indicate that the recovery plan will improve spring/summer Chinook salmon 

performance in Asotin Creek substantially. Relative to the EDT estimate of current production potential, 

improved habitat conditions are predicted to increase adult abundance and intrinsic productivity by 124 

percent and 8 percent, respectively (Figure 7-3). Improvement of this magnitude would move the 

population just above the viability curve into the region of low extinction risk.

Figure 7-3. EDT Viability Analysis for Asotin Spring/Summer Chinook (2004).

The figure shows a large discrepancy between observed spring/summer Chinook salmon production and 

production potential as estimated by EDT is in order. EDT reaches may be biased to the high side by 

including spawning in several streams (South Fork Asotin, Charley Creek, and portions of George Creek) 

which may be too small to support salmon spawning or rearing. However, both of the values displayed in 

the figure can be ―correct.‖ There is little doubt that the number of spring/summer Chinook salmon 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 236

spawning in Asotin Creek in recent years is very low, but this fact does not mean that the subbasin does 

not possess the potential to support a considerably larger number of spawners. The native run of 

spring/summer Chinook salmon may have been extirpated years ago, so that the subbasin now receives 

only strays from other basins and perhaps from hatchery programs. If this is the case, the recolonization 

of Asotin Creek by spring/summer Chinook salmon would be a very slow process, especially given the 

low productivity expected under current degraded habitat conditions. ICTRT believes that populations 

with less than 500 adults are at high risk of extinction. The Asotin Creek EDT analysis is consistent with 

this assumption.

It appears that, because of the uncertainty of many EDT performance estimate determinants, as well as the 

marginal viability estimate itself, achieving viability may require additional improvements to habitat 

conditions inside and outside the subbasin. Moreover, because of the virtual absence of spawning adults 

in recent years, it is appropriate to consider implementing an integrated hatchery reintroduction/supplementation program, perhaps utilizing Tucannon River donor stock. Combining 

additional habitat improvements with supplementation by hatchery fish could allow spring/summer 

Chinook salmon to become self-sustaining in Asotin Creek, if out of basin limiting factors are not overly 

suppressing the population, and production in Asotin could contribute to the health of the Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU.

It should be noted however that the data presented in Chapter 5 indicate that 72 percent of the loss in

Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon production was due to factors outside of the recovery area. 

This points out the need for fisheries managers to implement actions that increase fish survival through 

the hydrosystem and the estuary.

Figure 7-3 also includes EDT-generated abundance and productivity estimates under Properly 

Functioning Conditions (PFC) and historical habitat conditions (with FCRPS in place), as well as a range 

of restoration goals expressed solely in terms of abundance. The latter is displayed as a single line in the 

figure.

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

The recovery plan shows that the abundance index increases from 254 to 569 (a 124 percent increase), 

while intrinsic productivity increases from 1.27 to 1.37 (8 percent increase). The life history diversity 

value more than doubles, as it moves from 32 percent to 79 percent (Figure 7-4).

Summary of Conclusions

Both EDT generated results and empirical data collected in Asotin Creek show low abundance of 

spring/summer Chinook salmon. EDT estimates that habitat conditions are of sufficient quality to support 

~250 adults, but as noted by the ICTRT and confirmed by empirical data, the population is at serious risk 

of extinction. In fact, the empirical data already indicate that the population is likely functionally extinct, 

consistent with the ICTRT. 

With the implementation of the recovery plan, EDT forecasts that habitat conditions could be improved to 

support 500 adults. However, to recover this population would require that any remaining spawners be 

supplemented with hatchery fish. Because the success of such a supplementation program is not known, 

there is considerable uncertainty as to whether or not the population could ever achieve self-sustaining 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 237

levels. Thus, the analysis concludes that the population may be recovered so long as the proposed 

hatchery supplementation program can be successful. Tucannon spring Chinook salmon may be 

transferred into Asotin Creek as a means of reintroduction into Asotin Creek while expanding the 

distribution and increasing adult abundance to help the Tucannon population meet highly viable status.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 238

Figure 7-4. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Asotin Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Under 

Current and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 239

7.3.3 Tucannon River

7.3.3.1 Summer Steelhead

Population Viability

The ICTRT classified the Tucannon River as an intermediate-sized basin for summer steelhead 

production. Therefore, the basin must support a minimum of 1,000 adults at an intrinsic productivity of 

1.25 to achieve the recovery objective for the basin. According to modeling forecasts, the recovery plan is 

expected to improve adult abundance and productivity by 43 percent and 4 percent, respectively. As 

shown in Figure 7-5, such changes (labeled ―Recovery Plan‖ in the figure) would likely move the 

population above the viability curve into a region of relatively low risk.

Figure 7-5. EDT Viability Analysis for Tucannon Summer Steelhead Metapopulation 

(2004).

The analysis contained in Hyun and Talbot (2004), however, tempers this positive result. Their population 

viability analysis indicates that Tucannon steelhead are rapidly declining and at high risk of extinction. 

While the recent five-year status update from NMFS (Ford et al. 2010) lists Tucannon River steelhead as 

at high risk for extinction, NMFS does not have the detailed data needed to fully understand exactly 

where the population is in regards to the risk levels shown in the graph above (for further information on 

current status, see Appendix B).

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 240

The resulting change in abundance, productivity, and life history diversity for major and minor spawning 

aggregations is shown in Figure 7-6. The recovery plan increases adult equilibrium or average abundance, 

intrinsic productivity, and life history diversity in each spawning area. These results show that recovery 

plan actions are not focused on a single area of the subbasin, but are widely spread. The improvement 

expected in each VSP parameter should result in increased population viability and a reduction in 

extinction risk.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 241

Figure 7-6. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Tucannon Summer Steelhead Under Current 

and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 242

The majority of the production is centered on the Upper Tucannon River mainstem, with secondary 

production from Pataha, Penawawa, and Deadman creeks. This same trend holds true for the intrinsic 

productivity parameter, and to a lesser extent, life history diversity.

Summary of Conclusions

EDT forecasts that the actions proposed in the SRSRP should be sufficient to recover this population. 

However, based on empirical estimates of current adult abundance, the opposite conclusion is reached. 

Thus, it will be important to monitor this population closely over the next 15 years to track not only the 

effectiveness of implemented actions, but also to estimate resulting adult abundance and productivity.

Regardless if the recovery goal is achieved, the habitat actions proposed are expected to increase 

steelhead abundance and productivity by 43 percent and 4 percent respectively. This level of 

improvement would reduce extinction risk significantly.

7.3.3.2 Spring/Summer Chinook

Population Viability

Spring/summer Chinook salmon production in the Tucannon River is not forecast to achieve the viability 

criteria with the implementation of the recovery plan (Figure 7-7). Although the abundance criterion is 

achieved, intrinsic productivity falls just below the curve.

Modeling indicates that adult abundance is likely to double if implemented actions achieve full 

effectiveness. The intrinsic productivity of the population is also expected to increase by 11 percent.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 243

Figure 7-7. EDT Viability Analysis for Tucannon Spring/Summer Chinook salmon 

(2004).

This result must also be tempered by the Hyun and Talbot (2004) findings. The marginal ―success‖ of the 

habitat restoration scenario should be weighed against their conclusion that Tucannon spring/summer 

Chinook salmon are in rapid decline and at serious risk of extinction. Since the late 1990s, the population 

has increased, ranging between three fish (1999) to 1,443 (2010). The 10-year geomean of abundance is 

currently 404 (Appendix B). The current 20-year return per spawner (R/S; a measure of productivity) for 

the Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon is 0.71 (Ford et al. 2010). 

This population was listed at high risk of extinction in the most current status update by NMFS (Ford et 

al. 2010).

It is important to note, as has been done throughout this Plan, that approximately 25% of the returning 

Tucannon River adults (hatchery and natural-origin) bypass the Tucannon River and migrate past Lower 

Granite Dam.

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

All of the significant improvement in the VSP parameters occurs in the Upper Tucannon MaSA. Habitat 

changes from the implementation of the recovery plan would have little effect on the Lower Tucannon 

River or Pataha Creek spawning areas (Figure 7-8), although significant improvements have already 

occurred to water temperatures and river channel width in the lower Tucannon in the past 10-15 years 

(Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

The intrinsic productivity portion of the figure shows that productivity does increase, but values are 

slightly less than 1.0. Intrinsic productivity values below 1.0 mean that the population cannot be sustained 

over time. The result is that, in some years of high survival, fish production may occur in these areas; but 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 244

in average or low survival years, adult production will likely be low to non-existent. Thus, even after full 

implementation of the recovery plan, Tucannon spring/summer Chinook salmon production will be highly 

dependent on a single MaSA, leaving the population more vulnerable to catastrophic events that could 

decimate production, unless the Asotin Creek reintroduction program is successful and they are 

considered part of the Tucannon population.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 245

Figure 7-8. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Tucannon River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon Under Current and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 246

Summary of Conclusions

The 2004 EDT analysis indicates that the recovery plan, although making significant improvements to 

adult abundance and productivity, would still fall short of achieving recovery the intrinsic productivity 

objective for this population. It does not account for ~ 24% of adult spring Chinook salmon bypassing the 

Tucannon River and migrating upstream of Lower Granite Dam. Also, given the uncertain effect 

hatchery fish are having on fish production in this stream, this conclusion should be considered 

speculative at this point.

7.3.4 Walla Walla River

The change in the VSP parameters expected for Walla Walla summer steelhead is discussed in this 

section of the report. Because Walla Walla spring/summer Chinook salmon are not listed under ESA, no 

VSP analysis is presented for this species.

7.3.4.1 Summer Steelhead

Population Viability

Based on 2004 modeling results, the recovery plan appears likely to achieve the viability criteria 

identified by the ICTRT for Walla Walla summer steelhead (Figure 7-9). Adult abundance and intrinsic 

productivity is forecast to increase by 59 percent and 1 percent, respectively. This level of performance 

improvement is likely to move the population into the Low Risk area of the curve.

Figure 7-9. EDT Viability Analysis for Walla Walla Summer Steelhead (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 247

These results must be interpreted cautiously. For an updated status of the Walla Walla population, please 

see Appendix B and NMFS (2009).

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

With the exception of Dry Creek, the recovery plan increases index values for all VSP parameters in all 

spawning areas (Figure 7-10). 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 248

Figure 7-10. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Walla Walla Summer Steelhead Under Current 

and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 249

The majority of the production is expected to occur in the mainstem and forks of the Walla Walla River. 

The removal of obstruction problems in Mill Creek would result in increased production in this spawning 

aggregation. Intrinsic productivity would increase the most in Mill Creek and the Walla Walla mainstem. 

This same trend is evident between areas for life history diversity.

Summary of Conclusions

The 2004 EDT modeling forecasts that the recovery plan would likely meet recovery objectives defined 

by the ICTRT for this population. Although empirical data suggest that current steelhead abundance 

levels are lower than what EDT estimates for this population, the 59 percent improvement in abundance 

forecast by EDT, when added to the empirical estimate, would still move the population very close to the 

low risk portion of the viability curve.

7.3.4.2 Touchet River

The ICTRT defined the Touchet River as an intermediate-sized basin with a target goal of 1,000 summer 

steelhead.

Population Viability

The recovery plan improves summer steelhead population abundance and intrinsic productivity by 97 

percent and 6 percent, respectively. However, even with this level of improvement, resulting fish 

production falls short of meeting the ICTRT defined viability criteria (Figure 7-11). At this level, the 

ICTRT would still consider the population to have a high risk of extinction, although the risk is 

substantially less than before plan implementation (note that the empirical estimate below does not 

adequately account for the areas downstream of Dayton and several tributaries).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 250

Figure 7-11. EDT Viability Analysis for Touchet Summer Steelhead.

To achieve the viability criteria, adult summer steelhead abundance would need to be increased by an 

additional 40 percent. This increase in fish abundance could be achieved with more habitat actions, 

improvements in one of the other ―Hs‖ (harvest, hydro, or hatcheries), or a combination of such actions.

The 2004 EDT results indicate that the viability benefits of habitat restoration in the Touchet drainage 

would be much lower than those in the Walla Walla. This would likely be due to the fact that the 

restoration agenda for the Walla Walla is more ambitious than that for the Touchet, and the lower Touchet 

River below Waitsburg would generally not contribute to production. The relative difference in 

restoration effort plus the assumed future full use of the large production potential of the North and South 

forks of the Walla Walla are the most reasonable explanations for the discrepancy. For an up to date 

analysis, please see NMFS (2009)

As is the case with most populations in the recovery area, there is considerable uncertainty regarding 

current population levels and their intrinsic productivity. As more data are collected as part of the 

monitoring plan described in Appendix C, the conclusions reached in this report would be updated and 

refined.

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

Resulting VSP index values for Touchet River summer steelhead major and minor spawning aggregations 

are presented in Figure 7-12. Most of the improvement in summer steelhead performance occurs in the 

Upper Touchet MSA. Under the recovery plan, Upper Touchet summer steelhead abundance, intrinsic 

productivity, and life history diversity increases by 106 percent, 7 percent, and 224 percent, respectively.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 251

Figure 7-12. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Touchet Summer Steelhead Under Current and 

Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 252

The recovery plan also increases productivity in the Lower Touchet River to a level that can sustain 

limited summer steelhead production (63 adults). The recovery plan thereby increases the spatial structure 

(distribution) of the population, which should reduce extinction risk.

No improvement is seen in the Patit Creek portion of the population because actions were not targeted to 

this area. Patit Creek will, however, be protected from further degradation through the enforcement of 

existing laws and regulations.

It is important to note that the 2004 analysis did not consider Coppei Creek, which is being currently used 

by the Touchet River steelhead population.

Summary of Conclusions

Based on the 2004 EDT forecasts, the actions proposed in the recovery plan do not appear sufficient to 

achieve the recovery objectives developed by the ICRT. However, a more up to date analysis is presented 

in NMFS (2009).

7.3.5 Joseph Creek (Grande Ronde)

7.3.5.1 Summer Steelhead

Population Viability

The majority of Joseph Creek is located in Oregon. Improvement in summer steelhead production in this 

stream will require habitat actions in both Washington and Oregon. Based on current stock status and 

actions proposed for both states, summer steelhead production is expected to meet ICTRT viability 

criteria. Summer steelhead adult abundance and intrinsic productivity is forecasted to increase by 197 

percent and 19 percent, respectively (Figure 7-13). 
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 253

Figure 7-13. EDT Viability Analysis for Joseph Creek (Grande Ronde) Summer 

Steelhead (2004).

NFMS recent status update (Ford et al. 2010) suggests that the Joseph Creek population is highly viable. 

The EDT results shown in Figure 7-13 could be considered conservative. 

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

Joseph Creek contains a single MaSA. EDT forecasted change in abundance, intrinsic productivity, and 

life history diversity is shown in Figure 7-14. The plan results in an increase in abundance, intrinsic 

productivity and life history diversity of 197 percent, 19 percent, and 69 percent (or 35 percentage 

points), respectively. If achieved, improvement in the VSP parameters will significantly reduce extinction 

risk for this population.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 254

Figure 7-14. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity and Life History Diversity for Joseph Creek Summer Steelhead Under 

Current and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 255

Summary of Conclusions

Existing empirical data suggests that this population is already at recovery objectives; therefore, it is 

expected that the actions in this plan would further ensure that this status is maintained.

7.3.6 Lower Grande Ronde River

The Lower Grande Ronde River population includes the Wenaha River and several small tributaries in the 

lower portion of the subbasin. This grouping of streams applies only to the summer steelhead population. 

The Wenaha River was designated as a separate population for spring/summer Chinook under the 

assumption that few, if any, spring/summer Chinook salmon use the smaller tributaries.

7.3.6.1 Summer Steelhead

Population Viability

The Lower Grande Ronde summer steelhead population may be meeting the population viability criteria 

in terms of 2004 EDT projections (Figure 7-15), with or without recovery plan actions. Chilcote (2001) 

concluded that Lower Grande Ronde steelhead abundance not only surpasses viability criteria, but equals 

maximum sustained yield (MSY) seeding. However, NMFS (Ford et al. 2010) was unable to confirm the 

population‘s status because of lack of empirical information. For additional more up to date information 

see the draft recovery plan for Oregon spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead populations in the 

Snake River ESU and DPS (NMFS, in prep.).

The results of the viability analysis are not surprising given that the Wenaha River Basin is in relatively 

pristine condition. Because it is undisturbed, the recovery plan has targeted this stream for protection 

rather than restoration.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 256

Figure 7-15. EDT Viability Analysis for Lower Grande Ronde Summer Steelhead (2004).

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

If recovery actions are as effective as the model indicates, adult abundance, intrinsic productivity, and life 

history diversity in the Lower Grande Ronde should increase by 11 percent, 1 percent and 40 percent (or 

18 percentage points), respectively (Figure 7-16). Increases in all three VSP parameters should reduce 

extinction risk, while at the same time increasing the ability of the population to recover more quickly 

from periods of poor ocean or freshwater survival.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 257
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 258

Figure 7-16. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity, and Life History Diversity for Lower Grande Ronde Summer Steelhead 

Under Current and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).

Summary of Conclusions

The EDT analysis concluded that current population abundance and productivity achieves the recovery 

criteria set forth by the ICTRT. NMFS (in prep.) assumed that productivity was similar for this population 

compared to other Grande Ronde populations, but did not speculate on abundance levels.

7.3.6.2 Spring/Summer Chinook

No recovery actions are proposed for the Wenaha River Basin because most of it is within designated 

wilderness. Therefore, population viability is expected to be the same for current conditions and for the 

Recovery Plan (Figure 7-17)23. Neither abundance nor productivity will achieve the viability criteria 

identified by the ICTRT. If modeling results are accurate, given the relatively pristine condition of the 

Wenaha River, only actions outside of the subbasin could increase survival sufficiently to achieve the 

viability criteria.

Figure 7-17. EDT Viability Analysis for Wenaha River Spring/Summer Chinook (2004).

The most current status of this population can be found in Appendix B and Ford et al. (2010). This 

population is still considered by NMFS to be at high risk.

 

23 It should be noted, that while the primary strategy for this population is preservation of current good habitat 

within the Wenaha Basin, out-of-basin improvements should increase viability of this population.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 259

VSP Parameters for Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations

The Wenaha River was defined as a single MSA by the ICTRT. As can be seen in Figure 7-18, the change 

in the VSP parameters is expected to be quite low.

Summary of Conclusions

Because no actions are proposed to improve habitat in the Wenaha River basin as part of this plan, no 

improvement in fish performance is expected with plan implementation, but improvement may occur 

because of migration corridor improvements. The existing empirical, as well as analyses completed by 

others, show that current spring/summer abundance in the Wenaha River is less than the abundance level 

established by the ICTRT. Because of this, it is assumed that the recovery plan would not achieve the 

recovery objectives. However, because there is missing data on Wenaha River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon distribution and abundance, results of stream surveys conducted as part of the monitoring program 

(Appendix C) would be used to update this conclusion as they become available.
Chapter 7: Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 260

Figure 7-18. Viability Curve Modified EDT Index Values of Abundance, Intrinsic 

Productivity, and Life History Diversity for Wenaha River Spring/Summer Under Current 

and Recovery Plan Conditions (2004).
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 261

8 REFERENCES 

Araki, H., Berejikian, B.A., Ford, M.J., and Blouin, M.S. 2008. Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids fish 

in the wild. Evol. Appl., 1(2): 342–355. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x.

Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD). 2001. Draft: Asotin Creek Subbasin Summary. Prepared 

for Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD). 2004. Asotin Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council. 205 pages

Asotin County. 1997. Asotin County geography and brief history of Asotin County. Retrieved March 11, 

2004, from http://www.co.asotin.wa.us.

Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan (ACMWP). 1995. Prepared by the Asotin Creek Landowner 

Steering Committee with assistance from the Technical Advisory Committee of the Asotin Creek Model 

Watershed. Prepared for the Asotin County Conservation District.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 262

Bauer, H.H. and J.J. Vaccaro. 1990. Estimates of ground-water recharge to the Columbia Plateau regional 

aquifer system, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, for predevelopment and current land-use conditions. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4108.

Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish movements and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific Northwest Riverscape. 

Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Beamish, R.J. [ed.] 1995. Climate change and northern fish populations. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 127. 739 pages.

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, New York. 

Bishop, E.M. 2003. In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Timber Press, 

Portland, OR, and Cambridge, England, UK.

Blankenship, and G. Mendel. 2010. Genetic Characterization of Adult Chinook Trapped in lower Asotin 

Creek. WDFW, http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01137/wdfw01137.pdf 12 pages.

Bodeutsch, G. 1999. State of Washington County Profiles. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from 

http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/pubs/profiles/profiles.htm.

Bryant F. G. and Z. E. Parkhurst. 1950. ―Survey of the Columbia River and its Tributaries; Part 4: Area 

III Washington Streams from the Klickitat and Snake Rivers to Grand Coulee Dam, with Notes on the 

Columbia and its Tributaries Above Grand Coulee Dam.‖ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special 

Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 37, 108 pp.

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon‘s bull trout. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Bumgarner, J., and J. Dedloff 2009. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer Steelhead 

Annual Report 2006 and 2007 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002. July 2002 Review Draft Russian River Basin –

fisheries restoration plan. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from 

http://hopland.uchrec.org/ihrmp/publications/draftbp/BASINP.0702.07.FishHab.pdf.

Chapman, D. W. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the nineteenth century. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:662-670.

Cheng, Y.W. and M. P. Gallinat. 2004. Statistically analysis of the relationship among environmental 

variables, inter-annual variability and smolt trap efficiency of salmonids in the Tucannon River. Fisheries 

Research 70: 229-238.

Chilcote, M.W. 2001. Conservation assessment of steelhead populations in Oregon (unpublished). 

Natural Production Section, ODFW, Portland, Oregon.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 263

Chilcote, Mark M.W., K.W. Goodson, and M.R. Falcy. 2011. Reduced recruitment performance in 

natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 68:511-522.

Christie, M. R., M. L. Marine, and M. S. Blouin 2011. Who are the missing parents? Grandparentage 

analysis identifies multiple sources of gene flow into a wild population. Molecular Biolog 14 pages.

Columbia Conservation District (CCD). 2004. Tucannon Subbasin Summary. Prepared for Northwest 

Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. 209 pages.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 2004. Our History & Culture, Part 1. Retrieved 

March 13, 2004, from http://www.umatilla.nsn.us.

Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 99:1302–1310.

Connor, W. P., J. G. Sneva, K.F. Tiffan, R. K. Steinhorst, and D. Ross. 2005. Two alternative juvenile life 

history types for fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 134:291-304.

Coronado, C. and R. Hilborn, (1998) Spatial and temporal factors affecting survival in coho and fall 

chinook salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Bulletin of Marine Science 62(2):409-425. 

Covert, J., J. Lyerla, and M. Ader. 1995. Initial watershed assessment: Tucannon River watershed, part of 

water resources inventory area 35. Open file report 95-04. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Seattle, Washington.

Dayton, Washington. 2004. A Brief History of Dayton, Washington & Columbia County; area profile. 

Retrieved March 13, 2004, from http://www.historicdayton.com.

Drost, B.W., and Whiteman, K.J. 1990. The Geologic Framework of the Columbia Plateau Regional 

Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 87-4238.

Economic & Engineering Services (EES). 1994. Walla Walla/College Place Coordinated Water System 

Plan. Prepared for the Cities of Walla Walla and College Place, Washington.

Economic & Engineering Services (EES). 2002. WRIA 32, Walla Walla Watershed Level 1 Assessment. 

Prepared for Walla Walla County, Washington.

Economic & Engineering Services (EES). 2004. WRIA 35-Middle Snake River Watershed Level I

Assessment. Prepared for Asotin County, Washington.

Ehrenreich, J. H. and J.M. Aikman. 1963. An ecological study of the effect of certain management 

practices on native prairie in Iowa. Ecological Monographs. 33(2): 113-130.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 264

Faler, M. P., G. Mendel, and C. Fulton. 2008. Evaluation of Bull Trout Movements in the Tucannon and 

Lower Snake Rivers Project Completion Summary (2002 through 2006). Prepared for U.S. Department 

of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Project number 2002-006-00.

Faler, M., G. Mendel, C. Fulton. 2004. Evaluate Bull Trout Movements in the Tucannon and Lower 

Snake Rivers. Project 2002-00600. BPA Report DOE/BP-00009774-1.

Fish Passage Center (FPC). 1986. Compilation of salmon and steelhead losses in the Columbia Basin. 

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Ford M.J. (ed.), Cooney T, McElhany P, Sands N, Weitkamp L, Hard J, McClure M, Kope R, Myers J, 

Albaugh A, Barnas K, Teel D, Moran P, Cowen J. 2010. Status review update for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Northwest. Draft U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NWFSC-XXX.

Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology, and population status of migratory bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63: 133-

143.

Franklin, J.F and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Gallinat, M. P, and L. A. Ross. 2009. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation program. 

2008 Annual Report. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Offices, 

Boise, ID

Goetz, F.A. 1989. Biology of bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature review. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette Nat. Forest, Eugene, Oregon.

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. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598p. 

Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-Status-Reviews/upload/SR2005-

allspecies.pdf

Governor‘s Salmon Recovery Office. 1999. Statewide strategy to recover salmon – summary. Retrieved 

April 21, 2004, from http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/strategy/summary.htm.

Haas, G. 2001. The mediated associations and preferences of native bull trout and rainbow trout with 

respect to maximum water temperature, its measurement standards, and habitat. In: M.K. Brewin, A.J. 

Paul, and M. Monita (Ed), Friends of the Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force 

(Alberta), Calgary, AB, Canada.

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
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 265

Hayes, G. E., and J. B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the peregrine falcon. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-Wildlife Program.

Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: C. Groot and L. 

Margolis, ed. Life histories of Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Hecht, B., R. Enkeboll, C. Ivor, and P. Baldwin. 1982. Sediment transport, water quality, and changing 

bed conditions, Tucannon River, Southeastern Washington. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Spokane, 

Washington.

Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel, P.M. Sankovich, and P.J. Howell. 2002. Bull trout life history, 

genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Hruby, T., S. Stanley, T. Granger, T. Duebendorfer, R. Friesz, B. Lang, B. Leonard, K. March, and A. 

Wald. 2000. Methods for assessing wetland functions, Volume II: Depressional wetlands in the Columbia 

Basin of eastern Washington. WA State Department of Ecology Publication #00-06-47.

Hyun, S-Y. and A. Talbot. 2004. Prioritization of naturally produced Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O.mykiss) populations based on population 

trends. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon.

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 Group. 2000. Return to the River 2000: restoration of salmonid fishes in the 

Columbia River Ecosystem. NPPC 2000-12, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS). March 2004. Wildlife--habitat relationships and 

regional habitat classifications. Retrieved March 2004 from http://www.nwhi.org/ibis/home/ibis.asp.

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 Basin Technical Recovery Team. 2004. Preliminary guidelines for population-level 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity supported viable salmonid populations, an update. 

ICTRT, 12/13/04.

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. 
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 266

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.

Kuttel, M. Jr. 2000. Draft salmonid habitat limiting factors, WRIA 32, Walla Walla Watershed. 

Washington Conservation Commission.

Kuttel, M. Jr. 2001. Salmonid habitat limiting factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 32 Walla Walla 

Watershed. Washington State Conservation Commission.

Kuttel, M. Jr. 2002. Salmonid habitat limiting factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 33 (Lower) and 

35 (Middle) Snake Watersheds and Lower Six Miles of the Palouse River. Washington State 

Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A., Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied Ecosystem Analysis – A 

Primer. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration Environmental Fish and Wildlife Division. Project 

Number 9404600, Contract #94 AM 33243. Portland, Oregon.

MahoneyB. D., G. Mendel, M. Lambert, J. Trump, P. Bronson, M. Gembala and M. Gallinat. 2009. The 

Walla Walla Subbasin Collaborative Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project: 2007 and 2008 

Annual Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 2000-039-00. 138 

pages.

MahoneyB. D., Glen Mendel, Rey Weldert, Jeremy Trump, Joelle Pomraning, Michael Gembala and 

Michael Gallinat. 2011. Walla Walla Subbasin Collaborative Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation 

Project: 2009 and 2010 Annual Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Project No. 2000-039-00.

Matthews, G.M. and R.S. Waples. 1991. Status Review for Snake River spring and summer Chinook 

salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NMFS-F/NWC 200.

Mayer, K. and M. Schuck. 2009. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2008 Annual Report, 

BPA Project No. 200205300, 17 pages.

Mayer, K., M. Schuck, and P. Iversen. 2010. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2009 

Annual Report, BPA Project No. 200205300, 29 pages.

Mayer, K., Schuck, M., and D. Hathaway. 2006. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2005 

Annual Report, BPA Project No. 200205300, 37 pages.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 267

Mayer, K., Schuck, M., Wilson, S., and B. Johnson. 2005. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek 

Watershed, 2004-2005 Annual Report, Project No. 200205300, 40 pages, BPA Report No. DOE/BP00018229 and No. DOE/BP-00022720.

McClure, M. M., E. E. Holmes, B. L. Sanderson, and C. E. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale, multi-species 

status assessment: Anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Ecol. Appl. 13(4):964–989.

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. Department Commerce., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle, Washington.

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.

Meinig, D.W. 1968. The Great Columbia Plain: A Historical Geography, 1805-1910. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Mendel, G., V. Naef, and D. Karl 1999. Assessment of salmonid fishes and their habitat conditions in the 

Walla Walla River Basin-1998 Annual Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration No. FPA 99-01.

Molenaar, D. 1968. A Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Northwestern Walla Walla County, Washington. 

Washington Department of Water Resources, Monograph No. 1.

Mudd, D. R. 1975. Touchet River Study, Part I, Wildlife. Washington Department of Game.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NMFS-NWFSC-35. Seattle, Washington.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Factors for Decline: A Supplement to the Notice of 

Determination for Snake River Spring/summer Chinook Salmon Under the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental and Technical Services Division, Portland, Oregon.

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/SalmonRecovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Estuary-Module.cfm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Biological Opinion: Impacts of US v OR Fisheries 

in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA-listed Species and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential 

Fish Habitat. May 5, 2008. Available at https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=107547
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 268

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008b. Recovery Plan Module for Mainstem Columbia 

River Hydropower Projects (―Hydro Module‖). NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008c. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation: 

consultation on remand for operation of the Columbia River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation 

Projects in the Columbia Basin. (―FCRPS BiOp‖) NMFS, Portland, Oregon. Available at 

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

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008d. Recovery Plan Module for Mainstem Columbia 

River Hydropower Projects (―Hydro Module‖). NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population 

Segment ESA Recovery Plan. 260 pages.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004a. Endangered Species Act 2004/2004-2008, 

Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2000. Passage of juvenile and 

adult salmonids past Columbia and Snake River dams. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, Washington.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Asotin Creek inventory and assessment report.

Newcomb, R. C. 1965. Geology and ground-water resources of the Walla Walla River Basin, Washington 

and Oregon. Washington Division of Water Resources, Water Supply Bulletin No. 21.

Nez Perce Tribe. 2002. The Nez Perce Reservation and its Location. Retrieved March 13, 2004, from 

http://www.nezperce.org.

Nowak, M.C. 2004. Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. 491 pages.

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

(WDFW). 1998. Status Report, Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-1997.

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1979. Freshwater habitat, salmon produced, and 

escapements for natural spawning along the Pacific Coast of the United States. Report of the Anadromous 

Salmonid Environmental Task Force. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Palouse–Rock Lake Conservation District. 2001. Draft: Palouse Subbasin Summary. Prepared for 

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Parametrix. 2003. Snake River Salmon Recovery Planning – Biological/Technical Conditions Report. 

Prepared for Snake River Salmon Recovery Board.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 269

Pasco, Washington. 2003. Pasco‘s Colorful history, general information. Retrieved March 13, 2004, from 

http://www.ci.pasco.wa.us.

Peven, C. M., R. R. Whitney, K. R. Williams. 1994. Age and length of steelhead smolts from the midColumbia River basin, Washington. North American Journal Fisheries Management 14: 77-86.

Pomeroy Conservation District (PCD). 2004. Lower Snake River Subbasin Summary. Prepared for the 

Northwest Power and Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. 195 pages.

Port of Whitman County (PWC) 2000. Comprehensive plan. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from 

http://www.portwhitman.com/CompPlan.pdf.

Pullman, Washington. 2003. Pullman, Washington information. Retrieved March 13, 2004, from 

http://www.pullman-wa.gov.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull 

trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv., Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rept. 

INT_302, Ogden, Utah.

Robbins, W.G. 1997. Landscapes of Promise: The Oregon Story 1800-1940. Univ. of Washington Press, 

Seattle, WA and London, England.

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.

Saul, D., C. Rabe, A. Davidson, and D. Rollins. 2001. Draft Walla Walla Subbasin summary. Prepared 

for Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Saul, D., L. Gephart, M. Maudlin, A. Davidson, L. Audin, S. Todd, and C. Rabe. 2000. Draft Walla Walla 

River watershed assessment. Washington State University Center for Environmental Education. Pullman, 

Washington.

Scott, J.B. and Gill, W.T. 2006. Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington State's Anadromous 

Populations and Programs. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB). 2006. Technical Document Snake River Salmon 

Recovery Plan for SE Washington. Prepared for the Washington Governor‘s Salmon Recovery Office. 

408 pages, plus appendices.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Committee. 2004. 2004 Lead Entity Habitat Protection & Restoration 

Strategy: Snake River Region.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1981. Southeast Washington Cooperative River Basin Study: Deadman 

Creek Watershed.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 270

State of Washington. 2004. Office of Financial Management. April 1 Population of Cities, Towns and 

Counties. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from www.ofm.wa.gov/pop.

Stinson, D.W., J. W. Watson, and K. R. McAllister. 2001. Washington status report for the bald eagle. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-Wildlife Program.

Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan (TRMWP). 1997. Prepared by the Landowner Steering 

Committee in cooperation with the Technical Advisory Committee. Sponsored by the Columbia 

Conservation District and Bonneville Power Administration.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997b. Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington 

reconnaissance report. Walla Walla District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Salmon River, Idaho, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 

Project. Retrieved April 25, 2004, from http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/salmonriver/chinook.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004b. Walla Walla District Recreation Area. Retrieved March 

23, 2004, from http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/corpsoutdoors/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Census of agriculture: geographic Area Series, Vol. I, IA, IB, IC. 

National Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. retrieved from http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Hudson Bay District Improvement Company, Walla 

Walla River Irrigation District and Gardenia Farms Irrigation District #13. FWS.PN.2731.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Draft Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) recovery plan. 

Retrieved April 27, 2004, from http://pacific.fws.gov/bulltrout/recovery.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Chapter 24, Snake River Washington Recovery Unit, 

Oregon. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentis) Draft Recovery Plan. 

Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Lower Snake River compensation plan/programs. 

Retrieved March 2004 from http://lsnakecomplan.fws.gov/Programs/LyonsFer.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No date a. Mid-Columbia River Refuges. Retrieved March 26, 

2004, from http://midcolumbiariver.fws.gov/mcnarypage.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No date b. Umatilla National Forest: Wenaha-Tucannon 

Wilderness. Retrieved March 26, 2004, from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/wenaha.htm.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1998b. Tucannon River biological assessment of ongoing activities for 

consultation on bull trout by the Umatilla National Forest with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 271

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interior Columbia Basin 

supplemental draft environment impact statement, Volume 1. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project, Walla Walla, WA and Boise, ID.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). No date. GIRAS: Land use/land cover for Washington State. GIS layer. 

Retrieved March 2, 2004 from http://wagda.lib.washington.edu/data/lulc250k/.

Walla Walla County. 2004. Walla Walla County History. Retrieved March 13, 2004, from 

http://www.co.walla-walla.wa.us.

Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce. 2002. Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce 

information. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from http://www.wwchamber.com.

Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit (WWPU) and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council (WWWC). 

2004. Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, 

Oregon. 252 pages.

Waples, R.S., O.W. Johnson, and R.P. Jones, Jr. 1991a. Status review for Snake River sockeye salmon. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC 195.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1999a. Introduction to Washington‘s Shoreline 

Management Act (RC 90.58). Retrieved March 17, 2004, from 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/smaintro.pdf.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2002. Water quality program, 303(d)list. Retrieved March 

15, 2004, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002_list.html.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2003. Total maximum daily load for lower Snake River 

total dissolved gas. Publication No. 03-03-020.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2004. What are noxious freshwater weeds? Retrieved 

April 5, 2004, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/exotic.html.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington State salmonid stock 

inventory: Bull T rout/Dolly Varden. WDFW, Fish Management.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000a. Bull Trout and Dolly Varden 

Management Plan. September 2000.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Fishing prospects. Retrieved April 5, 2004, 

from http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/prospects/county_d_j.htm.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW). 2002. Status Report. Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-2000.
Chapter 8: References

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 272

Weeber, M. A., S. J. Starcevich, S. Jacobs, and P. J. Howell. 2007. Migratory Patterns, Structure, 

Abundance, and Status of Bull Trout Populations from Subbasins in the Columbia Plateau and Blue 

Mountain Provinces 2006 Annual Report. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Environment, Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, Project 

Number 199405400 Contract Number 26681.

Weeks, G. 2000. State of Washington County Profiles. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from 

http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/pubs/profiles/profiles.htm.

Weeks, G. 2001. State of Washington County Profiles. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from 

http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/pubs/profiles/profiles.htm.

Weeks, G. 2002. State of Washington County Profiles. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from 

http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/pubs/profiles/profiles.htm.

Whiteman, K.J., J.J. Vaccaro, J.B. Gonthier, and H.H. Bauer. 1994. The hydrogeologic framework and 

geochemistry of the Columbia Plateau aquifer system, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1413-B.

Whitman County. 2003. Whitman County information. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from 

http://www.whitmancounty.org.

Whitson, T.D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. 

Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science. Jackson, Wyoming
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 273

APPENDIX A SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS AND COST
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 274

List of Tables – Appendix A

TABLE A-1. 10-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE FOR SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON MU. ........................................................................................................ 276

TABLE A-2. 10-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH 

DPS/ESU IN THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MU............................................... 277

TABLE A-3 WALLA WALLA SUMMER STEELHEAD POPULATION .............................. 278

TABLE A-4. TOUCHET SUMMER STEELHEAD POPULATION....................................... 279

TABLE A-5. TUCANNON SPRING CHINOOK AND SUMMER STEELHEAD 

POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................... 280

TABLE A-6. ASOTIN SPRING CHINOOK AND SUMMER STEELHEAD 

POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................... 281

TABLE A-7. LOWER GRANDE RONDE (WITHIN WASHINGTON)SUMMER 

STEELHEAD POPULATION......................................................................................... 282

TABLE A-8. JOSEPH CREEK SUMMER STEELHEAD POPULATION (WITHIN 

WA...................................................................................................................................... 283
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 275

APPENDIX A Site Specific Actions and Cost

The ESA requires site specific actions and costs to be identified in a recovery plan that will achieve the 

plan‘s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. Specifically, section 4(f)(1)(B) directs that 

"The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable - incorporate in each plan - 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; objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination in accordance with the provisions of 

this section, that the species be removed from the list and; estimates of the time required and the cost to 

carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that 

goal."

The recovery plan provides objective, measurable criteria that, when met, will result in a deterimantion 

that the species should be removed from the list. Implementation of the actions described in the plan are 

predicted to meet those criteria, i.e., required viability levels for 4 of the 8 extant populations in the 

southeast Washington Management Unit in the next 10 years. However, 4 of the extant populations are 

not predicted to meed the criteria within 10 years. The plan stops short of predicting the time and cost of 

meeting the criteria for those populations but provides the intermediate steps toward that goal as 

represented by the 10-year actions and costs. The actions specified in this plan were identified to make 

incremental improvements needed to move populations from their current status to healthy and 

harvestable levels. Adjustments in effort or direction will need to be made if actions do not achieve their 

desired goals, and to take advantage of new information, more specific objectives, and changing 

opportunities. The adaptive management plan will provide the mechanism to facilitate these adjustments 

and updated cost estimates based on new information/data, objectives and opportunities will be be made 

in 2016. 

This recovery plan includes near-term site specific actions and costs as well as a 10-year list of actions 

and costs at a broader geographic scale (MaSA and MiSA). The near-term actions are understandably 

more precise than those on the 10-year list. The near-term list of actions and their costs are maintained in 

a 3-year work schedule. The list includes habitat protection and restoration projects (actions), 

monitoring/evaluation programs, assessments and studies, and outreach. To view the 3-year work 

schedule go to www.snakeriverboard.org. The 3-year work schedule is organized by MaSA/MiSA and 

then by project category. Each of the actions are groupd by category, i.e., habitat projects, monitoring, 

studies, and outreach. Each action has a prospective lead, estimated cost and implementation schedule. 

The actions on the 3-year work schedule are identified by SRSRB staff, consultants, agencies, tribes, 

conservation districts, non-profit organizations, local governments and others. The 3-year work schedule 

is updated annually to reflect new information and is therefore not included as a table in this recovery 

plan because it is a dynamic table updated each year. Identified actions are reviewed by the regional 

technical team based on each action‘s benefit to salmon relative to the limiting factors and priority areas. 

Only those actions approved by the RTT appear on the 3-year work schedule. Actions on the 3-year work 

schedule are priority for funding.
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 276

In addition to the 3-year work schedule, a 10-year implementation cost estimate was developed

specifically for habitat protection and restoration actions needed to achieve or make progress towards 

meeting the habitat objectives for each population (Table 6-2). The basis for the actions and associated 

cost was an evaluation of current habitat conditions relative to the objectives or targets for those 

conditions. For instance, if the objective for floodplain connectivity is 80% of a 20-mile long MaSA and 

the current condition is 40% connected then actions to improve 8 miles needs to occur. The cost of 

improving floodplain connectivity varies by site condition but is defined well enough for developing a 10-

year cost estimate. A smiliar exercise was conducted for each of the key actions identified in table 6-10 

for each population in southeast Washington and is summarized int eh following table then broken out for 

each population and strategy in the subsequent table. 

As stated, the 10-year implementation cost estimate includes only costs associatd with habitat-related 

(capital) actions. An evaluation of the non-capital costs of recovery was prepared by Evergreen Funding 

Consultants for the Governor‘s Salmon Recovery Office and the Council of Regional Salmon Recovery 

Organizations in March 2011. The non-captial costs included program operations, monitoring and

studies/asessments, education/outreach, and development of regulations. The costs of those non-capital 

items necessary to fulfill committtments in the regional salmon recovery plan are provided in Table A-1 

for the Southeast Washington Salmon Recovery Plan and are then described for each ESU/DPS in the 

MU in Table A-2. 

It is important to note that there are costs related to hatchery and harvest improvements that are not 

captured in these cost estimates that are nonetheless important to salmon recovery. These costs were not 

included because the details (costs) of hatchery programs and associated monitoring efforts or fishery 

evaluations relative to recovery are provided in specific hatachery genetic management plans and fishery 

management plans which are updated frequently. Table A-1 and A-2 do include estimated costs for 

monitoring and evaluation needed to determine the effectiveness of recommended actions, and whether 

they are leading to improvements in population viability which is described in detail in Appendix C. 

Table A-1. 10-Year implementation cost estimate for southeast Washington MU.

Capital Projects Million

Habitat Restoration $68

Land and Easement Acquisition $25

Passage Barrier Retrofits $39

Instream Flow Enhancements $50

Water Quality Improvements $25

Sub-Total $207

Non-Capital Expenes

Program Operations $8

Monitoring & Studies/Assessments $28

Outreach and Education $2

Development of Regulations $2

Sub-Total $41

TOTAL $248

For the purpose of informing the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS-wide recovery plan and the Snake 

River Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook ESU and DPS-wide recovery plan, the costs listed in the 

table above have been distributed among the Middle Columbia DPS and the Snake River ESU/DPS for 

each capital project category. For non-captial expenses, the table lists the costs for RME according to 

DPS/ESU but not for the other non-capital expenses that apply MU-wide (program operations, 
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 277

outreach/education and development of regulations). These specific non-capital expenses could 

theoretically be divided by 2 assuming that the expense and effort for operations, education/outreach and 

development of regulations are evenly split between the two geographic areas. 

Table A-2. 10-year implementation cost estimate for each DPS/ESU in the southeast Washington MU 

Capital Projects Middle C 

DPS Snake DPS/ESU

Habitat Restoration $35 $24

Land and Easement Acquisition $42 $19

Passage Barrier Retrofits $21 $2

Instream Flow Enhancements* $38 $3

Water Quality Improvements $10 $10

Sub-Total $147 $58

Non-Capital Expenes

Program Operations – MU wide $8

Monitoring & Studies/Assessments** $13 $15

Outreach and Education – MU wide $2

Development of Regulations $2

Sub-Total for Non-Captial Expenses $19 $21

TOTAL*** $166 $79

* The instream flow enhancement cost estimate for Mid C Steelhead DPS does not include costs of flow 

enhancement above the amount identified as necessary for steelhead and bull trout recovery, i.e., the cost 

of increasing flow to achieve the restoration goals identified in the plan.

**Many of the specific RME tasks have costs that are yet to be determined so the values in this table 

represent the minimum expense for the overall category at this time.

*** This figure reflect evenly splitting the costs associated with program operations, outreach/education 

and development of regulations and then adding to the itemized costs from the rows above.

Funding for capital activies is currently provided by a mix of sources including SRFB (pacific coastal 

salmon recovery and state funding), BPA, USDA, DOE, Land Trust, RFEG, NGO‘s, landowners, and 

other state and federal sources. Funding for non-capital activies is currently provided by SRFB, BPA, 

DOE, USFS, Conservation Commision, and RFEG. As of 2011, approximately $6 million in funding was 

provided for capital expenses while about $2 million for non capital expenses. At this rate of funding, 

funding levels are sufficient to support only about one-third of the costs proposed in the plan. The largest 

gap in funding for capital projects is habitat restoration followed by instream flow enhancement, passage 

barrier retrofit, land and easement acquisition and water quality improvements. The vast majorty of the 

gap in funding for non-captial activities is monitoring. 
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 278

Table A-3 Walla Walla Summer Steelhead Population

Prioritized 

Strategies

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

10-Year 

Cost ($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $2,000,000 WWCD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $9,000,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA/MiSA $5,000,000 Land Trust

Fencing and 

Planting MaSA/MiSA $4,300,000 

WW Conserve 

Dist*

Land 

acquisition/ease

ments MaSA/MiSA $10,000,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike setback MaSA reach

$25,000,000

Walla Walla 

County 

Conservation 

District*, 

WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR

Floodplain 

reconnection MaSA reach

Channel 

reconsruction MaSA

Develop offchannel habitat MaSA reach

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

Improve passage 

in Mill Creek

Mill Creek 

concrete 

chanel $14,000,000 WDFW

Improve passage 

in Yellowhawk Yellowhawk $850,000 

Walla Walla 

CD*, WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR

Improve passage 

in steelhead 

bearing streams

steelhead 

bearing 

streams $1,000,000 

Walla Walla 

CD*, WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR

Screen irrigation 

diversions

steelhead 

bearing 

streams $1,000,000 

Walla Walla 

CD*, WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR

Improve passage 

at Bennington 

Dam

Bennington 

Dam $4,000,000 USACE

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Stream Flow, 

Water 

Temperature 

and habitat 

quantity and 

quality

Surface water 

conservation 

and/or 

acquisition

Improve irrigation 

efficiency

MaSA and 

MiSA $10,200,000 

WWCD

Acquire water 

rights

MaSA and 

MiSA $10,000,000 

Water 

trust/WWB 

Partnership

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands

MaSA and 

MiSA $2,200,000 

WWCD

Flow 

enhancement 

MaSA and 

MiSA $10,000,000 

WWCCD/CTUI

R

Shallow aquifer 

recharge MaSA $3,000,000 

WWCD/WDF

W

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads MaSA $4,100,000 USFS*

Conservation 

tillage practices MaSA $2,000,000 WWCD

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s MaSA $500,000 WWCD

Farm access 

road 

improvements MaSA $500,000 WWCD

TOTAL $118,650,000
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 279

Table A-4. Touchet Summer Steelhead Population

Recovery 

Strategies 

as 

Prioritized 

in 

Recovery 

Plan

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

10-

yearCost 

($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $2,000,000 

WW & Col Co 

CD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $4,000,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA $2,000,000 Land Trust

Land 

Acquisition/Ease

ments MaSA $4,000,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike setback MaSA reach

$10,000,000 

Columbia 

Conservation 

District*, WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR, 

County

Floodplain 

reconnection MaSA reach

Develop offchannel habitat MaSA reach

Create 

floodplains MaSA reach

Wolf Fork 

floodplain 

restoration

Green and 

Burnt Fks $200,000 

Col Co CD / 

CTUIR*

Rainwater 

floodplain 

restoration

South 

Touchet $200,000 CTUIR*

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

Replace failing 

culvert

USFS Road 

64 $300,000 USFS*

Replace stream 

fords

Tamarack 

Trail $100,000 USFS*

Replace failing 

culvert Corral creek $100,000 RFEG

Repair passage 

in Coats Crk. Coates Creek $50,000 RFEG

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Improve irrigation 

efficiency

MaSA and 

MiSA $1,000,000 

Col Co CD, WW 

CD, RFEG

Pipe ditches Hearn Ditch $400,000 

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands

Patit and 

Hogeye $200,000 

Improve 

hyporheic storage

Tribs to MaSA 

reach $100,000 WDFW*

Lease/purchase 

water MaSA/MiSA $1,000,000

Water 

Trust/WWB 

Partnership

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce 

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads

USFS Road 

600 $2,000,000 USFS*

Conservation 

tillage practices

Londigan, 

Boles/Ford, 

Hogeye, Miller 

and Payne

$400,000 

WW Conserve 

Dist*, Columbia 

Cons. Dist, 

RFEG

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s $300,000 

Farm access 

road 

improvements $300,000 

TOTAL $28,650,000 
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 280

Table A-5. Tucannon Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead Populations

Recovery 

Strategies 

as 

Prioritized 

in 

Recovery 

Plan

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

10-year 

Cost ($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $2,000,000 CCCD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $2,000,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA $1,000,000 Land Trust

Land 

Acquisition/Ease

ments MaSA $2,000,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike 

setback/floodplai

n reconnect MaSA reach $10,000,000

Columbia 

Conservation 

District*, WDFW, 

RFEG, CTUIR, 

County

Relocate 

overhead power 

lines $1,200,000

Reconfigure 

fishing lakes

Beaver, 

Watson, Big 4, $2,000,000

Relocate road to 

Camp Wooten

USFS Guard 

Station $1,500,000

Install LWD MaSA Reach $3,000,000

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

Pataha Passage pataha creek $500,000 USFS*

Hixon creek 

passage hixon creek $200,000 USFS*

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Improve irrigation 

efficiency $400,000

Columbia 

Conservation 

Pipe ditches $200,000 District*, RFEG

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands $200,000

Improve 

hyporheic storage $300,000 WDFW*

Purchase/lease 

water rights MaSA / MiSA $300,000

Water 

Trust/CCD

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce 

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads

USFS Road 

600 $2,000,000 USFS*

Conservation 

tillage practices

Londigan, 

Boles/Ford, 

Hogeye, Miller 

and Payne

$400,000

WW Conserve 

Dist*, Columbia 

Cons. Dist, 

RFEG

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s $500,000

Farm access 

road 

improvements $500,000

TOTAL: $30,200,000
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 281

Table A-6. Asotin Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead Populations

Recovery 

Strategies 

as 

Prioritized 

in 

Recovery 

Plan

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $2,000,000 ACCD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $1,000,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA/MiSA $400,000 Land Trust

Fencing and 

Planting MaSA/MiSA $1,000,000 ACCD

Land 

acquisition/ease

ments MaSA/MiSA $2,000,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike 

setback/floodplai

n reconnection MaSA reach $2,000,000 

ACCD, WDFW, 

NPT

Channel 

reconsruction MaSA $1,000,000 

Develop offchannel habitat MaSA reach $1,000,000 

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA and 

MiSA

Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

Headgate Dam 

Passage Asotin Creek $200,000 ACCD

Alkali Flat 

headcut Alkali Creek $50,000 WDFW

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Stream Flow, 

Water 

Temperature 

and habitat 

quantity and 

quality

Surface water 

conservation 

and/or 

acquisition

Improve irrigation 

efficiency

MaSA and 

MiSA $300,000 

ACCD

Acquire water 

rights

MaSA and 

MiSA $400,000 

Water Trust

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands

MaSA and 

MiSA $400,000 WDFW

Shallow aquifer 

recharge MaSA $300,000 WDFW

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce 

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads MaSA $2,000,000 USFS/NPT

Conservation 

tillage 

practices/CRP MaSA $400,000 ACCD

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s MaSA $200,000 ACCD

Farm access 

road 

improvements MaSA $500,000 ACCD

TOTAL: $15,150,000 
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 282

Table A-7. Lower Grande Ronde (within Washington)Summer Steelhead Population

Recovery 

Strategies 

as 

Prioritized 

in 

Recovery 

Plan

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

10-Year 

Cost ($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $1,000,000 ACCD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $400,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA/MiSA $400,000 Land Trust

Fencing and 

Planting MaSA/MiSA $550,000 ACCD

Land 

acquisition/ease

ments MaSA/MiSA $2,200,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike 

setback/floodplai

n reconnection

Rattlesnake 

Creek et al $1,000,000 

ACCD, WDFW, 

NPT

Channel 

reconsruction MaSA $400,000 

Develop offchannel habitat MaSA reach $400,000 

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA and 

MiSA

Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

Bufford Creek 

passage Bufford Creek $400,000 WDFW/WADOT

Rattlesnake 

Creek passage 

(2)

Rattlesnake 

Creek $300,000 WDFW/WADOT

Cottonwood 

Creek passage

Cottonwood 

Creek $400,000 WDFW

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Stream Flow, 

Water 

Temperature 

and habitat 

quantity and 

quality

Surface water 

conservation 

and/or 

acquisition

Improve irrigation 

efficiency

MaSA and 

MiSA $100,000 

ACCD

Acquire water 

rights

MaSA and 

MiSA $100,000 

Water Trust

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands

MaSA and 

MiSA $50,000 WDFW

Shallow aquifer 

recharge MaSA $0 WDFW

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce 

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads MaSA $2,000,000 USFS/NPT

Conservation 

tillage 

practices/CRP MaSA $400,000 ACCD

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s MaSA $200,000 ACCD

Farm access 

road 

improvements MaSA $400,000 ACCD

TOTAL: $10,700,000 
APPENDIX A: Site Specific Actions & Costs

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 283

Table A-8. Joseph Creek Summer Steelhead Population (within Wa

Recovery 

Strategies 

as 

Prioritized 

in 

Recovery 

Plan

Spawning 

Area 

(MaSA/MiSA)

VSP 

Parameter(s) 

Addressed 

Limiting 

Factor(s) 

Addressed

Action Type Specific 

Action(s)

Specific 

Geographical 

Location(s)

Total 

Estimated 

10-year 

Cost ($)

Implementing 

Entity

*Lead

6.1 Strategies to Restore and Protect Habitat

1. Protect floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Protect 

existing 

habitat from 

future 

degredation

CREP

CREP-eligible 

reaches $100,000 ACCD

Riparian 

Easements

MaSA and its 

tribs $200,000 Land Trust

Floodway 

Easements MaSA/MiSA $100,000 Land Trust

Fencing and 

Planting MaSA/MiSA $100,000 ACCD

Land 

acquisition/ease

ments MaSA/MiSA $200,000 Land Trust

2. Restore floodplain and riparian function as well as channel migration processes, structure and complexity

MaSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Sediment, 

Temperature, 

and channel 

complexity 

Restore 

channel, 

floodplain and 

riparian 

condtion

Dike 

setback/floodplai

n reconnection Joseph Creek $500,000 

ACCD, WDFW, 

NPT

Channel 

reconsruction MaSA $200,000 

Develop offchannel habitat MaSA reach $100,000 

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions

MaSA and 

MiSA

Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Passage Restore/Enha

nce passage 

and habitat 

connectivity

$0 WDFW/WADOT

$0 WDFW/WADOT

$0 WDFW

$0 

4. Improve instream flow during critical periods

MaSA/MiSA Abundance, 

Productivity, 

and Life 

History 

Diversity

Stream Flow, 

Water 

Temperature 

and habitat 

quantity and 

quality

Surface water 

conservation 

and/or 

acquisition

Improve irrigation 

efficiency

MaSA and 

MiSA $100,000 

ACCD

Acquire water 

rights

MaSA and 

MiSA $100,000 

Water Trust

Construct water 

detention 

ponds/wetlands

MaSA and 

MiSA $0 WDFW

Shallow aquifer 

recharge MaSA $0 WDFW

5. Maintain and/or reduce sediment delivery to streams

Sediment Implement 

BMPs to 

reduce 

sediment 

origination 

and delivery 

to streams

Decommission 

roads MaSA $100,000 USFS/NPT

Conservation 

tillage 

practices/CRP MaSA $80,000 ACCD

Grass 

waterways/ditche

s MaSA $40,000 ACCD

Farm access 

road 

improvements MaSA $40,000 ACCD

TOTAL: $1,960,000 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 284

APPENDIX B CURRENT STATUS ASSESSMENT OF SEWMU POPULATIONS
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 285

Table of Contents - Appendix B

Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

B.1 Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ....................................................................................... 291

B.1.1 Abundance, distribution, and productivity of individual subbasins and 

populations 295

B.2 Summer Steelhead .............................................................................................................. 319

B.2.2 Abundance, distribution, and productivity of individual subbasins and 

populations 322

B.3 Comparison between ICTRT and full data set.................................................................... 353

B.4 Bull Trout............................................................................................................................ 356

B.4.1 Population Structure .............................................................................356

B.4.2 Current Distribution..............................................................................360

B.4.3 Current Abundance...............................................................................360

B.4.4 Recovery status.....................................................................................367

B.5 References........................................................................................................................... 371
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 286

Table of Figures – Appendix B

APPENDIX B CURRENT STATUS ASSESSMENT OF SEWMU POPULATIONS.................................. 284

FIGURE B-1. ADULT HATCHERY- AND NATURAL-ORIGIN 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON COUNTS AT ICE HARBOR 

DAM FROM 1964 TO 2010............................................................................................. 295

FIGURE B-2. ESTIMATED ABUNDANCE OF TUCANNON RIVER 

NATURAL-ORIGIN SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON ADULTS 

AND 10-YEAR GEOMEAN BETWEEN 1986 AND 2010 ........................................... 299

FIGURE B-3. ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY OF NATURAL-ORIGIN 

SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON ADULTS AND 20-YEAR 

GEOMEAN FROM THE TUCANNON RIVER........................................................... 300

FIGURE B-4. TUCANNON RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON 

POPULATION ABUNDANCE/PRODUCTIVITY COMPARED TO THE 

VARIOUS RISKS OF EXTINCTION WITHIN 100 YEARS ..................................... 301

FIGURE B-5. PERCENTAGE OF REDDS OBSERVED UPSTREAM 

FROM THE TUCANNON FISH HATCHERY ............................................................ 302

FIGURE B-6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF 

FEMALE SPAWNERS (HATCHERY- AND NATURAL-ORIGIN) AND 

PARR AND SMOLTS PRODUCED .............................................................................. 308

FIGURE B-7. LOWER SNAKE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON 

MPG POPULATION RISK RATINGS INTEGRATED ACROSS THE FOUR 

VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION (VSP) METRICS............................................ 312

FIGURE B-8. ADULT ABUNDANCE, AND 10-YEAR GEOMEAN OF 

ABUNDANCE FOR WENAHA SPRING CHINOOK SALMON............................... 316

FIGURE B- 9. WENAHA RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON 

CURRENT ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY COMPARED VARIOUS 

RISKS OF EXTINCTION WITHIN 100 YEARS......................................................... 317

FIGURE B-10. FRACTION OF HATCHERY-ORIGIN FISH 

DETERMINED FROM CARCASS SAMPLING IN THE WENAHA RIVER 

BASIN 317

FIGURE B-11. GRANDE RONDE/IMNAHA MPG POPULATION RISK 

RATINGS INTEGRATED ACROSS THE FOUR VIABLE SALMONID 

POPULATION (VSP) METRICS................................................................................... 319

FIGURE B-12. SNAKE RIVER STEELHEAD COUNTS AT ICE HARBOR 

AND LOWER GRANITE DAMS, DEPICTING AN INDEX OF NATURALORIGIN RUN CONTRIBUTION................................................................................... 321
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 287

FIGURE B-13. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TUCANNON RIVER BASIN

NATURAL-ORIGIN ADULT STEELHEAD PASSING ICE HARBOR DAM ........ 323

FIGURE B-14. THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF NATURAL-ORIGIN 

STEELHEAD SMOLTS EMIGRATING FROM THE TUCANNON RIVER, 

1997-2010 MIGRATION YEARS ................................................................................... 325

FIGURE B-15. THE NUMBER OF STEELHEAD SPAWNERS 

ESTIMATED IN ASOTIN CREEK (UPSTREAM OF THE GEORGE 

CREEK) AND PERCENTAGE OF HATCHERY FISH OBSERVED AT THE 

WEIR, 2005-2010.............................................................................................................. 328

FIGURE B-16. THE NUMBER OF STEELHEAD REDDS ESTIMATED IN 

AN INDEX AREA OF THE ASOTIN CREEK BASIN, UPSTREAM OF 

GEORGE CREEK, 1986-2010 ........................................................................................ 330

FIGURE B-17. NUMBER OF NATURAL ORIGIN FISH COUNTED

ASCENDING ASOTIN CREEK POPULATION INCLUDING SUPPORTING 

MASAS OTHER THAN ASOTIN CREEK................................................................... 333

FIGURE B-18. STEELHEAD SPAWNER DISTRIBUTION IN ASOTIN

CREEK, IN THE INDEX AREA, UPSTREAM OF THE WEIR ONLY ................... 333

FIGURE B-19. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF JUVENILE STEELHEAD 

EMIGRANTS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AT THE SMOLT TRAP IN 

THE LOWER BASIN ...................................................................................................... 336

FIGURE B-20. LOWER SNAKE RIVER STEELHEAD MPG 

POPULATION RISK RATINGS INTEGRATED ACROSS THE FOUR 

VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION (VSP) METRICS............................................ 337

FIGURE B-21. ADULT ABUNDANCE, AND 10-YEAR GEOMEAN OF 

ABUNDANCE FOR WALLA WALLA STEELHEAD................................................ 338

FIGURE B-22. THE NUMBER OF STEELHEAD REDDS ESTIMATED IN 

THE TOUCHET RIVER BASIN EXPANDED FROM INDEX SURVEYS 

BETWEEN 1987 AND 2009............................................................................................. 341

FIGURE B-23. ESTIMATED RECRUITS/SPAWNER OF TOUCHET 

RIVER SUMMER STEELHEAD FOR THE INDEX AREAS ONLY ....................... 345

FIGURE B-24. SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION OF STEELHEAD IN THE 

TOUCHET RIVER BASED ON REDD COUNTS IN INDEX AREAS 

UPSTREAM OF DAYTON, 1987-2009.......................................................................... 346

FIGURE B-25. THE ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF NATURALORIGIN STEELHEAD ON THE SPAWNING GROUNDS IN THE 

TOUCHET RIVER, 1987-2010 ....................................................................................... 347

FIGURE B-26. UMATILLA/WALLA WALLA STEELHEAD MPG 

POPULATION RISK RATINGS INTEGRATED ACROSS THE FOUR 

VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION (VSP) METRICS............................................ 349
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 288

FIGURE B-27. JOSEPH CREEK SUMMER STEELHEAD POPULATION

CURRENT ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY (A/P) COMPARED 

VARIOUS RISKS OF EXTINCTION WITHIN 100 YEARS. .................................... 352

FIGURE B-28. GRANDE RONDE RIVER MPG STEELHEAD 

POPULATION RISK RATINGS INTEGRATED ACROSS THE FOUR 

VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION (VSP) METRICS............................................ 353

FIGURE B-29. BULL TROUT POPULATION UNITS AS DEFINED BY 

THE USFWS 357
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 289

List of Tables – Appendix B

APPENDIX B CURRENT STATUS ASSESSMENT OF SEWMU POPULATIONS.................................. 284

TABLE B-1. SPRING/SUMMER (S/S) CHINOOK SALMON PASSAGE IN THE 

SNAKE RIVER................................................................................................................. 292

TABLE B-2. ESTIMATED SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON 

ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY TO THE TUCANNON RIVER, 1985-

2010 296

TABLE B-3 SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK REDD DISTRIBUTION IN THE 

TUCANNON RIVER ....................................................................................................... 301

TABLE B-4. ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RUN OF STRAY 

(NON TUCANNON RIVER) HATCHERY-ORIGIN FISH INTO THE

TUCANNON RIVER FROM 1990-2009........................................................................ 304

TABLE B-5. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FEMALE SPAWNERS, PARR AND 

SMOLTS PRODUCED FROM THE TUCANNON RIVER........................................ 306

TABLE B-6 REDD AND SPAWNER COUNTS IN ASOTIN CREEK, 1972-2010............ 309

TABLE B-7. NUMBER OF JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON CAPTURED IN 

SPRING AND FALL SAMPLING AT THE ASOTIN CREEK ROTARY 

SCREW TRAP AND EXPANDED POPULATION ESTIMATE ............................... 311

TABLE B-8. SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON SPAWNING GROUND 

SURVEYS IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE WENAHA RIVER....................................... 314

TABLE B-9 ADULT STEELHEAD PASSAGE AT ICE HARBOR AND LOWER 

GRANITE DAMS, 1993-2010.......................................................................................... 320

TABLE B-10. SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION OF STEELHEAD IN INDEX 

AREAS OF THE TUCANNON RIVER, 2007............................................................... 324

TABLE B-11. ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DENSITY (FISH/100M2) OF 

JUVENILE STEELHEAD SAMPLED IN INDEX AREAS OF THE 

TUCANNON RIVER BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006....................................................... 326

TABLE B-12. COUNTS OF STEELHEAD IN ALPOWA AND GEORGE

CREEKS 2008-2010 AND COMMON SOURCES OF STRAYS ................................ 327

TABLE B-13. SUMMARY OF ADULT STEELHEAD TRAPPED AT THE 

ASOTIN CREEK WEIR FROM 2005-2010 .................................................................. 329

TABLE B-14. NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF STEELHEAD REDDS 

IN INDEX AREAS OF THE ASOTIN CREEK BASIN, 1986-2010 

EXCLUSIVE OF GEORGE CREEK DRAINAGE AND THE LOWER 

ASOTIN DOWNSTREAM OF THE ADULT TRAP ................................................... 330
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 290

TABLE B-15. ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DENSITY (FISH/100M2) OF 

JUVENILE STEELHEAD SAMPLED IN ASOTIN CREEK, UPSTREAM OF 

THE WEIR, BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006...................................................................... 335

TABLE B-16. COUNTS OF STEELHEAD PASSING NURSERY BRIDGE 

DAM (RKM 71.9), OR PARTIAL COUNTS AT THE YELLOWHAWK 

CREEK WEIR, OR MILL CREEK DIVERSION DAM............................................. 338

TABLE B-17. ABUNDANCE ESTIMATE OF NATURAL-ORIGIN 

STEELHEAD CAPTURED AT THE LOWER WALLA WALLA RIVER 

ROTARY SCREW TRAP................................................................................................ 340

TABLE B-18. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SPAWNING STEELHEAD 

(NATURAL, ENDEMIC HATCHERY STOCK, AND LYONS FERRY 

HATCHERY STOCK) IN THE TOUCHET RIVER INDEX AREA 

UPSTREAM OF DAYTON BETWEEN 1987-2010...................................................... 342

TABLE B-19. SUMMARY OF REDD SURVEYS IN COPPEI CREEK 

BASIN. 344

TABLE B-20. ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DENSITY (FISH/100M2) OF 

JUVENILE STEELHEAD SAMPLED IN THE TOUCHET RIVER 

BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006............................................................................................. 347

TABLE B-21. JOSEPH CREEK STEELHEAD SPAWNERS, 10-YEAR 

GEOMEAN OF SPAWNERS AND RETURN PER SPAWNER FROM 1980-

2009 350

TABLE B-22. SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT 

SALMONID POPULATIONS: COMPARISON OF SUMMARY OF 

ABUNDANCE, PRODUCTIVITY, RISK RATINGS, AND MINIMUM 

ABUNDANCE THRESHOLDS ...................................................................................... 355

TABLE B-23. BULL TROUT REDD COUNTS IN THE TUCANNON 

RIVER BASIN, 1994-2010............................................................................................... 361

TABLE B-24. SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF BULL TROUT REDDS 

OBSERVED BETWEEN 1990 AND 2010 IN THE WALLA WALLA BASIN ......... 363

TABLE B-25. SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF BULL TROUT REDDS 

OBSERVED BETWEEN 2005-2010 IN THE WENAHA BASIN................................ 366

TABLE B-26. BULL TROUT POPULATION DELINEATION, SIZE 

RECOVERY CRITERIA AND TREND FOR POPULATIONS WITHIN THE 

SEWMU 368
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 291

Appendix B – Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

In the following appendix, the current status of the SEWMU populations is shown. Most of the

information is based on reports from local agencies and Tribes that collect and report population metrics. 

NMFS is in the process of updating their status reviews (Ford et al. 2010), and it is important that 

consistent information is used throughout the Columbia Basin. Therefore, to be consistent, some of the 

information was downloaded from the Northwest Science Center, where the ICTRT data is being stored 

(NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0), or from the draft status review update 

(Ford et al. 2010). While most of the information on the website is based on local reports, some of it has 

been modified, or certain metrics (e.g., recruit per spawner) derived. This information was used when 

available and is clearly identified.

One of the principles the ICTRT used when determining abundance and productivity was that they 

delineated the data if it was, in their estimation, greater than 75% of the current carrying capacity of the 

population, i.e., data were not used if greater than 75% of carrying capacity. In other words, not all of the 

information was used by the ICTRT. However, for comparison sake, this Plan reports information using 

the full data set and then compares any metrics derived to those created by the ICTRT.

B.1 SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON 

For the entire ESU, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon abundance is monitored by a 

combination of spawning surveys (conducted by IDFG, WDFW, ODFW, USFWS, NPT, and the CTUIR) 

and counts at mainstem Snake River dams (NMFS also assists at Lower Granite Dam). In the SEWMU, 

WDFW (in WA State), ODFW (Or portion of Lower Grande Ronde River MPGs), and the CTUIR (Walla 

Walla River) perform redd surveys. 

Currently, spring/summer Chinook salmon are counted at Lower Snake River dams (Table B-1; Figure B1). Counts began in 1964 at Ice Harbor Dam, and began at the other dams as they were completed. The 

average number and range of the counts are depicted at the bottom of Table B-1. The number of 

spring/summer Chinook returning to the Snake River basin has increased in the last decade (Figure B-1). 

Dam counts are a good indicator of relative run strength and trends, but are not accurate to depict spawner 

abundance. Counts at dams also cannot be separated into hatchery and wild components reliably24; 

therefore, the percentage of wild fish cannot be determined using these counts (although external marks 

are recorded). Carcass surveys do, however, allow for differentiating wild and hatchery fish for 

spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

Returns of spring/summer Chinook salmon have increased since 2001 for both hatchery- and naturalorigin fish. These increases have been seen throughout the Columbia Basin for various species and runs, 

and therefore, probably reflect improving marine and mainstem Snake and Columbia river survival rates, 

in addition to on-going tributary habitat restoration.

 

24 However, the 10-20% sample rate at the adult trap at the Lower Granite Dam can give good information on size, 

age and gender, with collection of scales for age and tissues for genetic analysis.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 292

Table B-1. Spring/Summer (S/S) Chinook Salmon Passage in the Snake River, 1964-2010 

(DART 2010).

Year

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental 

Dam Little Goose Dam Lower Granite Dam

S/S 

Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult

1964 1,358 18,895

1965 1,098 11,076

1966 2,153 41,728

1967 2,851 32,742

1968 5,040 39,723

1969 3,533 48,362 6,659 41,977

1970 3,075 44,906 4,238 41,373 5,598 38,474

1971 3,738 28,900 6,091 24,796 6,669 21,763

1972 3,128 47,222 3,034 41,288 2,869 38,531

1973 2,252 58,387 2,610 60,107 2,662 52,767

1974 1,343 18,018 1,731 16,711 1,742 15,501

1975 1,242 20,159 1,547 19,851 1,094 17,332 1,556 16,083

1976 4,632 20,424 4,363 20,009 4,635 17,750 4,555 15,920

1977 2,860 51,898 2,364 44,990 2,167 37,388 3,286 43,913

1978 490 59,253 478 55,344 325 44,002 395 52,362

1979 1,596 10,259 1,179 8,825 731 7,149 1,644 9,467

1980 2,345 10,628 1,870 8,101 1,062 5,788 2,057 8,149

1981 1,073 18,908 1,072 17,295 554 13,114 1,006 16,441
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 293

Year

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental 

Dam Little Goose Dam Lower Granite Dam

S/S 

Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult

1982 621 18,506 498 19,089 unavailable unavailable 697 16,577

1983 1,014 16,510 910 16,639 unavailable unavailable 1,276 13,412

1984 1,899 13,624 2,416 14,393 unavailable unavailable 3,225 11,940

1985 3,424 35,360 3,685 31,657 unavailable unavailable 4,098 30,145

1986 1,776 45,021 2,055 43,570 unavailable unavailable 2,562 37,730

1987 1,183 37,835 1,175 36,714 unavailable unavailable 1,606 34,726

1988 1,474 40,778 1,368 39,716 unavailable unavailable 1,286 35,640

1989 2,415 18,829 3,016 19,656 unavailable unavailable 2,451 16,124

1990 382 26,142 501 25,342 unavailable unavailable 372 22,408

1991 2,268 14,874 2,106 12,790 1,961 10,563 2,159 10,432

1992 1,038 29,453 859 26,793 945 24,372 831 24,405

1993 341 31,513 380 31,475 505 30,400 313 28,924

1994 137 4,338 152 4,513 195 4,006 116 3,915

1995 545 2,243 738 2,529 659 2,105 530 1,797

1996 2,507 9,250 2,733 9,107 2,821 8,379 2,583 6,814

1997 197 50,594 246 47,632 173 47,246 208 44,564

1998 434 17,907 432 14,888 452 14,810 437 14,209

1999 3,968 9,251 4,070 7,296 4,273 6,718 4,091 6,556

2000 12,668 43,048 13,613 40,200 13,928 38,628 14,074 37,761
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 294

Year

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental 

Dam Little Goose Dam Lower Granite Dam

S/S 

Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult

2001 5,423 186,443 3,396 200,074 5,793 190,752 6,939 185,693

2002 4,263 111,814 3,247 100,048 4,069 98,086 4,042 97,184

2003 12,621 98,912 10,933 89,321 10,616 83,357 12,432 87,031

2004 7,658 89,979 5,982 82,266 5,667 71,542 6,992 79,509

2005 2,257 36,876 1,806 34,287 1,897 30,979 2,336 32,764

2006 1,420 33,973 1,071 33,515 1,329 28,992 1,635 29,588

2007 9,892 36,062 8,460 38,799 10,088 31,848 12,364 30,184

2008 12,721 76,835 9,775 81,857 12,616 72,144 16,018 72,758

2009 37,623 79,291 31,742 90,284 35,538 72,964 47,431 64,149

2010 9,550 130,771 10,260 132,431 9,429 125,369 11,703 122,981

Overall 

Average 3,947 41,011 3,925 41,132 4,783 40,713 4,981 37,840

Overall 

Minimum 137 2,243 152 2,529 173 2,105 116 1,797

Overall 

Maximum 37,623 186,443 31,742 200,074 35,538 190,752 47,431 185,693

Pre 1990 

avg.

2,216 31,075 2,493 29,624 2,509 25,797 2,113 23,909

1990-1999 

avg.

1,182 19,557 1,222 18,237 1,332 16,511 1,164 16,402
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 295

Year

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental 

Dam Little Goose Dam Lower Granite Dam

S/S 

Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult S/S Jack S/S Adult

2000-2010 

avg.

10,554 84,000 9,117 83,917 10,088 76,787 12,361 76,327

Figure B-1. Adult hatchery- and natural-origin Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Counts at Ice 

Harbor Dam from 1964 to 2010 (DART 2010). 

B.1.1 Abundance, distribution, and productivity of individual subbasins and populations

Tucannon River

Adult Abundance and Productivity

In the Tucannon subbasin, spring/summer Chinook salmon spawn almost exclusively in the mainstem 

Tucannon River (Gallinat and Ross 2010). Spawning occurs in the Tucannon River from just above the 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 296

mouth of Sheep Creek (RM 52) downstream to King Grade (RM 21). Although a very limited amount of 

spawning has been documented in lower Panjab Creek, spawning is rarely observed in any other 

Tucannon River tributary (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

The Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook salmon population declined substantially between the mid 

1980s through the late 1990s (Table B-2; Figure B-2). Since the late 1990s, the population has increased, 

ranging between three fish (1999) to 1,443 (2010; Figure B-2). The 10-year geomean of abundance is 

currently 404 (Table B-2, Figure B-2). 

The current 20-year return per spawner (R/S; a measure of productivity) for the Tucannon River spring 

Chinook salmon is 0.71 (Ford et al. (2010); Table B-2, Figure B-3). The 20-year geomean for R/S 

discussed here differs from the estimate by the ICTRT because they delimit their data when these metrics 

reach 75% of their estimated carrying capacity threshold. 

Hatchery fraction

There has been a hatchery supplementation program in the Tucannon River since 1985. Fish used for 

broodstock have always been comprised of some proportion of natural-origin fish. Hatchery-origin fish 

have made up some percentage of the naturally spawning population since 1988. Since 2000, hatcheryorigin fish have made up 48% of the total run (Table B-3).

In response to the severe decline of spawners, WDFW has on more than one occasion, collected nearly all 

the run for hatchery broodstock in an effort to maximize survival and maintain the population.

Table B-2. Estimated Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon abundance and productivity to the 

Tucannon River, 1985-2010 (Gallinat and Ross 2011, NOAA salmon population summary SPS 

database: https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0, and Glen Mendel, WDFW, 

personal communication).

Brood Year

Total 

Redds

Percent 

naturalorigin

Natural -

origin 

adult run

10-year 

geomean 

naturalorigin run

Adjusted 

return per 

spawner

20-year 

geomean of 

R/S

1986 200 100% 636 1.09

1987 185 100% 582 1.14

1988 117 96% 410 0.69

1989 106 76% 336 2.26

1990 180 66% 494 0.27
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 297

1991 90 49% 260 0.84

1992 200 56% 418 0.08

1993 192 54% 317 0.45

1994 44 70% 98 353 0.98

1995 5 39% 21 266 0.31

1996 68 66% 165 233 0.27

1997 73 46% 160 204 1.55

1998 26 59% 85 175 2.51

1999 41 1% 3 109 1.05

2000 92 24% 82 91 1.46

2001 298 71% 718 101 0.63

2002 299 35% 350 99 0.27

2003 118 56% 248 97 0.47

2004 160 70% 400 111 0.83 0.67

2005 102 69% 289 145 2.29 0.71

2006 101 55% 140 142

2007 81 58% 198 145

2008 199 45% 534 175

2009 451 40% 750 303
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 298

2010 481 57% 1,443 404

Overall Average 156 0.58 365

Overall Minimum 5 1% 3 91 0.08 0.67

Overall Maximum 481 1 1443 404 2.51 0.71

Pre 1990 avg. 152 0.93 491

1990-1999 avg. 92 0.51 202

2000-2010 avg. 217 0.53 468

a The natural-origin adult run is reconstructed based on redd counts, adult per redd estimates from the trap and spawning 

upstream and expanding for the redds downstream of the weir.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 299

Figure B-2. Estimated abundance of Tucannon River natural-origin spring/summer Chinook 

salmon adults and 10-year geomean between 1986 and 2010 (Gallinat and Ross 2011).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 300

Figure B-3. Estimated productivity of natural-origin spring/summer Chinook salmon adults and 

20-year geomean from the Tucannon River (NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0) for 1986-2003. For 2003-2005 from 

Gallinat and Ross (2010).

Note that the recruits per spawner is often less than one and Gallinat and Ross (2010) have documented 

that R/S is nearly always less than one for any spring Chinook salmon that spawn naturally in the 

Tucannon River. This is a critical issue for this population that must be clearly identified and addressed 

under RM&E to determine the cause and prompt actions that increase it.

Viability Curve

The ICTRT (2007) has developed a ―viability curve‖ for the Tucannon River (Figure B-4). The point 

estimate for abundance and productivity is shown in relationship to various levels of risk of extinction 

within 100 years. As previously mentioned (Chapter 4), it will be necessary that the Tucannon River 

spring Chinook salmon population meet the 1% risk of extinction, denoted by the point of the arrow in 

Figure B-4 below, suggesting that the descending part of the curve should be moved to the right.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 301

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

10-year geomean abundance

Productivity (geomean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Figure B-4. Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon population abundance/productivity 

compared to the various risks of extinction within 100 years. Ellipse = 1 SE. Error bars = 90% CI 

(from Tom Cooney, NMFS, personal communication). The arrow denotes where the population 

productivity would need to be to meet “highly viable” criteria.

Adult Distribution

Most of the spring Chinook salmon in the Tucannon River spawn in the ―HMA‖ section between river 

kilometers 39.9 to 55.5 (Table B-3). Gallinat and Ross (2010) note that spawning distribution has 

changed since 1985. Between 1985 and 1999, the proportion of redds upstream of the Tucannon Fish 

Hatchery weir decreased (Figure B-4). Changes in hatchery practices and increases in SAR reversed this 

trend, and now most of the fish spawn upstream of the weir, where there is better habitat (Figure B-5).

Table B-3 Spring/Summer Chinook Redd Distribution in the Tucannon River (1985-2009; 

Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Section Rkm Percent of Total Redds Average Redds

Mouth to Marengo (Lower) 0-20.1 0 0

Marengo 20.1-39.9 1.1 2

Hartstock 39.9-55.5 19.3 29

HMA 55.5-74.5 67.4 98
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 302

Wilderness 74.5-86.3 12.2 18

Upstream of Trap > 59 60.7 87

Downstream of trap < 59 39.3 56

Figure B-5. Percentage of redds observed upstream from the Tucannon Fish Hatchery, 1986-

2010 (from Gallinat and Ross 2010, and Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

Nearly one-quarter of the returning adults appear to bypass the Tucannon River upon return based on PIT 

tag detections at Lower Granite Dam (Gallinat and Ross 2010). This phenomenon does not appear to be 

based on origin, since both hatchery and natural-origin fish that were tagged as juveniles pass Lower 

Granite Dam in equal proportions; 23.5% and 23.8%, respectively. Only one fish has been detected 

entering the Tucannon River after being detected at Lower Granite Dam, but the recent addition of a 

remote PIT tag detector array near the mouth of the Tucannon should help evaluate fish returning to the 

Tucannon River (although additional work on the remote detector may need to be done to increase its 

reliability; Gallinat and Ross 2010).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 303

Stray hatchery-origin fish 

WDFW has estimated the number of stray hatchery-origin fish entering the Tucannon River since 1990 

(Table B-4). In only four years was the ICTRT criteria of > 5% non-population and out of MPG origin 

fish in the subbasin exceeded.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 304

Table B-4. Estimated number and percentage of run of stray (non Tucannon River) hatcheryorigin fish into the Tucannon River from 1990-2009 (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Year

Number of non-Tucannon 

Hatchery-origin fish 

(expanded)

Percentage of estimated 

Tucannon River run

1990 14 1.9

1991

1992 10 1.3

1993 2 0.3

1994

1995

1996 3 1.3

1997 9 2.6

1998

1999 20 8.2

2000 46 13.6

2001 13 1.3

2002 97 9.7

2003 1 0.2

2004 17 3.0

2005 6 1.4
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 305

Year

Number of non-Tucannon 

Hatchery-origin fish 

(expanded)

Percentage of estimated 

Tucannon River run

2006 8 3.2

2007 28 8.1

2008 24 2.0

2009 17 0.9

Juvenile Abundance and Production

WDFW has estimated the number of parr produced in the Tucannon River through various methods since 

1985 (Table B-5). The average number of parr estimated between brood years 1985 and 2005 was 

51,270, fluctuating between 0 (1995) and 103,292 (1992). 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 306

Table B-5. Estimated number of female spawners, parr and smolts produced from the 

Tucannon River (from Gallinat and Ross 2010).

Brood Year

Female spawners

Parra Natural Hatchery Total Smolts

1985 219 219 90,200 42,000

1986 200 200 102,600 58,200

1987 185 185 79,100 44,000

1988 117 117 69,100 37,500

1989 103 3 106 58,600 30,000

1990 128 52 180 86,259 49,500

1991 51 39 90 54,800 30,000

1992 119 81 200 103,292 50,800

1993 112 80 192 86,755 49,560

1994 39 5 44 12,720 7,000

1995 5 0 5 0 75

1996 53 16 69 2,845 1,612

1997 39 33 72 32,913 21,057

1998 19 7 26 8,453 5,508

1999 1 40 41 15,944 8,157

2000 26 66 92 44,618 20,045
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 307

Brood Year

Female spawners

Parra Natural Hatchery Total Smolts

2001 219 79 298 63,412 38,079

2002 104 195 299 72,197 60,530

2003 67 51 118 40,900 23,003

2004 117 43 160 30,809 21,057

2005 77 25 102 21,162 17,579

2006 65 36 101 30,228

2007 49 32 81 8,529

2008 95 104 199

2009 179 272 451

Average 96 60 146 51,270 28,436

Minimum 1 0 5 0 75

Maximum 219 272 451 103.292 60.530

a Number of parr estimated from electrofishing (1985-1989), Line transect snorkel surveys (1990-1992), and Total 

Count snorkel surveys (1993-2005). After 2005, based on screw trapping information (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Based on the estimated number of female spawners and juvenile data collected in the basin, WDFW was 

able to determine the number of parr and smolts produced per female spring/summer Chinook spawner 

(Figure B-6; Gallinat and Ross 2010). The data indicate that smolt production generally increases with an 

increase in adult returns to the basin, although a potential capacity is suggested within Figure B-6. It 

appears that production of parr and subsequent smolts may be reduced after about 200 female spawners. 

Standardized stock-recruitment type curves applied to these data for this plan, but WDFW has done this 

and the data clusters in the lower left of the curve because only recently have there been years of 

relatively large returns. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 308

Figure B-6. The relationship between the number of female spawners (hatchery- and naturalorigin) and parr and smolts produced (data from Table B-5).

Asotin Subbasin

Adult Abundance and Productivity

The WDFW and ICTRT classified Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon as functionally extinct 

because of extremely low redd counts and the origin of the small number of spawners was generally 

unknown (more recent information concerning origin of spawning Chinook salmon in Asotin Creek is 

discussed below). Annual redd abundance in Asotin Creek remains at extremely low levels (Table B-6). 

Historically, spring runoff may have provided sufficient connectivity to allow some adults access to most 

reaches within the Asotin Creek system before a thermal barrier blocked the entrance; however, limited 

habitat availability and low summer flows and marginal temperatures probably limited pre-spawn holding 

to upper portions of the mainstem and North Fork. It is currently not known if this is still an issue. 

Spawning has been documented in the upper mainstem of Asotin Creek (above Charley Creek) and in 

North Fork Asotin Creek from its confluence with Lick Creek to near the border of the Umatilla National 

Forest. Blankenship and Mendel (2010) evaluated 31 Chinook salmon sampled at a WDFW trap in lower 

Asotin Creek in 2005 and 2007. They concluded that the fish sampled in Asotin Creek apparently were 

mostly Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, with potentially a few Snake River fall Chinook 

salmon also. Their tests suggest that the fish sampled in Asotin Creek were most similar to, or likely to 

be from the Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook salmon, but not entirely. Some spring Chinook also 

appeared to be from the Imnaha River.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 309

Table B-6 Redd and Spawner Counts in Asotin Creek, 1972-2010 (Glen Mendel, WDFW, 

personal communication).

Year Total Redd Count Live + Dead Fish

1972 12 76

1973 13 21

1984 8 17

1985 1 8

1986 1 3

1987 3 6

1988 1 0

1989 0 0

1990 2 0

1991 0 0

1992 0 0

1993 2 1

1994 0 0

1995 0 0

1996 0 0

1997 1 0

1998 0 0
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 310

Year Total Redd Count Live + Dead Fish

1999 0 0

2000 1 0

2001 4 4

2002 4 0

2003 1 0

2004 13 6

2005 2 1

2006 11 4

2007 3 3

2008 6 3

2009 6 3

2010 5 2

.

Juvenile Abundance and Production

Mayer et al. (2010) have enumerated juveniles captured at a rotary screw trap in lower Asotin Creek since 

2004. They have counted between 219 and 1,884 juvenile Chinook salmon, and have expanded those 

counts to between 319 and 4,125 (Table B-7).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 311

Table B-7. Number of juvenile Chinook salmon captured in spring and fall sampling at the 

Asotin Creek rotary screw trap and expanded population estimate (from Mayer et al. 2009).

Year Number captured Total fish emigrating

2004 1,884 4,145

2005 219 319

2006 1,035 2,358

2007 1,173 2,553

2008 1,127 2,265

2009 553 1,617

MPG Viability

Overall, Ford et al. (2010) rated the Tucannon and Asotin Creek populations at high risk of extinction 

(Figure B-7).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 312

Figure B-7. Lower Snake River spring Chinook salmon MPG population risk ratings integrated 

across the four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics (based on Ford et al. 2010). Viability Key: 

HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR –High Risk (does not meet viability criteria). 

Darker cells are at higher risk.

Walla Walla Subbasin

Spring Chinook salmon were extirpated from the Walla Walla Subbasin more than 75 years ago due to 

over appropriated stream flow, loss of habitat and inadequate fish passage. Today, the CTUIR is working 

with the local community to restore the subsistence, economic, religious and cultural values of salmon 

(Mahoney et al. 2010).

The CTUIR‘s spring Chinook salmon re-introduction program is modeled after its successful Umatilla 

Fisheries Restoration Program and consists of: 1) habitat and flow restoration, 2) best practices hatchery 

reintroduction, 3) monitoring and evaluation, and 4) adaptive harvest management. 

The CTUIR‘s management goal is to reintroduce natural spawning spring Chinook salmon populations to 

the Walla Walla Subbasin in order to provide sustainable returns for hatchery broodstock and natural 

spawning, plus tribal and sports tributary harvest. The Tribe‘s spring Chinook salmon reintroduction goal 

is to meet a return average of 5,500 adults back to the mouth of the Walla Walla River to produce 2,750 

hatchery returns from smolt releases in the Walla Walla River. Another 1,100 naturally produced adults 

are expected to return to the Walla Walla River, plus returns from adult out-plants in Mill Creek and the 

Touchet River (in the future). Bench-mark criteria towards meeting this goal include: 1) a 10 year 

geometric mean of 1,100 natural origin spring Chinook salmon returning to the upper mainstem and 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk

Very Low Low Moderate High

Abundance/Productivity 

Risk

Very Low

(<1%)

HV HV V M

Low

(1-5%)

V V V M

Moderate

(6 – 25%)

M M M HR

High

(>25%)

HR HR

HR

Tucannon 

River

HR 

Asotin Creek
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 313

South Fork Walla Walla Rivers; 2) adult productivity (recruit per spawner) above replacement and 3) a 

smolt-to-adult return greater or equal to 0.55 percent (CTUIR 2009). 

Spring Chinook salmon reintroduction began in 2000 with the CTUIR releasing surplus out-of-basin 

hatchery adults to spawn naturally in the South Fork Walla Walla River and upper Mill Creek. The first 

four-year-old adults returned in 2004 as naturalized progeny. In 2005, the Tribe also began annual 

releases of roughly 250,000 out-of-basin spring Chinook salmon smolts to the South Fork Walla Walla 

River; and in 2007, the first 4-year-old fish returned in significant numbers as hatchery-origin progeny 

from these smolts. Returns of adult spring Chinook in 2010 exceeded 1,200 fish to the Walla Walla 

Basin.

Wenaha River (Grande Ronde Subbasin)

Currently, SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon are limited to migration in the mainstem Grande 

Ronde within the Washington portion of the subbasin and limited spawning in Wenaha tributaries within 

WA.. Spawning and rearing of spring/summer Chinook salmon occurs in the Wenaha River and its 

tributaries in the Oregon portion of the drainage and in Butte Creek (a Wenaha tributary of which all but 

about 1.5-2 miles is within Washington), and the lower half of the North Fork Wenaha (up to just 

upstream of the state line) in the Washington portion of the drainage. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 314

Table B-8. Spring/summer Chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in tributaries of the 

Wenaha River (Glenn Mendel, WDFW, personal communication for the WA data, and Joe 

Feldhaus, ODFW, for the OR data).

Butte Creek

North 

Fork 

Wenaha 

River

South Fork 

and Milk 

Creeka Comments

OR, 

mouth to 

Stateline 

~ 3.2 km

WA,West 

Butte (4.6 

km)

WA, Forks 

down 6.4 

km to near 

State line

1987 8 only 3.2 km surveyed below forks

1988 0 10 2 surveys 3 wks apart on 29 Aug 

and 19 Sep

1989 0 1 state line upstream 4 km

1990

1991

1992 14 2 live fish, and 1 carcass with 

Lookinglass CWT

1993 5

1994

1995

1996

1997 4

1998 3

1999 2

2000 1
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 315

Butte Creek

North 

Fork 

Wenaha 

River

South Fork 

and Milk 

Creeka Comments

OR, 

mouth to 

Stateline 

~ 3.2 km

WA,West 

Butte (4.6 

km)

WA, Forks 

down 6.4 

km to near 

State line

2001 11

2002 6 20 75

2003 0 86

2004 8 84

2005 3 7 12 54 plus, 1 carcass, Butte Creek - forks 

down to 8.7 km to stateline

2006 5 3 52 Butte Creek - forks down to top of 

Box Canyon only ~1.3 km

2007 0 38

2008 3 34

2009 7 1 40 One redd in lower end of N. Fork

2010 10 19 84

a

the South Fork and Milk Creek, are all in Oregon. 

Adult Abundance and Productivity

Prior to the mid 1970s, the population appears to have fluctuated between about 700-2,500 (Figure B-8

25). 

Since that time, it declined through the mid- to late 1990s (as did most Columbia basin populations), and 

has increased since then. Currently, the population is still below the ICTRT minimum abundance 

threshold, but trending towards it. The abundance estimates in the graph below do not include the 

spawners in Butte Creek (WA) or in sampled OR tributaries (e.g. table above).

 

25 The information provided in Figure 5-8 is from the mainstem Wenaha, in Oregon, and does not include tributaries.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 316

Figure B-8. Adult abundance, and 10-year geomean of abundance for Wenaha spring Chinook 

salmon (NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0).

Viability Curve

The ICTRT has developed a ―viability curve‖ for the Wenaha River (Figure B-9). The point estimate for 

abundance and productivity is shown in relationship to various levels of risk of extinction within 100 

years. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 317

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 10-year geometric mean abundance

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Figure B- 9. Wenaha River spring Chinook salmon current abundance and productivity 

compared various risks of extinction within 100 years. Ellipse = 1 SE. Error bars = 90% CI (from 

Ford et al. 2010). It should be noted that tributary spawning is not included in this assessment.

Hatchery fraction

There are no hatchery releases within the Wenaha Basin. Hatchery-origin spawners have comprised an 

average of 15% of total spawners in frequently sampled areas since 1964, and the recent 10-year average 

is 5%, although the hatchery fraction reached nearly 90% in the late 1980s and 1990s (Figure B-10).

Figure B-10. Fraction of hatchery-origin fish determined from carcass sampling in the Wenaha 

River Basin (Rich Carmichael and Joseph Feldhaus, ODFW, personal communication).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 318

Adult Distribution

Current spawning distribution is similar to historic with major production areas in the South Fork and 

mainstem Wenaha River from the confluence of the North and South forks downstream to Crooked 

Creek. Additional spawning occurs in the North Fork Wenaha River and in Butte Creek (Table B-8).

Stray hatchery-origin fish 

Prior to 1995, strays were of Carson and Rapid River hatchery stock origin. In recent years, strays 

originated from local broodstock sources from other Grande Ronde River basin populations (Ford et al. 

2010).

MPG Viability

Overall, the Ford et al. (2010) rated the Wenaha population at high risk of extinction (Figure B-11).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 319

Figure B-11. Grande Ronde/Imnaha MPG population risk ratings integrated across the four 

viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics (based on Ford et al. 2010). Viability Key: HV – Highly 

Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR –High Risk (does not meet viability criteria). Darker cells are 

at higher risk.

B.2 SUMMER STEELHEAD

Currently, information on abundance and productivity for individual populations of mid-Columbia and 

Snake River steelhead is lacking to a great extent. For long-term trend analysis, detailed population level 

information within the SEWMU is available for only Joseph Creek. However, in recent years, more 

detailed information has been collected and what is available is reported below.

As previously discussed, dam counts offer an index of total run size returning to the Snake River basin. 

Based on dam counts, abundance of the total run ascending the Snake River and the percentage of naturalorigin steelhead has risen substantially since the mid-1990s (Table B-9; Figure B-12).

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk

Very Low Low Moderate High

Abundance/

Productivity 

Risk

Very Low

(<1%)

HV HV V M

Low

(1-5%)

V V V M

Moderate

(6 – 25%)

M

M

M HR

High

(>25%)

HR HR

HR

Wenaha

Lostine/Wallowa

Minam

Catherine

Imnaha

HR

Upper Grande 

Ronde
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 320

Table B-9 Adult Steelhead Passage at Ice Harbor and Lower Granite Dams, 1993-2010

(DART, 2010).

Year

Ice Harbor Lower Granite

Total

Naturalorigin

Percent 

naturalorigin TotalNaturalorigin

Percent 

naturalorigin

1993 73,107 12,354 16.9 66,699 11,965 17.9

1994 51,704 6,525 12.6 47,550 8,089 17.0

1995 92,026 7,989 8.7 80,925 7,630 9.4

1996 97,272 10,047 10.3 86,131 9,589 11.1

1997 94,796 9,375 9.9 85,880 8,943 10.4

1998 77,656 11,045 14.2 71,778 9,644 13.4

1999 81,236 13,211 16.3 73,189 11,585 15.8

2000 120,254 22,996 19.1 113,049 20,587 18.2

2001 255,720 46,257 18.1 262,558 47,716 18.2

2002 202,173 51,308 25.4 218,718 57,291 26.2

2003 191,675 47,329 24.7 180,672 45,391 25.1

2004 171,380 40,575 23.7 154,587 36,255 23.5

2005 156,801 35,571 22.7 152,802 35,240 23.1

2006 124,813 27,697 22.2 145,991 29,836 20.4

2007 154,739 31,675 20.5 157,083 32,969 21.0

2008 172,410 42,003 24.4 175,475 43,676 24.9
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 321

2009 328,105 76,434 23.3 323,697 76,203 23.5

2010 206,971 58,743 28.4 200,530 59,341 29.6

Average 147,380 30,619 19.0 144,295 30,664 19.4

Minimum 51,704 6,525 8.7 47,550 7,630 9.4

Maximum 328,105 76,434 28.4 323,697 76,203 29.6

a The Total column includes both hatchery and natural-origin counts. Prior to 1995, natural-origin steelhead data was 

not published on a daily basis. The Natural-origin column is a subset of the total column and may include unmarked 

hatchery-origin fish.

Figure B-12. Snake River Steelhead Counts at Ice Harbor and Lower Granite dams, depicting an 

index of natural-origin run contribution (natural-origin percentages may include some unknown 

number of unmarked hatchery-origin fish; DART, 2010) 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 322

The trend of steelhead counts over the Snake River dams is very encouraging and is generally believed to 

be related to increased hatchery production, increased survival through the hydrosystem, favorable ocean 

conditions, and habitat improvement in the tributaries.

Steelhead Genetic Structure in the SEWMU

Blankenship et al. (2007, 2009) investigated genetic variation over time within several of the SEWMU 

steelhead populations. They conducted a temporal analysis of allele frequencies at 14 microsatellite loci 

for sample collections replicated over a period of eight brood years. They compared the triad of two 

natural-origin summer steelhead populations (Tucannon and Touchet rivers) with a single hatchery 

population (Lyons Ferry Hatchery (LFH) stock). They found that the allele frequencies for the two natural 

summer steelhead populations were stable over seven brood years, and the phylogenetic relationships are 

constant for temporally stratified samples from a single location. In contrast, they found that yearly allele 

frequency estimates from LFH samples were generally divergent from each other. This information 

suggests that LFH samples may have a lower Ne, as compared to the natural population samples. 

They also investigated several management specific questions; 1) are steelhead caught in the lower and 

upper Tucannon River trap genetically different, 2) are steelhead that migrate after 1 year in freshwater 

divergent from those that chose to migrate after 2 or more years in freshwater, and 3) is there evidence for 

LFH introgression into the Tucannon, Touchet, and Walla Walla Rivers? They found no evidence that 

steelhead trapped in the lower or upper trap are different genetically. They also found no evidence that 

freshwater age 1 individuals are more related to LFH steelhead, or are genetically different from 

freshwater age 2-3 steelhead. Based on phylogenetic data and individual assignment analysis they 

concluded LFH introgression into the Tucannon River, but not the Touchet or Walla Walla Rivers. 

Additionally, there was specific concern for introgression of LFH steelhead into Coppei Creek (Touchet 

tributary). They found no evidence for LFH introgression to this spawning aggregate. 

B.2.2 Abundance, distribution, and productivity of individual subbasins and populations

Tucannon River Population

Abundance and Productivity

As stated previously, specific information on the Tucannon River population is limited, however, 

Bumgarner and Dedloff (2011) used smolt trap estimates of natural-origin steelhead, in conjunction with 

adult PIT tag detections, to estimate the total number of natural-origin adults returning to the Tucannon 

River basin (Figure B-13). Bumgarner and Dedloff (2011) estimate that between 150 and over 750 

(average 354) Tucannon basin steelhead have passed over Ice Harbor Dam between 2000 and 2009 run 

years (Figure B-13). Until the 2008 migration (2010 spawn year), the trend had been decreasing. The 

number that enters the Tucannon River to spawn may be approximately 50% of what passes Ice Harbor 

Dam (see discussion below under Adult Distribution).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 323

Figure B-13. Estimated number of Tucannon River basin natural-origin adult steelhead passing 

Ice Harbor Dam (2000-2009 run years). Actual number entering Tucannon River is estimated at 

50% of what is shown (based on PIT tags detected at Lower Granite Dam - see Adult Distribution

below); Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).

Redd surveys have been undertaken in the Tucannon River since the mid-1980s. However, these have not 

been reported in recent reports because WDFW is in the process of standardizing the survey results across 

all SEWMU basins and have not completed the Tucannon River redd surveys yet (Bumgarner and 

Dedloff 2011). 

Adult distribution

Based on PIT tag detections at the lower four Snake River dams, it appears that over half of the returning 

adult summer steelhead bypass the Tucannon River, and pass upstream of Lower Granite Dam. 

Bumgarner and Dedloff (2011) report that for endemic stock hatchery fish, Lyons Ferry stock hatchery 

fish, and natural origin fish that were all PIT tagged as juveniles, on average 65.6%, 66.3%, and 63.4%, 

respectively, were detected migrating upstream over Lower Granite Dam. In recent years, some of these 

fish have been detected in Asotin and Alpowa creeks upstream of Lower Granite Dam. It is not 

completely clear at this time how many of those descend and eventually enter the Tucannon, but 

according to the PIT tag data it would appear that between 10-25% eventually make it back to the 

Tucannon River. Co-managers have proposals for funding to further investigate the extent and potential 

mechanisms that may be causing these fish to bypass the Tucannon River.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 324

In WDFW index area surveys, they have found that the highest density of redds occurs in the MarengoCummings Creek Bridge section (Table B-10), based on 2007 data (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009). In 

more recent years, it appears that more fish may be spawning downstream of the Highway 12 Bridge 

(Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011). Redds and adult steelhead have also been documented in the lower 

Tucannon River below index spawning survey areas, though many of these are likely to be Lyons Ferry 

stock origin steelhead, as all Lyons Ferry hatchery smolts have been released below the index spawning 

areas in recent years. Redds and adult steelhead have also been documented in Deadman, Pataha and

Penawawa creeks, which are included as part of the Tucannon steelhead population However, it should 

be noted that redd distributions have varied over the years based on stream flow and hatchery release 

locations.

Table B-10. Spawning distribution of steelhead in index areas of the Tucannon River, 2007

(Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009).

Section Rkms Number of redds

Percent of Total 

Redds

Density of redds 

(# redds/km)

Highway 12 bridge -

Marengo 19.2 37 27.4 1.9

Marengo - Cummings Cr. 

Bridge 16.9 53 39.3 3.1

Wooten Wildlife Area to 

Wilderness

Boundary

19.5 13 9.6 0.7

Cummings Cr. (Old Mine to 

Mouth) 11.0 32 23.7 2.9

Hatchery fraction

The origin of adult steelhead entering (and spawning) in the Tucannon River is not currently available. 

With the recent deployment of the PIT tag array in the lower Tucannon, and enough juvenile steelhead 

(both wild and hatchery origin) being tagged, WDFW hopes to be able to have a clearer understanding of 

the origin of returning adults in the future.

Juvenile Abundance and Production

The number of natural-origin steelhead smolts emigrating from the Tucannon River basin has been 

estimated from smolt trapping near the mouth of the river (Figure B-14). Overall, it appears that the 

number of smolts has been declining in the last 10 years. The potential reasons for this are unclear, but 

could be related to hatchery production, shifts in hatchery release locations, spawning distribution of both 

hatchery and wild origin fish, and estimated low returns of natural origin fish back to the Tucannon River.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 325

Juvenile steelhead densities were estimated by WDFW in the Tucannon River from electroshocking 

sampling, which stopped in 2005. Between 2003 and 2005, juvenile steelhead were sampled in five 

primary index areas within the mainstem Tucannon and Cummings Creek. Based on these index surveys, 

juvenile rearing appears primarily in the mainstem Tucannon between Rkms 20.1 and 74.5 (Table B-11). 

Cummings Creek regularly produces juvenile steelhead also, and in 2005, additional surveys were 

conducted in the lower 20 km of the mainstem of the Tucannon River, and over 20,000 age zero fish were 

estimated to be rearing in that area.

Figure B-14. The estimated number of natural-origin steelhead smolts emigrating from the 

Tucannon River, 1997-2010 Migration Years. (Joe Bumgarner, WDFW, personal communication). 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 326

Table B-11. Estimated number and density (fish/100m2) of juvenile steelhead sampled in index 

areas of the Tucannon River between 2003 and 2006 (Bumgarner et al. 2004, 2006, Bumgarner and 

Dedloff 2007, 2009).

Metric/year

Lower 

(Rkm 0-20.1)

Marengo

(Rkm 20.1-39.9)

Hartstock

(Rkm 39.9-55.5)

HMA

(Rkm 55.5-74.5)

Wilderness

(Rkm 74.5-86.3)

Cummings Cr.

(Rkm 0-11.0)

Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1

Number of fish

2003 54,310 8,103 47,717 14,606 30,658 14,859 6,389 8,706 12,779 7,398

2004 2,699 6,035 11,618 15,507 14,601 18,108 2,335 11,312 4,568 6,497

2005 20,084 98 8,956 2,889 10,989 4,609 11,547 10,994 NA NA 4,747 2,864

2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA 34,954 6,484 NA NA NA NA

Density of fish

2003 26.6 4.0 29.7 9.1 14.7 7.1 8.4 11.4 48.9 28.3

2004 2.3 5.1 6.9 9.2 6.4 7.9 2.8 13.5 17.7 25.1

2005 9.4 0.1 4.5 1.5 5.7 2.4 5.5 5.3 NA NA 19.7 11.9

2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA 14.5 10 NA NA NA NA

Asotin Subbasin

Abundance and Productivity

There is more specific information on the Asotin Creek population than the Tucannon population since 

2005 when more intensive monitoring began. However, it is important to note that the weir in Asotin 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 327

Creek is at Rkm 4.7, upstream of its major tributary, George Creek.26 Therefore, the information 

presented below is for the area upstream of the weir, and does not include George Creek (unless 

specified) or the 4.7 km downstream of the weir. Therefore, for future status reviews, it will be necessary 

to expand the current information downstream of the weir and include abundance and productivity from 

George Creek, and other areas, like Alpowa and Almota Creeks that are part of the Asotin Creek 

population (Table B-12).

Table B-12. Counts of steelhead in Alpowa and George Creeks 2008-2010 and common sources 

of strays (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

Year

George Creek Alpowa Creek

Total number 

of fish 

captured

Total 

hatcheryorigin fish 

captured (%)

Hatchery Strays 

(Origin; based on 

CWT recoveries)

Total number 

of fish 

captured

Total hatcheryorigin fish 

captured (%)

Hatchery Strays (Origin; 

based on CWT 

recoveries)

2008 170 95 (55.9)

24 LFH stock from 

Touchet, Walla Walla and 

Tucannon, and 20 

Tucannon endemic 

hatchery stock 

2009 91 18 (19.8) NA 410 265 (64.5)

33 LFH stock from 

Touchet, Walla Walla and 

Tucannon, and 63 

Tucannon endemic 

hatchery stock

2010 178 8 (4.5) 1 (Tucannon FH) 505 198 (39.2)

87 (13% LFH; 2% Touchet 

release; 17% Tucannon 

FH; 64% Tucannon 

endemic, 1% each of 

Dworshak, Umatilla, and 

Pahsimeroi)

Between 2005 and 2009, the estimated number of natural spawners decreased in Asotin Creek until 2010, 

when there was a large increase. The percentage of hatchery origin fish observed at the weir increased 

between 2005 and 2008, but has decreased the last two years (Table B-13; Figure B-15). It is important 

to note that while most hatchery fish can be removed at the weir, endemic steelhead from the Tucannon 

hatchery program are protected under ESA and were not removed until after mid to late April of 2010. 

Also, natural-origin steelhead from the Tucannon River that were PIT tagged at the screw trap have also

been observed at the Asotin weir, and these fish are allowed to pass upstream too because of ESA 

protection (Mark Schuck, WDFW, personal communication).

 

26 A weir was installed in George Creek in 2009, and information pertaining to George Creek will be forthcoming in 

future years.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 328

Figure B-15. The number of steelhead spawners estimated in Asotin Creek (upstream of the 

George Creek) and percentage of hatchery fish observed at the weir, 2005-2010 (E. Crawford, 

WDFW, personal communication).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 329

Table B-13. Summary of adult steelhead trapped at the Asotin Creek weir from 2005-2010 (E. 

Crawford, personal communication).

Year

Total 

captured

Number of 

Hatchery 

origin fish 

captured

Number of 

hatchery 

origin fish 

passed 

upstream

% Hatchery 

origin fish 

@Weir

% Hatchery 

origin fish 

escapement

% natural 

origin fish @ 

weir

Natural origin 

fish spawning 

escapement 

estimate

2005 513 38 38 7.41 7.41 92.59 611

2006 474 41 37 8.65 7.81 91.35 555

2007 294 52 46 17.69 15.65 82.31 283

2008 350 64 21 18.29 6.00 81.71 300

2009 393 37 10 9.41 2.54 90.59 363

2010 1,180 93 7 7.88 0.59 92.12 1,411

Average 534 54 27 11.55 6.67 88.45 587

Since the late 1980s, the number of redds has fluctuated between 200-900, and averaged 386 (Figure B13, Table B-14).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 330

Figure B-16. The number of steelhead redds estimated in an index area of the Asotin Creek 

basin, upstream of George Creek, 1986-2010 (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).

Table B-14. Number and distribution of steelhead redds in index areas of the Asotin Creek 

basin, 1986-2010 exclusive of George Creek drainage and the lower Asotin downstream of the adult 

trap (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).

Year

Mainstem North Fork South Fork Charley Creek

Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Total

1986 354 39.4 295 32.8 173 19.2 77 8.6 899

1987 182 30.8 229 38.7 89 15.1 91 15.4 591

1988 199 40.8 154 31.6 87 17.8 48 9.8 488

1989 122 56.5 50 23.1 28 13.0 16 7.4 216
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 331

Year

Mainstem North Fork South Fork Charley Creek

Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Total

1990 125 56.3 43 19.4 33 14.9 21 9.5 222

1991 138 56.3 58 23.7 29 11.8 20 8.2 245

1992 120 48.8 56 22.8 30 12.2 40 16.3 246

1993 335 56.4 149 25.1 63 10.6 47 7.9 594

1994 165 66.0 52 20.8 18 7.2 15 6.0 250

1995 185 56.4 79 24.1 38 11.6 26 7.9 328

1996 215 56.4 73 19.2 63 16.5 30 7.9 381

1997 129 56.3 69 30.1 13 5.7 18 7.9 229

1998 144 56.5 55 21.6 38 14.9 18 7.1 255

1999 174 52.1 105 31.4 33 9.9 22 6.6 334

2000 120 46.0 71 27.2 46 17.6 24 9.2 261

2001 300 58.7 116 22.7 42 8.2 53 10.4 511

2002 241 53.8 131 29.2 40 8.9 36 8.0 448

2003 285 61.4 103 22.2 36 7.8 40 8.6 464

2004 281 65.7 89 20.8 5 1.2 53 12.4 428

2005 372 73.5 74 14.6 19 3.8 41 8.1 506

2006 227 64.3 62 17.6 32 9.1 32 9.1 353

2007 160 55.9 38 13.3 44 15.4 44 15.4 286

2008 130 62.2 35 16.7 32 15.3 12 5.7 209
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 332

Year

Mainstem North Fork South Fork Charley Creek

Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Redds Percent Total

2009 149 59.8 50 20.1 28 11.2 22 8.8 249

2010 384 55.5 95 23.6 46 11.6 36 9.2 665

Average 209 55.4 93 23.7 44 11.6 35 9.3 386

Minimum 120 30.8 35 13.3 5 1.2 12 5.7 209

Maximum 372 73.5 295 38.7 173 19.2 91 16.3 899

As previously mentioned, when NMFS reviews the status of the Asotin Creek population, all MaSAs 

(Asotin Creek and Alpowa Creek (possibly George Creek)) and MiSAs (Tenmile, Almota, Tammamay, 

Steptoe, Couse, and Tenmile Canyon creeks) will need to be included. Information on these other areas 

has been collected sporadically since the early 2000s. If NMFS is going to be able to use the information 

in their MPG assessments, then more regular information will need to be collected. WDFW has secured 

funding and intends to annually estimate adult abundance at traps in George Creek, Alpowa, Tenmile and 

Couse Creeks, as well as periodic annual trapping of adults in Almota Creek for estimating adult 

abundance and proportion of hatchery fish in the Asotin steelhead population.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 333

Figure B-17. Number of natural origin fish counted ascending Asotin Creek population including 

supporting MaSAs other than Asotin Creek (Snake River Recovery Board: 

http://www.snakeriverboard.org/).

Adult distribution

Based on redd surveys in the index areas upstream of the weir, it appears most of the steelhead spawn in 

mainstem, with the North Fork, South Fork, and Charley Creek contributing in descending order (Table 

B-15; Figure B-18). The mainstem and North Fork account for over 70% of the spawning distribution 

(Figure B-18). As previously mentioned, WDFW has also periodically conducted spawning surveys in 

other watersheds that are part of the Asotin Creek population (e.g., Almota Creek), but the information is 

limited to a few years. 

 

Figure B-18. Steelhead spawner distribution in Asotin Creek, in the index area, upstream of the 

weir only (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).

Hatchery fraction

The Asotin Creek drainage is currently managed for natural production only, but some hatchery steelhead 

return to this stream, averaging about 12% (Table B-13; Figure B-15) and the other streams associated 

with the Asotin population. Alpowa Creek, in particular, has a substantial percentage of hatchery 

steelhead entering to spawn.

Juvenile Abundance and Production
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 334

Juvenile steelhead have been sampled in various areas within the Asotin basin upstream of the weir since 

the late 1990s. Estimates of parr (age zero and one) suggest that most of the rearing occurs in the 

mainstem Asotin Creek (Table B-15). 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 335

Table B-15. Estimated number and density (fish/100m2) of juvenile steelhead sampled in Asotin 

Creek, upstream of the weir, between 2003 and 2006 (Bumgarner et al. 2004, 2006, Bumgarner and 

Dedloff 2007, 2009).

Metric/year

Mainstem North Fork South Fork Charley Creek

Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1

Number of fish

2003 92,574 27,701 36,400 18,440 38,535 16,687 19,900 13,240

2004 72,913 35,153 24,917 23,241 6,102 18,107 16,598 9,411

2005 70,345 39,708 18,718 10,542 7,050 6,523 4,062 11,329

2006 NA NA NA NA 34,621 5,424 15,107 5,172

Density of fish

2003 51.86 15.52 36.96 18.72 83.64 36.22 57.67 38.37

2004 41.4 20.14 25.38 24.73 12.51 31.13 48.0 27.21

2005 41.2 23.3 31.1 17.5 15.3 13.9 12.0 33.4

2006 NA NA NA NA 64.3 11.9 44.8 15.3

In more recent years, emigrant abundance has been estimated at the smolt trap in the lower basin. These 

estimates suggest that the emigrant abundance from the index area has fluctuated between approximately 

25,000-50,000 (Figure B-19).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 336

Figure B-19. Estimated number of juvenile steelhead emigrants based on observations at the 

smolt trap in the lower basin (Mayer et al. 2010). Note the precision around the estimates is large.

MPG Viability

Overall, the Ford et al. (2010) rated the Lower Snake River steelhead MPG at high risk of extinction for 

the Tucannon population and Asotin Creek populations (Figure B-20). In the five-year status update (Ford 

et al. 2010), NMFS has acknowledged that escapement estimates suggest that the population may be 

above the minimum abundance threshold in Asotin Creek, but the information is not from a long enough 

time period to demonstrate certainty. In addition, there are no estimates of productivity. It should also be 

noted that population estimates in Asotin Creek are primarily based on trap counts and that spawning also 

occurs downstream of the trap, plus there are other tributaries (e.g., George Creek, Alpowa Creek) that 

are also part of the Asotin Creek population. Tucannon index estimates have been based on spawning 

surveys until a recent shift to use of PIT tag detections and smolt production estimates. More consistent 

long term data are needed for all areas included for the Asotin and Tucannon populations similar to what 

is shown in Figure B-17).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 337

Figure B-20. Lower Snake River steelhead MPG population risk ratings integrated across the 

four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics (based on Ford et al. 2010). Viability Key: HV –

Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR –High Risk (does not meet viability criteria). Darker 

cells are at higher risk.

Walla Walla

Abundance and Productivity

The 10 year geometric mean for abundance of naturally produced steelhead in the index area (above 

Nursery Bridge Dam) of the Walla Walla population is 838, with a range of 419-1,746 (Figure B-21) and 

trending upward (Figure B-21). NMFS (2009) estimated productivity at 1.34 recruits (adults) per 

spawner. It should be noted that this is only for the index area and Mill Creek, and many other tributaries 

are not currently included in the adult abundance average. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk

Very Low Low Moderate High

Abundance/

Productivity 

Risk

Very Low

(<1%)

HV HV V M

Low

(1-5%)

V V V M

Moderate

(6 – 25%)

M M

M

HR

High

(>25%)

HR HR

HR

Asotin

HR

Tucannon
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 338

Figure B-21. Adult abundance, and 10-year geomean of abundance for Walla Walla steelhead

(NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0).

Adult distribution

Most spawning for this population occurs upstream of Nursery Bridge Dam (Rkm 71.9) in Oregon and in 

the Mill Creek subbasin (Table B-16). Spawning has also been documented in Cottowood Creek, upper 

Dry Creek, Yellowhawk Creek, and in several other tributaries.

Table B-16. Counts of steelhead passing Nursery Bridge Dam (Rkm 71.9), or partial counts at 

the Yellowhawk Creek weir, or Mill Creek Diversion Dam (Mahoney et al. 2009, and Brian 

Mahoney, CTUIR, personal communication).

Year

Numbers Percent Hatchery-Origin

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

1993 748 35 3.5 5.7

1994 426 11 0.9 0
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 339

Year

Numbers Percent Hatchery-Origin

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

1995 367 10 7.4 20.0

1996 278 42 7.2 4.8

1997 262 10 11.8 20.0

1998 320 10 5.6 60.0

1999 231 1 3.0 0

2000 425 13 3.8 0

2001 635 15 6.3 20.0

2002 1205 57 NA 8.9

2003 545 7 NA 42.9

2004 381 84 NA 36.4

2005 590 35 NA 4.0

2006 581 22 5.5 4.5

2007 314 35 1.7 2.9

2008 459 37 2.4 10.8

2009 585 67 2.2 NA

2010 1,099 44 NA NA

Average 525 30 4.7 15.1

Minimum 231 1 0.1 0.0
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 340

Year

Numbers Percent Hatchery-Origin

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

Nursery Bridge 

Dam

Mill & Yellowhawk 

Creeks

Maximum 1,205 84 11.8 60.0

Hatchery fraction

Since 1993, hatchery-origin fish have made up generally between 4-12%, averaging just under 5% of the 

spawning aggregate upstream of Nursery Bridge Dam, and between 0 (in low run years) and 60%, 

averaging about 15%, of the Mill Creek spawning aggregate. It should be noted that the long-term 

average of hatchery fraction does not adequately reflect the reductions in releases of hatchery steelhead 

within the basin or the fact that hatchery releases have been moved lower in the watershed where 

spawning and rearing conditions are not favorable for production.

Juvenile Abundance and Production

Mahoney et al. (2009) estimated the number of juvenile steelhead migrating downstream between 2005 

and 2008 based on PIT tag recaptures at the lower rotary screw trap (Rkm 15.3), which is downstream of 

all of the rearing habitat in the basin. Overall mean annual abundance was 32,383 for naturally produced 

juvenile steelhead (Table B-17).

Table B-17. Abundance estimate of natural-origin steelhead captured at the lower Walla Walla 

River rotary screw trap (Mahoney et al. 2009, and Brian Mahoney, CTUIR, personal 

communication).

Outmigration Year Number of fish SE

2005 52,958 5,601

2006 13,994 1,723

2007 14,684 2,343

2008 47,894 2,224

2009 39,788 8,011

2010 36,957 10,742

Average 30,251
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 341

Touchet River

Abundance and Productivity

The number of redds in the Touchet River basin, which is estimated from redd surveys within an index 

area (includes the North Fork, South Fork, Wolf Fork, and Robinson Fork) and then expanded, has 

remained relatively constant since the late 1980s (Figure B-22). Estimates of the number of spawners in 

the index area described above are presented in Table B-18. Estimated spawners (natural, endemic 

hatchery stock, and Lyons Ferry stock on the spawning grounds) are derived from redd counts, using a 

standard of 0.8 females/redd, and where available, sex ratio information from the Dayton adult trap (Joe 

Bumgarner, WDFW, personal communication). As such, some errors in the estimates are possible as the 

female/redd ratio is known to fluctuate on an annual basis.

Figure B-22. The number of steelhead redds estimated in the Touchet River basin expanded from 

index surveys between 1987 and 2009 (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 342

Table B-18. Estimated number of spawning steelhead (natural, endemic hatchery stock, and 

Lyons Ferry hatchery stock) in the Touchet River index area upstream of Dayton between 1987-

2010. (Joe Bumgarner, WDFW, personal communication).

Year

Total 

Spawners

Natural 

Stock

Endemic 

Stock

LFH 

Stock

Percent 

Natural 

Stock

Percent 

Endemic 

Stock

Percent 

LFH 

Stock

Total 

Hatchery 

Percent

1987 469 408 0 61 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1988 848 738 0 110 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1989 244 212 0 32 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1990 355 309 0 46 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1991 263 229 0 34 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1992 578 503 0 75 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1993 282 244 0 38 86.7 --- 13.3 13.3

1994 447 427 0 20 95.6 --- 4.4 4.4

1995 387 310 0 77 80.0 --- 20.0 20.0

1996 324 282 0 42 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1997 217 189 0 28 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1998 425 370 0 55 87.0 --- 13.0 13.0

1999 356 305 0 51 85.7 --- 14.3 14.3

2000 243 223 0 20 91.6 --- 8.4 8.4

2001 259 249 0 10 96.2 --- 3.8 3.8

2002 437 423 0 14 96.8 --- 3.2 3.2
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 343

Year

Total 

Spawners

Natural 

Stock

Endemic 

Stock

LFH 

Stock

Percent 

Natural 

Stock

Percent 

Endemic 

Stock

Percent 

LFH 

Stock

Total 

Hatchery 

Percent

2003 457 425 4 28 93.1 0.9 6.1 6.9

2004 240 181 35 23 75.6 14.8 9.7 24.4

2005 471 343 50 78 72.7 10.7 16.6 27.3

2006 333 263 61 9 78.9 18.4 2.7 21.1

2007 475 344 112 19 72.4 23.6 4.0 27.6

2008 292 225 54 13 77.0 18.5 4.5 23.0

2009 350 216 122 12 61.7 34.7 3.5 38.3

2010 842 667 172 3 79.2 20.5 0.3 20.8

In addition, WDFW has been doing redd surveys in Coppei Creek, which are presented in Table B-19 

below. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 344

Table B-19. Summary of redd surveys in Coppei Creek basin. It is important to note that survey 

effort has varied over the years and comparison between years can be complicated because of it. 

Years with blank spaces denotes that no survey was done. (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal 

communication).

Year

South Fork (RM 0-5.5) and North 

Fork (RM 0-4.1) Mainstem (RM 0-8.1)

1999 31

2000 20 11

2001

2002

2003 21 3

2004 18 15

2005 27 17

2006 9 0

2007 9 4

2008 30 4

2009

2010 19 61

Productivity (recruits/spawner) has been estimated by WDFW for the Touchet River summer steelhead 

population using the data collected from the spawning ground survey index area only (Figure B-23). 

These data were estimated using redd counts, estimated number of spawners as described above, and age 

composition data from scale samples from natural-origin summer steelhead captured at the Dayton adult 

trap. Average age composition was used in years where no age data were available. Based on the 

calculations, the average recruits/spawner is 0.89, indicating that the stock (within this portion of the river 

only) may be below the replacement level.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 345

Figure B-23. Estimated recruits/spawner of Touchet River summer steelhead for the index areas 

only (1988-2004 brood years) (Joe Bumgarner, WDFW, personal communication).

Adult distribution

Within the Touchet Basin index area, most spawning takes place in South Fork, followed by the North 

Fork, Wolf Fork, and Robinson Fork (Figure B-24). The South and North forks account for an average of 

over 60% of the redds in the index area of the basin. As previously shown, spawning has also been 

enumerated (Table B-19) periodically by WDFW (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication in the 

mainstem Coppei as well as in the South and North Forks of Coppei Creek. WDFW has also observed 

spawning by steelhead in upper Patit Creek, Whiskey Creek, and some of the non-index tributaries 

upstream of Dayton, so these adult returns are not included in stock status reviews to date.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 346

Figure B-24. Spawning distribution of steelhead in the Touchet River based on redd counts in 

index areas upstream of Dayton, 1987-2009 (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2011).

Hatchery fraction

The percentage of natural-origin fish averaged about 85-90% between the late 1980s and the mid-2000s 

(Table B-18, Figure B-25). Since 2004, the percentage of natural-origin fish has been declining, 

averaging just over 70%. This is most likely due to the return of endemic stock hatchery steelhead (ESA 

listed) that are allowed to pass upstream of the Dayton trap to spawn. In recent years, WDFW has taken a 

more aggressive approach to management of hatchery origin (LFH stock) steelhead that return to the 

Dayton adult trap. Currently, LFH stock fish that are captured are removed from the system by either 

placing them in the Dayton Juvenile Fishing Pond, or are immediately culled with the carcass provided to 

a local food bank.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 347

Figure B-25. The estimated percentage of natural-origin steelhead on the spawning grounds in 

the Touchet River, 1987-2010 (Joe Bumgarner, WDFW, personal communication).

Juvenile Abundance and Production

Juvenile steelhead have been sampled in various index areas within the basin since the late 1990s. 

Estimates of parr (age zero and one) suggest that most of the rearing occurs in the mainstem North Fork 

(Table B-20). 

Table B-20. Estimated number and density (fish/100m2) of juvenile steelhead sampled in the 

Touchet River between 2003 and 2006 (Bumgarner et al. 2004, 2006, Bumgarner and Dedloff 2007, 

2009).

Metric/year

Mainstem North Fork Wolf Fork South Fork Robinson Fork

Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1 Age 0 Age 1

Number of fish

2003 51,330 5,845 110,488 34,083 40,494 21,249 57,516 21,678 10,988 7,604

2004 NA NA 51,419 32,521 42,709 19,660 62,551 25,795 6,317 6,142

2005 42,369 9,831 46,871 23,093 27,548 14,935 18,430 21,267 3,972 2,505
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 348

2006 NA NA 106,943 24,029 66,320 16,254 43,890 16,806 20,842 3,574

Density of fish

2003 25.51 2.91 54.17 16.71 32.78 17.20 42.99 16.20 39.63 27.43

2004 NA NA 33.53 21.20 35.01 16.11 33.81 13.94 16.38 15.93

2005 24.9 5.8 33.3 16.4 24.9 13.5 15.0 17.3 18.4 11.6

2006 NA NA 70.4 15.8 50.2 12.3 29.5 11.3 67.6 11.6

MPG Viability

Overall, Ford et al. (2010) and the mid-Columbia recovery plan (NMFS 2009) rated the Touchet 

population at high risk of extinction (Figure B-26), while the Walla Walla population is at moderate risk. 

The primary reason for the high risk rating was because of the lack of a long term dataset and stock status 

uncertainty associated with the existing data at the time the ICTRT did their review. Productivity 

measures as provided above in Figure B-23 have been completed since that time, though a viability 

analysis has not been completed yet.27 The adult trap and weir in Dayton was improved in 2008 to help 

determine adult steelhead abundance passing that point annually, similar to Nursery Bridge Dam as a 

counting point. WDFW also has installed an adult trap in Coppei Creek in 2010 to estimate abundance in 

that tributary of the Touchet River. New smolt traps in the Touchet River drainage will be used to 

estimate smolt production, and combined with PIT tagging and subsequent detections, with provide SARs 

and estimated adult returns to the Touchet drainage.

 

27 It is important to note that when NMFS does the viability analysis, they delimit the data at the estimated 75th

percentile of carrying capacity.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 349

Figure B-26. Umatilla/Walla Walla steelhead MPG population risk ratings integrated across the 

four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics (NOAA Fisheries 2009). Viability Key: HV – Highly 

Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR –High Risk (does not meet viability criteria). Darker cells 

are at higher risk.

Grande Ronde Subbasin (within Washington State)

Abundance and Productivity

There is currently insufficient information to understand the current status of steelhead within the Lower 

Grande Ronde MPG. WDFW has conducted some limited spawning surveys and adult trapping in small 

tributaries of lower Grande Ronde (e.g. Rattlesnake Creek). Currently, there is no sampling by comanagers for steelhead using the Wenaha drainage, so little is known about steelhead in this drainage that 

is mostly within a designated wilderness area. Crooked Creek in particular is expected by WDFW to be a 

significant steelhead stream, but no data exists on abundance, distribution or production in this large 

watershed.

Information is available for the Joseph Creek population, and since 1980, abundance has ranged from 

573-6,475, with a current 10-year geomean of 2,138 (Table B-21). Using the full data set, the average 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk

Very Low Low Moderate High

Abundance/

Productivity 

Risk

Very Low

(<1%)

HV HV V M

Low

(1-5%)

V V V M

Moderate

(6 – 25%)

M M

M

Umatilla

Walla Walla

HR

High

(>25%)

HR HR

HR

Touchet

HR
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 350

return per spawner is over 2 for Joseph Creek steelhead (or, just under 2 for the delimited data; Ford et al. 

(2010)).

Abundance estimates are based on expansions of redd counts from annual index area spawning surveys in 

tributaries of Joseph Creek (data from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wallowa District). 

Index surveys represent all three of the MaSAs within the basin. No survey data are available for the 

MiSAs so basin averages are used to represent the MiSAs. The fish per redd estimate was determined 

from a study conducted on Deer Creek, a tributary to the Wallowa River.

Table B-21. Joseph Creek steelhead spawners, 10-year geomean of spawners and return per 

spawner from 1980-2009 (NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0).

Brood year Spawners 10-yr geomean-abundance Return per spawner

1980 763 4.64

1981 1,414 4.2

1982 867 5.67

1983 718 7.38

1984 934 6.24

1985 6,475 0.67

1986 5,375 0.39

1987 4,374 0.21

1988 6,354 0.34

1989 5,292 2,242 0.48

1990 3,393 2,603 0.36

1991 658 2,411 1.24

1992 1,171 2,485 1.01

1993 3,228 2,888 0.67
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 351

Brood year Spawners 10-yr geomean-abundance Return per spawner

1994 1,820 3,087 1.47

1995 573 2,422 3.63

1996 1,084 2,064 2.13

1997 1,251 1,821 2.6

1998 3,170 1,699 1.01

1999 2,133 1,551 1.12

2000 2,020 1,473 1.06

2001 2,596 1,690

2002 4,751 1,944

2003 2,381 1,885

2004 1,755 1,878

2005 1,832 2,110

2006 1,427 2,169

2007 1,212 2,162

2008 2,322 2,096

2009 3,597 2,208

Average 2,498 2.22

Minimum 573 1,473 0.21

Maximum 6,475 3,087 7.38
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 352

Hatchery fraction

The hatchery fraction within the Lower Grande Ronde population is not known. Joseph Creek is 

managed as a wild fish sanctuary and the estimated proportion of natural-origin fish on the spawning 

grounds is believed to be near 100%. The Nez Perce Tribe has begun adult trapping in lower Joseph 

Creek in fall 2010 and operates a PIT tag antenna there as well, so additional information will be 

available in the future.

MPG Viability

As discussed previously, only the Joseph Creek Population has enough information to empirically assess 

viability. Figure B-27 below shows that the Joseph Creek population is highly viable (has a < 1% risk of 

extinction in 100 years).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Productivity (Geometric Mean R/S)

10-year Geometric Mean Abundance

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Figure B-27. Joseph Creek summer steelhead population current abundance and productivity 

(A/P) compared various risks of extinction within 100 years. Ellipse = 1SE. Error bars = 90% CI 

for A, 98% CI for P (if point estimate exceeds 1% risk curve, the uncertainty test is < 1% 

probability the underlying combination is at high risk; based on Ford et al. 2010).

In terms of the entire MPG, Figure B-28 shows the general risk of extinction levels for the various 

populations of the Grande Ronde MPG, although WDFW questions the validity of the lower Grande
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 353

Ronde assessment because of the lack of data regarding abundance, productivity or hatchery fraction 

(Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication).

Fig

ure 

B28.

Gra

nde 

Ron

de 

Riv

er 

MP

G 

steel

hea

d 

pop

ulat

ion 

risk 

rati

ngs 

inte

grat

ed 

acro

ss 

the four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics (based on Ford et al. 2010). Viability Key: HV –

Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR –High Risk (does not meet viability criteria).

B.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN ICTRT AND FULL DATA SET

As discussed at the beginning of this appendix, not all data is used by the ICTRT if it exceeds the 

estimated 75th percentile of current carrying capacity. In Table B-22 below, a comparison is made 

between the 10-year geomean of abundance and the 20-year geomean of productivity (recruits per 

spawner) if the information is available. For the populations where the comparison can be made 

(Tucannon spring/summer Chinook, Wenaha spring/summer Chinook, Joseph Creek and Asotin 

steelhead), it shows a consistent pattern: the 10-year geomean for abundance is greater for the full data set 

compared to the value derived by the ICTRT. However, the opposite is true for productivity; the full data 

set consistently shows a lower value. This appears to validate the ICTRT approach: productivity appears 

to be affected when the population approaches carrying capacity, most likely due to density-dependent 

mortality.

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk

Very Low Low Moderate High

Abundance/

Productivity 

Risk

Very Low

(<1%)

HV

HV

Joseph

V M

Low

(1-5%)

V

V

Lower GR?

V M

Moderate

(6 – 25%)

M

M

Lower GR?

Wallowa

M

Upper GR

HR

High

(>25%)

HR HR HR HR
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 354
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 355

Table B-22. Southeast Washington Management Unit salmonid populations: comparison of 

summary of abundance, productivity, risk ratings, and minimum abundance thresholds (Source: 

Ford et al. 2010 (five-year update), Bumgarner and Dedloff (2011), Gallinat and Ross (2009), 

Mayer et al. (2010), or NOAA salmon population summary SPS database: 

https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:home:0). It is important to note that many of 

the estimates in the table do not include all of the MaSA or MiSAs, or are derived from index 

reaches only. ID = insufficient data. A cell that is highlighted in red denotes that the information 

was not found, but it may be available somewhere.

MPG/Population

Minimum

Abundance

Threshold

Size

Category

Recent 10-year 

Geomean 

Abundance

Abundance 

Range

Hatchery 

Fraction

Recent 20-year 

Geomean

Productivity

A&P 

Risk

Rating

SS/D 

Risk

ICTRT Rating

Based 

on full 

data set 

(source 

reports) ICTRT

Based 

on full 

data set 

(source 

reports)

Lower Snake 

River 

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon 

MPG

Tucannon River 750 Intermediate 269 371 5-1,443 0.65 0.74 0.71 High Moderate

Asotin Creek 500 Basic Functionally extirpated High High

Grande 

Ronde/Imnaha 

spring/summer 

Chinook MPG

Wenaha River 750 Intermediate 441 441 68-750 0.05 0.72 0.64 High High

Umatilla/Walla 

Walla steelhead 

MPG

Walla Walla 

Mainstem 1000 Intermediate 894 860 421-1,811 0.02 1.15 NA Moderate Moderate

Touchet River 1000 Intermediate 394 461 286-626 0.18 0.96 ID High Moderate
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 356

MPG/Population

Minimum

Abundance

Threshold

Size

Category

Recent 10-year 

Geomean 

Abundance

Abundance 

Range

Hatchery 

Fraction

Recent 20-year 

Geomean

Productivity

A&P 

Risk

Rating

SS/D 

Risk

ICTRT Rating

Based 

on full 

data set 

(source 

reports) ICTRT

Based 

on full 

data set 

(source 

reports)

Lower Snake 

River steelhead 

MPG

Tucannon River 1000 Intermediate ID 308 ID ID High Moderate

Asotin Creek 500 Basic ID 587a283-1,411 0.07aID ID High Moderate

Grande Ronde 

steelhead MPG

Lower Grande 

Ronde. 1000 Intermediate ID ID ID ID ID ID Low (?)b Low

Joseph Cr. 500 Basic 2,186 2,208 573-6,476 0.0 1.94 1.34 Very 

Low Low

a

For Asotin Creek, 587 is the average (not geomean) between 2005-2010 for the index area above George Creek, 

but does not include lower Asotin, George, Tenmile, Couse, Alpowa and Almota creeks.. The hatchery fraction for 

Asotin Creek is based on trapping and what was allowed to pass upstream.

b It is important to note that ranking of the Lower Grande Ronde steelhead population as low risk should be viewed 

cautiously since there is little information on abundance, productivity, or hatchery fraction for this population.

B.4 BULL TROUT

B.4.1 Population Structure

For ESA listing purposes the range of bull trout has been broken into distinctive population segments 

(DPSs) as the base units for assessing species recovery (USFWS 2002a). DPSs are units of a population 

that are considered: 1)  ̳discrete‘ (to some extent separated from the remainder of the species or 

subspecies); and 2)  ̳significant‘ (biologically and ecologically). Bull trout DPSs are further subdivided 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 357

into recovery units (RUs), core areas and local populations (Figure B-29). Recovery units were delineated 

based on the distribution and biology of bull trout as well as considerations for paralleling existing state 

fisheries management frameworks.

Figure B-29. Bull trout population units as defined by the USFWS (USFWS 2008a).

Core areas are defined as combinations of core habitat and core populations of bull trout that form a 

biologically functioning unit. Core areas were identified in an attempt to reflect existing bull trout 

metapopulation structure (USFWS 2002a). 

Local populations are defined as groupings of bull trout that spawn within particular streams or portions 

of a stream system, and represent interacting reproductive units. There may be one or multiple local 

populations within a single core area. Variation in approaches to identification has resulted in bull trout 

within individual streams in some areas being designated as separate local populations (splitting), while in 

other areas there has been a tendency to lump tributaries together into a single local population. 

Population Sub-structure

Walla Walla Basin

In 2004, the USFWS revised their initial population structure in the Walla Walla basin, separating the 

Walla Walla core area into upper Mill Creek and upper Walla Walla local populations, while the Touchet 

River core area is comprised of the three discrete populations (North Fork Touchet River, South Fork 

Touchet, and the Wolf Fork of the Touchet River). 

The population designations by USFWS (2004) were not made with genetic data, but with limited local 

population studies, extensive literature review, and assessment of geographic separation of spawning 

areas. A microsatellite analysis by Spruell et al. (2003) on 65 populations of bull trout from the 

Northwestern part of the United States included samples from the Walla Walla River Basin. That analysis 

concluded that there was little genetic variation within bull trout populations but substantial divergence 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 358

among populations. They lumped bull trout from the Walla Walla River Basin with other populations in 

the Snake and mid-Columbia River Basin into a broad group. 

Kassler and Mendel (2007) collected samples of migratory adult bull trout from traps in the three primary 

drainages within the Walla Walla Subbasin (Mill Creek, Touchet River, and Walla Walla River) and 

samples of juvenile bull trout were collected from five locations that had both spawning and juvenile 

rearing (Lewis Creek, Spangler Creek, North Fork, Wolf Fork, and Burnt Fork) in the Touchet River 

basin. These samples along with bull trout data from two collections in the Yakima River basin were 

analyzed with a microsatellite DNA analysis to address the following management goals, with the results 

following (taken from Kassler and Mendel (2007), emphasis added):

1. Are there significant genetic differences among populations of adult migratory bull trout in the Mill 

Creek, Walla Walla River, and Touchet River drainages? If so, should bull trout in these areas be 

managed as separate populations?

Assessment of migratory adult bull trout from the Walla Walla River Basin consistently identified genetic 

differences among groups. Results of the tests for genotypic differentiation revealed the individual 

collections of adults from the Walla Walla, Touchet, and Mill Creek were all significantly different, and 

the FST values indicated differences among the collections per location. The neighbor joining tree 

supports the genotypic tests, factorial correspondence analysis, and FST tests by separating the three 

collection groups with high bootstrap support. All the results from this analysis identify that these three 

populations of adult bull trout in the Walla Walla River Basin are genetically distinct and should be 

managed as separate populations.

2. Are there significant genetic differences among juvenile (generally less than 200 mm fork length) bull 

trout captured during summer from five isolated spawning areas in the Touchet River drainage; and are 

these juvenile populations different enough to be managed separately?

Analysis of the combined collections of juveniles revealed that all five populations were highly 

significantly different from one another with the genotypic differentiation tests. The FST values indicate 

the difference between the Burnt Fork samples to the other four collections is between 0.0716 – 0.1127, 

while the difference among the other four collections within the N.F. Touchet River are lower (between 

0.0323 – 0.0602). The difference between the Burnt Fork group and relationship of the other four groups 

to each other is not surprising given that the Burnt Fork is geographically isolated as a tributary to the 

upper S.F. Touchet River, while the other collections are part of the N.F. Touchet River drainage. The 

neighbor joining tree does not separate the juvenile collections in the N.F. Touchet River with any 

statistical significance or support; however the Burnt Fork group is separated from those groups with 98% 

bootstrap support. The factorial correspondence analysis of juvenile bull trout collections; however does 

show strong separation between the N.F. Touchet mainstem, Wolf Fork, and Burnt Fork even though the 

neighbor-joining tree does not indicate separation with any statistical support. The jackknife analysis of 

Burnt Fork and Lewis Creek had the lowest assignment power with less than 78% of the juveniles 

assigning back to the correct stock-of-origin while the remaining three collections assigned over 89% of 

the juveniles to the correct stock-of-origin. The Burnt Fork (N = 9) and Lewis Creek (N = 13) had the 

smallest sample sizes and that could contribute to the lower assignment power. Results of the assignment 

tests for the migratory adults collected at Dayton Dam revealed over 89% of the individual samples were 

from the Wolf Fork and the N.F. Touchet River. Considering the escapement to each of the five locations 

(Mendel et al. 2006) this result may is not surprising.. The overall results of the genetic analyses 

determines the five groups can be genetically differentiated, however the small sample sizes for the 

Lewis Cr., Spangler Cr., and Burnt Fork limits the confidence level of differentiation for these sites. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 359

The combined results of multiple statistical tests in this report supports that the N.F. Touchet River 

mainstem, Wolf Fork, and Burnt Fork (even though the collection had a small sample size) are 

differentiated and should be managed as separate groups

3. Provide evidence (if possible) that bull trout in the tributaries of the Walla Walla River Basin have 

undergone a genetic bottleneck or are inbreeding. Calculate effective population size (Ne) for each group 

or collection, if possible. 

Analysis to determine relatedness revealed values that suggest the possibility of full sibling pairs in the 

collection groups. The analysis of linkage disequilibrium and the inbreeding coefficient (FIS), however 

were low and did not support a conclusion that there were sibling groups in the collections. A more 

detailed assessment of the individual samples would be required to test for sibling relationships. The 

rationale for eliminating samples based on sibling relationship within sample groups would have to be 

considered, however no samples were removed from this analysis for that reason. If samples are randomly 

collected and determined to be from family groups, but they are contributing to the reproductive output of 

the population then the genetic identity of those samples should be included in population level analyses 

because they represent the population. The analysis to determine if the collections have undergone a 

bottleneck indicates the populations have not undergone any recent reductions in population size and 

suggests that the populations of bull trout have been small for some time. Evaluation of the effective 

population size was not conducted due to the small sample sizes for some collections and the lack of 

temporal samples; however evaluation on the collections with larger samples sizes (e.g. N. Fork 

Touchet, Wolf Fork, and Mill Creek) should be conducted at a later date

4. Compare the genetic characteristics and stock structure of bull trout in another Columbia River Basin 

(Yakima River Basin) with the Walla Walla River Basin to determine genetic relatedness among bull 

trout in these two basins.

Adult bull trout that were analyzed from the Yakima River basin and compared to adult bull trout in the 

Walla Walla River Basin were much more different based on the results of all the statistical tests. The 

level of genetic variation and differentiation between bull trout in the Walla Walla River Basin and the 

Yakima River Basin identifies that the separation and isolation of these groups has been longer than 

the separation of bull trout within the Walla Walla River Basin.

Asotin Creek

Kassler and Mendel (2008) collected bull trout from the upper and lower Asotin Creek and analyzed them 

to determine the relationship between the populations within these areas within the Asotin Creek. Bull 

trout samples from the North Fork Wenaha River, Walla Walla River basin and Tucannon River were 

also compared to the samples from the Asotin Creek. Sixteen nuclear microsatellite DNA loci that are 

included in the standardized suite of loci were used to examine the levels and patterns of genetic 

variation. Tests of population subdivision, factorial correspondence analysis, and the neighbor-joining 

tree suggested the collections of bull trout from the upper and lower Asotin Creek are genetically 

differentiated; however there are some samples from the upper Asotin Creek that appear in the lower 

Asotin Creek. Bull trout in both the upper and lower Asotin Creek are differentiated from samples of bull 

trout in the North Fork Wenaha River, the Walla Walla River basin, and the Tucannon River. Bull trout 

from the North Fork Wenaha were different than bull trout in both Asotin Creek and the Tucannon River.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 360

Tucannon River

The USFWS and WDFW conducted an analysis of bull trout populations in upper reaches of the 

Tucannon River (DeHann et al. 2007). The number of fish samples from Cummings Creek were 

insufficient and were deleted from the analysis. Genetic analysis indicated clustering among the Panjab 

group and upper Tucannon River and Bear Creek, plus significant differences in all five reaches analyzed. 

B.4.2 Current Distribution

The Washington Snake River Bull Trout Recovery Unit Team has identified the Tucannon River and 

Asotin Creek basins as separate core areas within the SEWMU. Local populations within the recovery 

unit consist of migratory and resident life history forms (USFWS 2002b, Faler et al. 2008). Migratory 

forms include fluvial bull trout that overwinter in the mainstem Tucannon River and fish that may 

overwinter in and migrate from locations in the mainstem Snake River to as far downstream as the Lower 

Monumental Dam pool (Faler et al. 2008). 

The Grande Ronde bull trout Recovery Unit Team identified nine extant, local populations of bull trout 

within the Grande Ronde River subbasin. Only the Wenaha River population is within the SEWMU. 

Currently, bull trout are found in two core areas within the Walla Walla subbasin: the Upper Walla Walla 

core area, which contains local populations in upper Mill Creek (mostly above the City of Walla Walla) 

and in the North and South Fork of the Walla Walla River; and the Touchet River core area, which 

contains local populations in the North Fork of the Touchet River, the South Fork of the Touchet River, 

and the Wolf Fork of the Touchet River. Fluvial and resident life history forms are found in both Walla 

Walla core areas. 

Various studies using PIT and radio tags (Faler et al. 2008, Anglin et al. 2009) have shown fluvial bull 

trout using the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers for part of their life histories. 

B.4.3 Current Abundance

Tucannon River

Both resident and migratory forms of bull trout occur in the Tucannon River basin (CCD 2004). Bull trout 

spawning ground surveys have been conducted intermittently since 1990 (Table 5-23). The headwater 

areas known to support bull trout spawning include the upper reaches of the mainstem Tucannon (from 

approximately rivermile 45 to 58) and upper Tucannon tributaries including lower Sheep Creek, lower 

Cold Creek, Bear Creek, Panjab Creek, and several tributaries of Panjab Creek, including Turkey Creek, 

Meadow Creek, and Turkey Tail Creek (Table B-23). Bull trout are also documented in Cummings 

Creek. 

Within the Tucannon basin, an average of 129 redds have been counted since 1994, ranging from 23 to 

225 (Table 5-23). The redd surveys have not been conducted with the same level of effort throughout the 

years because of funding issues so comparisons among years should be used with caution and additional 

data.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 361

Table B-23. Bull trout redd counts in the Tucannon River basin, 1994-2010 (Glen Mendel, 

WDFW, personal communication). It is important to note that survey effort has varied over the 

years and comparison between years can be complicated because of it. Blank spaces denote no 

survey, while a “0” denotes a survey was conducted but no redds were found.

Year

Tucannon River

Sheep 

Cr.

Cold 

Cr.

Bear 

Cr.

Panjab 

Cr.

Meadow 

Cr.

Turkey 

Cr.

Turkey 

Tail 

Cr.

Grand 

Total

Rivermile

44.6-

50.7

50.7-

54.2

54.2-

58.0 Total

0.0-

0.6

0.0-

0.8

0.0-

2.6 0.0-4.5 0.0-4.9 0.0-2.1 0.0-3.4

1994 22 99 121 10 131

1995 37 63 100 5 7 2 114

1996 15 78 52 145 25 9 5 184

1997 13 25 13 51 23 4 0 78

1998 26 78 104 4 0 0 108

1999 36 57 42 135 2 2 26 16 25 8 8 222

2000 17 52 26 95 49 7 151

2001 68 68 68

2002 13 20 14 47 32 3 8 90

2003 26 37 59 122 49 11 3 3 0 188

2004 34 55 36 125 4 0 51 19 20 6 225

2005 23 63 86 48 0 13 147

2006

2007 13 13 4 1 5 23
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 362

Year

Tucannon River

Sheep 

Cr.

Cold 

Cr.

Bear 

Cr.

Panjab 

Cr.

Meadow 

Cr.

Turkey 

Cr.

Turkey 

Tail 

Cr.

Grand 

Total

Rivermile

44.6-

50.7

50.7-

54.2

54.2-

58.0 Total

0.0-

0.6

0.0-

0.8

0.0-

2.6 0.0-4.5 0.0-4.9 0.0-2.1 0.0-3.4

2008 33 33 20 0 14 67

2009 42 42 29 71

2010 49 74 123 41 6 29 199

Average 24 52 40 88 3 1 28 6 10 6 4 129

Minimum 13 13 13 13 2 0 4 0 0 3 0 23

Maximum 37 99 74 145 4 2 51 19 29 8 8 225

Asotin Creek

Bull trout have been documented periodically over many years by WDFW staff in Charley Creek, Asotin 

Creek (mainstem), and the North and South Forks of Asotin Creek (ACCD 2004). Mendel et al. (2006, 

2008) found bull trout spawning in the North Fork Asotin Creek and Cougar Canyon Creek. Mendel et 

al. (2006, 2008) found less than 10 redds during their surveys, and surveys are not conducted on a regular 

basis. Mayer and Schuck (2004, 2008, 2009) and Mayer et al. (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010) routinely (but 

not in all years) capture bull trout in a rotary screen or adult trap in the lower Asotin basin, so spawning 

and rearing likely occurs in most years. Note that the WDFW genetics study could not verify that the 

lower Asotin and upper Asotin bull trout samples were necessarily from the same population and the 

lower Asotin bull trout might be winter and spring foraging fish from other drainages.

Walla Walla Subbasin

There are three local populations of bull trout in the Walla Walla Subbasin: the Touchet River, Mill 

Creek, and the upper Walla Walla. Bull trout in the Walla Walla Basin exhibit both fluvial and resident 

life histories. 

The Walla Walla subbasin supports at least five local populations (Kassler and Mendel 2008) of bull 

trout; two in the forks of the Walla Walla (North Fork and South Fork combined) and in upper Mill Creek 

(Upper Walla Walla core area) and three in the North Fork Touchet, the South Fork Touchet and the Wolf 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 363

Fork Touchet Rivers (Touchet River core area). All these areas appear to have fluvial and resident bull 

trout. Other tributary streams where bull trout occur include Spangler and Lewis creeks (tributaries of the 

North Fork of the Touchet), and bull trout are not confirmed to exist in Cottonwood Creek (mainstem 

Walla Walla tributary), Little Meadows Canyon and Big Meadows Canyon (North Fork Walla Walla 

River tributaries) (USFWS 2002c). Redd surveys have been conducted in various parts of the Walla 

Walla basin since 1990 (Table B-24).

Table B-24. Summary of the number of bull trout redds observed between 1990 and 2010 in the 

Walla Walla basin (Mahoney et al. 2009; Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication, and 

various reports cited in text). It is important to note that survey effort has varied over the years 

and comparison between years can be complicated because of it. Blank spaces denote no survey, 

while a “0” denotes a survey was conducted but no redds were found. Redd surveys in Burnt Fork, 

Lewis and Spangler creeks are omitted because of infrequent sampling.

Walla Walla Basin

Year

Mill Creek 

(fluvial) Low Creek (resident)

Touchet River

Wolf Fork North Fork 

1990 64 49

1991 52 57

1992 66 46

1993 0

1994 163 71 13

1995 129 16 11

1996 98 18 36 23

1997 89 20 4 30

1998 101 27 48 42

1999 133 41 93 46

2000 127 39 64 47

2001 180 33 84 46

2002 173 32 92 29

2003 106 28 101 25
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 364

Walla Walla Basin

Year

Mill Creek 

(fluvial) Low Creek (resident)

Touchet River

Wolf Fork North Fork 

2004 97 61 71 22

2005 95 43 57 15

2006 56 35 37 9

2007 58 38 20

2008 47 73 17

2009 39 73 21

2010 84 34

Average 109 36 57 26

Minimum 56 18 0 9

Maximum 180 61 101 47

Touchet River

Resident and fluvial populations of bull trout are common in the North Fork and Wolf Fork and upper 

South Fork and in Spangler, Lewis, Robinson, and Burnt creeks of the Touchet River (Mendel et al. 

2003). Fluvial bull trout are documented downstream to the Waitsburg area (RM 44). Spawning in the 

Touchet drainage is known to occur in the North Fork Touchet River from Bluewood Creek downstream 

to near Spangler Creek, in Spangler Creek, the Burnt Fork of the South Fork Touchet River, Lewis Creek, 

and in the Wolf Fork Touchet River from Whitney Creek to 1.5 miles upstream of the Forest Service 

boundary, a distance of about 5.5 miles. Spawning in the Touchet River occurs from late August through 

early October (WDFW 1998). Bull trout in the South Fork of the Touchet appear to be primarily resident 

fish, although Mendel et al. (2002), using radio telemetry, documented a migratory fish in the Burnt Fork 

(South Fork tributary). This population may have been extirpated in the last couple of years (Mendel et 

al. 2004), but access has been restricted for further sampling. The populations of bull trout in each fork 

may be reproductively isolated from one another.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 365

Limited sub-adult rearing also occurs in Robinson Fork (a tributary to the Wolf Fork Touchet), and in the 

Griffen Fork (a tributary to the South Fork Touchet). Bull trout fry were observed in the North Fork 

Touchet River in September 1998 and 2000. However, in August 2000, there were no fry detected at the 

same North Fork sites as they may not have emerged before sampling (USFWS 2002c). This appears to 

indicate that eggs or fry may be in the gravel year-round; hatching may be delayed by very cold water or 

there may be a late spawning component to the population. Fluvial bull trout are known to overwinter in 

the mainstem, although their abundance, distribution and use patterns are not fully understood (Mendel 

et al. 2002).

Within the Wolf Fork, where consistent surveys have been conducted since 1990, the average number of 

redds is 57, ranging from 0 to 101 (Table B-22).

Mill Creek

Because the upper portion of Mill Creek has long been a protected municipal watershed for the City of 

Walla Walla, it has preserved a relatively healthy bull trout population. The population consists of 

resident and fluvial fish which spawn and juveniles rear in the upper reaches of the drainage. However, 

sub-adult and adult bull trout have been documented migrating downstream in lower Mill Creek and the 

Walla Walla River during fall through early summer.

Spawning in Mill Creek has been documented upstream of the Umatilla National Forest boundary. 

Spawning surveys from the city of Walla Walla intake dam (approximately RM 11) upstream document 

bull trout spawning in the mainstem and tributaries upstream of Low Creek (Table 5-22), with Low Creek 

accounting for the highest redd densities (6 per mile) in the spawning tributaries. Low Creek is believed 

to be a resident bull trout population (Phil Howell, USFS, personal communication). The mainstem Mill 

Creek between North Fork Mill Creek and Deadman Creek had the highest densities of bull trout redds (9 

per mile) (USFWS 2002c). Spawning and rearing has been documented in most mainstem reaches and 

tributaries above the city water intake (USFWS 2002c). Spawning in the Mill Creek system takes place 

from early September through October (WDFW 1998; P. Sancovich, USFWS, personal communication).

Results from radio-telemetry studies by ODFW and USFWS indicate that fluvial bull trout use the 

mainstem of Mill Creek between the intake dam and the City of Walla Walla, presumably to overwinter. 

Most of the radio-tagged fish were located in the vicinity of the intake dam. Fluvial bull trout also use 

Mill Creek somewhat farther downstream; an estimated 33 bull trout were observed by video camera in 

spring 2004 as they re-ascended the Bennington Dam ladder from downstream locations (B. Tice, 

USACE, personal communication). The USFWS has documented many PIT tagged bull trout passing 

downstream of Bennington Dam in the past couple of years.

Within Mill Creek, where consistent surveys have been conducted, the average number of redds is 109, 

ranging from 56 to 180. In Low Creek, the average number of redds is 36, ranging from 18 to 61 (Table 

B-22).

North and South Forks Walla Walla River

The majority of spawning bull trout are found upstream of Bear Creek (a tributary to South Fork Walla 

Walla River approximately 1 mile upstream of the Umatilla National Forest boundary) (USFWS 2002c). 

Bull trout spawn mainly in the South Fork Walla Walla River between Table Creek (RM 15) and the 

second major tributary above Reser Creek (RM 22), the lower 7 miles of Skiphorton Creek, and the lower 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 366

0.5 mile of Reser Creek. From 1992 to 2000, bull trout have been captured annually in a screen bypass 

trap on the South Fork Walla Walla River, approximately 2 miles upstream of the forks. The largest 

number of bull trout captured was 211 in 1992 (USFWS 2002c). In addition, Budy et al. (2007) captured 

bull trout in the South Fork Walla Walla River between 2002 and 2006 using a combination of angling, 

electroshocking, seine and trap nets, and minnow traps. They captured between approximately 300 and 

800 fish in their efforts and estimated that the total population of bull trout in the South Fork at between 

7,000 and 10,000 for fish greater than 120 mm, between 1,500 and 3,000 for fish greater than 220 mm, 

and about 1,000 fish average for fish greater than 370 mm (Budy et al. 2007).

The North Fork of the Walla Walla River is used year-round by bull trout subadults and juveniles and by 

adults during the winter and spring. The mainstem Walla Walla River from the forks downstream to 

Cemetery Bridge in Milton-Freewater, Oregon, provides year-round sub-adult rearing habitat. From this 

reach downstream to the confluence with the Columbia River is considered overwintering and migration 

habitat, although the presence of bull trout below McDonald Bridge (below the mouth of Mill Creek), or 

to the mouth of the Walla Walla River, has only recently been documented by the USFWS.

Grande Ronde River

The Grande Ronde River Recovery Unit includes nine local populations distributed through the Grande 

Ronde River drainage. The majority of this watershed is in Oregon. The lower portion of the Grande 

Ronde River, tributaries to this portion of the river, as well as tributaries to the mainstem of the Wenaha 

River (a major tributary to the Grande Ronde River) are located in Washington (USFWS 2002d).

USFWS (2002d) states that the Wenaha River drainage may have the most abundant and well-distributed 

population of bull trout in the Grande Ronde River subbasin. Bull trout in this population exhibit both 

resident and fluvial life history forms. All known summer rearing and holding areas in the Wenaha River 

and its tributaries are on U.S. Forest Service designated wilderness lands above RM 5.6 of the Wenaha. 

Spawning occurs in the headwater areas of the Wenaha and its tributaries. Radiotelemetry studies indicate 

that Wenaha bull trout below RM 5.6 appear to be moving between summer/spawning habitat and 

overwintering habitat in the Grande Ronde and possibly the Snake rivers.

Limited information is available on the abundance of bull trout in the Wenaha River (Table B-25) ), but 

some bull trout spawning surveys have been conducted by WDFW in the WA portion of the North Fork 

and Butte Creek. Buchanan et al. (1997) considered the Wenaha fish to be at low risk of extinction. Little 

information is available on fish distribution or abundance, the size of these fish at spawning, age at 

maturation, sex ratio, fecundity, time of emergence, or survival rates.

Table B-25. Summary of the number of bull trout redds observed between 2005-2010 in the 

Wenaha basin (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication). It is important to note that 

survey effort has varied over the years and comparison between years can be complicated because 

of it. Blank spaces denote no survey.

Year

Wenaha Basin

North Fork Wenaha Butte Creek and Tribs, 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 367

Year

Wenaha Basin

North Fork Wenaha Butte Creek and Tribs, 

2005 153 31

2006 82 32

2007 86

2008

2009

2010 112

B.4.4 Recovery status

As discussed in Chapter 4, recovery criteria for bull trout is different than for salmon and steelhead. 

Original recovery criteria from the draft recovery plan, are shown in Table B-26. Populations trend 

estimates shown in Table B-26 do not comport with redd survey information in some instances. The 

population trends (taken from USFWS 2008b) may also be inaccurate because for some of the 

populations, there is not very much information. Regardless of potential errors (based on general figures 

within USFWS 2008b) additional, consistent information is needed to monitor bull trout populations 

within the SEWMU. Without additional monitoring effort, understanding whether bull trout are being 

recovered or restored is not likely.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 368

Table B-26. Bull trout population delineation, size recovery criteria and trend for populations 

within the SEWMU.

Recovery 

Unit

Core 

Area

Population 

size 

(USFWS 

2008b)a

Local 

population 

(within 

SEWMU)

Recovery Criteria (based on 

USFWS 2002b, c, and d)

Population 

Trend 

(USFWS 

2008b)

UmatillaWalla 

Walla

Walla 

Walla 

River 

Basin

2,500-

10,000 

(includes 

upper 

Walla 

Walla)

Mill Creek

Bull Trout are distributed among six or 

more local populations in the recovery 

unit, three in the Umatilla Core Area and 

three or more in the Walla Walla Core 

Area. In a recovered condition 

local populations would include the 

upper Walla Walla complex, Mill Creek, 

and the Touchet complex. There is 

potential to further separate the 

population within the upper Walla Walla 

complex into South Fork and North Fork 

local populations, and the Touchet 

complex into North Fork, South Fork, 

and Wolf Fork local populations.

Estimated abundance of adult bull trout 

in the recovery unit is as follows: Walla 

Walla Core Area from 3,000 to 5,000. 

Adult bull trout exhibit a stable or 

increasing trend in abundance for at least 

two generations at or above the 

recovered abundance level within the 

recovery unit. Achievement of this 

recovery criterion will be based on a 

minimum of at least 10 years of 

monitoring data.

Specific barriers to bull trout movement 

in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery 

Unit have been addressed. Opportunities 

for passage within each core area are 

provided, ensuring opportunities for 

genetic exchange among local 

populations within each core area. In the 

Walla Walla Core Area, this means 

providing suitable habitat conditions 

downstream of Nursery Bridge on the 

mainstem Walla Walla River, ensuring 

Stable

50-250

North Fork 

Touchet

Stable

South Fork 

Touchet

Wolf Fork
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 369

Recovery 

Unit

Core 

Area

Population 

size 

(USFWS 

2008b)a

Local 

population 

(within 

SEWMU)

Recovery Criteria (based on 

USFWS 2002b, c, and d)

Population 

Trend 

(USFWS 

2008b)

the ladder at Nursery Bridge will 

successfully pass bull trout, and 

screening diversions that impact bull 

trout. On Mill Creek, barriers to be 

addressed include the City of Walla 

Walla intake dam and ensuring bull trout 

have the opportunity to access the Walla 

Walla River. In the Touchet subbasin, 

barriers to be addressed include 

screening unscreened diversions, and 

establishing at least seasonal 

connectivity between local populations 

and the mainstem Walla Walla River.

Snake 

River

Tucannon 

River

2,500-

10,000

Distribution criteria will be met when the 

total number of stable local populations 

has increased to 10 in the Tucannon 

River Core Area and to 7 in the Asotin 

Creek Core Area. These local 

populations must occur in separate 

streams with broad distribution 

throughout each core area.

Trend criteria will be met when the 

overall bull trout population in each core 

area of the Snake River Washington 

Recovery Unit is stable or increasing 

over a period of at least 10 years, as 

determined through contemporary and 

accepted analyses of abundance trend 

data.

Abundance criteria will be met when the 

Tucannon River Core Area supports an 

average of 1,000 spawners annually and 

when the Asotin Creek Core Area 

supports an average of 700 spawners 

annually.

Connectivity criteria will be met when 

migratory forms are present in all local 

populations and when intact migratory 

corridors among all local populations in 

both core areas provide opportunity for 

genetic exchange and diversity.

Stable

Asotin 

Creek 50-250 Unknown

Grande 

Ronde 

Grande 

Ronde 

50-250 Wenaha River In a recovered condition the recovery 

unit would include at least nine local 

populations. In the Grande Ronde Core 

Stable
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 370

Recovery 

Unit

Core 

Area

Population 

size 

(USFWS 

2008b)a

Local 

population 

(within 

SEWMU)

Recovery Criteria (based on 

USFWS 2002b, c, and d)

Population 

Trend 

(USFWS 

2008b)

River River Area local populations would include the 

Upper Grande Ronde complex, 

Catherine Creek, Indian Creek, the 

Minam River/Deer Creek complex, The 

Lostine River/Bear Creek complex, 

Hurricane Creek, Lookingglass Creek, 

and the Wenaha River. 

Estimated abundance of bull trout among 

all local populations in the Grande 

Ronde River Recovery Unit is at least 

6,000 adults. Resident and migratory life 

history forms are included in this 

estimate, but the relative proportions of 

each are considered a research need. As 

more data is collected, recovered 

population estimates will be revised to 

more accurately reflect both the 

migratory and resident life history 

components.

Adult bull trout populations exhibit a 

stable or increasing trend for at least two 

generations at or above the recovered 

abundance level. 

Specific barriers to bull trout migration 

in the Grande Ronde River Recovery 

Unit have been addressed. - No passage 

barriers are suggested within USFWS 

2002 c for the Wenaha River local 

population. - This also includes impact 

assessments of the Lower Granite and 

Hells Canyon dams, both in the 

mainstem Snake River.

a The population size categories are reported based on Figure 1 of USFWS (2008b). The numbers do not 

comport with the redd count information shown above. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 371

B.5 REFERENCES

Anglin, D. R., D. Gallion, M. Barrows, R. Koch, and C. Newlon. 2009. Monitoring the use of the 

mainstem Columbia River by bull trout from the Walla Walla Basin Annual Report 2008. Prepared for: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District 201 North 3rd Avenue Walla Walla, WA 99362 

MIPR Agreement Numbers W68SVB70188554, W68SVB80164737.

Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD). 2004. Asotin Subbasin Plan. Submitted to the Northwest 

Power and Coordination Council. 179 pages plus appendices.

Blankenship, S. M., M. P. Small, J. D. Bumgarner, M. Schuck, and G. Mendel. 2007. Genetic 

Relationships Among Tucannon, Touchet, and Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) Receiving Mitigation Hatchery Fish From Lyons Ferry Hatchery. WDFW. 39 pages

Blankenship, S. M., M. P. Small, and J. D. Bumgarner. 2009. Temporal Stability of Genetic Variation 

within Natural Populations of Summer Steelhead Receiving Mitigation Hatchery Fish. Trans. Amer. 

Fish. Soc. 138:1052-1064.

Blankenship, and G. Mendel. 2010. Genetic Characterization of Adult Chinook Trapped in lower Asotin 

Creek. WDFW, http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01137/wdfw01137.pdf 12 pages.

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon‘s bull trout. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Budy, P., R. Al-Chokhachy, and G.P. Thiede. 2007. Bull trout population assessment in northeastern 

Oregon: a template for recovery planning. Annual Progress Report for 2006. USGS Utah Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth Resources Utah State 

University, Logan, Utah. 83 pages. 

http://www.cnr.usu.edu/wats/files/uploads/faculty/budy/budy_onlinedocs1_usubudyetal_bulltrout_2006a

nnualreport.pdf

Bumgarner, J., J. Dedloff, and M. Herr. 2004. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer 

Steelhead and Trout Report 2003 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office. 

Report # FPA04-15.

Bumgarner, J., J. Dedloff, and M. Herr. 2006. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer 

Steelhead and Trout Report 2004 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office.

Bumgarner, J., and J. Dedloff 2007. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer Steelhead 

Annual Report 2005 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office.

Bumgarner, J., and J. Dedloff 2009. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer Steelhead 

Annual Report 2006 and 2007 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 372

Bumgarner, J., and J. Dedloff 2011. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer Steelhead 

Annual Report 2008 and 2009 Run Year to USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office. FPA 

11-05

CTUIR. 2009. Draft Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan. Walla Walla River Spring Chinook 

Reintroduction. Prepared by Fisheries Program Department of Natural Resources, The Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Submitted to NMFS May 2009.

DART (Data Access in Real Time) 2010. Website: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/

DeHann, P., W. Arden, and G. Mendel. 2007 DRAFT. Genetic analyses of bull trout from the Tucannon 

River basin, WA. USFWS and WDFW. 22 pages

Faler, M. P., G. Mendel, and C. Fulton. 2008. Evaluation of Bull Trout Movements in the Tucannon and 

Lower Snake Rivers Project Completion Summary (2002 through 2006). Prepared for U.S. Department 

of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Project number 2002-006-00.

Ford M.J. (ed.), Cooney T, McElhany P, Sands N, Weitkamp L, Hard J, McClure M, Kope R, Myers J, 

Albaugh A, Barnas K, Teel D, Moran P, Cowen J. 2010. Status review update for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Northwest. Draft U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NWFSC-XXX.

Gallinat, M. P, and L. A. Ross. 2009. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation program. 

2008 Annual Report. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Offices, 

Boise, ID.

Gallinat, M. P, and L. A. Ross. 2010. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation program. 

2009 Annual Report. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Offices, 

Boise, ID.

Gallinat, M. P, and L. A. Ross. 2011. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation program. 

2010 Annual Report. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Offices, 

Boise, ID.

Kassler, T. W. and G. Mendel. 2007. Genetic Characterization of Bull Trout from the Walla Walla River 

Basin. WDFW. 48 pages.

Kassler, T. W. and G. Mendel. 2008. Genetic Characterization of Bull Trout from the Asotin and North 

Fork Wenaha River Basins. WDFW. 31 pages.

MahoneyB. D., G. Mendel, M. Lambert, J. Trump, P. Bronson, M. Gembala and M. Gallinat. 2009. The 

Walla Walla Subbasin Collaborative Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project: 2007 and 2008 

Annual Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 2000-039-00. 138 

pages.
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 373

MahoneyB. D., G. Mendel, R. Weldert, J. Trump, J. Pomraning, M. Gembala and M. Gallinat. 2010. 

Walla Walla Subbasin Collaborative Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project: 2009 and 2010 

Annual Report (DRAFT). Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 

2000-039-00.

Mayer, K. and M. Schuck. 2004. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2003-2004 Annual 

Report, Project No. 200205300, 24 pages, BPA Report DOE/BP-00014059-1.

Mayer, K., Schuck, M., Wilson, S., and B. Johnson. 2005. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek 

Watershed, 2004-2005 Annual Report, Project No. 200205300, 40 pages, BPA Report No. DOE/BP00018229 and No. DOE/BP-00022720.

Mayer, K., Schuck, M., and D. Hathaway. 2006. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2005 

Annual Report, BPA Project No. 200205300, 37 pages.

Mayer, K. Schuck, M., and D. Hathaway. 2007. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2006 

Annual Report, BPA Project No. 200205300, 37 pages.

Mayer, K. and M. Schuck. 2008. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2007 Annual Report, 

BPA Project No. 200205300, 32 pages.

Mayer, K. and M. Schuck. 2009. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2008 Annual Report, 

BPA Project No. 200205300, 17 pages.

Mayer, K., M. Schuck, and P. Iversen. 2010. Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed, 2009 

Annual Report, BPA Project No. 200205300, 29 pages.

Mendel, G., J. Trump, and D. Karl. 2002. Assessment of salmonids and their habitat conditions in the 

Walla Walla River basin within Washington. Project No. 1998-02000. BPA Rept. DOE/BP-00004616-1.

Mendel, G., J. Trump, M. Gembala. 2003. Assessment of Salmonids and Their Habitat Conditions in the 

Walla Walla River Basin within Washington: 2003 Annual Report. Report to BPA. Project 199802000. 

Contract # 00006502. 126 pages.

Mendel, G., J. Trump, C. Fulton, and M. Gembala. 2004. Brief assessment of salmonids and stream 

habitat conditions in Snake River tributaries of Asotin, Whitman, and Garfield counties in Washington. 

Wash. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Dayton, Washington.

Mendel, G., J. Trump, M. Gembala, and C. Fulton. 2006. Baseline Assessment of Salmonids in 

Tributaries of the Snake and Grande Ronde Rivers in Southeast Washington 2005 Annual Report. For 

Asotin County Conservation District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 120 pgs.

Mendel, G., J. Trump, M. Gembala, and C. Fulton. 2008. Baseline Assessment of Salmonids in 

Tributaries of the Snake and Grande Ronde Rivers in Southeast Washington 2006-2007 Final Report. 
APPENDIX B: Current Status Assessment of SEWMU Populations

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 374

For Asotin County Conservation District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 183 pgs.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population 

Segment ESA Recovery Plan. 260 pages.

Spruell, P., A.R. Hemmingsen, P.J. Howell, N. Kanda, and F.W. Allendorf. 2003. Conservation genetics 

of bull trout: Geographic distribution of variation at microsatellite loci. Conservation Genetics 4:17-29.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Chapter 1, Introduction. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 137 pps.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Chapter 24, Snake River Washington Recovery Unit, 

Oregon. 134 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery 

Plan. Portland, Oregon. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/RP/Chapter_24_Snake%20River.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. Chapter 10, Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit, 

Oregon and Washington. 153 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/021129_10.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002d. Chapter 11, Grande Ronde River Recovery Unit, 

Oregon and Washington. 95 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/021129_11.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and 

Columbia River populations of bull trout. Federal Register: 69 (193):59996-60075.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008a. Bull Trout Recovery: Monitoring and Evaluation 

Guidance. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Bull Trout Recovery and 

Monitoring Technical Group (RMEG). Portland, Oregon. Version 1 - 74 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008b. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-year review: 

summary and evaluation. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 55 pages.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. Washington State salmonid stock 

inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. WDFW, Fish Management.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 375

APPENDIX C ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH MONITORING AND 

EVALUATION PLAN. AND EVALUATION PLAN
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 376

Table of Contents – Appendix C

Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

C.0 379

C.1 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT........................................................................................... 379

C.1.2 Tributary Habitat ................................................................................................... 380

C.1.3 Hatcheries.............................................................................................................. 381

C.1.4 Harvest 382

C.1.5 Mainstem Hydrosystem......................................................................................... 384

C.1.6 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp)........ 384

C.1.7 Consistency With Regional Plans and Documents................................................ 385

C.2 RESEARCH MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN............................................. 389

C.2.2 Background............................................................................................................ 389

C.2.3 Monitoring Questions and Types of Monitoring ................................................... 389

C.2.4 Monitoring Framework.......................................................................................... 392

C.2.5 Prioritization .......................................................................................................... 405

C.2.6 Current Monitoring................................................................................................ 407

C.2.7 Population Status/Trend Monitoring Plan ............................................................. 423

C.2.8 SEWMU Spring Chinook...................................................................................... 423

C.2.9 Southeast Washington Recovery Area Steelhead (Walla Walla, Touchet, 

Tucannon, Asotin Creek, Joseph Creek, and Lower Grande Ronde River). ......... 438

C.2.10 Prioritization of population status and trend monitoring ....................................... 452

C.3 LIMITING FACTORS STATUS/TREND MONITORING PLAN................................... 457

C.3.2 Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring .................................................................... 457

C.3.3 Hydropower Status and Trend Monitoring............................................................ 461

C.3.4 Harvest Status and Trend Monitoring.................................................................... 465

C.3.5 Prioritization of Habitat, Hydro, and Harvest status and trend monitoring ........... 470

C.3.6 Hatchery Status and Trend Monitoring ................................................................. 475

C.3.7 Prioritization of Hatchery status and trend monitoring.......................................... 503

C.3.8 Disease and Predation Status and Trend Monitoring............................................. 508
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 377

C.3.9 Regulatory Mechanisms Status and Trend Monitoring ......................................... 511

C.3.10 Natural Factors Status and Trend Monitoring ....................................................... 513

C.3.11 Prioritization of limiting factors status and trend monitoring................................ 515

C.4 IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE MONITORING PLAN ....................................... 516

C.5 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING APPROACH............................................................. 521

C.6 DATA MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 529

C.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 537

Table of Figures – Appendix C

FIGURE C-1. FLOW DIAGRAM OUTLINING THE DECISION 

FRAMEWORK USED BY NOAA FISHERIES TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF 

BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY CRITERIA AND LIMITING FACTORS CRITERIA. ....... 391

FIGURE C-2. BASIC STEPS FOR SETTING UP AN EFFECTIVENESS 

MONITORING PROGRAM FOR RECOVERY ACTIONS ............................................ 522

FIGURE C-3. AN ILLUSTRATION OF DATA FLOW AND DATA 

STRUCTURES UNDER THE ISEMP DATA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY............... 531

FIGURE C-4. AN EXAMPLE SCHEMATIC OF AN ATM (FROM TERRAQUA 2006)........... 533

FIGURE C-5. AN EXAMPLE OF A DATA ENTRY FORM THAT ALLOWS 

FOR EASY DATA ENTRY FOR FIELD STAFF AND PROVIDES DATA 

VALIDATION 534
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 378

List of Tables – Appendix C

TABLE C-1. NOAA FISHERIES RECOMMENDED MONITORING PRIORITIES.............. 387

TABLE C-2. LIST OF TYPES OF HABITAT ACTIONS AND SPECIFIC ACTIONS 

ASSOCIATED WITH EACH TYPE................................................................................ 400

TABLE C-3. SUGGESTED PRIORITIES FOR MONITORING IN THE SOUTHEAST 

WASHINGTON SEWMU. ................................................................................................ 406

TABLE C-4. CURRENT MONITORING PROJECTS IN THE SEWMU AND 

RELATIONSHIP TO VSP................................................................................................. 409

TABLE C-5. SUMMARY OF PRIORITIZATION OF OBJECTIVES FOR 

POPULATION STATUS AND TREND MONITORING AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH SEWMU POPULATION. .................................... 454

TABLE C-6. RECOMMENDED METHODS AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY OF 

PHYSICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR VARIABLES IN ISEMP..................... 458

TABLE C-7. SUMMARY OF PRIORITIZATION OF OBJECTIVES FOR LIMITING 

FACTOR STATUS AND TREND MONITORING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR EACH SEWMU POPULATION............................................................................... 471

TABLE C-8. DIFFERENT TYPES OF HATCHERY PROGRAMS. ........................................... 475

TABLE C-9. SUMMARY OF PRIORITIZATION OF OBJECTIVES FOR 

HATCHERY STATUS AND TREND MONITORING AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH SEWMU POPULATION. .................................... 504

TABLE C-10. RANKINGS OF THE USEFULNESS OF 

PHYSICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS TO MONITORING EFFECTS 

OF DIFFERENT TRIBUTARY HABITAT ACTIONS. ................................................... 525

TABLE C-11. FUNCTIONS AND COMPONENT PROCESSES AND 

STRUCTURES OF THE ISEMP DATA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY........................ 530
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 379

APPENDIX C ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

C.0 

C.1 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

A critical component of the Southeast Washington Management Unit (SEWMU) Plan implementation is 

adaptive management. The actions specified in this plan were identified to make incremental 

improvements needed to move populations from their current status to healthy and harvestable levels. 

Adjustments in effort or direction will need to be made if actions do not achieve their desired goals, and 

to take advantage of new information, more specific objectives, and changing opportunities. The adaptive 

management plan will provide the mechanism to facilitate these adjustments. 

Adaptive management is a structured process designed to improve understanding and management by 

helping managers and scientists learn from the implementation and consequences of natural resource 

policies (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993). Learning is necessary because (1) knowledge about 

species and ecosystem responses to different management approaches is usually incomplete and (2) 

changes in the environment, the economy, and social desires are inevitable (Walters 1986). The main 

strength of adaptive management is that managers are able to manage in the face of uncertainty and ―learn 

by doing.‖ As adaptive management progresses, managers develop a greater understanding of their 

system and which management techniques best work under a variety of conditions (Morghan et al. 2006). 

The research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) plan described below identifies the level of monitoring 

and evaluation needed to determine the effectiveness of recommended actions, and whether they are 

leading to improvements in population viability. The plan also identifies critical data gaps in species and 

habitat knowledge. The data obtained through RM&E Plan implementation will be used to assess, and if 

necessary make corrections to, current restoration strategies. 

Oversight of the implementation of an adaptive management plan will be done by the Snake River 

Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB), who would be responsible for:

Confirming goals and objectives for salmon and steelhead recovery; 

Screening and ranking proposed projects to determine which of the alternative management actions and 

their hypothesized habitat and species benefits are potentially most effective; 

Comparing monitoring results from management actions with the RM&E plan and review progress 

toward goals and objectives; and 

Determining needed changes in strategies and/or actions to better meet goals/objectives, and revising 

strategies and/or actions accordingly.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 380

A major challenge facing the development and implementation of an effective adaptive management 

strategy for SEWMU salmon and steelhead is the large number of organizations that implement 

management actions, as well as the complexity in jurisdictional and management decision authority. 

These organization include, but are not limited to, state agencies, tribes, counties, irrigation districts, 

agriculture and private forest land managers, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, other federal 

agencies, utilities, citizen groups, and others. Adding to this complexity is the fact that there is no one 

single decision body that holds decision authority for management actions across all sectors (habitat, 

hatcheries, harvest, and hydro). It is unreasonable to expect centralization of all authorities and decision 

processes into a single decision framework. Therefore, the intent of this adaptive management plan is to 

develop a collaboration and coordination process that uses the current implementation structures and 

allows for sharing of information and decisions that influence recovery of SEWMU Chinook salmon and 

steelhead.

Section 11 of the Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan describes in detail some of the various 

management decision processes and associated adaptive management plans that affect management 

actions for tributary habitat, hatcheries, harvest, and the hydrosystem. What follows is a brief summary of 

those processes and plans as they relate to the SEWMU.

C.1.2 Tributary Habitat

There are several funding sources and various entities involved with implementing tributary habitat 

restoration actions. In all cases these entities have well established decision-making processes for 

prioritizing actions. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify and describe all the processes 

used. Therefore, what follows are a few examples that illustrate ongoing decision processes. 

C.1.2.1 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program

The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

provides funding for many habitat protection and restoration actions within the SEWMU. The program 

was established to mitigate the effects of the Columbia River federal power system. Proposed projects 

undergo a rigorous scientific review (by an Independent Science Review Panel) and revision process to 

ensure the implementation of scientifically sound projects that are based on best available science and use 

state-of-the-art restoration approaches. 

C.1.2.2 The Habitat Conservation Plan for the Walla Walla Subbasin 

The Walla Walla HCP targets activities related to water quality and flow for the entire Walla Walla basin. 

The focus is on listed populations of summer steelhead and bull trout, but it is expected to benefit other 

fish and wildlife species as well. The effort involves federal, state, local, and tribal governments; 

irrigation districts; private landowners; and watershed and environmental groups. The HCP is being 

coordinated with regional recovery planning, subbasin planning, development of instream flows and

TMDLs, watershed resource inventory area planning, and comprehensive irrigation district management 

plans. Grant funding for this effort expired in 2009 with HCP related tasks and activities still underway 

and expected to continue as basin interests continue to work towards an HCP negotiated solution, or other 

cooperative solutions to instream flow and ESA fish concerns in the basin.

C.1.2.3 Salmon Recovery Funding Board
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 381

In 1999, the Washington State Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The board 

provides grants to protect or restore salmon habitat and assist related activities. The board has created an 

approach unique in the nation for the recovery of salmon. Local communities work together to write 

recovery plans that are approved by the federal government. The communities develop projects, vet them 

locally, and submit them to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for technical review. This ―bottom up‖ 

approach engages local communities in salmon recovery. The board also plays a key role in supporting 

the organizations that implement the federally approved recovery plans and in managing the state 

funding, which is critical to securing federal grants.

C.1.2.4 Integration and Coordination

Although there are several funding sources and implementing entities that have prioritization processes 

and elements of adaptive management, there is a need to integrate and coordinate adaptive management 

for tributary habitat restoration. Appendix A describes an implementation framework for this recovery 

plan. This framework is not intended to replace the other processes that are currently used. Rather, the 

framework is meant to improve coordination, collaboration, and sharing of information for decision 

making. Information, including successes and failures, will be shared throughout the framework. This will 

result in the implementation of cost-effective projects throughout the basins.

C.1.3 Hatcheries

C.1.3.1 Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) 

In the 2000s, the hatchery scientific review group (HSRG) was first developed to review and make 

recommendations for hatcheries in the Puget Sound region, and then the Columbia Basin. 

Their recommendations are not the only alternatives for hatchery programs to meet conservation and 

harvest goals. The HSRG completed their reviews and provided recommendations for populations within 

the SEWMU. See Appendix D for a characterization of the HSRG recommendations and the consistency 

between the recovery plan actions and HSRG recommendations. 

C.1.3.2 Hatchery Review Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) initiated a series of hatchery reviews in May 2005 to assure that 

its hatchery programs in the Northwest are part of a scientifically-sound and integrated strategy —

consistent with State, Tribal, and other Federal strategies — for conserving wild stocks and managing 

fisheries in watersheds within the Region. 

The USFWS‘s Hatchery Review Team (HRT) completed their reviews of the LSRCP hatchery programs 

and facilities in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (USFWS 2010). The HRT applied the HSRG's scientific 

framework and hatchery review tools to develop reform recommendations for each hatchery program.

C.1.3.3 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs)

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) are described in the final salmon and steelhead 4(d) 

rule as a mechanism for addressing "take" of ESA-listed species that may occur as a result of artificial 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 382

propagation activities. NMFS uses the information provided by HGMPs to evaluate impacts on salmon 

and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. In certain situations, HGMPs will apply to 

evaluation and issuance of ESA Section 10 take permit. Completed HGMPs may also be used for regional 

fish production and management planning by federal, state and tribal resource managers.

The primary goal of an HGMP is to devise biologically-based artificial propagation management 

strategies that ensure the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead populations.

The HGMP must provide adequate monitoring and evaluation to detect and evaluate the success of the 

hatchery program and any risks potentially impairing the recovery of listed ESUs/DPSs. An adaptive 

management process is needed to provide for the evaluation of the data and include the potential to revise 

the assumptions, management strategies, or objectives of the hatchery program. In addition, NMFS is 

required to evaluate on a regular basis the effectiveness of the HGMP in protecting and achieving a level 

of productivity commensurate with the conservation of the listed species. If the HGMP is ineffective, 

NMFS will reinitiate consultation with the management entity operating the hatchery and identify ways in

which the program needs to be altered. 

C.1.4 Harvest

C.1.4.1 Mainstem Columbia River

The parties to the 2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement recognize that a research 

and monitoring program is needed to implement and adaptively manage the harvest regimes that are 

envisioned in the agreement. The objective of monitoring and research is to improve the accuracy and 

precision of harvest management. As identified in the agreement, these data are essential for adaptive 

management. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which is comprised of biologists from state, 

federal, and tribal management agencies, develops, analyzes, and reviews data and provides reports and 

technical recommendations regarding harvest management. The parties to the agreement agreed to work 

together to maintain and seek funding for the research and monitoring programs.

Additional monitoring and adaptive management of harvest is provided by ESA Section 7(a)(2) 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on Treaty Indian and Non-Indian Fisheries in the Columbia River 

Basin subject to the 2008-2017 US v. OR Management Agreement (hereafter, Fisheries BiOp). Several 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures are identified in Section 13.4 of the Fisheries BiOp that emphasize inseason management actions, which ensure that incidental take of ESA-listed species remain consistent 

with the BiOp. The monitoring of harvest impacts on listed species is an essential component of the 

Fisheries BiOp.

C.1.4.2 Recreational Fisheries Regulation Process (WDFW)

State-managed recreational fisheries that affect listed stocks in the recovery area are addressed and 

authorized under the Endangered Species Act 4(d) and Section 10 processes. 

Within the SEWMU, the Snake River basin fisheries management area of SE Washington is known as the 

Snake River Management Area (SRMA) by WDFW. The SRMA includes the anadromous portions of 

the Walla Walla River (and tributaries) within Washington State, the Snake River and its tributaries, 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 383

including the Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, and Grande Ronde River and their tributaries, again, within 

the State of Washington.

Recently, the Snake Basin Harvest Forum (SBHF) convened. Participants were WDFW, along with 

NOAA Fisheries and other co-managers. A comprehensive plan will be developed through the SBHF that 

describes how Washington's fisheries and associated ESA impacts in the SRMA fit within the overall 

prescribed take limits for the affected ESA-listed species in the near- term. after the US v Or and SBHF 

have conducted their work that the NOF process provides opportunity for stakeholders to recommend 

distribution, timing and bag limits of fisheries within the constraints of the previously identified ESA 

impact rates for recreational fishereies

C.1.4.3 Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans

Take prohibitions do not apply to activities associated with fishery harvest activities provided the fisheries 

are managed in accordance with a NMFS-approved Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP), 

which is implemented in accordance with a letter of concurrence from NMFS. The FMEP must meet 

several specific criteria described in the 4(d) Rule. 

NMFS developed a template for preparing FMEPs that meet the required criteria. Section 3.5 of the 

template requires the applicant to include a schedule and process for reviewing and modifying fisheries 

management under the FMEP. There are two evaluation review processes identified in the FMEP: (1) a 

regular review of fisheries and (2) a comprehensive assessment of the overall effectiveness of the FMEP. 

The evaluation must assess the effectiveness of the FMEP in meeting the stated objectives over a long 

time period and must account for any new information that may require revision of assumptions or 

management strategies.

The FMEP describes the process and schedule that is used on a regular basis (annually) to evaluate the 

fisheries, and, if necessary, revise management assumptions and targets. The FMEP also includes a 

description of the process and schedule that occurs every five years to evaluate whether the FMEP is 

accomplishing the stated objectives. Section 3.5 of the FMEP includes the conditions by which revisions 

to the FMEP will occur and how the revisions will be accomplished.

NMFS also requires that the fisheries managers notify and provide to NMFS any proposed fishery 

regulation changes that affect fisheries within the FMEP. NMFS then evaluates the proposed changes to 

determine if the changes constitute additional negative effects that were not contemplated during the 

review and evaluation of the submitted FMEP. Depending on the species and fishery involved, changes in 

regulations can occur annually or in-season.

C.1.4.4 Tribal Resource Management Plans

A tribe intending to exercise a tribal right to fish or undertake other resource management actions that 

may impact threatened salmonids could create a Tribal Resource Management Plan (TRMP) that would 

assure that those actions would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the 

species.

NMFS issued a final rule to modify the ESA section 9 take prohibitions to apply to threatened salmon and 

steelhead. The modification created a section 4(d) limitation on those prohibitions for tribal resource 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 384

management plans (TRMPs), where the TRMP demonstrates that it will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the listed species. The rule is intended to harmonize statutory 

conservation requirements with tribal rights and the Federal trust responsibility to tribes.

C.1.5 Mainstem Hydrosystem

Mainstem hydro issues for the SEWMU are primarily under the jurisdiction of the Federal Columbia 

River Power System (FCRPS) and are discussed within the scope of the FCRPS biological opinion 

(BiOp) below.

C.1.6 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp)

The 2008 FCRPS BiOp requires the federal action agencies (Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; hereafter, AAs) to collaborate with states and 

tribes in the implementation of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), progress reporting, and 

adaptive management using regional forums. RPAs 1 through 3 identify the general requirements 

governing the AA‘s development of implementation plans and reporting requirements. The AAs are 

required to submit implementation plans to NMFS in December of 2009, 2013, and 2016 that describe 

their commitments to implement RPAs. The AAs are also required to submit Annual Progress Reports to 

NMFS for the period 2009 through 2018. In addition, in 2013 and 2016, the AAs will submit 

Comprehensive RPA Evaluation Reports to NMFS. These reports will review all implementation 

activities through the end of the previous year and compare them to scheduled completion dates in the 

BiOp, or as modified through the Implementation Plans. The Comprehensive Evaluation will also 

describe the status of the physical and biological factors identified in the RPA, and compare these with 

the expected survival improvements identified in the Comprehensive Analysis. Included in the 

Comprehensive Evaluation will be a plan to address any shortcomings of current survival improvements 

as compared to the original survival estimates identified in the Comprehensive Analysis.

The FCRPS BiOp (NMFS 2008a) includes RPAs (50 through 73) for research, monitoring, and 

evaluation (RME). RME is required in the following areas: fish population status and trend monitoring, 

hydropower RME, tributary habitat RME, estuary and ocean RME, harvest RME, hatchery RME, and 

predation management RME. Data from RME will provide information needed to support planning and 

adaptive management, and to demonstrate accountability related to the implementation of hydropower 

and offsite actions.

A Regional Implementation and Oversight Group (RIOG) will provide a high-level policy forum for 

discussing and coordinating the implementation of the FCRPS BiOp and related BiOps. The purpose of 

the group is to inform federal, state, and tribal agencies engaged in recovery efforts. The group will serve 

as a forum where policy issues and concerns related to the implementation of the BiOps will be discussed 

in a collaborative manner, and to provide a forum for enhanced accountability and transparency. 

Importantly, the RIOG does not supplant existing federal, state, or tribal decision-making authorities. 

Indeed, no agency or sovereign is compelled to participate in the RIOG. Participation is by interest and 

choice.

The RIOG is supported by Senior Technical Teams for hydro, habitat, hatcheries, and RME integration 

and by additional Technical Teams. Technical information and recommendations flow from the Technical 

Teams to the Senior Technical Teams to the RIOG. Policy guidance and technical assignments flow from 

the RIOG to the Senior Technical Teams and Technical Teams. The RIOG and technical groups ensure 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 385

that actions required by the FCRPS BiOp are implemented effectively, performance standards are 

achieved, disputes are resolved, and other regional processes are considered during the period of the 

BiOp. 

C.1.7 Consistency With Regional Plans and Documents

This Plan was developed to guide monitoring and evaluation in the SEWMU to determine whether 

progress is being made towards recovery of ESA listed populations and achieving mitigation goals. 

Therefore, it necessarily covers viable salmon population metrics, hatchery and habitat effectiveness, outof-basin effects, and a suggested approach to data management. In addition, current efforts are underway 

by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), NOAA Fisheries, and other stakeholders 

throughout the Columbia River basin to develop coordinated approaches to monitoring to increase 

efficiency and ensure that the information collected will assist in understanding the status of populations 

and the factors that limit them. This Plan is consistent with basin-wide efforts and will assist NOAA 

Fisheries, state and tribal co-managers, and the Board in determining whether the focus populations are 

approaching recovery and restoration. Below, specific efforts are highlighted and incorporated as 

guidance into the framework of this Plan.

C.1.7.1 Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan

This Plan is consistent with, and builds on the Northwest Power and Conservation Council‘s draft 

Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan.

28

 The MERR is 

necessarily more comprehensive than this Plan because the NPCC‘s scope is broader than recovery of 

anadromous fish, but the questions and framework are complimentary. 

The MERR ensures the Council‘s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program) goals, 

objectives, and actions are monitored, evaluated, and reported in a manner that allows assessment and 

reporting of Program progress. To facilitate Program assessment and reporting, the MERR Plan consists 

of a Strategic Plan, Implementation Framework, and Implementation Strategies for anadromous fish, 

resident fish, and wildlife.

Upon adoption by the Council, the MERR Plan will provide expectations for, and guidance on, how 

RM&E and reporting are conducted under the Program. This guidance will assist the Council and other 

partners in the Basin with:

Prioritizing implementation of the Program‘s RM&E actions and projects;

Reducing duplication of RM&E efforts by facilitating communication and coordination among 

project proponents and funding agencies within the Basin;

Adaptively managing the Program;

Reporting on Program progress for accountability purposes; and

Providing guidance for the Independent Science Review Panel‘s review of projects and of the 

Program.

 

28 The MERR can be found at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2010/2010-10.pdf.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 386

C.1.7.2 Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring 

Strategy (ASMS) 

This Plan is consistent with the Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy29 draft that was developed 

through a collaborative process involving co-managers, the Action Agencies, and other stakeholders. 

This Plan has all of the elements that are covered within the Basin-wide strategy and the approach 

suggested herein is complimentary to the basin-wide approach, in particular, Appendices B and D of the 

ASMS: Mid-Columbia River sub-regional monitoring strategy and Snake River sub-regional monitoring 

strategy, respectively.

The focus of the ASMS is to meet the monitoring and adaptive management needs of the NPCC‘s 

Program, ESA Recovery Plans, the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (BiOp), 

and federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife programs in a cost-effective manner. The goal of the ASMS 

is to provide an efficient and effective monitoring strategy that integrates VSP criteria, habitat 

effectiveness, and hatchery effectiveness across multiple programs and geographic scales.

C.1.7.3 Guidance For Monitoring Recovery of Pacific Northwest Salmon and 

Steelhead

This Plan is consistent with NOAA Fisheries‘ draft Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific 

Northwest Salmon and Steelhead (Crawford and Rumsey 2009).30 This Plan has all of the elements that 

are covered within the guidance document and the approach suggested herein is complimentary to the 

document and relies on the same suggested protocols, and general approach.

The guidance document was developed to better assist those involved with ESA salmon recovery in the 

Pacific Northwest in understanding the recovery monitoring needs at the regional, local, and project level 

and the levels of certainty that may be needed.

The recommendations within the guidance document are for federal and state agencies, Indian tribes, 

local governments and watershed organizations in Oregon, Washington and Idaho which are actively 

developing recovery plan monitoring programs, or are modifying existing monitoring for ESUs and 

DPSs.

Recommendations include monitoring that addresses all of the VSP criteria and the listing factors and 

threats. It is NMFSs‘ intention that the recommendations within the document will be considered the 

needed level of monitoring to be conducted and provide a consistency across ESU domains in the Pacific 

Northwest. Although the guidance document is focused on listed species, it can be applied to other Pacific 

 

29 The ASMS can be found at: 

http://www.cbfwa.org/ams/files/Anadromous%20Salmonid%20Monitoring%20SubFrameworkJuly%206%202010.pdf

30 Crawford and Rumsey (2009) can be found at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/upload/Draft-RME-Guidance.pdf
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 387

Northwest populations that currently are not listed. The unlisted species could benefit from monitoring 

that will reveal their status/trends and any management actions underway to reduce their limiting factors 

and threats. Within the draft document, NOAA recommends monitoring priorities (Table C-1):

Table C-1. NOAA Fisheries recommended monitoring priorities (Crawford and 

Rumsey 2009).

Criteria

Monitoring

Priority31

Confounding Effects or Sources 

of Error Comments

VSP CRITERIA

VSP Adult Abundance 

(specific evaluation of 

spawners in natural 

production areas)

Highest

Unidentified hatchery spawners

Estimation methods

Inaccurate harvest or abundance 

estimates

Conversion and confusion between 

spawners and escapement

Estimates without accuracy and 

precision

Exclusion or inclusion of jacks

Confusion about conversion of 

escapement to spawners

It must be recognized that tracking 

spawning populations is at the heart of 

VSP criteria. Measurements at other 

levels (e.g., run to the Columbia River, 

total natural production) may also 

contribute to assessments. 

Measuring adult abundance for the 

populations within the ESU could be 

sufficient to determine recovery but 

may take a considerable number of 

years to be confident that the listing 

factors are apparently no longer threats 

to the continued existence of the 

species.

VSP Juvenile 

Abundance Very High

Trapping efficiencies

Migrating hatchery releases

Rainbow – steelhead interfaces

Supplementation programs

Variable age at migration

Juvenile migrant abundance estimates 

are critical in order to estimate 

freshwater production and survival.

Juvenile parr estimates provide spatial 

distribution and correlate habitat 

quality to fish abundance.

VSP Productivity Very High

Juvenile and adult 

supplementation 

Hatchery spawners

Hatchery density dependent 

impacts in the estuary and marine 

environment

Age class structure

Productivity is only accurate if the 

estimates of adult abundance and 

(where employed) juvenile abundance 

are accurate. As used by the TRT,

productivity is defined in terms of 

spawner to spawner ratios, juvenile 

info is valuable where available, but it 

is not available for many populations.

VSP Spatial 

Distribution High

Lack of a periodic census or valid 

spatially balanced sampling 

program

Low abundance can lead to risky 

conclusions regarding spatial 

structure.

Spatial distribution tends to be a 

collection of one time site records 

developed over time.

VSP Diversity High

Inadequate baseline information 

for phenotype and genotype 

diversity

Hatchery effects

Harvest effects

Changes to habitat

Many diversity traits can be tracked 

through harvest sampling and spawner 

surveys.

The region needs some standardization 

for appropriate reference conditions 

for phenotype and genotype diversity.

 

31 Monitoring priorities for state, tribal, and local governments
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 388

Criteria

Monitoring

Priority31

Confounding Effects or Sources 

of Error Comments

LISTING FACTORS AND THREATS

Threats Due to 

Curtailment or 

Destruction of Habitat 

or Range

High

Lack of Adequate habitat sampling 

program. Need to know the 

status/trends of multiple key 

habitat attributes.

Only tracking the number of 

restoration projects completed

does not necessarily indicate net 

improvement in salmon habitat

The loss of freshwater and estuarine 

habitat is of major importance in the 

decline of salmon and steelhead. 

Quantifying status/trends of habitat 

conditions continues to be 

underfunded and sparsely applied

Threats Due to 

Hydropower High

Numerous licenses and 

consultations with differing 

standards

Hydropower is a major source of 

mortality and loss of range in some 

watersheds

Threats Due to 

Overutilization 

(Harvest)

Very High

Poor stock identification 

techniques for naturally produced 

adults in the fisheries including 

lack of GSI measurements

Unmarked hatchery adults in the 

fisheries

Unknown compliance with harvest 

regulations (unaccounted losses)

Assumptions regarding long term 

survival of marked fish

Although harvest is considered a 

threat, it is integral to calculating 

productivity and potential spawner 

abundance.

Since it is probably the threat that can 

be controlled to the greatest extent, 

estimating accurately its impact to 

recovery is crucial.

Threats due to 

Hatcheries High

Lack of spawning ground survey 

data on hatchery straying into 

natural production areas

Lack of GSI measurements

Lack of marking of all hatchery 

fish

Competition

It will probably not be feasible to 

determine the effectiveness of 

hatchery management plans in all 

locations, but specific studies will be 

needed.

Threats due to 

Predation and Disease Medium

Actual salmon mortality due to 

predators is not well documented

Hatchery contributions to disease

Threats due to 

Regulatory Actions Medium

Unknown compliance with zoning 

and other land use regulations

An audit of state and local land use 

and environmental laws and 

regulations should be completed 

periodically to test for effectiveness.

Threat due to Climate 

and other Conditions Low

Spatial and temporal patterns 

difficult to discern

This factor is already monitored by the 

NWFSC and universities, with several 

models in development. 

Marine survival of salmon and 

steelhead is a direct measure of ocean 

and climate conditions and is essential 

for determining viability of salmon.

More focused information is needed at 

the ESU/DPS scale
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 389

C.2 RESEARCH MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

One of the purposes of this research, monitoring, and evaluation plan (Plan) is to guide existing studies 

and future study plan development to ensure that the information that is needed to determine the status of 

SEWMU salmonid populations is being collected.

This chapter relies to a great extent on NMFS (2008b).

C.2.2 Background 

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB), in consultation with the 

regional technical team (RTT), has defined salmon recovery at two levels: recovery and restoration. 

Recovery is defined as meeting ESA de-listing requirements based on viable salmonid population (VSP) 

criteria and ameliorating threats. The goal of restoration in addition to meeting VSP criteria is attainment 

of healthy, harvestable, and stable populations that meet mitigation goals. 

In general, the desired outcome of the recovery plan is the long-term persistence of viable populations of 

naturally produced Chinook salmon and steelhead distributed across their native range. In order to 

determine if the desired outcome has been achieved, monitoring is needed to assess the status of the 

populations and their limiting factors. In the absence of monitoring, there is no reliable method to 

determine if the recovery plan has been successful, or is meeting its goals. Without monitoring, it will be 

very difficult for NOAA Fisheries to determine if the populations/ESU/DPS have met recovery criteria 

and can be removed from ESA listing, or whether mitigation goals are being met.

It is important that this monitoring plan have proper context. Within the SEWMU of the Snake River 

basin, much of the current monitoring that is taking place is guided and funded to evaluate hatchery 

programs, which have historically been primarily segregated harvest programs (especially for steelhead). 

However, many of these programs are in the process of undergoing modifications or changes recognized 

by stakeholders and co-managers as actions to ―reform‖ certain hatchery practices to be more consistent 

with conservation needs. Therefore, many of the questions that guide SEWMU monitoring incorporate 

not only questions needed to see if the naturally reproducing populations are trending toward recovery 

objectives (through VSP and ―threats‖ monitoring), but also mitigation and restoration goals. 

C.2.3 Monitoring Questions and Types of Monitoring

There are two major questions that need to be answered in order for the NOAA Fisheries to determine if 

the recovery plan is working for ESA recovery. 

Is the status of the population/ESU/DPS improving? 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 390

1) Is the status of the population/ESU/DPS improving?

2) Are the primary factors limiting the status of the population/ESU/DPS increasing 

or decreasing?32

In addition to the two main questions that NOAA Fisheries needs to have answered, the SRSRB and comanagers in SEWMU also need to understand the following question:

3) Are hatchery programs meeting specific mitigation goals?

Answers to these questions will guide decisions regarding the reclassification or delisting of the ESU, 

DPS, or populations, and also understand whether mitigation goals are being met. Additional questions, 

which are less important in guiding decisions regarding ESA reclassification or delisting, but are 

nevertheless important to the SRSRB, funding entities, and management agencies, include:

4) Are the actions identified in the recovery plan and mitigation programs being 

implemented correctly and according to the implementation schedule?

5) Which actions are effective and should be continued?

6) How will the data be managed and curated?

These six questions require different types of monitoring. Questions 1 - 3 require Status and Trend 

Monitoring. This type of monitoring describes the status or condition of the populations and their limiting 

factors, and tracks their changes over time. There are two general categories of criteria that must be 

evaluated before ESUs/DPSs can be reclassified or de-listed; (1) biological viability criteria and (2) 

limiting factors criteria (Figure C-1). The first category includes metrics associated with Viable Salmonid 

Populations (i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity), while the second includes 

metrics associated with habitat, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, disease and predation, regulatory 

mechanisms, and natural limiting factors. It is important that the monitoring plan include metrics that can 

be used to evaluate delisting criteria. Also, it is important to note that this plan emphasizes monitoring 

that assists co-managers and stakeholders in understanding whether hatchery programs are contributing to 

recovery or not limiting recovery, and for determining if either segregated or integrated hatchery 

programs are meeting mitigation goals.

 

32 The federal agencies determine if a population/ESU/DPS is no longer in danger of extinction by evaluating both 

the status of the population/ESU/DPS and the extent to which the threats facing the population/ESU/DPS have been 

addressed. This monitoring plan does not attempt to monitor ―threats.‖ Rather, this plan measures the ―limiting 

factors‖ that directly or indirectly affect the status of the population/ESU/DPS. Although threats cause a factor to be 

limiting, it is actually the factor that limits the population. For example, forest roads and landslides (threats) may 

increase recruitment of fine sediments (limiting factor) to a stream channel, thereby limiting survival of juvenile 

steelhead. Simply monitoring threats will not tell us if the limiting factor is decreasing. Therefore, it is important to 

monitor changes in the limiting factors. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 391

Figure C-1. Flow diagram outlining the decision framework used by NOAA Fisheries to 

assess the status of biological viability criteria and limiting factors criteria. This 

information is needed to determine if an ESU/DPS is recovered and no longer in danger 

of extinction.

Question 4 requires Implementation and Compliance Monitoring. This type of monitoring simply 

checks on whether activities were carried out as planned, and whether specific criteria were met as a 

direct result of an implemented action. This is generally carried out as an administrative review and does 

not require any parameter measurements. Information recorded under this type of monitoring includes the 

types of actions implemented, how many were implemented, where they were implemented, and how 

much area or stream length was affected by the action. Indicators for implementation monitoring will 

include visual inspections, photographs, and field notes on numbers, location, quality, and area affected 

by the action. Success will be determined by comparing field notes with what was specified in the plans 

or proposals (detailed descriptions of engineering and design criteria). Thus, design plans and/or 

proposals will serve as the benchmark for implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring sets 

the stage for effectiveness monitoring by demonstrating that the restoration actions were implemented 

correctly and followed the proposed design.

Question 5 requires Effectiveness Monitoring. This type of monitoring addresses cause-and-effect. That 

is, effectiveness monitoring is designed to determine whether a given action or suite of actions achieved 

the desired effect or goal. This type of monitoring is research oriented and therefore requires elements of 

experimental design (e.g., controls or reference conditions) that are not critical to other types of 

monitoring. Consequently, effectiveness monitoring is usually designed on a case-by-case basis. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 392

Although this type of monitoring is not necessary for guiding decisions on reclassification and delisting, it 

is important to funding entities and management agencies. Effectiveness monitoring provides funding 

entities with information on benefit/cost ratios and resource managers with information on what actions or 

types of actions improved physical/environmental and biological conditions.

The final question; ―How will the data be managed and curated?‖ is concerned with transferring raw data 

from their varied origins into a common format that can be organized, checked, analyzed, and shared. 

There will be a large volume of data collected as part of the recovery plan and other efforts in the Snake 

River Basin. It is crucial that these data be summarized on how, when, and where they were collected. It 

is also important that data management support a range of analytical methods, such as hypothesis testing, 

time series analyses, structural equations, and mapping. A regional data management strategy will make 

both raw data and processed (derived) data available to other scientists and to the public. This is required 

for data collected as part of a project that is supported by public funds (e.g., federal or state grants and 

contracts).Monitoring Framework 

The six questions identified above and their associated monitoring types provide the basis for developing 

the monitoring plan. It is important to note that several specific questions attend each of the six questions. 

In addition, monitoring objectives, indicators (measured and derived variables), sampling/statistical 

designs, and analytical decision rules are associated with most of the specific questions. This section 

identifies the specific questions and their associated parts and subparts. The specific questions were 

adapted from the ICTRT (2005). The following sections describe monitoring plans for steelhead and 

Chinook salmon populations within the SEWMU. Bull trout monitoring plans will be modified after the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides guidance on monitoring requirements for bull trout, however, 

many of the monitoring and questions for steelhead and Chinook salmon should be relevant for bull trout 

too. 

Question 1: Is the status of the population/ESU/DPS improving?

The status of a population is determined by measuring (or estimating) the four Viable Salmonid 

Population (VSP) parameters described in Chapter 4 of this Plan. Those parameters are adult abundance, 

population productivity or growth rate, population spatial structure, and diversity. The status of these 

parameters is compared to the population-specific recovery criteria (identified in Chapter 4) to arrive at an 

overall conclusion on the status of the population/ESU/DPS. The specific questions associated with VSP 

are: 

1.1 Is the abundance of naturally produced adult fish trending to the recovery and restoration criteria 

for each population?

This question deals with the number of naturally produced fish that spawn within each population. 

Recovery criteria in the recovery plan are based on the 10-year geometric mean (GM) of naturally 

produced spawners. 

1.2 Is the population productivity of naturally produced fish trending to the recovery and restoration 

criteria for each population?

This question addresses population productivity, which is the ratio of naturally produced recruits to 

naturally produced spawners. Recovery criteria in the recovery plan are based on the 20-year GM of 

recruits per spawner.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 393

1.2.1 Is juvenile productivity of naturally produced fish increasing within each 

population?

This question deals with freshwater productivity. It is calculated as 

number of juveniles or smolts per ed. It provides an index of 

productivity within spawning and rearing areas and is not influenced by 

factors outside the population, ESU, or DPS. This index should be more 

sensitive to tributary restoration actions than recruits per spawner. At this 

time, the recovery plan has not identified recovery targets for juvenile 

productivity. Recovery targets for juvenile productivity should be 

addressed under research needs. 

1.3 Is the spatial structure of the populations trending to the recovery and restoration criteria for each 

population?

This question deals with factors that affect the distribution and spatial complexity of the population. 

Spatial structure of a population is maintained by not destroying habitat (or their functions) at rates faster 

than they are created or restored, by maintaining suitable habitats (major and minor spawning areas) even 

if they contain no listed species, and by addressing man-made barriers to fish migration and movement. 

This question is answered by addressing each of the following questions.

1.3.1 Does the number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas meet recovery and 

restoration criteria for each population?

This question deals with the number and spatial arrangement of major and minor 

spawning areas that are occupied within the geographic area of each population. Spatial 

arrangement refers to the distribution of spawning areas (e.g., linear structure, dendritic, 

trellis, etc.).

1.3.2 Does the spatial extent or range of the population meet recovery and restoration 

criteria for each population?

This question deals with the proportion of the historical range that is currently occupied 

and the presence of spawners in major spawning areas.

1.3.3 Do the gaps or continuities between spawning areas meet recovery and 

restoration criteria for each population?

This question is concerned with the distance (stream km) between spawning areas.

1.4 Is the phenotypic and genotypic diversity of the population trending to the recovery and restoration 

criteria for each population?

This question deals with factors that affect both phenotypic (morphology, behavior, and life-history traits) 

and genotypic (genetic) within-population diversity. Diversity is maintained by managing or minimizing 

factors that alter variation in traits such as run timing, age structure, size, fecundity, morphology, 

behavior, and molecular genetic characteristics. The following questions capture these traits.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 394

1.4.1 Are all the major life-history strategies that occurred historically still expressed 

within the population?

Major life-history strategies include adult run timing, juvenile migration patterns, and 

resident or anadromous life-history forms. This question addresses the occurrence of 

these strategies within the population and their distribution.

Note that questions relating to the “historic condition” cannot be answered definitively 

for populations in the southeast Washington State recovery area (). The major life-history 

strategies used by populations historically cannot be determined because of past 

management actions. Therefore, we assume that life-history strategies based on 

information from other similar populations may apply to SEWMU populations. This 

should be addressed under research needs.

1.4.2 Is the morphological, life history, and/or behavioral differentiation within and 

between populations consistent with the historic condition or a suitable reference 

condition?

This question deals with the average condition, amount of variability, and presence or 

absence of phenotypic traits. The focus is on spawn timing, size at age, and fecundity at 

age. A reference condition for phenotypic variation is needed to determine if this goal is 

achieved.

1.4.3 Is the genetic differentiation within and between populations consistent with the 

historical condition or a suitable reference condition?

This question is concerned with the amount of molecular genetic variation within and 

between populations. A reference condition for genotypic variation is needed to 

determine if this goal is achieved.

How does the origin of natural spawners affect the populations’ ability to trend 

towards recovery and restoration criteria?

This overarching question has five sub questions concerning the specific make up of the 

natural spawners and their potential affect on population viability:

1) Is the proportion of natural spawners within the population that is derived from a 

local (within population) hatchery brood-stock program, which is using best 

management practices,33 trending to the recovery and restoration criteria for each 

population?

 

33 The ICTRT (2005) indicates that hatchery programs that conform to the principles described in recent 

publications (e.g., Flagg et al. 2004; Olson et al. 2004; HSRG 2004; Mobrand et al. 2005) could be considered to 

have ―best management practices.‖ Main components of the program to be considered include broodstock selection, 

efforts to minimize within-population homogenization, actions to prevent domestication or other in-hatchery 

selection, breeding protocols, and other efforts to minimize effects on population structure and fitness.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 395

This question deals with the number (or fraction) of natural spawners that are made up of 

hatchery fish derived from within the population. There is theoretically less risk to the 

population if the hatchery fish were raised in a program using local (within population) 

broodstock and best hatchery management practices.

2) Is the proportion of natural spawners within the population that is derived from a 

local brood-stock program, which is not using best management practices, trending to 

the recovery and restoration criteria for each population?

Like the last question, this one deals with the number (or fraction) of natural spawners 

that are made up of hatchery fish derived from within the population. However, this 

question is concerned with the number of hatchery fish from programs that do not use 

best hatchery management practices.

3) Is the proportion of natural spawners within the population that is derived from a 

within-MPG brood-stock program trending to the recovery and restoration criteria for 

each population?

This question deals with the number (or fraction) of natural spawners that are made up of 

hatchery fish derived from outside the population, but within the major population 

grouping. 

4) Is the proportion of natural spawners within the population that is made up of 

exogenous, 34 out-of-MGP strays trending to the recovery and restoration criteria for 

each population?

This question deals with the number (or fraction) of natural spawners that are made up of 

hatchery or naturally produced35 fish derived from outside the major population grouping, 

but within the ESU. 

5) Is the proportion of natural spawners within the population that is made up of 

exogenous, out-of-ESU strays trending to the recovery and restoration criteria for each 

population?

This question deals with the number (or fraction) of natural spawners that are made up of 

hatchery or naturally produced fish derived from outside the ESU.

 

34 ―Exogenous‖ includes all fish of hatchery origin and all natural-origin fish that are present because of unnatural, 

anthropogenically-induced conditions, but would not normally be present within the population (ICTRT 2005).

35 Detecting naturally produced fish from outside the MPG or ESU requires unique tags or genetic analysis. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 396

1.4.5 Is the distribution of spawners across naturally occurring habitat types within 

the geographic area of the population trending to the recovery and restoration criteria 

for each population?

This question deals with the presence of spawners in all ecoregions (Level IV; Omernick 

1987) that were used by the population historically.

1.4.6 Are there ongoing anthropogenic activities that are causing selective mortality or 

habitat change within or outside the boundaries of the population?

This question is concerned with the factors that intentionally or unintentionally affect 

natural levels of variation within the population. 

At this time, the mechanisms and magnitude of each selective influence on the genotypic 

and phenotypic traits are not understood. Additional input from the ICTRT, RIST, or 

other entities is needed to identify what data are needed to rate this metric adequately. 

Therefore, this document does not provide a specific monitoring plan for determining if 

anthropogenic activities have a selective mortality on SEWMU populations. 

Collecting data that can be used to answer these specific questions will help federal agencies determine if 

the ESU and DPS are moving toward, and ultimately achieve, recovery criteria.

Question 2: Are the primary factors limiting the status of the population/ESU/DPS increasing 

or decreasing?

Before the ESU/DPS can be reclassified or de-listed, the federal agencies must evaluate if the existing and 

ongoing institutional measures are sufficient to address the threats and ensure that the 

populations/ESU/DPS remain viable. This will be accomplished by monitoring the status and trend of 

factors limiting the viability of the populations/ESU/DPS. Answers to the following questions will help 

the federal agencies determine if the institutional measures are sufficient to address the threats.

2.1 Are the limiting factors associated with habitat being ameliorated such that they do not limit the 

desired status of the population?

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 1 (the presence or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; Figure 1). The recovery 

plan identifies specific habitat limiting factors for each population. Primary limiting 

factors include connectivity (fish passage and unscreened diversions), water quality, 

water quantity, channel morphology and complexity, and habitat fragmentation. Where 

these limiting factors occur, they need to be monitored for status and trend. In addition, 

non-limiting factors need to be monitored to ensure that they do not become limiting in 

the future.

2.2 Are the limiting factors associated with hydropower being ameliorated such that they do not limit 

the desired status of the population?
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 397

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 1 (the presence or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; Figure 1). Specific 

limiting factors associated with hydropower include fish passage survival, fish passage 

timing, straying, water quantity, water quality, and habitat alterations. The limiting 

factors identified in the recovery plan need to be monitored for status and trend. 

2.3 Are the limiting factors associated with harvest being ameliorated such that they do not limit the 

desired status of the population?

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 2 (over utilization for commercial, 

recreational or education purposes; Figure 1). The specific limiting factors associated 

with harvest include the incidental and illegal take (poaching) of SEWMU listed species. 

The take of listed species needs to be monitored over time. 

2.4 Are the limiting factors associated with hatcheries being ameliorated such that they do not limit 

the desired status of the population?

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 5 (other natural or manmade factors 

affecting continued existence; Figure C-1). Limiting factors associated with hatcheries in 

the SEWMU include ecological interactions between hatchery origin and natural origin 

fish, including predation and competition for limited resources, potential genetic effects 

resulting from interbreeding between hatchery and natural origin fish, and straying. The 

status of these factors needs to be monitored over time. 

2.4.1 Are hatchery programs meeting specific mitigation goals?

Because of the nature of hatchery programs within the SEWMU, it is important to not 

only evaluate the hatchery programs as discussed above, but also whether they are 

meeting their intended goals; to mitigate for the construction and operation of the lower 

Snake River Federal hydroprojects. As discussed in the Hatchery Appendix (Appendix 

D), one of the main goals of the hatchery programs is to provide fish for harvest 

opportunities in the SEWMU and to some extent, downstream of the SEWMU.

2.5 Are the limiting factors associated with disease and predation being ameliorated such that they do 

not limit the desired status of the population?

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 3 (disease or predation; Figure 1). 

Disease and predation by birds, fish, and mammals are limiting factors addressed in this 

question. Predation by introduced fish species (e.g., bass and walleye) and northern 

pikeminnow (native species) also affects the viability of listed species in the SEWMU. 

These factors need to be monitored for status and trend.

2.6 Are the inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms being ameliorated such that they do not 

limit the desired status of the population?
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 398

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 4 (the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; Figure 1). Federal, state, tribal, and local regulatory mechanisms are 

included in this question. Enforcement of existing regulations36 is a limiting factor in the 

SEWMU. Monitoring the status of enforcement of existing regulations is needed over 

time.

2.7 What natural factors limit the desired status of the population?

This question addresses Statutory Listing Factor 5 (other natural or manmade factors 

affecting continued existence; Figure 1). Drought and poor ocean conditions are natural 

factors that limit populations in the SEWMU. The status of these factors needs to be 

monitored over time.

Question 3: Are hatchery programs meeting specific mitigation goals?

This question is not directly focused on recovery, but on the basis and original purpose of the hatchery 

programs within the SEWMU. Mitigation goals were established through the Lower Snake River 

Compensation Program and are outlined in Appendix D of this Plan. Specific questions related to this 

question are:

3.1 Did the hatchery program return enough adults to meet the mitigation goal?

Each hatchery program within the SEWMU has adult return goals associated with them. 

Answering this question directly links to those adult return targets.

3.2 Did the hatchery program achieve the smolt-to-adult return rate goal?

Each hatchery program within the SEWMU has smolt-to-adult return goals associated 

with them. Answering this question directly links to those targets.

Question 4: Are the actions identified in the recovery plan and mitigation programs being 

implemented correctly and according to the implementation schedule?

 

36 These regulatory mechanisms are usually in the form of (from UCSRB 2007): 

Comprehensive Plans (land use, water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, etc.)

Implementing regulations (zoning, critical areas, shorelines, development standards, etc.)

Permitting processes (conditional use, substantial development, building, variance, exemptions, etc.)

Code enforcement/compliance

Environmental review (SEPA and NEPA)
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 399

This question contains two parts: (1) were actions implemented according to the implementation schedule 

and (2) were actions implemented correctly. Each component has the following specific questions.

4.1 Were actions implemented according to the implementation schedule?

In order for the recovery plan to meet its proposed timeframe for recovery, the actions 

need to be implemented according to the implementation schedule. This question deals 

with whether or not recovery actions are tracking with the implementation schedule. If 

the implementation of recovery actions does not track the implementation schedule (i.e., 

actions actually implemented lag behind the implementation schedule), the time to 

recovery may be delayed. 

4.1.1What types of actions were implemented this year?

Types of actions include fish screening, fish passage, instream flow, instream structure, 

off-channel wetland, riparian sediment reduction, upland agriculture, upland vegetation, 

upland wetland, water quality improvement, land protection, and nutrient enrichment 

project types (Table C-2).

4.1.2 How many actions of each type were implemented this year?

There are many different kinds of projects that fit under a given project type (Table C-2). 

This question addresses the number of projects of each type that are implemented in a 

given year.

4.1.3 Did the number of actions implemented this year meet the target number 

identified in the implementation schedule or adaptive management plan?

It is the intent of the implementation schedule to identify near-term and out-year projects 

and project categories needed to make progress towards meeting the objectives stated in 

the recovery plan but implementation requires project sponsors, landowner agreements, 

and funding. These constraints can affect the number of actions implemented in any 

single year.

4.1.4 What factors prevented the target number of actions from being implemented? 

This question deals with why a proposed project was not implemented. Factors such as 

inadequate funding, lack of appropriate permits, landowner denial, requires an 

assessment, or unfavorable scientific review may preclude the implementation of a 

project. 

4.2 Were actions implemented correctly?

This question deals with the types of actions implemented, where they were 

implemented, and how much area or stream length was affected by the action. All 

proposed actions should have detailed descriptions of engineering and design criteria. 

These design plans are used to determine if the projects were implemented correctly. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 400

4.2.1 Were the actions implemented in the proper locations?

4.2.2 Were the actions implemented according to the design plans?

4.2.3 What was the total area or stream length affected by the action?

As noted earlier, answers to these questions are not needed in making decisions about reclassification or 

delisting. They are important, however, to the Board, funding entities, and management agencies, who are 

responsible for tracking funds and the implementation of recovery actions. These questions also set the 

stage for effectiveness monitoring by demonstrating that the restoration actions were implemented 

correctly and followed the design.

Table C-2. List of types of habitat actions and specific actions associated with each type

(table modified from Katz et al. 2006).

Habitat Action Types Specific Habitat Actions

Fish Screening Fish Screen installation and replacement

Fish Passage

Fish Ladder Improvement and Installation

Fishways (ladders, chutes, or pools)

Barriers (dams or log jams)

Diversion Dam or Push-Up Dam Removal

Road Crossings (bridges)

Culvert Improvements, Upgrades, Installation, or Removal

Weirs (log or rock)

Instream Flow

Water Banked, Leased or Purchased

Irrigation Practice Improvement (delivery improvements and onfarm efficiencies)

Water Storage

Change Point-of-Diversion

Gravel Aquifer Recharge

Instream Structure

Channel Connectivity

Channel Reconfiguration (includes channel roughening)

Deflectors or Barbs

Log (Control) Weirs

Off-Channel Habitat

Non-native Plant Removal or Control

Rock (Control) Weir

Spawning Gravel Placement

Large Woody Debris

Boulders

Rootwads
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 401

Habitat Action Types Specific Habitat Actions

Log Structure or Log Jam

Beaver Introduction

Off-Channel Wetlands

Wetland Creation, Improvement, or Restoration

Wetland Invasive Species Removal

Levee or Dike Set Backs

Floodplain reconnection

Levee or Dike Set Backs

Side Channel Development

Channel Reconfiguration (including channel roughening)

Riparian Habitat

Livestock Off-stream Water Development

Water Gap Development

Fencing

Forestry Practices or Stand Management

Native Plantings

Livestock Exclusion

Conservation Grazing Management

Weed Control

Sediment Reduction

Road Relocation in Riparian Areas

Road Stream Crossing Improvements (rocked ford)

Road Drainage System Improvements

Road Obliteration

Erosion Control Structures for Cropland

Sediment Control 

Upland Agriculture

Livestock Management

Agriculture Management (BMPs; e.g., long-term direct seeding, etc)

Fencing for Grazing Management

Water Development

Upland Vegetation

Planting

Invasive Plant/weed Control

Vegetation or Stand Management

Slope Stabilization

Upland Wetlands

Wetland Creation, Improvement, or Restoration

Wetland Vegetation Planting

Wetland Invasive Species Removal

Water Quality Improvement

Return Flow Cooling

Refuse Removal
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 402

Habitat Action Types Specific Habitat Actions

Sewage Clean-Up

Toxic Clean-Up

Land Protection, Acquisition, or Lease

Streambank Protection

Upland Protection

Wetland Protection

Nutrient Enrichment

Fertilizer

Carcass Analog

Carcass Placement

Project Maintenance Site Maintenance

Question 5: Which actions are effective and should be continued?

Of all the questions, this one is the most difficult to answer. This is because it is very difficult to tease out 

the effects of a given action or suite of actions from among all the factors affecting a population, 

including the effects of other recovery actions (an issue of multiple treatment effects). Actions within all 

sectors (harvest, hatcheries, hydro, and habitat) are needed to recover the populations/ESU/DPS. This 

means that different actions within all sectors, all intending to affect VSP parameters of the populations, 

will be implemented within a relatively short time period. Trying to assess the effects of different actions 

on VSP parameters will require well designed studies with long-term control over the experiments. 

Answers to the following questions will aid in the selection and design of effectiveness monitoring plans. 

5.1 Which actions are most important to managers and funding entities?

There are several types of actions that will be implemented within and outside the 

SEWMU. Not all of these actions can or should be monitored for effectiveness at the 

population scale. However, a representative suite of actions should be monitored for 

effectiveness. Some harvest, hydro, and hatchery actions will be monitored for 

effectiveness because monitoring is required through regulatory or funding mandates 

(e.g., LSRCP, U.S. v OR, BiOps, etc.). Monitoring of hatchery programs (LSRCP and 

BPA funds) and whether they are meeting mitigation goals is a priority in the SEWMU, 

in addition to monitoring for achievement of recovery or restoration. Monitoring plans 

have already been developed for most of these actions. Other actions, such as specific 

habitat actions, will be selected for monitoring based on assurance of implementation 

(including adequate funding, landowner acceptance, possession of required permits, and 

favorable scientific review), the assumed size of their treatment effect (large signal-tonoise ratio), and the presence of adequate controls/references that can be maintained for 

the life of the monitoring study. 

5.2 What exactly do managers and funding entities need to know?
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 403

Before one designs effectiveness monitoring plans, it is important to know exactly what 

managers and funding entities need to know to make informed decisions. This plan 

recognizes three basic needs, each requiring a different monitoring approach: 

5.2.1 Did the project affect the environmental parameters (physical/chemical 

variables) that were the target of the action?

This question requires the most basic type of effectiveness monitoring (what Hillman 

(2005) called Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring or Project Monitoring). It simply 

documents the changes in habitat conditions (environmental variables) before and after 

implementation of the project. Measuring changes in biological variables (e.g., fish 

abundance and survival) is not emphasized at this level of monitoring. This question is 

primarily answered through analyses of photographs (before-after photographs taken 

from fixed locations. It is inexpensive and does not require a high level of scientific 

expertise.

5.2.2 Did the project affect environmental and biological parameters at a reach or 

habitat scale?

This question requires a monitoring plan that collects more detailed information on 

changes in environmental and biological variables. Hillman (2005) called this Level 2 

Effectiveness Monitoring. It is also referred to as the ―Bottom-Up‖ approach (Jordan et 

al. 2003) and focuses efforts on measuring desired environmental and biological effects 

at small spatial scales (reach or habitat scale). It is designed to assess the effects of 

specific projects in isolation of other restoration actions. That is, results from this type of 

effectiveness monitoring should not be confounded by actions occurring elsewhere in the 

basin.

5.2.3 Did the project affect the biological parameters at a population scale or achieve 

mitigation goals?

This question requires the most intensive monitoring at larger spatial scales (e.g., 

watershed or subbasin) over longer time periods. Hillman (2005) called this Level 3 

Effectiveness Monitoring. It has also been referred to as the ―Top-Down‖ approach 

(Jordan et al. 2003). If a single type of action is implemented within the geographic area 

of the population, the approach for assessing the effects on the population are 

straightforward (the assessment is not confounded by multiple treatment effects). 

However, if several different types of actions are implemented, the assessment becomes 

much more complex. This scenario requires intensive and extensive sampling of several 

environmental and biological parameters within the geographic area of the population. In 

some cases the effects of individual actions on fish populations may not be assessed 

unequivocally, but their cumulative effects can be measured. 

Information for each of these three questions will be collected in the SEWMU. If, in a 

well-planned study, effectiveness monitoring determines that a given action had no effect 

detected or is statistically significant, that action may not be continued and a new action 

would be implemented. Thus, effectiveness monitoring is an important component of the 

―adaptive management‖ process. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 404

Question 6: How will the data be managed and curated?

Data management is a critical part of any monitoring plan. Rarely do researchers devote the same amount 

of time and energy to data organization, management, and curation that they do to collection, analysis, 

and publication. It is important, therefore, to develop a data management strategy that will address the 

following questions.

6.1 Where will the data be stored?

A central data storage location is needed so that agencies, funding entities, managers, 

researchers, and the public can easily access information generated from the 

implementation of the monitoring plans. It is not necessary that all data collected within 

the SEWMU be in one place; however, all databases holding information from 

monitoring activities in the SEWMU should be linked. On potential example is NOAA 

Fisheries database for data collected under the Integrated Status and Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program (ISEMP). NOAA Fisheries Science Center in Seattle currently 

houses this database, although other options may be available for the SEWMU. 

6.2 In what form will the data be stored?

A database should do more than just store raw data. Any spreadsheet (flat file) can be 

used to store data. The database should also contain metadata (these are ―data about the 

data‖ and describe key attributes of the dataset), have established QA/QC guidelines, 

generate summary or derived metrics, produce data summary reports, direct field data 

collection, prescribe data elements for specified sets of variables, and accommodate large 

volumes of data from diverse sources. The database should support all sorts of data types, 

including geospatial data that describe watershed characteristics (from remote sensed 

data, DEMs, or other datasets). 

6.3 Who will manage the database?

Maintaining a regional database requires long-term funding and a commitment by 

someone to manage and maintain the database. 

6.4 How will the data be screened for errors, outliers, and missing data?

A database is only as good as the information stored in it. If the information contained in 

a database is full of errors, than management decisions based on those data are suspect. It 

is important, therefore, that information loaded into the database be screened for errors, 

outliers, and missing data. Managing errors, outliers, and missing data require QA/QC 

guidelines and data screening procedures. 

6.5 What derived metrics will be calculated?

Although it is not necessary, it would be convenient if the database calculates metrics that 

are needed to determine if the populations/ESU/DPS are moving toward recovery criteria. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 405

Examples include 10-year GMs for abundance and productivity, distribution (spatial 

structure) metrics, means and variances for habitat and biological variables, and survival 

estimates (e.g., egg-smolt, smolt-adult, etc.). These derived metrics, not the raw data, are 

often used in statistical hypothesis-testing and decision making. 

C.2.5 Prioritization

It is important to understand that not all basins can be monitored at the same intensity. In the 

development of the ASMS, it was recommended that at least one population per MPG have ―fish-in, fishout‖ monitoring occurring, in other words, monitoring of the number of adults moving into the stream, 

and the number of juvenile emigrants leaving the stream. Within the SEWMU, the Tucannon River is 

suggested for spring Chinook, and Asotin Creek for steelhead. This does not mean that monitoring should 

not occur in other watersheds, but all monitoring cannot occur in every watershed because of logistical 

and monetary concerns. 

The monitoring that is described in this Plan is substantial and comprehensive. The primary focus is to be 

able to answer all questions associated with understanding whether SEWMU populations are achieving, 

or trending toward recovery and eventually restoration, as well as meeting mitigation goals. There are 

also questions and associated monitoring to determine effectiveness of ameliorating threats that have lead 

to the factors that limit population viability.

Because funding of RM&E is limited, it will not be possible to answer all of the questions in all areas. As 

such, it will be necessary to prioritize RM&E activities to ensure that the minimum amount necessary is 

incurring so the SRSRB and other stakeholders understand whether this plan is being successful.

At the end of each objective, a summary statement is made on the level of priority, based on the priorities 

identified by Crawford and Rumsey (2009; Table C-1) and summarized at the end of each type of 

monitoring (e.g., population status and trend, limiting factors status and trend, etc.).

It is not possible at this time to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that addresses all the questions 

identified in Section C-2.2 because of logistical and monetary concerns. This monitoring and evaluation 

plan is specific to Chinook salmon and steelhead populations/ESUs/DPSs in the SEWMU and is under 

the auspice of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, which does not have authority or funding to 

monitor all activities identified in Section C-2.2. Therefore, the following prioritization scheme was 

established for monitoring recovery in the SEWMU (Table C-3). The priorities in the following table are 

similar to those established by NOAA Fisheries (see Table C-1).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 406

Table C-3. Suggested priorities for monitoring in the Southeast Washington SEWMU.

Category Criteria

Monitoring 

Priority Comments

Viable Salmonid 

Population Status 

Monitoring

Adult abundance Highest

This plan includes methods for estimating 

naturally produced spawners in most 

populations (but inadequately for the 

Lower Grande Ronde steelhead, as well as 

some other steelhead populations).

Juvenile abundance Very high

This plan includes methods for estimating 

naturally produced smolts in Asotin, 

Tucannon, Walla Walla and Touchet 

rivers.

Population productivity Very high

This plan includes methods for estimating 

spawner to spawner ratios (this will be 

especially challenging for steelhead).

Spatial structure High

This plan includes methods for estimating 

metrics for the three spatial structure 

questions for most populations.

Population diversity High This plan includes methods for estimating 

metrics for the ten diversity questions. 

Listing Factors 

Status Monitoring

Habitat High This plan includes methods for estimating 

tributary habitat quality and quantity.

Hydropower Medium

This plan identifies possible metrics and 

methods for assessing changes in the 

hydrosystem.

Harvest Very high

This plan identifies possible metrics and 

methods for assessing changes in harvest 

within the SEWMU.

Disease and predation Medium

This plan identifies possible metrics and 

methods for assessing changes in disease 

and predation.

Regulatory mechanisms Very High

This plan identifies possible metrics and 

methods for assessing changes in 

regulatory mechanisms.

Hatchery programs High

This plan includes methods for estimating 

effects on listed populations of the 

hatchery programs, as well as evaluating 

achievement of mitigation goals.

Natural factors Low

This plan identifies possible metrics and 

methods for assessing changes in natural 

factors.

This monitoring and evaluation plan will focus on the High - very High priority monitoring activities. 

This does not mean that criteria ranked as medium or low are not important to monitor. Rather, it means 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 407

that the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and partners will focus limited resources on monitoring 

those aspects of recovery that are most important to their needs and commitments. Monitoring of medium 

and low priority criteria will occur as resources are available or under other venues with differing 

mandates (e.g., LSRCP, US v OR, FCRPS BiOp obligation, etc.). However, this plan does offer possible 

metrics and methods for monitoring medium and low priority criteria. 

It is important to point out that this plan focuses primarily on monitoring the status and trend of VSP 

parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity), the effectiveness of hatchery 

programs to meet conservation and mitigation (through harvest) goals, and changes in habitat and 

hatchery limiting factors. It places less emphasis on monitoring the status and trend of limiting factors 

associated with hydropower, disease and predation, and natural factors. This plan also emphasizes 

implementation monitoring. 

In addition, this Plan does not provide plans for monitoring the effectiveness of specific actions, nor does 

it provide research plans. It does, however, provide a framework for establishing valid effectiveness 

monitoring plans. The framework can also be used to guide the development of valid research plans. 

Designing research plans should be left to the creative minds of those involved with addressing the 

critical uncertainties identified in the recovery plan. 

This plan is specific to Chinook salmon and steelhead populations within the SEWMU. Although the 

recovery plan addresses actions that should result in the delisting of bull trout, this monitoring and 

evaluation plan does not address bull trout. Bull trout monitoring plans may be developed and added to 

this appendix after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide guidance on monitoring objectives, 

methods, sampling designs, and analyses.

Finally, this monitoring and evaluation plan is a working document, which means that it will change as 

new information becomes available, as the implementation schedule is modified, and as the adaptive 

management process cycles through its decision-making process. 

C.2.6 Current Monitoring 

Although there is a significant amount of monitoring already occurring within the SEWMU, additional 

information is needed to assess changes in VSP parameters and listing factors. Much of the current fish 

monitoring efforts are targeted at determining whether the hatchery programs are meeting mitigation 

goals and what effects the hatcheries are having on natural populations. Population status and trend 

monitoring for naturally produced steelhead is often funded incidentally to the mitigation monitoring, but 

it is much more integral for the Chinook salmon populations because adult abundance information is 

easier to measure than steelhead. Only two populations in southeast Washington are currently adequately 

monitored to provide estimates of adult escapement; Asotin Creek steelhead and Tucannon spring 

Chinook salmon. Steelhead escapement abundance in southeast Washington is also available for most 

years from redd surveys in index areas in portions of the Touchet and Tucannon rivers, and fall Chinook 

salmon escapement is estimated for Tucannon. Other redd counts are periodically collected in other 

geographic areas to provide distribution and relative abundance information. However, currently there are 

no means to compile the information obtained from the current monitoring efforts consistently that would 

allow appropriate analyses to determine if recovery and restoration criteria are being met at the population 

and MPG level. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 408

The following is a summary of the primary current monitoring efforts underway in the SEWMU (Table 

C-4). This table will need to be updated on a regular basis because some projects may be completed, 

while new ones will be implemented in the future. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 409

Table C-4. Current monitoring projects in the SEWMU and relationship to VSP (modified and updated from Table 9-1 

from SRSRB 2006).

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

All (or 

more than 

one)

Bull Trout monitoring in 

SE WA

Initial study to 

determine bull 

trout distribution 

and relative 

abundance in the 

upper Tucannon 

drainage and the 

Wenaha basin 

within WA. Data is 

being collected 

through 

electroshocking 

and spawning 

surveys and 

genetic analysis

Active, 

Partially 

Funded

WDFW USFWS Section 6 

Funding High (this 

information is 

needed to assess 

recovery of bull 

trout)

Tucannon, 

Touchet, 

Grande 

Ronde 

(Wenaha 

River)

● ● ●

Resident Fish Monitoring

Baseline effort to 

monitor resident 

fish populations 

and plan in SE 

Washington.

Conceptual WDFW WDFW and 

USFWS Recovery ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 410

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Anadromous Fish 

Monitoring

Baseline effort to 

monitor 

anadromous fish 

populations and 

plan in SE 

Washington.

Active, 

Partially 

Funded

WDFW, CTUIR BPA, LSRCP, 

USACOE, PSMFC

Very High

(This project 

should be fully 

funded to ensure 

that all 

information on 

populations 

within these 

streams is 

collected 

consistently and 

over a large 

enough time 

frame so it can 

be included in 

population 

assessments of 

NMFS).

Walla Walla, 

Mill Creek, 

Upper 

Touchet, 

Coppei, 

Upper 

Tucannon, 

Alpowa, 

Deadman, 

Asotin, 

George, 

Charley, 

Almota, 

Pataha, 

Penawawa, 

etc.

● ● ● ●

Anadromous Fish Planning

Funds are used for 

anadromous fish 

population and 

recovery planning, 

stock status 

reviews, etc.

Active and 

ongoing WDFW WDFW

High (important 

to maintain 

funding so 

WDFW can 

participate in 

local and 

regional 

planning efforts, 

etc.)

Snake River 

and tribs and 

Walla Walla 

Basin

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Spring Chinook Creel 

Surveys

Conduct creel 

surveys to 

determine number 

of spring Chinook 

caught in sport 

fisheries.

Active and 

ongoing WDFW WDFW

Very high

(information is 

important for

run 

reconstruction 

and ESA take 

levels)

Snake River 

and tribs ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 411

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Spring Chinook - Hatchery 

Supplementation and 

Mitigation Evaluation

Evaluate hatchery 

effects on natural 

spring Chinook 

populations; 

determine the 

relative 

reproductive 

success of natural 

vs. hatchery spring 

Chinook; estimate 

juvenile 

productivity 

(survival rates by 

life stage and 

smolt production 

estimates).

Active and 

ongoing

WDFW for the Tucannon R and 

CTUIR for the Walla Walla River

LSRCP, and BPA 

for CTUIR

Very high

(without proper 

monitoring 

managers and 

other 

stakeholders 

will not be able 

to determine 1 if 

mitigation goals 

are being met, 

and 2) whether 

there are 

deleterious 

effects of the 

hatchery 

programs).

Snake River 

and tribs ● ● ● ● ●

Fall Chinook - Hatchery 

Supplementation/Mitigation 

/stock recovery evaluation 

Determine the 

effects hatchery 

fall Chinook have 

on wild fall 

Chinook 

population.

Active WDFW, NPT LSRCP

Very high (See 

Spring Chinook 

- Hatchery 

Supplementation 

and Mitigation 

Evaluation)

Snake River 

and tribs ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 412

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Steelhead - Evaluation of 

Harvest Mitigation and 

Supplementation Programs 

Endemic 

broodstock 

development; 

determine hatchery 

steelhead behavior 

(juvenile 

residualism, adult 

straying), juvenile 

productivity 

(survival rates by 

life stage and 

smolt production 

estimates).

Active WDFW LSRCP

Very high (See 

Spring Chinook 

- Hatchery 

Supplementation 

and Mitigation 

Evaluation)

Snake River 

and tribs and 

Walla Walla 

Basin

● ● ● ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 413

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Snake River Fall Chinook 

Relative Reproductive 

Success 

Utilize DNA 

samples from 

hatchery endemic 

Snake River fall 

Chinook and wild 

Snake fall Chinook 

to assess the 

applicability of a 

technique to assign 

parental origin to 

outmigrant fall 

Chinook smolts. 

The technique is 

being assessed on 

the Snake River, a 

system far too 

large to conduct a 

more traditional 

genetic parentage 

assignment study, 

to determine if the 

relative 

reproductive 

success of hatchery 

and wild Chinook 

can be accurately 

measured in a 

large river system.

Conceptual WDFW et al. BPA

Medium (BPA 

will eventually 

be sending out a 

targeted 

solicitation to 

satisfy its 

responsibility 

under RPAs 64 

and 65 of the 

FCRPS BiOp) 

Snake River 

and tribs ● ●

Watershed Planning 

Setting instream 

flows and 

allocation 

recommendations.

Active WDOE WDOE

Snake 

tributaries in 

SE WA

●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 414

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Tucannon/Asotin 

Watersheds Macro 

Invertebrate Study 

Project provides 

baseline 

information on 

species and 

population 

diversity within the 

Tucannon 

Watershed. Study 

of species as an 

indicator of the 

healthy water 

conditions. 

Conceptual USFS USFS

Asotin/ 

Tucannon 

Rivers and 

Tribs

● ● ● ●

Walla 

Walla

Walla Walla Basin (within 

WA) Salmonid Population 

and Habitat Assessment

(2000-039-00)

Assess habitat 

conditions, fish 

distribution and 

relative abundance 

(adult and 

juvenile), and 

salmonid genetic 

characterization. 

Active WDFW and CTUIR BPA

Very High as it 

provides adult 

abundance and 

productivity for 

naturally 

produced 

steelhead and 

reintroduced 

salmon

Walla Walla ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Natural production 

monitoring -

Monitor adult and 

juvenile 

abundance, 

distribution, age 

and growth, 

outmigration and 

survival.

Active WDFW and CTUIR BPA

Very High

(continue 

funding)

Walla Walla ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 415

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Walla Walla Fish Passage 

Project (1996-011-00)

Evaluating fish 

passage conditions 

in Mill Creek and 

other locations in 

the basin.

Active TSS, , WWCC, IEAC, WDFW SRFB BPA 

Accords

Very High

(continue 

funding)

Walla 

WallaMill 

Creek, 

Yellowhawk, 

Spring 

Creek, 

Touchet

● ● ●

Walla Walla Flow 

Enhancement Feasibility 

Evaluation

Determine the 

need and 

opportunities for 

increasing stream 

flow.

Active CTUIR USACE BPA USACOE Walla Walla ●

Walla Walla IFIM Study

Conduct and IFIM 

evaluation of 

stream flow, and in 

the Walla Walla 

River basin. 

Active Conservation District Walla Walla ●

Walla Walla Mainstem Bull 

Trout Evaluation

Monitor bull trout 

abundance and 

usage of mainstem 

habitat in the 

Walla Walla.

Active 

ongoing USFWS USFWS Moderately 

High Walla Walla ● ● ● ● ●

Walla Walla Bull Trout 

Abundance and Life 

History

Determine bull 

trout 

abundance/life 

history data in 

Oregon portion of 

Walla Walla.

Mostly 

completed Utah State University/ USFWS USFWS

High (this 

information is 

needed to assess 

recovery of bull 

trout)

Walla Walla ● ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 416

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Upper Mill Creek Bull 

Trout Study

Determine 

abundance, 

distribution, 

spawning of bull 

trout in Upper Mill 

Creek.

Active 

ongoing ODFW/ USFS, WDFW BPA Walla Walla (Mill Creek) ● ● ● ●

Video Monitoring of Adult 

Passage (Walla Walla 

River)

Conduct video 

dam counts of 

adult passage at 

Bennington Dam 

and Yellowhawk 

Diversion (Mill 

Creek).

Active and 

ongoing CTUIR USACE

Very High (this 

information is 

needed for 

stocks 

assessment)

Walla Walla 

(Mill Creek) ● ● ●

Walla Walla Water Budget

Develop a waterbudget for the 

Walla Walla River. 

Project is 

inventorying all 

water sources 

including springs, 

wells, and surface 

flows.

Active Walla Walla Watershed Council

WDOE, QWEB 

(Oregon watershed 

enhancement 

board)

Walla Walla ●

Walla Walla TMDL Study

WDOE is 

conducting a 

TMDL evaluation 

of the Walla Walla 

River basin.

Completed WDOE/OWR WDOE/OWR Walla Walla ●

Watershed Planning 

Setting instream 

flows and 

allocation 

recommendations.

Completed WDOE WDOE Walla Walla
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 417

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Tucannon

Tucannon Bull Trout 

Telemetry 

Study the behavior 

of bull trout in the 

Tucannon and 

Snake rivers, and 

determine numbers 

and movements of 

bull trout from the 

Tucannon into the 

Snake River to 

evaluate the effects 

of the COE 

hydrosystem on 

this species

Completed WDFW and USFWS BPA

Medium (this 

information will 

supplement 

information that 

has already been 

collected)

Tucannon ● ● ●

Tucannon Captive Brood 

Project 

Development and 

implementation of 

a captive 

broodstock 

program for one 

generation of 

Tucannon Spring 

Chinook to buoy 

the population 

through a 

bottleneck. A 

comparison of 

captive, 

supplementation 

and wild 

productivity, 

genetics and life 

stage performance 

will be 

documented.

Complete 

after 2011 WDFW BPA

Low (this 

program has 

phased out;)

Tucannon ● ● ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 418

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Tucannon Bull Trout 

Genetics Sampling 

Collaborative 

effort between 

WDFW and 

USFWS to 

characterize 

genetics of the 

Tucannon bull 

trout populations 

in various reaches 

of the upper 

Tucannon drainage

Active WDFW / USFWS WDFW / USFWS

Medium (this 

information will 

supplement 

information that 

has already been 

collected)

Tucannon ●

Tucannon Cobble 

Embeddedness Assessment

Assess habitat 

conditions 

pertaining to 

percent fines and 

sediment using 

Wolmans‘ Pebble 

counts and 

embeddeness 

transects on 

Tucannon 

mainstem and its 

tributaries. Study 

will compare 

current conditions 

to those collected 

previously. 

Active USFS and CCD BPA Tucannon ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 419

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Tucannon Watershed 

Sediment and Temperature 

Monitoring 

Project provides 

baseline 

information on fish 

and habitat 

conditions in the 

Tucannon River 

and its tributaries. 

Hobos to monitor 

temperature and 

ISCO sediment 

samplers for 

turbidity are placed 

for continuous 

assessment of 

project activity 

effects. 

Active USFS, CCD, WDFW, WDOE USFS, WDOE, 

BPA Tucannon ●

Snake River TMDL Study

WDOE is 

conducting a 

temperature 

TMDL evaluation 

of the Tucannon 

basin.

Complete WDOE WDOE

Snake 

tributaries in 

SE WA

●

Asotin

Asotin Creek Road 

Abandonment Program and 

Culvert Replacement 

Program

See habitat actions 

table – Study to 

develop lists of 

roads and culverts 

that with removal 

will increase the 

quality/quantity of 

salmon habitat.

Active and 

ongoing

Nez Perce/

USFS BPA/USFS Asotin Creek ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 420

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Asotin County Sediment 

and Temperature 

Monitoring 

Project provides 

baseline 

information on fish 

and habitat 

conditions in the 

Asotin Creek and 

its tributaries. 

Hobos to monitor 

temperature and 

ISCO sediment 

samplers for 

turbidity are placed 

for continuous 

assessment of 

project affects.

Partial 

active USFS/ACCD Watershed Planning USFS/BPA WDOE Asotin Creek ●

Assess Salmonids in the 

Asotin Creek Watershed 

(2002-053-00)

This project 

implements the 

RM&E criteria 

specified in the 

Asotin Subbasin 

Plan by providing 

estimates of 

abundance, 

productivity, 

survival rates, and 

temporal and 

spatial distribution 

of ESA-listed 

species.

Active WDFW BPA

Very High

(This 

information is 

essential in 

estimating VSP 

parameters in 

Asotin Creek for 

steelhead; 

ensure 

continued 

funding).

Asotin Creek ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 421

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Asotin Creek IMW

This project 

implements 

rigorous habitat 

and juvenile 

salmonid 

abundance 

baseline sampling 

with intensive 

habitat 

manipulation to 

address limiting 

factors and 

document if there 

is population 

response

Active SRSRB, Ecologic NMFS

Very High

(This is one of a 

small number of 

IMW 

watersheds 

dedicated to 

understanding 

the effects of 

habitat 

restoration.

NF Asotin

SF Asotin

Charley Cr.

● ●

Asotin Creek Water Quality 

Analysis

Determine water 

quality in Asotin 

Creek.

Conceptual Conservation District Asotin Creek ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 422

Basin Project Description

Project 

Status Lead Entity Funding Source Priority Location

Monitoring addresses:

Habitat

VSP

Hatchery EffectsHarvest Effects

AbundanceProductivitySpatial StructureDiversity

Grande 

Ronde

Grande Ronde 

Supplementation program 

M&E (NPPC 1998-007-03)

Develop, 

implement, and 

evaluate integrated 

conventional and 

captive brood 

hatchery projects 

to prevent 

extinction and 

stabilize 

populations of 

threatened spring 

Chinook salmon 

and summer 

steelhead 

populations in the 

Grande Ronde 

River.

Active In Oregon only CTUIR BPA Grande 

Ronde ● ● ● ● ●

Life Studies of Spring 

Chinook (NPPC 

1992-026-04)

Investigate the 

abundance, 

migration patterns, 

survival, and life 

history strategies 

of spring Chinook 

salmon and 

summer steelhead 

from distinct 

populations and 

implement fish 

population and 

habitat monitoring 

in the Grande 

Ronde and Imnaha 

River basins.

Conceptual In Oregon only ODFW BPA Grande 

Ronde ● ● ● ● ●
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 423

C.2.7 Population Status/Trend Monitoring Plan

This section outlines status/trend monitoring plans for VSP parameters for populations of Chinook 

salmon (spring Chinook in the Tucannon, Asotin, and Wenaha) and steelhead (Walla Walla, Touchet, 

Tucannon, Asotin, Joseph Creek, and Lower Grande Ronde) in the SEWMU. As noted in Section C2.2, bull trout monitoring plans will be developed after receiving direction from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

For each population, we recommend a monitoring plan that should answer each of the questions 

identified under Question 1 in Section C-2.2 (except question 1.4.10, which is addressed in the 

Limiting Factors section). Each question or set of questions was translated into a monitoring objective. 

Thus, there are 10 objectives that need to be addressed for each population. Under each objective, a 

sampling design is recommended that could be used to address the objective (e.g., census or some type 

of probabilistic sampling); the spatial/temporal scale of the objective and sampling design; what 

variables could be measured in the field; what methods or protocols could be used to measure the 

variables; what metrics could be derived from the measured variables; what statistical method if any 

could be used to analyze the data; who is likely to fund the monitoring; and who could oversee 

implementation and coordination of the study. 

Because different entities or agencies will likely implement the monitoring plans across the SEWMU, 

we outlined independent plans for each species separately, because sampling designs, methods, and 

protocols are essentially similar across populations. This should make it easier for the entities 

responsible for monitoring a specific population to implement the plan. To the extent possible, the

Board and monitoring entities will need to coordinate activities across subbasins to ensure efficient use 

of funds. 

C.2.8 SEWMU Spring Chinook

Most of the information needed to monitor the status of SEWMU spring Chinook salmon is currently 

collected under the LSRCP by WDFW. This plan will supplement the existing program so that the 

status and trend of the SEWMU spring Chinook salmon populations can be compared with recovery 

criteria.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 424

Objective 1: Determine if the abundance of spring Chinook spawners within the SEWMU 

Populations meet recovery and restoration criteria.

Monitoring Questions:

Is the 10-year GM (with uncertainty expressed as 1 SE and 95% CI)37 of spring Chinook 

spawners greater than or equal to the recovery or restoration criteria:

Population Recovery (natural-origin)

Restoration (natural- and 

hatchery origin)

Tucannon 750 2,400-3,400

Asotina500 500

Wenaha 750 1,335

a

Even though Asotin Creek is functionally extinct, the ICTRT and SR RTT have developed criteria.

Sampling Design:

Redds—Complete census of all redds observed during spawning surveys. 

Carcasses—Complete census of all hatchery and natural origin carcasses observed during 

spawning surveys (number of carcasses sampled should be no less than 20% of the estimated 

spawning escapement).

Trapping-Enumerate the number and origin of fish used for broodstock and passed upstream 

of the weir.

Sex Ratios—Sample all fish collected at broodstock collection sites (currently at Tucannon 

Hatchery Adult Trap – river kilometer (rkm) 59 on the Tucannon River) or recovered as 

carcasses. Sexual characteristics may be difficult to determine during broodstock capture for 

spring Chinook salmon).

Telemetry study - Determine fate of Tucannon River spring Chinook38

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redds & Carcasses—The entire distribution of the population is surveyed annually.

Redds & Carcasses—Sampling is conducted at least once per week throughout the spawning 

season (August-September).

 

37 Follows the dual comparison approach developed by the ICTRT (2007).

38 A telemetry study has been proposed to attempt to determine the fate of Tucannon River fish that continue 

migrating upstream of the Tucannon River. Goals and objectives will need to be developed, and it will need to 

be determined if the co-managers and other stakeholders will need to understand how many of the fish that 

migrate upstream of Lower Granite Dam eventually move back into the Tucannon River, or, in addition to that, 

fully understand the final fate of the fish during spawning season, since it will affect the scope of the study.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 425

Sex Ratios—Run is sampled at broodstock collection sites (currently at Tucannon Hatchery 

Adult Trap – river kilometer (rkm) 59 on the Tucannon River; as mentioned above, sex may 

be difficult to determine at broodstock capture).

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number of redds.

Origin—Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish sampled as carcasses on spawning 

grounds in conjunction with origin determination of fish passed upstream of the adult trap.

Sex—Number of males and females sampled at broodstock collection sites and on the 

spawning grounds. 

Harvest—Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish harvested.

Strays-Number of fish determined to have bypassed the Tucannon River.

Strays – number of spring/summer Chinook of origin other than the target population in 

spawning population.

Measurement Protocols:

Redds & Carcasses—Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within 

the distribution of the population (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Origin—Examination for marks or tags on carcasses (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Sex Ratio—Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock and or carcasses (using 

morphological characteristics, dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound) (Gallinat and Ross 

2009).

Derived Variables:

Estimate spawners per redd.

Estimate total number of naturally produced spawners.

Calculate 10-yr GM for abundance of naturally produced fish.

Analysis:

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the abundance estimates 

(ICTRT 2007).

Combine the abundance estimate with the productivity estimate (from Objective 2) and plot it 

with SE and 95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

If greater than 1% extinction risk on the viability curve, calculate the probability that the 

population has greater than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Compare the 10-yr GM (with estimates of uncertainty) to the abundance criterion.

Track the trend in 10-yr GM abundance estimates. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP. 

BPA and NOAA Fisheries may contribute additional funds.

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 426

Implementation and Coordination:39

Field work is implemented and coordinated primarily by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded programs and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a highest priority objective for Tucannon spring Chinook and for the mainstem 

Wenaha and the Butte Creek area within WA for the Wenaha population. This may become 

a highest priority for spring Chinook in Asotin when reintroduction efforts begin.

Objective 2: Determine if the productivity of naturally produced spring Chinook spawners 

and juveniles40 within SEWMU Populations meet recovery and restoration criteria.

Monitoring Questions:

Is the 20-year GM of productivity (spawner/spawner; with uncertainty expressed as 1 SE and 

95% CI)41 of naturally produced spring Chinook in SEWMU subbasins greater than or equal 

to the recovery criteria:

Population Recovery of natural-origin

Restoration (natural- and 

hatchery origin)

Tucannon 2.75 (1% risk) > 1.0

Asotina1.9 (5%) > 1.0

Wenaha 1.76 (5%) > 1.0

a

Even though Asotin Creek is functionally extinct, the ICTRT and SR RTT have developed criteria.

Has the number of juveniles (emigrants) increased, and emigrants per redd increased?

Sampling Design:

From Objective 1 for adults.

Census (based on mark-recapture to calibrate trapping efficiency) of smolts and emigrants 

through trapping for juvenile migrants. 

 

39 Implementation and coordination in the context of this RM&E portion of the recovery plan is meant as an 

indication of which agency may assist in procuring funding and tracking implementation.

40 While juvenile productivity is not a VSP parameter, it is one of the only measures of success of habitat 

restoration projects and is therefore an important component of this Plan.

41 Follows the dual comparison approach developed by the ICTRT (2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 427

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redds & Carcasses—Objective 1.

Sex Ratios—Objective 1.

Annual estimates of the number of juveniles emigrating.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number of redds (from Objective 1).

Origin—Origin of carcasses (hatchery or naturally produced fish) (from Objective 1).

Sex—Sex ratio of broodstock collected over the run (from Objective 1).

Age—Age composition from both broodstock and carcasses (scale analysis/tag recovery).

Harvest—Number of naturally produced fish harvested (from Objective 1).

Strays-Number of fish determined to have bypassed the Tucannon River (from Objective 1).

Number of juveniles (smolts and parr [not appropriate for all populations]).

Measurement Protocols:

Redds & Carcasses—Objective 1. 

Age Structure—Collect and read scales/CWT from all carcasses and broodstock sampled for 

Objective 1 (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Sex Ratio—Objective 1. 

Count smolts and emigrants using smolt traps following methods in Bumgarner et al. (2000), 

Gallinat et al. (2001), Mayer et al. (2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009).

Derived Variables:

Calculate the age structure of the spawning population.

Calculate the number of NORs [number of natural origin recruits (spawners and other fish 

taken in harvest) by brood year for naturally produced parents, includes estimates of prespawning mortality].

Calculate productivity or recruits per spawner as the ratio of NORs to total spawners by brood 

year.

Calculate 20-yr GM for productivity of naturally produced fish.

Calculate 20-yr intrinsic population productivity, which limits the return per spawner time 

series for escapements that exceed the estimated 75% threshold associated with carrying 

capacity (ICTRT 2007).

Number of juveniles (smolts and parr) per redd.

Analysis:

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the productivity 

estimate (ICTRT 2007).

Combine the productivity estimate with the abundance estimate (from Objective 1) and plot it 

with SE and 95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

If less than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve, calculate the probability that the 

population is really greater than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Compare the 20-yr GM (with estimates of uncertainty) to the productivity criterion.

Track the trend in 20-yr GM productivity estimates (for all natural spawners and for naturalorigin spawners separately). 

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 428

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

BPA or NOAA Fisheries may contribute additional funds.

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a highest priority objective for Tucannon spring Chinook and spring Chinook 

salmon. It is a lower priority for the Wenaha salmon, if feasible there.

Objective 3: Determine if the number and spatial arrangement of spring Chinook 

spawning areas within SEWMU subbasins meets recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

What is the spatial arrangement of the occupied spawning areas used by SEWMU spring 

Chinook?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all major spawning areas.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number and locations of spring Chinook redds.

Carcass origin – wild and hatchery origin fish.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Derived Variables:

Number and distribution of redds throughout major spawning areas.

Proportion of hatchery and wild origin fish spawning in spatial reaches of SEWMU subbasins.

Analysis:

Analyze as distribution data (linear, dendritic, trellis, etc.).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 429

Analyze as a time series to determine if major spawning areas meet the occupancy standards.42

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 4: Determine if the spatial extent or range of the spawning population meets 

recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are all historical major spawning areas used by SEWMU spring/summer Chinook salmon 

meeting occupancy standards?43

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number and locations of spring Chinook redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

 

42 Occupied areas are those in which two or more redds from natural origin spawners have been observed in all 

years of the most recent brood cycle (one generation) and for at least half of the most recent three brood cycles. 

For major spawning areas there must be two or more redds in both the upper and lower halves of the weighted 

intrinsic potential area (ICTRT 2007).

43 There must be two or more redds in both the upper and lower halves of the weighted intrinsic potential area 

(ICTRT 2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 430

Derived Variables:

Number and distribution of redds throughout the presumed historical range of the species.

Analysis:

Analyze as distribution data (goodness of fit).

Analyze data over time to determine if distributions meet the occupancy standards.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 5: Determine if the distance (gaps) between spring Chinook spawning areas is 

increasing. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are 75% or more of the major spawning areas occupied?

If relevant for the specific basin or population, have unoccupied major spawning areas caused 

gaps of 10 km or more between spawning areas?

Has the loss of minor spawning areas at the lower end of the population caused an increase in 

distance to an adjacent population of more than 25 km?

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Locations of spring Chinook redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Derived Variables:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 431

Percent of major spawning areas occupied.

Distance (km) between occupied major spawning areas.

Distance between populations. 

Population demographics of spawning areas (variable distribution of hatchery and wild)

Analysis:

Compare current gap to presumed historical gap.

Track gaps between major spawning areas and between populations over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP. 

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 432

Objective 6: Determine if the major life history strategies used by spring Chinook in 

SEWMU subbasins are similar to those used historically. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are all the major life-history strategies (adult run timing; and juvenile migration patterns) that 

occurred historically still expressed within the spring Chinook population? 

Sampling Design:

Adult run timing—Continuous sampling at hydroelectric dams (adult fish ladders) and 

broodstock collection sites (Adult fish traps).

Adult scale and tag analysis—Sample all fish collected at broodstock collection sites, at stock 

assessment sites, and from carcasses on spawning grounds to determine if yearling smolt 

migration is still the major life-history pattern.

Juvenile migration patterns—Continuous (during normal operational time) operation of rotary 

traps.

Juvenile migration patterns—Juvenile spring Chinook will be PIT tagged and their 

movements detected near the mouths of the major tributaries. These fish can also be detected 

at Columbia River hydroelectric projects during their migrations to and from the ocean.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Adult run timing—Annual sampling will occur at mainstem dams and at the broodstock 

collection sites throughout the migration period. 

Adult scale and tag analysis— Annual sampling will occur for collected broodstock and 

carcasses recovered on the spawning grounds.

Juvenile migration patterns—Annual sampling at the rotary traps.

Juvenile migration patterns—PIT tag sampling will occur annually. 

Measured Variables:

Adults—Number and time of adults passing counting, collection, or detection stations.

Adults—Age at smolting (from scale analysis).

Juveniles—Number and time of juveniles collected at collection stations. 

Measurement Protocols:

PIT tagged adults will be counted at mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams, and at remote 

PIT tag array sites.

Collect and read scales and tags from all carcasses and broodstock sampled (Gallinat and Ross 

2009).

Juveniles will be counted at rotary traps using methods described in Gallinat and Ross (2009) 

and at remote PIT tag detection sites.

Derived Variables:

Adult migration timing—Calculate beginning, peak, and end of run timing.

Estimate adult abundance from proportion of juvenile migrant population PIT tagged for inseason estimates of abundance.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 433

Adult scale and tag analysis—Calculate the percent of adult returns that are from yearling 

smolt migrants.

Juvenile migration timing—Calculate the beginning, peak, and end of yearling smolt 

migration.

Juvenile migration—Calculate the percent of spring Chinook smolts that migrate out of the 

Tucannon as yearlings.

Using information from Objectives 1 and 2, calculate SAR and smolts per redd.44

Analysis:

Compare adult migration timing to the assumed historical or reference condition.

Track changes in migration timing of adults and juveniles over time.

Compare juvenile migration patterns to the assumed historical or reference condition. 

Track changes in the percentage of spring Chinook smolts that migrate as yearlings and the 

percentage of adults returning that migrated as yearling smolts.45

Track changes in SAR and smolts per redd over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

Adult monitoring at mainstem dams is implemented and coordinated by the Corps of 

Engineers, and PIT tag data maintained through PITAGIS.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the existing 

programs and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 7: Determine if morphological/behavioral and life-history traits of spring 

Chinook in SEWMU subbasins are changing relative to presumed historical conditions. 

Monitoring Questions:

 

44 Although SAR and smolts per redd are not directly related to the Objective 6, the information does provide 

calculation of productivity statistics.

45 At this time no effect sizes have been identified for these two analyses. That is, it has not been determined how 

large a difference in migration timing or percentage of yearling and subyearling smolts would be considered 

detrimental. In addition, at this time no reference condition has been established for these analyses.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 434

Are spawn timing, size at maturity, fecundity, and juvenile migration patterns of naturally 

produced spring Chinook changing relative to a reference condition (which may or may not be 

in the natal stream) in SEWMU populations? 

Sampling Design:

Adult spawn timing—Complete census surveys of spawning activity on the spawning 

grounds.

Size at maturity—Complete census of fish sampled as carcasses on spawning grounds and fish 

collected for broodstock.

Fecundity—All females used for broodstock collection.

Age structure—Complete census of fish sampled as carcasses on spawning grounds and fish 

collected for broodstock (from Objective 2).

Juvenile migration patterns—from Objective 6.

Compare current to presumed 1980s baseline

Tag juvenile fish

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Adult spawn timing—Annually sample all available naturally spawning adults (as carcasses) 

across the entire spawning distribution (sampling conducted weekly during AugustSeptember).

Size at Maturity—Annually sample all fish collected for broodstock and all available naturally 

spawning adults (as carcasses) across the entire spawning distribution.

Fecundity—Annually sample the fecundity of fish collected for broodstock.

Age structure—Annually collect scales and CWT from all fish collected for broodstock and 

from carcass surveys (from Objective 2).

Juvenile migration patterns—Objective 6.

Measured Variables:

Beginning (10th percentile), peak (mode), and end (90th percentile) time (Julian date) of spring 

Chinook redd construction.

Age-specific post-orbital to hypural (POH) and fork length (mm) of carcasses encountered 

during spawning ground surveys.

Age-specific fork length (mm) of fish collected for broodstock.

Age-specific fork length (mm) on a subsample of fish passed at broodstock collection sites.

Count of eggs per female spawned by age class.

Age composition from scale analysis and CWT.

Juvenile migration from Objective 6.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all known spawning areas within the 

distribution of the population (see Objective 1).

Lengths collected from all carcasses sampled during spawning surveys and from all fish 

sampled at broodstock collection sites (TFH adult trap).

Fecundity estimated by using the weight-per-count method (Gallinat and Ross 2009).

Age structure from Objective 2.

Juvenile migration from Objective 6.

Derived Variables:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 435

Tenth percentile, mode, and 90th percentile Julian date of spawning.

Average size (POH and fork length) per age class.

Average number of eggs per female by age class.

Percentage of smolts that overwinter in spawning tributaries and percentage that overwinter in 

the mainstem (if proper tagging study is implemented).

Analysis:

Assess relationship between fecundity and female size (regression analysis).

Compare fecundity at age to the assumed historical or reference condition. 46

Assess relationship between age and size (regression analysis).

Compare size at age to the assumed historical or reference condition (see footnote).

Track changes in fecundity at age and size at age over time. 

Compare juvenile migration patterns to the assumed historical or reference condition. 

Track changes in juvenile migration patterns over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the USFWS 

funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 8: Determine if the within-population genetic variation of SEWMU spring 

Chinook is consistent with low risk for viability. 

Monitoring Questions:

What is the genetic variation within the SEWMU spring Chinook populations? 

Sampling Design:

Adult sampling through broodstock and carcasses.

Temporal Sampling—Systematic sampling throughout the migration and spawning period.

Samples size = 100 naturally produced adult Chinook and 100 hatchery produced adult 

Chinook (sample sizes may not be achieved during years with low escapements). 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

 

46 At this time no historical or reference conditions have been identified for analyses requiring comparisons of 

present conditions with historical or reference conditions. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 436

Samples collected from all major spawning areas.

Samples collected once every five years. 

Measured Variables:

Microsatellite genotypes

Measurement Protocols:

Tissue samples collected from carcasses sampled during spawning ground surveys.

Microsatellite or SNP technology.

Derived Variables:

Allele frequency

Analysis:

Within collection genetic diversity (using GENETIX)

Among collection genetic differentiation (randomized chi-square using FSTAT)

Individual assignment (partial Bayesian procedure)

Possible Funding Entities:

Spawning surveys and genetic analyses are funded with BPA funds through USFWS via the 

LSRCP. 

Additional funding from state and/or federal agencies may be needed to compare results with 

recovery criteria.

Implementation and Coordination:

Genetic sampling will be implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 9: Determine if the proportion of hatchery and exogenous spring Chinook 

spawners in SEWMU subbasins meets recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

What proportion of spring Chinook spawners in SEWMU populations is derived from 

hatchery fish produced within the population using best management practices (BMPs)?

What proportion of the spring Chinook spawners in SEWMU populations is derived from 

hatchery fish produced outside the population (and source) but within the MPG or ESU 

(includes within-population programs not using BMPs)?

What proportion and origin of the spring Chinook spawners in SEWMU population is derived 

from hatchery fish produced outside the Snake River ESU?
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 437

Sampling Design:

Carcass Surveys—Objective 1.

Genetic differentiation between unmarked hatchery origin fish and natural origin fish (see 

Galliant and Ross 2009).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Carcass Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery (and source) and naturally produced fish.

Number of marked or tagged fish.

Measurement Protocols:

Carcass Surveys—Objective 1.

Adult trapping - Objective 1.

Derived Variables:

Origin of marked or tagged fish.

Expansion factors for carcass sampling rate and percentage of each mark group that is tagged.

Proportion of spawning population made up of different origin fish.

Analysis:

Use current-year data along with previous estimates to calculate the average percentage of 

total escapement within each of the three categories over an appropriate timeframe. The 

timeframe may change depending on how and when hatchery practices change, but should 

include one generation to conclude moderate risk or two to three generations to achieve a lowrisk rating (ICTRT 2007).

Direct comparison with recovery criteria.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 10: Determine if the distribution of spring Chinook spawners across the different 

ecoregions within SEWMU subbasins meets recovery and restoration criteria. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 438

Monitoring Questions:

Have there been substantial shifts in spring Chinook distribution across the basin-specific 

ecoregions?

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Locations of spring Chinook redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Derived Variables:

Number of redds within each ecoregion.

Percent of occupied spawning area within each ecoregion.

Analysis:

Compare current to historic and calculate the percent change in each of the ecoregions to 

determine if it is ―substantial‖ (defined as at least 67 percentage points) (ICTRT 2007).

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP.

State and/or federal funds may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers. 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a low priority objective.

C.2.9 Southeast Washington Recovery Area Steelhead (Walla Walla, Touchet, 

Tucannon, Asotin Creek, Joseph Creek, and Lower Grande Ronde River).

As with SEWMU spring Chinook, most of the information needed to monitor the status of steelhead in 

the SEWMU is currently collected under the LSRCP hatchery monitoring and evaluation program and 

through a separate contract with BPA in Asotin Creek (and associated populations, e.g., Alpowa 

Creek; Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009 and Mayer et al. 2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009) for the Walla 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 439

Walla subbasin. In most cases, however, these programs do not derive the metrics (e.g., 10-yr GM) 

needed to assess recovery. This plan will supplement the existing programs so that the status and trend 

of the SEWMU steelhead population can be compared with recovery criteria. In addition, new studies, 

such as PIT tag analysis from various tributary remote arrays and parental-based tagging at Lower 

Granite Dam will improve basin-specific information.

It is extremely important to note that for most Snake River steelhead populations (and in some midColumbia DPS populations) it is difficult to obtain population-specific information, such as the 

number of returns or spawners, spawner composition (hatchery- or natural-origin), and life history 

traits. While new efforts are being pursued through various venues, the SRSRB supports increased 

funding and efforts that will assist managers and other stakeholders in obtaining the necessary 

information.

Objective 1: Determine if the abundance of steelhead spawners within the SEWMU 

populations meet recovery and restoration criteria.

Monitoring Questions:

Is the 10-year GM (with uncertainty expressed as 1 SE and 95% CI)47 of steelhead 

spawners greater than or equal to the recovery or restoration criteria?

Population Recovery (natural-origin)

Restoration (natural- and 

hatchery origin)

Walla Walla 1,000 1,875-3,395

Touchet 1,000 1,563-2,205

Tucannon 1,000 1,823-3,400

Asotin 500 2,776-3,114

Joseph Creek 500 2,149-5,909

Lower Grande Ronde 1,000 1,855-5,101

Sampling Design:

Adult traps or redd Counts— Complete census or index areas are surveyed each year.

Sex Ratio—Complete census of all fish collected or observed at broodstock collection and 

sampling sites (Tucannon; adult trap at TFH, Walla Walla; Mill Creek, Coppei Creek, Dayton, 

and Nursery Bridge dams; Asotin Creek; adult trap, Joseph Creek, and Lower Grande Ronde; 

Cottonwood Creek adult weir).

Origin Ratio (naturally produced fish to hatchery fish)—Determined at adult collection and

sampling sites.

Stray rates-Determine stray rates from coordinated data collection between regions.

Adult and smolt traps and PIT tag arrays

 

47 Follows the dual comparison approach developed by the ICTRT (2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 440

For upstream of LGR, ID is doing parental based tagging

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Adult trapping - throughout the season of adult returns.

Redd Counts—Survey all index areas. Every year sampling is conducted periodically (if 

weather and stream conditions permit) throughout the spawning season (March-May).

Sex Ratio—Annually sample adults collected for broodstock or sampled and passed upstream 

of adult traps throughout the migration period.

Origin Ratio—Annually sample adults collected for broodstock and sampled and passed 

upstream of adult traps throughout the migration period, timing of which is dependent on the 

location of the trap (July-May).

Measured Variables:

Adult abundance -

Redds—Number of steelhead redds within index areas.

Sex—Number of males and females sampled at broodstock collection sites. 

Origin—Number of naturally produced and hatchery produced steelhead counted at adult 

traps.

Harvest—Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish harvested.

Strays-Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish determined to spawn in non-target 

areas.

Number of adults at traps

Measurement Protocols:

Redds—Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the index 

reaches (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009, Mayer et al 2010, Mahoney et al. 2009). 

Sex Ratio—Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock and/or sampled and passed 

upstream of adult traps.

Origin Ratio—Identify hatchery fish (missing adipose fins, eroded fins, and/or CWT, PIT, and 

elastomer tags) and naturally produced fish (no clips or elastomer tags) at broodstock 

collection and sampling sites.

Derived Variables:

Estimate total escapement

Estimate the total number of redds within each subbasin of the SEWMU.

Use ratios of naturally produced fish to hatchery fish sampled at adult collection and sampling 

facilities to estimate the proportion of naturally produced fish spawning in the SEWMU. 

Estimate the number of naturally produced fish spawning by using proportions of naturally 

produced fish to hatchery fish, total number of redds, and sex ratios. 

Calculate 10 GM for abundance of naturally produced fish.

Analysis:

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the abundance estimate 

(ICTRT 2007).

Combine the abundance estimate with the productivity estimate (from Objective 2) and plot it 

with SE and 95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 441

If less than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve, calculate the probability that the 

population is really greater than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Compare the 10-yr GM (with estimates of uncertainty) to the abundance criterion.

Track the trend in 10-yr GM abundance estimates. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal dollars would be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with 

recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a highest priority objective, especially for Tucannon, Asotin, Touchet and Walla 

Walla populations. It is a lower priority for the lower Grande Ronde only because of 

logistical issues there.

Objective 2: Determine if the productivity of naturally produced steelhead spawners and 

juveniles within the SEWMU meet recovery and restoration criteria.

Monitoring Questions:

Is the 20-year GM of productivity (spawner/spawner; with uncertainty expressed as 1 SE and 95% 

CI)48 of naturally produced steelhead greater than or equal to the recovery and restoration criteria:

Population Recovery (natural-origin)

Restoration (natural- and 

hatchery origin)

Walla Walla 1.35 > 1.0

Touchet 1.35 > 1.0

Tucannon 1.20 > 1.0

Asotin 1.20 > 1.0

Joseph Creek 1.27 > 1.0

Lower Grande Ronde 1.14 > 1.0

Has the number of emigrants increased?

Has the number of emigrants per redd increased?

 

48 Follows the dual comparison approach developed by the ICTRT (2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 442

Sampling Design:

From Objective 1 for adults. 

Census (based on mark-recapture to calibrate trapping efficiency) of smolts and emigrants 

through trapping for juvenile migrants. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Ratios (Sex and Origin)—Objective 1.

Annual estimates of the number of juveniles emigrating.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number of redds (from Objective 1).

Origin—Origin of spawners (hatchery or naturally produced fish) (from Objective 1).

Sex—Sex ratio of broodstock collected randomly over the run (from Objective 1).

Age—Age composition from broodstock (scale analysis).

Harvest—Number of naturally and hatchery produced fish harvested (from Objective 1).

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1. 

Age Structure—Collect and read scales from all fish collected for broodstock.

Sex Ratio—Objective 1. 

Origin—Objective 1.

Count smolts and emigrants using smolt traps following methods in Bumgarner et al. (2000), 

Mayer et al. (2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009).

Derived Variables:

Calculate the age structure of the spawning population.

Calculate the number of NORs (number of natural origin recruits by brood year for naturally 

produced parents).

Calculate productivity or recruits per spawner as the ratio of NORs to total spawners.

Calculate 20-yr GM for productivity of naturally produced fish.

Calculate 20-yr intrinsic population productivity, which limits the return per spawner time 

series for escapements that exceed the estimated 75% threshold associated with carrying 

capacity (ICTRT 2007).

Number of juveniles (smolts and parr) per redd.

Analysis:

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the productivity 

estimate (ICTRT 2007).

Combine the productivity estimate with the abundance estimate (from Objective 1) and plot it 

with SE and 95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

If less than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve, calculate the probability that the 

population is really greater than 5% extinction risk on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Compare the 20-yr GM (with estimates of uncertainty) to the productivity criterion.

Track the trend in 20-yr GM productivity estimates. 

Analyze annually based on brood year.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 443

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal dollars may be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery 

criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a highest priority objective, especially for Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, and 

Touchet and Walla Walla rivers. This is a lower priority for the Wenaha Basin and lower 

Grande Ronde population primarily because of logistical concerns.

Objective 3: Determine if the number and spatial arrangement of steelhead spawning 

areas within the SEWMU meets recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

How many major and minor spawning areas are currently used by steelhead in each subbasin 

of the SEWMU?

What is the spatial arrangement of the occupied major and minor spawning areas used by 

SEWMU steelhead?

Sampling Design:

Randomly selected reaches of major and minor spawning areas will be determined through the 

Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (or other agreed-to protocol).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

All major and minor spawning areas will be surveyed annually to the extent possible. 

Sampling is conducted periodically (if weather and stream conditions permit) throughout the 

spawning season (March-May). 

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number and locations of steelhead redds.

Areas used - presence/absence.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all major and minor spawning areas 

within the distribution of the population.

Map the location and number of steelhead redds within each spawning area. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 444

Derived Variables:

Number and distribution of redds throughout major and minor spawning areas.

Analysis:

Analyze as distribution data (linear, dendritic, trellis, etc.).

Analyze as a time series to determine if major and minor spawning areas meet the occupancy 

standards.49

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal dollars would be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with 

recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 4: Determine if the spatial extent or range of the spawning population meets 

recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are all historical major spawning areas used by SEWMU steelhead meeting occupancy 

standards?50

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3.

 

49 Occupied areas are those in which two or more redds from natural origin spawners have been observed in all 

years of the most recent brood cycle (one generation) and for at least half of the most recent three brood cycles. 

For major spawning areas there must be two or more redds in both the upper and lower halves of the weighted 

intrinsic potential area (ICTRT 2007).

50 There must be two or more redds in both the upper and lower halves of the weighted intrinsic potential area 

(ICTRT 2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 445

Measured Variables:

Redds—Number and locations of steelhead redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3. 

Derived Variables:

Number and distribution of redds throughout the presumed historical range of the species.

Analysis:

Analyze as distribution data (goodness of fit).

Analyze data over time to determine if distributions meet the occupancy standards.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal dollars would be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with 

recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 5: Determine if the distance (gaps) between steelhead spawning areas is 

increasing. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are 75% or more of the major spawning areas occupied?

Have unoccupied major spawning areas caused gaps of 10 km or more between spawning 

areas?

Has the loss of minor spawning areas at the lower end of the population caused an increase in 

distance to an adjacent population of more than 25 km?

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3.

Measured Variables:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 446

Redds—Locations of steelhead redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 3.

Derived Variables:

Percent of major spawning areas occupied.

Distance (km) between occupied major spawning areas.

Distance between populations. 

Analysis:

Compare current gap to presumed historical gap.

Track gaps between major spawning areas and between populations over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds (note - to be able to 

complete the monitoring need, additional funds will have to be available). 

State and/or federal dollars would be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with 

recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 6: Determine if the major life history strategies used by steelhead in the SEWMU 

are similar to those used historically. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are all the major life-history strategies (anadromy vs resident; adult run timing; and juvenile 

migration patterns) that occurred historically still expressed within the steelhead populations? 

Sampling Design:

Adult run timing—Continuous sampling at hydroelectric dams (adult fish ladders) and 

broodstock collection sites, and tributary traps.

Juvenile migration patterns—Continuous operation of rotary traps.

Juvenile migration patterns—Mark-recapture studies using PIT tags. Juvenile steelhead will be 

PIT tagged within each major tributary and their movements detected near the mouths of the 

major tributaries and at smolt trapping sites within all of the MSAs. These fish can also be 

detected at Snake and Columbia River hydroelectric projects during their migrations to and 

from the ocean.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 447

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Adult run timing—Annual sampling will occur at mainstem dams and at the broodstock 

collection sites throughout the migration period. 

Juvenile migration patterns—Annual sampling at rotary traps in streams within each 

subbasins.

Juvenile migration patterns—PIT tag sampling will occur annually. 

Measured Variables:

Adults—Number and time of adults passing counting, collection, or detection stations.

Adults-age composition from scales.

Juveniles—Number and time of juveniles collected at collection stations or collection sites. 

Juveniles—Age composition from scale analysis.

Measurement Protocols:

Adults will be counted from collection at sampling sites, and monitoring at remote PIT tag 

detection sites.

Juveniles will be counted at rotary traps using methods described in Gallinat et al. (2003), 

Bumgarner et al. (2000), Mayer et al. (2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009) and at remote PIT tag 

detection sites.

Collect and read scales and tags from all fish collected at traps and detections sites.

Derived Variables:

Adult migration timing—Calculate beginning, peak, and end of run timing.

Adult age composition-Determine age structure from scale reading.

Juvenile migration timing—Calculate the beginning, peak, and end of smolt migration.

Juvenile migration—Calculate the age structure of steelhead smolts.

Analysis:

Compare adult migration timing to the assumed historical or reference condition.

Track changes in migration timing of adults and juveniles over time.

Compare juvenile migration patterns to the assumed historical or reference condition. 

Track changes in the age structure of steelhead smolts and adults.51

Track changes in SAR and smolts per redd over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

 

51 At this time no effect sizes have been identified for these two analyses. That is, it has not been determined how 

large a difference in migration timing or how much of a difference in age structure of smolts would be 

considered detrimental. In addition, at this time no reference condition has been established for these analyses.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 448

Adult monitoring on the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers is implemented and 

coordinated by the Corps of Engineers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the existing 

programs and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 7: Determine if morphological/behavioral and life-history traits of steelhead in 

the SEWMU are changing relative to presumed historical conditions. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are spawn timing, size at migration and maturity, fecundity, and juvenile migration patterns 

of naturally produced steelhead changing relative to reference conditions in the SEWMU 

populations? 

Sampling Design:

Adult spawn timing—Survey of spawning activity on the spawning grounds.

Size at maturity—Complete census of fish collected for broodstock.

Size at migration—Collected from juvenile migrants from traps.

Fecundity—Random sample of females used for broodstock collection.

Age structure—Complete census of fish collected for broodstock (from Objective 2).

Juvenile migration patterns—Objective 6.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Adult spawn timing—Annually sample the time of spawning (based on redd surveys; 

Objective 1). 

Size at Maturity—Annually sample all adults trapped across the spawning distribution.

Size of juvenile migrants—Annually subsample of emigrants.

Fecundity—Annually sample the fecundity of fish collected for broodstock.

Age structure—Annually collect scales from all fish trapped (adults and juveniles from 

Objective 2).

Juvenile migration patterns—Objective 6.

Measured Variables:

Beginning (10th percentile), peak (mode), and end (90th percentile) time (Julian date) of 

steelhead redd construction.

Age-specific post-orbital to hypural (POH) and fork length (mm) of any carcasses encountered 

during spawning ground surveys.

Age-specific fork length (mm) of fish trapped or collected for broodstock.

Age-specific fork length (mm) of fish handled at traps or collected for broodstock.

Fork length (mm) of juvenile fish captured at traps.

Count of eggs per female spawned by age class.

Age composition from scale analysis and marks or tags.

Age composition from scale analysis of juveniles.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 449

Juvenile migration from Objective 6.

Measurement Protocols:

Consider randomly selected reaches of major and minor spawning areas will be determined 

through the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (or other agreed-to 

protocol); stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating (see Objective 1). 

Lengths collected from all fish sampled at broodstock collection sites.

Fecundity estimated by using the weight-per-count method (Murdoch and Peven 2005).

Age structure from Objective 2.

Juvenile migration from Objective 6.

Derived Variables:

Tenth percentile, mode, and 90th percentile Julian date of spawning.

Average size (POH and fork length) per age class.

Average number of eggs per female by age class.

Percentage of smolts that overwinter in spawning tributaries and percentage that overwinter in 

the mainstem, if appropriate tagging studies are implemented.

Analysis:

Assess relationship between fecundity and female size (regression analysis).

Compare fecundity at age to the assumed historical or reference condition. 52

Assess relationship between age and size (regression analysis).

Compare size at age to the assumed historical or reference condition.

Track changes in fecundity at age and size at age over time. 

Compare juvenile migration patterns to the assumed historical or reference condition. 

Track changes in juvenile migration patterns over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 8: Determine if the within-population genetic variation of SEWMU steelhead is 

consistent with low risk for viability. 

 

52 At this time no historical or reference conditions have been identified for analyses requiring comparisons of 

present conditions with historical or reference conditions. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 450

Monitoring Questions:

What is the genetic variation within SEWMU steelhead populations? 

Sampling Design:

Systematic sampling throughout the spawning run.

Samples size = 100 naturally produced adult steelhead and 100 hatchery produced adult 

steelhead (sample sizes may not be achieved during years with low escapements). 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Samples collected once every five years at existing trapping locations.

Measured Variables:

Microsatellite genotypes

Measurement Protocols:

Tissue samples collected from broodstock collected at adult traps. 

Microsatellite or SNP technology.

Derived Variables:

Allele frequency

Analysis:

Within collection genetic diversity (using GENETIX)

Among collection genetic differentiation (randomized chi-square using FSTAT)

Individual assignment (partial Bayesian procedure)

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

Additional funding from state and/or federal agencies would be needed to compare results 

with recovery criteria.

Implementation and Coordination:

Genetic sampling will be implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 9: Determine if the proportion of hatchery and exogenous steelhead spawners in 

the SEWMU subbasins meet recovery criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 451

What proportion of steelhead spawners in SEWMU populations is derived from hatchery fish 

produced within the population using best management practices (BMPs)?

What proportion of the steelhead spawners in SEWMU populations is derived from hatchery 

fish produced outside the population but within the MPG or DPS (includes within-population 

programs not using BMPs) and their sources and origin?

What proportion of the steelhead spawners in SEWMU populations is derived from hatchery 

fish produced outside the Snake River DPS?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all steelhead collected and handled at traps, and their sources and origin. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling throughout the run period at adult traps. 

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish and their sources and origin.

Number of tagged or marked fish.

Measurement Protocols:

Examination for tags on steelhead collected and handled at broodstock collection sites.

Examination for tags on steelhead detected at remote PIT tag detection sites. 

Derived Variables:

Origin of tagged or marked fish.

Proportion of spawning population made up of different origin fish.

Analysis:

Use current-year data along with previous estimates to calculate the average percentage of 

total escapement within each of the three categories over an appropriate timeframe. The 

timeframe may change depending on how and when hatchery practices change, but should 

include one generation to conclude moderate risk or two to three generations to achieve a lowrisk rating (ICTRT 2007).

Direct comparison with recovery criteria.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal dollars would be needed to do the analyses and comparisons with 

recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 452

Objective 10: Determine if the distribution of steelhead spawners across the different 

ecoregions within SEWMU subbasins meet recovery and restoration criteria. 

Monitoring Questions:

Have there been substantial shifts in steelhead distribution across the basin-specific 

ecoregions?

Sampling Design:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Measured Variables:

Redds—Locations of steelhead redds.

Measurement Protocols:

Redd Surveys—Objective 1.

Derived Variables:

Number of redds within each ecoregion.

Percent of occupied spawning area within each ecoregion.

Analysis:

Compare current to historic and calculate the percent change in each of the ecoregions to 

determine if it is ―substantial‖ (defined as at least 67 percentage points) (ICTRT 2007).

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a low priority objective.

C.2.10 Prioritization of population status and trend monitoring
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 453

Table C-5 provides a summary of the monitoring priority for population status and trend monitoring. 

This table, based on the priorities identified in Table C-3, should be used (in combination with others 

below) to assist the SRSRB and other stakeholders in determining which monitoring should occur and 

at what time frame. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 454

Table C-5. Summary of prioritization of objectives for population status and trend monitoring and recommendations for 

each SEWMU population.

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

1. Determine if the abundance of 

spawners within the SEWMU 

Populations meet recovery and 

restoration criteria.

# Adults/Redds

Origin

Sex

Harvest

Hatchery 

spawners 

Highest

Maintain 

funding, 

initiate study 

to determine 

cause of 

straying 

upstream of 

Tucannon 

River

Increase 

monitoring 

as 

population 

builds or is 

reintroduced

Increase 

monitoring 

in WA 

portion

Maintain or 

increase 

funding, 

improve 

populationspecific 

information

Maintain or increase funding, 

improve population-specific 

information, initiate study to 

determine cause of straying upstream 

of Tucannon River for Tucannon 

population.

Increase 

monitoring 

in Wenaha 

Basin and 

Lower 

Grande 

Ronde 

tribs.

2. Determine if the productivity of 

naturally produced spawners and 

juveniles within SEWMU Populations 

meet recovery and restoration criteria.

# Adults/Redds

Origin

Sex

Harvest

Hatchery 

spawners

# emigrants 

(juvenile)

R/S

Juv/redd

Highest

Maintain 

funding, 

initiate study 

to determine 

cause of 

straying 

upstream of 

Tucannon 

River

Increase 

monitoring 

as 

population 

builds or is 

reintroduced

Increase 

monitoring 

in WA 

portion

Maintain or 

increase 

funding, 

improve 

populationspecific 

information

Maintain funding, improve 

population-specific information, 

initiate study to determine cause of 

straying upstream of Tucannon River 

for Tucannon population.

Increase 

monitoring 

in Wenaha 

Basin and 

Lower 

Grande 

Ronde 

tribs.

3. Determine if the number and spatial 

arrangement of fish spawning areas 

within SEWMU subbasins meets 

recovery and restoration criteria.

# Redds

Origin

High Maintain 

funding Maintain

Increase 

funding for 

sampling in 

the WA 

portion of 

the basin

Increase 

monitoring Maintain Increase monitoring Maintain Increase monitoring

4. Determine if the spatial extent or 

range of the spawning population 

meets recovery and restoration criteria.

Can be derived 

from collecting 

information from 

other objectives

High

5. Determine if the distance (gaps) 

between spawning areas is increasing Medium
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 455

6. Determine if the major life history 

strategies used by fish in SEWMU 

subbasins are similar to those used 

historically.

Adult and juvenile 

migration patterns 

and age of 

smoltification.

High Maintain Maintain Maintain Increase 

monitoring Maintain Increase monitoring

7. Determine if 

morphological/behavioral and lifehistory traits of fish in SEWMU 

subbasins are changing relative to 

presumed historical conditions.

Spawning time

Age-specific 

length

Fecundity

Age composition

Juvenile 

migration timing

Medium maintain maintain Increase 

monitoring Maintain

8. Determine if the within-population 

genetic variation of SEWMU fish is 

consistent with low risk for viability.

Microsatellite 

genotypes

High Maintain

Increase 

monitoring 

as 

population 

builds

Increase 

monitoring

Increase 

monitoring

Increase 

monitoring

9. Determine if the proportion of 

hatchery and exogenous fish in 

SEWMU subbasins meets recovery and 

restoration criteria.

Origin High Maintain

Increase 

monitoring 

as 

population 

builds

Maintain 

current 

efforts, but 

Increase 

monitoring, 

in Butte 

Creek and 

other 

tributaries

Maintain Maintain Increase 

monitoring Maintain Increase Monitoring

10. Determine if the distribution of 

fish spawners across the different 

ecoregions within SEWMU subbasins 

meets recovery and restoration criteria.

Can be derived 

from collecting 

information from 

other objectives

Low
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 456
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 457

C.3 LIMITING FACTORS STATUS/TREND MONITORING PLAN 

This section outlines plans for monitoring the status and trend of factors that limit the viability of 

populations in southeast Washington State recovery area. Provided below are separate outlines for 

each of the primary liming factor categories; habitat, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, disease and 

predation, regulatory mechanisms, and natural factors. As noted in Section 3, the focus of this 

monitoring and evaluation plan will be on monitoring changes in habitat and hatcheries. Changes in 

other limiting factors will be monitored as resources become available or under other venues with 

differing mandates (e.g., LSRCP, FCRPS BiOp).

C.3.2 Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring

Habitat conditions in tributaries, the mainstem, and the estuary affect the survival of Upper Columbia 

populations. This sub-section of the plan outlines monitoring within the tributaries and estuary. 

Mainstem habitat conditions (flow and water quality) are addressed in the Hydro sub-section. 

Predation and disease are components of the habitat that are addressed in a separate sub-section.

Objective 1: Describe the change in tributary habitat conditions in southeast Washington 

State SEWMU.

There are several entities that monitor habitat conditions within the southeast Washington State 

SEWMU. They include the Forest Service, Department of Ecology, WDFW, various conservation 

districts, the CTUIR, NPT, and others. 

This monitoring and evaluation plan relies heavily on ISEMP. This program has developed specific 

written methods for measuring different habitat variables. These are available on the ISEMP 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/index.cfm) website. 

Monitoring Questions:

What is the current condition of tributary habitat within the distribution of spring Chinook and 

steelhead populations (Tucannon, Walla Walla (including Touchet), Asotin, and lower Grande 

Ronde) in the southeast Washington State recovery area?

Are habitat conditions within the southeast Washington State recovery area trending toward 

properly functioning condition (NMFS 1996)? 

Sampling Design53:

EMAP rotational split-panel design with six panels; one panel with sites visited every year and 

five other panels with sites visited on a five-year cycle. 

Sites should be selected from the Washington State ―master sample‖ list (Larson et al. 2007; 

see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/stsmf/) 

 

53 It is important to note that information should be collected remotely to the degree that it can be to be consistent 

with state-wide monitoring protocols and recommendations.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 458

Each panel will consist of 25 sites.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

The spatial scale will include all anadromous streams within the distribution of spring 

Chinook and steelhead populations in the southeast Washington State recovery area. 

Annual sampling (during low-flow conditions) will occur within the annual panel and one of 

the five rotating panels. 

Length of sample sites will be 20 times the bankfull width, but not less than 150 m or more 

than 500 m long. 

Measured Variables:

Habitat variables monitored in ISEMP will be measured in all subbasins. Table 3 identifies

variables currently measured in the ISEMP program. 

Measurement Protocols:

As an example, methods used to measure habitat variables in ISEMP are listed in Table C-6 

and described in Hillman (2006) and Moberg (2007) and found at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/index.cfm.

Derived Variables:

Water quality—Average values, maximum and minimum values, and number of days that a 

metric exceeds criteria.

Physical habitat—Average values, variability, percentiles, and density (e.g., number per km) 

(see Kaufmann et al. 1999).

Analysis:

Descriptive statistics and variance decomposition.

Status—Horvitz-Thompson or π-estimator (see Stevens 2002). 

Trend—Multi-phase regression analyses (see Stevens 2002). 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA, USFWS, WDFW, USFS, and WDOE currently funds habitat RM&E in the SEWMU. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated through collaborative efforts between the comanagers, USFS, DOE, and other contractors.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the monitoring 

programs and recovery actions.

Table C-6. Recommended methods and sampling frequency of 

physical/environmental indicator variables in ISEMP. Some of the methods 

recommended in this table have been modified based on protocol comparison tests. 

Modified methods are noted with an asterisks (*) (see Hillman 2006). 

General 

characteristics Specific indicators Recommended method Sampling frequency

Water Quality Temperature Zaroban (2000) Hourly
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 459

Turbidity OPSW (1999) Hourly

Conductivity OPSW (1999) Daily

pH OPSW (1999) Daily

Dissolved oxygen OPSW (1999)* Daily

Nitrogen OPSW (1999) Monthly

Phosphorus OPSW (1999) Monthly

Habitat Access Road crossings Parker (2000); WDFW (2000) Annually

Diversion dams WDFW (2000) Annually

Fishways WDFW (2000) Annually

Habitat Quality Dominant substrate Peck et al. (2001)* Annually

Embeddedness Peck et al. (2001)* Annually

Depth fines Schuett-Hames (1999) Annually

LWD (pieces/km) BURPTAC (1999)* Annually

Pools per kilometer Hawkins et al. (1993); Overton et al. (1997) Annually

Residual pool depth Overton et al. (1997) Annually

Fish cover Peck et al. (2001) Annually

Off-channels habitats WFPB (1995)* Annually

Channel condition Stream gradient Peck et al. (2001)* Annually

Wetted width Peck et al. (2001) Annually

Bankfull width Peck et al. (2001) Annually

Width/depth ratio Peck et al. (2001)* Annually

Bank stability Moore et al. (2002) 5 years

Riparian Condition Structure Peck et al. (2001) 5 years

Disturbance Peck et al. (2001)* 5 years

Canopy cover Peck et al. (2001) 5 years

Flows and Hydrology Streamflow Peck et al. (2001) Continuous

Watershed Condition Watershed road 

density

WFC (1998); Reeves et al. (2001) 5 years

Riparian-road index WFC (1998) 5 years

Land ownership n/a 5 years

Land use Parmenter et al. (2003) 5 years

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 2: Describe the change in habitat conditions in the Columbia River Estuary.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 460

A monitoring plan for the estuary was developed under the FCRPS BiOp (Johnson et al. 2008). Those 

factors that most affect SEWMU Chinook and steelhead include toxics and flow (plume)54 (Appendix 

I). These factors are addressed in the estuary monitoring plan and are outlined below. Because the 

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board does not have funds to monitor habitat conditions in the estuary, 

the Board will rely on other entities to conduct monitoring there. 

Monitoring Questions:

What is the current condition of habitat (toxics and flow) within the Columbia River estuary?

Are habitat conditions within the estuary trending toward reference or historical conditions? 

Sampling Design:

Rotational split-panel sampling design.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Spatial scale will include the entire estuary (and plume).

Annual sampling within the annual panel and rotational panels.

Measured Variables:

Toxics/Contaminants (e.g., PCBs and mercury)

Water discharge

Snowpack

Surface water elevation

Water velocity

Measurement Protocols:

Water quality—Core samples and standard EPA analysis methods.

Flows/elevation—Data loggers and water collectors.

Velocities—Flow meters and/or timed floats.

Snowpack—Meteorology snow depth measurements.

Derived Variables:

Water quality—Concentrations of toxics and contaminants.

Flows—daily average, maximum and minimum (m3/s).

Velocities—daily average, maximum and minimum (m/s).

Elevation—daily average, maximum and minimum (m).

Snowpack—Average levels in meters.

Analysis:

Status—Horvitz-Thompson or π-estimator (see Stevens 2002). 

Trend—Multi-phase regression analyses (see Stevens 2002). 

 

54 Predation in the estuary is also an important limiting factor on SEWMU stocks. This factor is addressed in the 

Disease and Predation section.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 461

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA, USACE, and NOAA would be the primary funding entities. 

Implementation and Coordination:

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership would implement and coordinate estuary 

monitoring activities.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a low priority objective.

C.3.3 Hydropower Status and Trend Monitoring

Monitoring for hydro-related impacts currently occurs through various forums. For the Federal 

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), a Hydro-RME module has been developed to assess the 

status of limiting factors associated with the FCRPS. 

Objective 1: Ensure survival of juveniles passing the project meets agreed upon standards.

Monitoring Questions:

Does the estimated survival of juvenile spring Chinook and steelhead meet BiOp (FCRPS) 

standards?

Sampling Design:

Mark-Recapture Studies—Use paired-releases of tagged groups of fish.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Release test and control groups at locations upstream and downstream of the project being 

measured.

Frequency and number of studies needed for estimating survival is dependent on requirements 

of the FCRPS BiOp.

After standard is met conduct periodic tests to ensure compliance.

Measured Variables:

Number of live fish detected at downstream locations.

Tag life (if applicable for active tags)

Measurement Protocols:

Varies depending on method (tag) used (see Peven et al. 2005).

Derived Variables:

Detection probabilities.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 462

Mixing of test and control groups at detection site(s).

Point estimate of survival and associated precision.

Analysis:

Analyze using standard methods described in Peven et al. (2005).

Possible Funding Entities:

Each hydro operator will be responsible for survival estimates at their project(s). The BPA and 

USACE will fund these studies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is, or will be implemented and coordinated by the FCRPS process.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a low priority objective.

Objective 2: Ensure efficient passage of adults passing the project.

Monitoring Questions:

Are adults passing the hydrosystem without being delayed to a point that it could affect 

reproductive success?

Sampling Design:

Mark-Recapture Studies—Release a group of tagged fish downstream and potentially 

upstream (depending on the objectives of the individual hydroproject) of the hydroproject(s) 

being measured.

Telemetry Study – capture and tag adult Tucannon spring Chinook and steelhead and monitor 

the upstream and downstream migration at Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Frequency of estimating passage is dependent on requirements of FCRPS BiOp.

Measured Variables:

Tag detections within fishways and upstream of the project (including spawning tributaries).

Number of tagged steelhead and spring Chinook adults failing to return to the Tucannon River 

and their behavior around the mouth of the Tucannon River and the nearby dams.

Final destination of adults that fail to return to the Tucannon River.

Measurement Protocols:

Varies depending on method (tag) used and specific objectives of study.

Derived Variables:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 463

Detection probabilities.

Passage timing.

Presence on spawning grounds (dependent on study objectives).

Analysis:

Analyze as distribution data.

Use trend analysis if applicable.

Possible Funding Entities:

Each hydro operator will be responsible for estimates at their project(s). The BPA and USACE 

will fund these studies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is implemented and coordinated through the FCRPS process.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 3: Determine if the hydro-project operations are negatively affecting chemical 

composition of the river.

Monitoring Questions:

Are certain hydro operations creating total dissolved gas (TDG) levels that could harm fish?

Sampling Design:

Continuous (hourly) readings at hydroprojects or in reservoirs during fish passage season.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Hourly readings in the forebay and downstream of each hydro-project.

Daily monitoring during the migration period for juveniles and adults.

Measured Variables:

Forebay TDG.

TDG downstream of the project.

Level of spill. 

Measurement Protocols:

Hourly readings measured with electron TDG instruments. 

Yearly calibration of probes

Derived Variables:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 464

12- and 24-hour average TDG

Analysis:

Analyze as a time series (trend analysis).

Possible Funding Entities:

Each hydro operator will be responsible for survival estimates at their project(s). The BPA and 

USACE will fund these studies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is implemented and coordinated through regional ad hoc committees that are lead 

by NMFS and EPA.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a low priority objective.

Objective 4: Determine if hydropower operations are affecting homing and stray rates.

Monitoring Questions:

Do project operations hinder the ability of migrating adult salmonids from returning to their 

natal stream?

Sampling Design:

Telemetry study using spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead of known origin (from 

juvenile PIT tagging).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Study should be conducted over a three-year time period.

Fish should be captured and tagged at McNary or Ice Harbor dams if possible.

Measured Variables:

Distance traveled and location (e.g. side of the Snake River) when passing the Tucannon River

Spatial distribution within the mainstem Snake River and tributaries

Delay near the mouth of the Tucannon River before ascending the Snake or Tucannon rivers

Tucannon and Snake River discharges and water temperatures

Measurement Protocols:

Daily tracking results summarized

Derived Variables:

Migration rates
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 465

Spatial preference

River temperature and discharge differences between Snake and Tucannon rivers

Most upstream migration location

Migrational pathways (up- and downstream movements)

Final (detection during spawning season) location and fate of fish (e.g. spawned or pre-spawn 

mortality)

Analysis:

See Keefer et al. (2008)

Possible Funding Entities:

Each hydro operator will be responsible for survival estimates at their project(s). The BPA and 

USACE will fund these studies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work should be implemented and coordinated through regional ad hoc committees that 

are lead by local co-managers.

Coordination of results from these programs could occur through the SRSRB.

This is a very high priority objective.

C.3.4 Harvest Status and Trend Monitoring

Harvest impact rates on listed salmonids are set by NOAA Fisheries in Harvest Biological Opinions. 

The fisheries are currently implemented with monitoring and evaluation programs that are intended to 

measure compliance with the allowed impact rates. This level of monitoring should continue, as 

directed under U.S. v Oregon and its Technical Advisory Committee. 

Because the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board does not have funds to monitor harvest impacts, the 

Board will rely on other entities to conduct this monitoring. The following outline provides some 

additional monitoring that could be done to decrease error and uncertainty in the measurement of 

harvest rates and would allow the measurement of harvest rates at a finer resolution.55 

Objective 1: Improve Understanding of Stock Composition in Fisheries.

Monitoring Questions:

 

55 NOAA will develop a harvest RME module that will further address harvest impact rates on listed species. 

This module should provide the information needed to evaluate the status of out-of-basin harvest as a limiting 

factor on SEWMU stocks.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 466

Can in-season monitoring apportion catch, encounters, and escapement?

Sampling Design:

Development and standardization of a regional PIT tagging program for all species, including:

Representative marking of hatchery stocks and wild populations.

Deployment of PIT tag detectors for fisheries sampling.

Expanded deployment of PIT tag detectors in terminal areas.

Development of a regional Genetic Stock Identification (GSI) program with an emphasis on 

species for which broad-scale PIT tagging is not a viable option, including:

Systematic establishment and maintenance of a regional DNA micro-satellite or SNP baseline.

Systematic non-lethal tissue sampling of catch and encountered fish in the fisheries.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling.

Monitoring will occur at already established check points in the lower Columbia River and in 

terminal areas.

Measured Variables:

Number of fish harvested.

Total amount of fishing effort.

Stock identification of fish in catch.

Number of non-target fish released.

Stock identification of fish released.

Measurement Protocols:

Use PIT tag detectors at check points to determine composition of stock.

Collect samples for GSI analysis. 

Derived Variables:

Catch per effort.

Harvest rate.

Stock composition of catch.

Non-target fish release rate.

Percent of run harvested.

Analysis:

Compare to agreed-upon incidental take rates.

Trend analysis

Possible Funding Entities:

WDFW, ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, Tribes, and BPA. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is, or will be, implemented and coordinated primarily through the US v OR and 

FCRPS BiOp processes.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 467

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 2: Improve Modeling Interface between Columbia River and Ocean Fisheries.

Monitoring Questions:

To what degree are SEWMU Chinook and steelhead being harvested in the ocean and lower 

Columbia River fisheries?

Sampling Design:

In-season monitoring and reporting of catch.

Post-season run reconstruction.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling.

Monitoring will occur at already established check points in the lower Columbia River and all 

terminal fisheries if they are prosecuted.

Measured Variables:

Number of fish harvested in the ocean and lower river fisheries.

Total amount of fishing effort.

Stock identification of fish in catch.

Measurement Protocols:

Record tags detected in fisheries.

Derived Variables:

Stock-specific catch rates.

Stock-specific catchability, vulnerability, and maturity.

Estimates of variance around fishery parameters.

Analysis:

Use trend analysis if applicable.

Possible Funding Entities:

State, federal, and tribal agencies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is, or will be, implemented and coordinated primarily through the US v OR and 

FCRPS BiOp processes.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 468

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 3: Determine if the total harvest of Snake River Chinook and steelhead in ocean 

and river fisheries is affecting the ability to meet abundance and productivity goals of the 

recovery plan.

Monitoring Questions:

Are incidental harvest rates of ocean and terminal fisheries reducing the likelihood of meeting 

recovery criteria?

Sampling Design:

Post-season run reconstruction.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling.

Measured Variables:

Total harvest. 

Fish ladder counts.

Redd counts.

Stock identification.

Measurement Protocols:

Current methods for estimating catch rates.

Standard methods for fish ladder and redd counts. 

Establish protocols for stock ID.

Derived Variables:

Percentage of run harvested.

Escapement.

Calculate abundance and productivity with and without harvest.

Analysis:

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the abundance and 

productivity estimates with and without harvest (ICTRT 2007).

Combine the abundance and productivity estimates and plot them with their associated SE and 

95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Determine if the selective pressure is large enough to cause a moderate or high risk rating in 

spatial structure and diversity (ICTRT 2007).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 469

Possible Funding Entities:

State, federal, International (Pacific Salmon Committee), and tribal agencies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is, or will be, implemented and coordinated primarily through the US v OR and 

FCRPS BiOp processes.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 4: Determine encounter rates and release mortality rates of SEWMU Chinook 

and Steelhead in all fisheries.

Monitoring Questions:

What affect does encounter and release mortality have on run reconstruction?

Sampling Design:

Survey monitoring of encounter rates in fisheries that release by-catch.

Additional research into gear-specific release mortality rates, including variation in mortality 

rates and delayed mortality rates (if measurable).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling for encounter rates.

Study-specific for gear-specific mortality rates.

Measured Variables:

Number of fish encountered in fisheries that are released.

Type of gear and harvest method used.

Number of fish that die after release.

Measurement Protocols:

Record numbers of fish released.

Tag captured fish that will be released.

Derived Variables:

Percent of fish that die after release.

Number of fish that die per capture method or gear.

Delayed or latent mortality of released fish, as reasonably (and statistically reliably) 

measurable.

Analysis:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 470

Not applicable.

Possible Funding Entities:

State, federal, and tribal agencies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work is, or will be, implemented and coordinated primarily through the US v OR and 

FCRPS BiOp processes.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a medium priority objective.

C.3.5 Prioritization of Habitat, Hydro, and Harvest status and trend monitoring

Table C-7 provides a summary of the monitoring priority for habitat, hydro, and harvest status and 

trend monitoring. Most of the objectives will be planned and implemented through other venues. This 

table, based on the priorities identified in Table C-3, should be used (in combination with others 

below) to assist the SRSRB and other stakeholders in determining which monitoring should occur and 

at what time frame. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 471

Table C-7. Summary of prioritization of objectives for limiting factor status and trend monitoring and recommendations 

for each SEWMU population.

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

Habitat 

1. Describe the change in tributary 

habitat conditions in southeast 

Washington State SEWMU.

See Table C-6 High

2. Describe the change in habitat 

conditions in the Columbia River 

Estuary.

Toxics/Contaminants 

(e.g., PCBs and 

mercury)

Water discharge

Snowpack

Surface water 

elevation

Water velocity

Low Handled through other venue

Hydropower 

1. Ensure survival of juveniles passing 

the project meets agreed upon 

standards.

Number of live fish 

detected at 

downstream 

locations

Low

Handled through other venue

2. Ensure efficient passage of adults 

passing the project.

Tag detections 

within fishways and 

upstream of the 

project (including 

spawning 

tributaries).

Medium

3. Determine if the hydro-project 

operations are negatively affecting 

chemical composition of the river.

Forebay TDG.

TDG downstream of 

the project.

Level of spill.

Low

4. Determine if hydropower operations Distance traveled. Very High Ensure project NA NA Ensure project NA
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 472

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

are affecting homing and stray rates. Spatial distribution 

within the mainstem 

Snake River and 

tributaries. Delay 

near mouth of 

Tucannon River. 

Final location and 

fate of fish.

funding and 

implementation

funding and 

implementation

Harvest

1. Improve Understanding of Stock 

Composition in Fisheries.

Number of fish 

harvested.

Total amount of 

fishing effort.

Stock identification 

of fish in catch.

Number of nontarget fish released.

Stock identification 

of fish released.

Medium Handled through other venue

2. Improve Modeling Interface 

between Columbia River and Ocean 

Fisheries.

Number of fish 

harvested in the 

ocean and lower 

river fisheries.

Total amount of 

fishing effort.

Stock identification 

of fish in catch.

Medium Handled through other venue

3. Determine if the total harvest of 

Snake River Chinook and steelhead in 

ocean and river fisheries is affecting the 

ability to meet abundance and 

productivity goals of the recovery plan.

Total harvest. 

Fish ladder counts.

Redd counts.

Stock identification.

Medium Handled through other venue
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 473

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

4. Determine encounter rates and 

release mortality rates of SEWMU 

Chinook and Steelhead in all fisheries.

Number of fish 

encountered in 

fisheries that are 

released.

Type of gear and 

harvest method used.

Number of fish that 

die after release.

Medium Handled through other venue
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 474
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 475

C.3.6 Hatchery Status and Trend Monitoring

The WDFW, CTUIR, NPT, and the ODFW have developed monitoring programs for their respective 

hatchery programs in the SEWMU. The monitoring of hatchery programs provides most of the 

information needed to assess the status and trends of populations of spring Chinook and steelhead in 

the SEWMU.56

Below subbasins are grouped together because the monitoring and evaluation objectives and questions 

for supplementation programs in different subbasins are similar. Most of the information collected as 

part of the supplementation monitoring programs will also help evaluate non-supplementation 

hatchery programs.

Types of hatchery programs

The purpose of hatchery programs has historically been to mitigate for lost habitat and habitat function 

from various perturbations and to increase harvest opportunities. In recent years, the focus of hatchery 

programs has been shifting more to conservation based principles. However, many programs remain 

that focus on increasing harvest opportunity for tribal and non-tribal stakeholders.

This Plan defines hatchery programs as either conservation or harvest augmentation based. In 

addition, following HSRG (2004), programs can be integrated with a natural spawning population, or 

segregated from one (Table C-8).

Table C-8. Different types of hatchery programs.

Purpose

Natural population influence

Integrated Segregated

Conservation √

Harvest augmentation √ √

Objective 1: Determine if the mitigation goals have been met

Most hatchery programs within the SEWMU were developed to mitigate for the construction and 

operation of the mainstem Snake River dams, and the focus has historically been for harvest 

mitigation. While recent changes are geared towards conservation, the primary goal of many of the 

programs is still mitigation. Therefore it is important to understand what monitoring and evaluation is 

needed to understand whether the mitigation goals are being met.

 

56 A plan to assess the effects of competition and density-dependent factors on listed species in the estuary and 

mainstem Columbia River will be developed in the Estuary RME Module. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 476

Monitoring Questions:

Did the hatchery program return enough adults to meet the mitigation goal?

Did the hatchery program achieve the smolt-to-adult return rate goal?

Sampling Design:

Census (based on mark-recapture to calibrate trapping efficiency) of smolts and other

emigrants through trapping.

Census of adults returning.

Creel surveys.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Sample anglers within open fishing areas throughout the angling period.

Annual estimates of juveniles released for each population. 

Annual counts or estimates of hatchery adult returns and origins of hatchery fish in each 

population area

Measured Variables:

Numbers of hatchery fish taken in harvest.

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish on spawning grounds.

Number of hatchery fish removed at capture sites

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Detection of CWT or PIT tagged returning adults

Creel surveys.

Derived Variables:

Total harvest by fishery estimated from expansion analysis.

Smolt-to-adult return rate

Origins of hatchery fish returning to, or contributing to each population

Analysis:

A one-sample t-test can be used to compare harvest rates with the level needed for program 

goals. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and/or other BPA funds. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics. 

This is a highest priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 477

Objective 2: Determine the relative reproductive success of hatchery-origin spawners in 

the natural environment.

Perhaps the largest uncertainty in the use of conservation hatcheries to either preserve or rebuild 

naturally reproducing populations is how effective hatchery-origin spawners are in the natural 

environment when they spawn amongst themselves, and in particular interbreed with natural-origin 

spawners.

Of primary concern is the effect interbreeding may have on the fitness of the naturally reproducing 

population. One way to quantify this is to measure the relative reproductive success (RRS) of 

hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds, which enables managers to quantify short-term impacts 

of supplementation on productivity.

Monitoring Questions:

What is the relative reproductive success of hatchery-origin fish in the natural environment 

compared to natural-origin fish in the same environment?

Sampling Design:

Parentage analyses using multilocus genotypes.

Full parental based tagging (PBT) for hatchery programs.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution and juvenile 

migration periods for at least two generations. 

Measured Variables:

For pedigree:

Number of redds.

Number of hatchery– and natural-origin fish on spawning grounds. 

DNA

For mechanisms associated with RRS:

Sex 

River entry and spawn timing of individual spawners 

Body size and morphology 

Freshwater and saltwater age

Egg retention (Chinook only)

Fecundity (by origin)

Spawning behavior (e.g., male dominance hierarchies) 

Spawning location in relationship to smolt release location

Redd characteristics for individual spawners (location, morphology, depth, velocity, 

temperature) 

Measurement Protocols:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 478

Collect DNA samples from as close to 100% of adult spawners captured at collection and 

trapping sites.

Count the number of hatchery and naturally produced fish collected for broodstock.

Identify the origin and count the number of steelhead ascending spawning streams using 

remote PIT tag detectors.57

Collect DNA samples from as many juveniles as possible from screw traps, or other sampling 

methods.58

Collect additional information if mechanisms for differences of RRS are desired.

Derived Variables:

Estimate adult parentage for sampled juveniles.

Estimate the number of juveniles produced per parent.

Estimate the influence of mechanisms for differences in RRS.

Analysis:

Compare number of juveniles produced per parent between hatchery- and natural-origin 

parents.

Analyze annually based on return year.

Analysis over time (trend) may include correlating (regressions analysis) 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and/or other BPA funds. 

Implementation and Coordination:

This work needs to be coordinated with a regional effort that will begin in the beginning of 

2011, which will be coordinating Columbia basin-wide hatchery RM&E.

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics. 

This is a high priority objective.

 

57 For this study to be robust, access to wild fish will need to be sufficient enough to allow precision targets to be 

met.

58 For steelhead RRS, it may be challenging to get a large enough sample size and to be able to separate out 

potential spawning from resident rainbow trout.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 479

Objective 3: Determine if conservation programs increase the number of naturally 

spawning and naturally produced adults of the target population relative to a nonsupplemented population (i.e., reference stream)59 and if the return per spawner (R/S) of 

the supplemented population is similar to that of the non-supplemented population.

At the core of conservation programs60 is the objective of increasing the number of spawning adults 

(i.e., the combined number of naturally produced and hatchery fish) in order to affect a subsequent 

increase in the number of returning naturally produced fish or natural origin recruits (NOR). This is 

measured as the recruit per spawner (R/S) or the ratio of NORs to the parent spawning population. It is 

also important to consider that most artificial propagation programs in the SEWMU are conservation 

based, but with a main goal of providing harvest opportunity.

Differences in carrying capacities of supplemented and non-supplemented streams can confound the 

effects of a conservation program on total number of spawners returning to the streams. To avoid 

concluding that the conservation program has no effect or perhaps a negative effect on total spawners, 

the capacity of the habitats must be estimated and considered in the analyses. 

Adult Return Rates of Hatchery Fish

Monitoring Questions:

Is the annual number of hatchery fish that spawn naturally greater than the number of naturally 

and hatchery produced fish taken for broodstock (i.e., what is PNI or is population ―mining‖ 

occurring)?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of redds, carcasses, and/or broodstock.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution (where 

possible). 

Measured Variables:

Number of redds or adults returning.

Number of hatchery produced fish on spawning grounds. 

Number of naturally and hatchery produced fish removed for broodstock.

Number of hatchery produced fish harvested.

 

59 Finding appropriate reference streams that lack hatchery influence is difficult. Columbia basin-wide 

coordination may be needed so managers can utilize streams for references for multiple treatment populations.

60 Conservation programs are also called ―supplementation‖ programs in many instances. This Plan describes 

the program as conservation-based, and using the strategy of supplementation as the primary tool to implement 

the conservation program.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 480

Number of males and females sampled at broodstock collection sites.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Count the number of hatchery and naturally produced carcasses and fish collected for 

broodstock.

Identify the origin and count the number of steelhead ascending spawning streams using 

remote PIT tag detectors or at weirs or counting stations.

Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock (using morphological characteristics, 

dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound).

Derived Variables:

Estimate spawners per redd.

Estimate total number of hatchery produced spawners.

SAR

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on return year.

On a five-year period analyze return years for patterns that correlate with extraneous factors 

such as ocean conditions.

Analysis over time (trend) may include correlating (regressions analysis) escapements with 

other extraneous variables (e.g., ocean conditions, climatic effects, etc.). 

Analysis should include the use of reference populations.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics. 

Hatchery Contribution to Recruitment of Naturally Produced Fish 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the annual change in the number of natural origin recruits (NORs) produced from the 

supplemented population greater than or equal to the annual change in NORs in a nonsupplemented population?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of adults, redds, carcasses, and/or broodstock.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 481

Measured Variables:

Number of redds and or adults.

Origin of carcasses and/or brood stock (hatchery or naturally produced fish).

Sex ratio of broodstock collected randomly over the run.

Age composition from both broodstock and carcasses (from scale analysis)61.

Number of naturally produced fish harvested

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Count the number of hatchery and naturally produced carcasses and fish trapped.

Identify the origin and count the number of steelhead ascending spawning streams using 

remote PIT tag detectors or other methods.

Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock (using morphological characteristics, 

dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound).

Collect and read scales and tags from fish sampled at stock assessment sites and from all 

carcasses and/or broodstock.

Derived Variables:

Age structure of the spawning population.

Number of naturally produced recruits by brood year for both naturally produced parents and 

hatchery parents (≥ age-3).

May include ratio or difference scores of NORs (requires reference area).

Spawner-recruit ratios. 

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period; i.e., 5-year mean of annual 

change). 

Two-sample t-test (other tests may include RIA, ARIMA, or other tests) to evaluate difference 

scores or ratios over time (initial 5-year period).

On a five-year period analyze brood years for patterns that correlate with extraneous factors 

such as ocean conditions.

Analysis should include the use of reference populations.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

 

61 For steelhead, evaluation of others structures (such as otoliths) may be necessary for estimating freshwater 

age, because scales may not represent the total age accurately (see Peven 1990; Mullan et al. 1992).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 482

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Natural Replacement Rates of Supplemented Populations 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the change in recruits per spawner (R/S) within the supplemented population greater than or 

equal to the change in natural replacement rates in a non-supplemented population?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of adults, redds, carcasses, and/or broodstock.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution. 

Measured Variables:

Number of redds.

Origin of carcasses and/or brood stock (hatchery or naturally produced fish).

Sex ratio of broodstock collected randomly over the run.

Age composition from both broodstock and carcasses (from scale analysis).

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish at traps.

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish taken in harvest (if recruitment is to the 

mouth of the Columbia River).

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Count the number of hatchery and naturally produced carcasses and fish collected for 

broodstock.

Identify the origin and count the number of steelhead ascending spawning streams using 

remote PIT tag detectors or other methods.

Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock (using morphological characteristics, 

dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound).

Collect and read scales from all carcasses and/or broodstock.

Derived Variables:

NORs (number of naturally produced recruits (total recruits) by brood year for both naturally 

produced parents and hatchery parents (≥ age-3)).

NRRs (calculated as NORs/spawner).

May include ratio or difference scores of NRRs (requires reference population).

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period; i.e., 5-year mean of annual 

change). 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 483

Two-sample t-test (other tests may include RIA, ARIMA, or other tests) to evaluate difference 

scores or ratios over time (initial 5-year period).

On a five-year period analyze brood years for patterns that correlate with extraneous factors 

such as ocean conditions.

The testing is appropriate if populations are below carrying capacity and density-dependent 

factors are not regulating the populations at high spawner abundances.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers .

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 4: Determine if the run timing, spawn timing, and spawning distribution of both 

the natural and hatchery components of the target population are similar.

Inherent in the supplementation strategy is that hatchery and naturally produced fish are intended to 

spawn together and in similar locations. Run timing, spawn timing, and spawning distribution may be 

affected through the hatchery environment (i.e., domestication). If supplemented fish are not fully 

integrated into the naturally produced spawning population, the goals of the conservation program 

may not be achieved. Hatchery adults that migrate at different times than naturally produced fish may 

be subject to differential survival rates or spawning success. Hatchery adults that spawn at different 

times or locations than naturally produced fish would not be integrated into the naturally produced 

spawning population (i.e., segregated stock).

Migration Timing 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the migration timing of hatchery and naturally produced fish from the same age class 

similar? 

Sampling Design:

Continuous sampling at dams (adult fish ladders), weirs, and broodstock collections sites.

Continuous annual PIT tagging of representative of hatchery and natural emigrants from the 

same brood year. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling throughout the migration period.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 484

Measured Variables:

Ages of hatchery and naturally produced fish sampled at broodstock collection sites, during 

carcasses surveys, and/or at stock assessment sites.

Time (Julian date) of arrival at Bonneville, McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Granite dams, and 

within tributaries of PIT tagged hatchery and natural fish.

Measurement Protocols:

Adults will be counted using video technology at mainstem dams and collection at sampling 

sites.

Collect and read scales and tags from sampled fish at stock assessment sites, carcasses, and/or 

broodstock.

Derived Variables:

Mean Julian date for a given age class. 

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on return year and age class.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period and to the extent possible use pre2006 data).

ANOVA by age and origin

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Timing of Spawning 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the timing of spawning (measured as the time female salmon carcasses are observed) 

similar for hatchery and naturally produced fish? (Timing of spawning of hatchery and 

naturally produced steelhead may be evaluated if marking or tagging efforts provide 

reasonable results.)

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all redds and visual identification of origin of spawners and Chinook 

carcasses observed.

Trapping of steelhead

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 485

Measured Variables:

Time (Julian date) of hatchery and naturally produced salmon carcasses observed on spawning 

grounds within defined reaches. 

Time (Julian date) of ripeness of steelhead captured for broodstock.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Identify hatchery and naturally produced female carcasses.

Derived Variables:

Mean Julian date. 

Elevations (covariate)

Analysis:

Analyzed annually based on return year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

ANOVA by sex and location

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Distribution of Redds 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the distribution of redds (based on carcasses) similar for hatchery and naturally produced 

fish?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all available redds, and if possible, visual identification of spawning fish 

and carcasses.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling of entire distribution of carcasses.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 486

Measured Variables:

Location of female Chinook salmon carcasses observed on spawning grounds. (The 

distribution of hatchery and naturally produced steelhead redds may be evaluated if marking 

or tagging efforts provide reasonable results).

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Identify the location (GPS) of hatchery and naturally produced carcasses.

Derived Variables:

Location of female salmon carcass in RKm (0.01). 

Calculate percent overlap in distribution across available spawning habitat.

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on return year (ANOVA).

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period).

ANOVA by origin and sex

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 5: Determine if genetic diversity, population structure, and effective population 

size have changed in natural spawning populations as a result of hatchery programs. 

Additionally, determine if hatchery programs have caused changes in phenotypic 

characteristics of natural populations.

This objective addresses the long-term fitness of supplemented populations. Fitness, or the ability of 

individuals to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation in a given environment, includes 

genetic, physiological, and behavioral components.62 Maintaining the long-term fitness of 

 

62 These metrics are difficult to measure, and phenotypic expression of these traits may be all we can measure 

and evaluate.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 487

supplemented populations requires a comprehensive evaluation of genetic and phenotypic 

characteristics. Evaluation of some phenotypic traits (i.e., run timing, spawn timing, spawning 

location, and stray rates) is addressed under other objectives.

Assessing the genetic component of hatchery programs does not require annual sampling. Meeting 

stray-rate targets (hypotheses tested under Objective 7) should prevent significant changes in 

population genetics. Therefore, testing statistical hypotheses associated with genetic components 

should be conducted every three to five years, depending on the type of hatchery program. More 

frequent genetic sampling may be necessary if actual stray rates exceed targets. 

Allele Frequency 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the allele frequency of hatchery fish similar to the allele frequency of naturally produced 

and donor fish over time?

Sampling Design:

Stratified proportional sampling across the spawning distribution and systematic sampling 

throughout the spawning period (sites selected from the Washington State ―master sample‖ 

list).

Sample size of 100 naturally produced fish and 100 hatchery produced fish (sample sizes may 

not be achieved during years with low escapements).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Samples collected across the spawning distribution once every five years.

Measured Variables:

Allele frequency

Measurement Protocols:

Tissue samples (operculum punches) collected from carcasses sampled during spawning 

ground surveys.

Microsatellite or SNP genotypes.

Derived Variables:

Allele frequency

Analysis:

Analyze as a time series (trend).

Compare samples within drainages.

Population differentiation tests, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), and relative 

genetic distances.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 488

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Genetic Distances 

Monitoring Questions:

Does the genetic distance among subpopulations (e.g., MaSA) within a supplemented 

population remain the same over time compared to non-supplemented population?

Sampling Design:

Stratified proportional sampling across the spawning distribution and systematic sampling 

throughout the spawning period (sites selected from the Washington State ―master sample‖ 

list).

Sample size of 144 naturally produced fish and 144 hatchery produced fish (sample sizes may 

not be achieved during years with low escapements).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Samples collected across the spawning distribution once every five years.

Measured Variables:

Microsatellite genotypes

Measurement Protocols:

Tissue samples (operculum punches) collected from carcasses sampled during spawning 

ground surveys.

Microsatellite or SNP.

Derived Variables:

Allele frequencies

Analysis:

Analyze as a time series (trend).

Compare samples among drainages.

Population differentiation tests, AMOVA, and relative genetic distances.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 489

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Effective Spawning Population 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the ratio of effective population size (Ne) to spawning population size (N) constant over 

time?

Sampling Design:

Stratified proportional sampling across the spawning distribution and systematic sampling 

throughout the spawning period (sites selected from the Washington State ―master sample‖ 

list).

Sample size of 144 naturally produced fish and 144 hatchery produced fish (sample sizes may 

not be achieved during years with low escapements).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Samples collected across the spawning distribution once every five years.

Measured Variables:

Microsatellite genotypes

Measurement Protocols:

Tissue samples collected from carcasses sampled during spawning ground surveys.

Microsatellite or SNP.

Derived Variables:

Allele frequencies

Analysis:

Analyze as a time series (trend).

Population differentiation tests, relative genetic distances, statistics to calculate effective 

population size (e.g., harmonic means).

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 490

Age at Maturity

Monitoring Questions:

Is the age at maturity of hatchery and naturally produced fish similar over time?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of fish sampled as carcasses on spawning grounds and/or fish trapped for 

broodstock or stock assessments. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sample of all fish collected for broodstock and stock assessments, and all available 

carcasses across the entire spawning distribution.

Measured Variables:

Age of hatchery and naturally produced salmon carcasses collected on spawning grounds. 

Age of broodstock.

Age of adults at trap locations.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Collect and read scales from sampled fish collected at traps, from carcasses, and/or from 

broodstock.

Derived Variables:

Saltwater ages

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

Chi-square or ANOVA by origin and gender.

Whenever possible age at maturity will be measured at weirs or dams near the spawning 

stream to avoid the size-related carcass recovery bias on spawning grounds (carcass 

sampling).

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Size at Maturity 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 491

Monitoring Questions:

Is the size (length) at maturity of a given age and sex of hatchery fish similar to the size at 

maturity of a given age and sex of naturally produced fish?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of fish sampled as carcasses on spawning grounds and/or fish collected for

broodstock or stock assessments. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sample of all fish collected for broodstock and stock assessments, and all available 

carcasses across the entire spawning distribution.

Measured Variables:

Size (length), age, and gender of hatchery and naturally produced salmon carcasses collected 

on spawning grounds. 

Size (length), age, and gender of broodstock.

Size (length), age, and gender of fish at stock assessment locations.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Identification of sex of carcasses, fish collected for broodstock, and fish sampled at stock 

assessment sites (using morphological characteristics, dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound).

Post-orbital to hypural (POH) and fork length (mm) of carcasses, fish collected for 

broodstock, and fish sampled at stock assessment sites.

Collect and read scales from sampled fish collected at stock assessment sites, from carcasses, 

and/or from broodstock.

Derived Variables:

Calculate total age and saltwater age.

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period and to the extent possible use pre-2006 

data).

ANOVA by origin, gender, and age

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 492

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 6: Determine if the hatchery adult-to-adult survival (i.e., hatchery replacement 

rate) is greater than the natural adult-to-adult survival (i.e., natural replacement rate) and 

equal to or greater than the program specific HRR expected value.

The survival advantage from the hatchery (i.e., egg-to-smolt) must be sufficient to overcome the 

survival disadvantage after release (i.e., smolt-to-adult) in order to produce a greater number of 

returning adults than if broodstock were left to spawn naturally. If a hatchery program cannot produce 

a greater number of adults than naturally spawning fish, the program should be modified or 

discontinued. 

Hatchery Replacement Rates (HRRs) 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the adult-to-adult survival rate of hatchery fish (HRR) greater than or equal to the adult-toadult survival rate (R/S) of naturally produced fish?

Is the adult-to-adult survival rate of hatchery fish (HRR) greater than or equal to the expected 

value (includes sum of adults harvested, taken for broodstock, and adults on spawning 

grounds)?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of adults, redds, available carcasses, and/or broodstock.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling across the entire spatial and temporal spawning distribution. 

Measured Variables:

Number of redds or adults.

Origin of carcasses and/or trapped adults (hatchery or naturally produced fish).

Sex ratio of broodstock collected randomly over the run.

Age composition from both adults and carcasses (from scale and tag analysis).

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish harvested

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of the 

spawning populations.

Number of smolts produced annually

Count the number of hatchery and naturally produced carcasses and fish collected for 

broodstock.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 493

Identification of sex of fish collected for broodstock (using morphological characteristics, 

dissection, and/or possibly ultrasound).

Collect and read scales and tags from sampled fish collected at stock assessment sites, from 

carcasses, and/or from broodstock.

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish harvested

Number of broodstock used by brood year (hatchery and naturally produced fish).

Derived Variables:

Age structure of the spawning population.

SAR

Number of hatchery and naturally produced adults by brood year (≥ age-3).

HRR (number of returning adults per brood year/broodstock)

NRR (from above)

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

For Q1 a two-sample t-test to compare HRR to NRR

For Q2 a one-sample t-test to evaluate HRR to expected values.

On a five-year period analyze brood years for patterns that correlate with extraneous factors 

such as ocean conditions.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 7: Determine if the stray rate of hatchery fish is below the acceptable levels to 

maintain genetic variation between stocks.

Maintaining locally adapted traits of fish populations requires that returning hatchery fish have a high 

rate of site fidelity to the target stream. Hatchery practices (e.g., rearing and acclimation water source, 

release methodology, and location) are the main variables thought to affect stray rates although 

hydrosystem effects may contribute to the stray rate by preventing adults from reaching their natal or 

river of release (if they travel upstream past their natal stream). Regardless of the adult returns, if 

adult hatchery fish do not contribute to the donor population, the program will not meet the basic 

condition of a conservation program. Fish that do stray to other independent populations should not 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 494

comprise greater than 5% of the spawning population. Likewise, fish that stray within an independent 

population should not comprise greater than 5% of the spawning aggregate.

Stray Rates among Populations for Brood Return

Monitoring Questions:

Is the stray rate of hatchery fish less than 5% for the total brood return?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all hatchery and natural origin carcasses (spring Chinook) observed 

during spawning surveys (number of carcasses sampled should be no less than 20% of the 

estimated spawning escapement), or at traps (steelhead)

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling throughout the spawning period.

Steelhead detection near mouths of spawning streams.

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery carcasses (or PIT tagged hatchery steelhead, if an adequate number of 

fish are PIT tagged prior to release) found in non-target and target spawning areas. 

Number of hatchery fish collected for broodstock.

Number of hatchery fish taken in fishery.

Age (from scale and tag analysis) of all fish sampled (stock assessment, carcasses, and 

broodstock).

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all spawning streams or adults at traps.

Collect and read scales from sampled fish collected at stock assessment sites, from carcasses, 

and/or from broodstock.

Collect and read CWTs from hatchery fish.

Derived Variables:

Hatchery carcasses and take in fishery estimated from expansion analysis.

Locations of live and dead strays (used to tease out overshoot).

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period).

A simple statistical approach is to use a one-sample t-test to compare the actual stray rate with 

the target (5%) stray rate. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 495

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Stray Rates among Populations for Return Year

Monitoring Questions:

Is the stray rate of hatchery fish less than 5% of the spawning escapement within other 

independent populations?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all hatchery and natural origin carcasses (spring Chinook) observed 

during spawning surveys (number of carcasses sampled should be no less than 20% of the 

estimated spawning escapement), or at traps (steelhead).

Steelhead mark-recapture design.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling throughout the spawning period.

Steelhead detection near the mouths of spawning streams.

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery carcasses (or PIT tagged hatchery steelhead) found in non-target and 

target spawning areas. 

Number of hatchery fish collected for broodstock.

Number of hatchery fish taken in fishery.

Number of hatchery fish removed at capture sites.

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all spawning streams.

Identification of PIT-tagged hatchery steelhead at remote PIT tag detectors.

Derived Variables:

Hatchery salmon carcasses (or PIT tagged hatchery steelhead) estimated from expansion 

analysis.

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on return year.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period).

A simple statistical approach is to use a one-sample t-test to compare the actual proportion of 

strays with the target of 5% strays

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 496

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Stray Rates within the Population

Monitoring Questions:

Is the stray rate of hatchery fish less than 10%63 of the spawning escapement within other 

spawning aggregations within the target independent population?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of all hatchery and natural origin carcasses (spring Chinook) observed 

during spawning surveys (number of carcasses sampled should be no less than 20% of the 

estimated spawning escapement), or at traps (steelhead).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual sampling throughout the spawning period.

Steelhead detection near the mouths of spawning streams.

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery carcasses (possibly PIT tagged hatchery steelhead) found in non-target 

and target spawning aggregates. 

Measurement Protocols:

Stream surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all spawning streams.

Derived Variables:

Hatchery salmon carcasses (possibly PIT tagged hatchery steelhead) estimated from expansion 

analysis.

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on return year.

Analyze as a time series (trend; initially as a 5-year period).

A simple statistical approach is to use a one-sample t-test to compare the actual proportion of 

strays with the target of 10% strays. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

 

63 This value should be reviewed annually.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 497

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 8: Determine if hatchery fish were released at the programmed size number, and 

time.

Although many factors can influence both the size and number of fish released, past hatchery 

experience should assist in meeting program production levels.

Size of Hatchery Fish

Monitoring Questions:

Is the size of hatchery fish released equal to the program goal?

Sampling Design:

Random sample of hatchery smolts.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Monthly sample of all stocks.

Measured Variables:

Length (mm) and weights (g) of random samples of hatchery smolts. 

Dates of release compared to release date goal.

Measurement Protocols:

Measure and weigh random samples of smolts.

Derived Variables:

Means and CVs.

Deviation in days from release date goal.

Analysis:

Analyze annually.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

A simple statistical approach is to use a one-sample t-test to compare the actual size of 

hatchery fish at time of release with the program goal. 

Possible Funding Entities:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 498

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

Number of Hatchery Fish 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the number of hatchery fish released equal to the program goal?

Sampling Design:

Census of smolts released from hatcheries.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual assessment of all stocks.

Measured Variables:

Numbers of smolts released from the hatchery. 

Measurement Protocols:

Count of smolts.

Derived Variables:

NA

Analysis:

No statistical analysis needed.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 499

Objective 9: Determine if the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds affects 

the freshwater productivity (i.e., number of juveniles/smolts per redd) of supplemented 

streams when compared to non-supplemented streams.

Out-of-basin effects (e.g., smolt passage through the hydro system and ocean productivity) have a 

strong influence on survival of smolts after they migrate from the tributaries. These effects introduce 

substantial variability into the adult-to-adult survival rates (R/S and HRR), which may mask in-basin 

effects (e.g., habitat quality, density related mortality, and differential reproductive success of hatchery 

and naturally produced fish). One of the objectives of long-term smolt monitoring programs is to 

determine the egg-to-smolt or egg-to-juvenile survival of target stocks. Smolt production models 

generated from the information obtained through these programs will provide a level of predictability 

with greater sensitivity to in-basin effects than spawner-recruitment models that take into account all 

effects.

Differences in carrying capacities of supplemented and non-supplemented streams can confound the 

effects of conservation programs on numbers of juveniles per redd. For example, if the supplemented 

population is at or above carrying capacity and the non-supplemented population is not, numbers of 

juveniles per redd in the non-supplemented population may be significantly greater than the number of 

juveniles per redd in the supplemented population. To avoid concluding that the supplementation 

program has no effect or perhaps a negative effect on juveniles per redd, the capacity of the habitats 

must be included in the analyses and adjusted for density dependence. 

Juvenile Productivity 

Monitoring Questions:

Is the change in numbers of juveniles (smolts, parr, or emigrants) per redd in the supplemented 

population greater than or equal to that in the non-supplemented population?

Is the total number of emigrants affected by the proportion of hatchery spawners?

Does the number of juveniles per redd decrease as the proportion of hatchery spawners 

increase?64

Sampling Design:

Census (based on mark-recapture to calibrate trapping efficiency) of smolts and emigrants 

through trapping.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Annual estimates of juveniles within each supplemented population.

Measured Variables:

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish on spawning grounds.

Numbers of redds.

Number of juveniles (smolts, parr [not appropriate for all populations], and emigrants).

 

64 Information is needed to estimate the effects of density dependence on these questions.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 500

Number of hatchery fish removed at capture sites

Measurement Protocols:

Spawning surveys conducted by walking and/or floating all streams within the distribution of 

the supplemented population.

Count smolts and emigrants using smolt traps following methods in Bumgarner et al. (2000), 

Gallinat et al. (2001), Mayer et al. (2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009).

Derived Variables:

Number of juveniles (smolts and parr) per redd.

Total number of emigrants per year per stream/population.

Analysis:

Analyze annually based on brood year.

Analyze as a time series (initially as a 5-year period).

Two-sample t-test to evaluate differences between treatment and reference slopes (initial 5-

year period).

Regression analysis to examine relationships between hatchery adult composition and 

juveniles/redd. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP (and 

other BPA)-funded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a highest priority objective.

Objective 10: Determine if harvest opportunities have been provided using hatchery 

returning adults where they were intended.

In years when the expected returns of hatchery adults are above the level required to meet program 

goals (i.e., supplementation of spawning populations and/or brood stock requirements), surplus fish 

may be available for harvest. Harvest of surplus hatchery fish downstream from the spawning grounds 

would also assist in reducing potential adverse genetic impacts to naturally produced populations (loss 

of genetic variation within and between populations).

Harvest Rates

Monitoring Questions:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 501

Is the harvest on hatchery fish produced in harvest-augmentation programs achieving harvest 

mitigation goals?

Is the escapement of fish from conservation programs, after meeting broodstock and natural 

production65 needs, high enough to provide opportunities for terminal harvest?

What is the total harvest of hatchery-origin fish?

Sampling Design:

Systematic random survey design (sites selected from the Washington State ―master sample‖ 

list).

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Sample anglers within open fishing areas throughout the angling period. 

Measured Variables:

Numbers of hatchery fish taken in harvest. 

Measurement Protocols:

Creel surveys.

Derived Variables:

Total harvest by fishery estimated from expansion analysis.

Analysis:

A one-sample t-test can be used to compare harvest rates with the level needed for program 

goals. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a high priority objective.

Objective 11: Reduce negative effects caused by ecological interactions between hatchery 

and naturally produced juveniles and adults.

 

65 At this time, the escapement of adults needed to fully seed habitat in the SEWMU is unknown.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 502

Ecological interactions between hatchery- and natural origin fish in the wild is a critical uncertainty for 

most hatchery programs. Ecological and genetic interactions are a concern to many fisheries 

management agencies. There is a paucity of information concerning these interactions, especially in 

mainstem areas, the estuary and ocean. This plan addresses potential interactions and information 

needed for monitoring interactions between hatchery and naturally produced fish in tributaries.

Monitoring Questions:

How long do hatchery juveniles stay in the river?

Do naturally produced fish follow hatchery fish as they leave the river (exhibiting a ―Pied 

Piper‖ effect)?

Do hatchery and naturally produced juveniles/smolts utilize the same habitats in river?

Do naturally produced juveniles change their habitat use patterns after hatchery fish are 

released (are they displaced from habitats)?

Do hatchery juveniles compete with naturally produced juveniles for food?

Are growth rates of natural fish affected by the presence of hatchery fish?

Do hatchery and naturally produced adults occupy the same holding habitat?

Do hatchery and naturally produced adults spawn in the same locations?

Do hatchery origin spawners have the same temporal distribution as naturally produced 

spawners?

Do hatchery and naturally produced adults interbreed?

Sampling Design:

TBD

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

TBD 

Measured Variables:

Number of HOF juvenile fish that do not migrate after release

Number of NOF emigrating from feeding stations after hatchery release

Size of NOF prior to HOF release and after

Habitat use by NOF prior to and after HOF release

Habitat use by HOF

Size and weight at emigration of NOF.

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish on spawning grounds by date

Number of hatchery and naturally produced fish in holding areas

Number of carcasses sampled

Location of spawning fish

Location of natural origin spawner redds

Location of hatchery origin spawner redds

Measurement Protocols:

TBD

Derived Variables:

Residualism rates
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 503

Competition (space and food)

Premature emigration rate (displacement rates)

Growth rate of NOF

Density of fish in holding areas and on spawning grounds Spatial distribution of spawning fish

Percent of total spawning population sampled for carcasses (sampling rate)

Analysis:

Monitor how long hatchery fish reside in release area after release.

Compare habitat use and migration patterns of natural origin fish prior to and after release of 

hatchery fish.

Compare food habits of natural origin fish prior to and after release of hatchery fish.

Use reference population to calculate an instantaneous growth rate difference.

Compare pathogen occurrence in natural origin fish prior to and after release of hatchery fish.

Track sample rate to ensure that goal is being met.

Calculate overlap of habitat use by hatchery- and natural origin fish.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCPfunded program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

C.3.7 Prioritization of Hatchery status and trend monitoring

Table C-9 provides a summary of the monitoring priority for hatchery status and trend monitoring. 

This table, based on the priorities identified in Table C-3, should be used (in combination with others 

below) to assist the SRSRB and other stakeholders in determining which monitoring should occur and 

at what time frame. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 504

Table C-9. Summary of prioritization of objectives for hatchery status and trend monitoring and recommendations for 

each SEWMU population.

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

1. Determine if the mitigation 

goals have been met.

a

Numbers of hatchery 

fish taken in harvest.

Number of hatchery and 

naturally produced fish 

on spawning grounds.

Number of hatchery fish 

removed at capture sites

Highest

Important in 

years when 

fishing is 

allowed.

Will be 

important 

when 

population 

rebounds or 

the Tucannon 

population is 

expanded to 

the Asotin.

The 

Wenaha 

population 

is managed 

as a wild 

fish 

sanctuary, 

so the 

hatcheryrelated 

goal is to 

keep 

hatchery 

fish to no 

more than 

5% of the 

spawning 

population. 

Important in years when fishing is 

allowed.

The Asotin 

population 

is managed 

as wild fish 

sanctuary. 

Any fishery 

is not likely 

until 

restoration 

goals are 

met.

Important in 

years when 

fishing is 

allowed.

2. Determine the relative 

reproductive success of 

hatchery-origin spawners in the 

natural environment.

See AHSWG (2008) High To be determined with regional collaboration

3. Determine if conservation 

programs increase the number 

of naturally spawning and 

naturally produced adults of the 

target population relative to a 

non-supplemented population 

(i.e., reference stream) and if 

the return per spawner (R/S) of 

the supplemented population is 

similar to that of the nonsupplemented population.

Number of redds or 

adults returning.

Number of hatchery 

produced fish on 

spawning grounds. 

Number of naturally and 

hatchery produced fish 

removed for broodstock.

Number of hatchery 

produced fish harvested.

Number of redds and or 

High

On-going, 

continue 

funding 

important

Will be 

important 

when 

population 

rebounds or is 

reintroduced.

On-going, continue funding important (does not apply to the Walla Walla 

or lower Grande Ronde and Asotin as there are no conservation hatcheries 

for those populations)
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 505

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

adults.

Origin of carcasses 

and/or brood stock 

(hatchery or naturally 

produced fish).

Sex ratio of broodstock 

collected randomly over 

the run.

Age composition from 

both broodstock and 

carcasses (from scale 

analysis).

4. Determine if the run timing, 

spawn timing, and spawning 

distribution of both the natural 

and hatchery components of the 

target population are similar.

Ages of hatchery and 

naturally produced fish 

sampled at broodstock 

collection sites, during 

carcasses surveys, 

and/or at stock 

assessment sites.

Time (Julian date) of 

arrival at Bonneville, 

McNary, Ice Harbor, 

Lower Granite dams, 

and within tributaries.

High

On-going, 

continue 

funding 

important

NA NA

Spawner origin information collection needs improvement (except Asotin 

Creek, and upstream from weirs on Tucannon and Touchet).

On-going, continue funding important.

5. Determine if genetic 

diversity, population structure, 

and effective population size

have changed in natural 

spawning populations as a 

result of hatchery programs. 

Additionally, determine if 

hatchery programs have caused 

changes in phenotypic 

characteristics of natural 

populations.

Allele frequency

Microsatellite genotypes

Age of hatchery and 

naturally produced 

salmon carcasses 

collected on spawning 

grounds. 

Age of broodstock.

Age of adults at trap 

locations.

High Ensure information is collected once every five years, or more if additional questions can be answered.

6. Determine if the hatchery Number of redds or High On going, Will be NA On going, ensure continued funding NA NA
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 506

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

adult-to-adult survival (i.e., 

hatchery replacement rate) is 

greater than the natural adultto-adult survival (i.e., natural 

replacement rate) and equal to 

or greater than the program 

specific HRR expected value.

adults.

Origin of carcasses 

and/or trapped adults 

(hatchery or naturally 

produced fish).

Sex ratio of broodstock 

collected randomly over 

the run.

Age composition from 

both adults and 

carcasses (from scale 

and tag analysis).

Number of hatchery and 

naturally produced fish 

harvested

ensure 

continued 

funding.

important if 

hatchery 

program is 

used for 

reintroduction.

(does not apply to the Walla Walla and 

LFH releases in the Touchet, but does 

apply to the endemic program in the 

Touchet).

7. Determine if the stray rate of 

hatchery fish is below the 

acceptable levels to maintain 

genetic variation between 

stocks.

Number of hatchery 

carcasses (or PIT tagged 

hatchery steelhead) 

found in non-target and 

target spawning areas. 

Number of hatchery fish 

collected for broodstock.

Number of hatchery fish 

taken in fishery.

Age (from scale and tag 

analysis) of all fish 

sampled (stock 

assessment, carcasses, 

and broodstock).

High Need to ensure that every stream is evaluated in some manner for hatchery strays from other hatchery programs. Data 

collection should be standardized and easily available between agencies.

8. Determine if hatchery fish 

were released at the 

programmed size number, and 

time.

Length (mm) and 

weights (g) of random 

samples of hatchery 

smolts. 

Dates of release 

compared to release date 

High

On-going,

ensure 

continued 

funding.

NA NA On-going, ensure continued funding. NA

On-going, 

ensure 

continued 

funding.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 507

Objective Key Variables Priority

Spring Chinook Steelhead

Tucannon Asotin Wenaha

Walla 

Walla Touchet Tucannon Asotin

Grande 

Ronde 

Basin 

(SEWMU)

goal.

Numbers of smolts 

released from the 

hatchery. 

9. Determine if the proportion 

of hatchery fish on the 

spawning grounds affects the 

freshwater productivity (i.e., 

number of juveniles/smolts per 

redd) of supplemented streams 

when compared to nonsupplemented streams (only 

practical in certain streams 

where fish in/out information is 

being collected).

Number of hatchery and 

naturally produced fish 

on spawning grounds.

Numbers of redds.

Number of juveniles 

(smolts, parr [not 

appropriate for all 

populations], and 

emigrants).

Number of hatchery fish 

removed at capture sites

Highest

Most of 

information 

being 

collected, 

continue 

funding and 

ensure 

objective is 

answered.

Expand this 

analysis if a 

reintroduction 

plan is 

implemented 

over time

NA

Spawner origin information 

collection needs 

improvement (except 

upstream from weirs on 

Tucannon and Touchet).

Most of information being 

collected, continue funding 

and ensure objective is 

answered.

Need to 

investigate 

downstream 

of Asotin 

and George 

Cr weirs 

and 

potentially 

Alpowa 

Creek and 

other 

associated 

tributaries

NA

10. Determine if harvest 

opportunities have been 

provided using hatchery 

returning adults where they 

were intended.

Numbers of hatchery 

fish taken in harvest, 

and locations of harvest

High See objective 1 above

11. Reduce negative effects 

caused by ecological 

interactions between hatchery 

and naturally produced 

juveniles and adults.

See pages 130-131 

above Medium To be determined with regional collaboration

a

 It is important to understand that mitigation goals for LSRCP populations include adult returns and SAR targets. This table does not consider those portions of 

the mitigation goals.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

C.3.8 Disease and Predation Status and Trend Monitoring

Monitoring disease and predation impacts occurs through various forums. All current processes call for 

controlling predator effects on juvenile salmonids. In the early 1990s, predation effects were estimated on 

the Columbia River system, and since that time, various control programs have been operating (e.g., 

Northern Pikeminnow Management Program). In the lower Columbia and Snake rivers, control measures 

are primarily funded through BPA‘s reward program, where anglers are paid on a per-fish basis. Research 

is needed on the effects of disease and non-native piscine predators on the recovery of Snake River 

populations.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board does not have resources to monitor disease and predation. If 

resources become available, the following outline could be implemented to help assess the effects of 

disease and predation on recovery of Snake River populations. 

Objective 1: Determine the effects of predation on population viability.

Monitoring Questions:

How much mortality of Chinook and steelhead smolts can be attributable to piscine predators?

How much mortality of Chinook and steelhead smolts can be attributable to avian predators? 

How much mortality of adult Chinook and steelhead can be attributable to marine mammal 

predators?

Sampling Design:

Random sample of locations for predator abundance.

Systematic sample (or complete census) of predators (stomach contents). 

Census (based on mark-recapture) of smolts within each population.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Predator sampling should occur throughout the migration corridor (including the estuary) in index 

areas and rotating random sites outside index areas. 

Sample predators systematically throughout the migration period.

Predator sampling should occur every 5-10 years.

Annual estimate of smolts produced within each population.

Measured Variables:

Number of Chinook and steelhead smolts from each population.

Number of Chinook and steelhead smolts consumed by predators.

Number of predators sampled.

Catch per unit effort.

Sampling rate.

Measurement Protocols:
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 509

Collect or sample predators using appropriate passive or active capture methods. 

Enumerate numbers of different predators and sampling effort.

Identify species consumed by key morphological features of remains (e.g., bones, otoliths, etc.).

Use genetic analysis to assign consumed fish to specific populations or ESUs/DPSs.

Count smolts using smolt traps following methods in Gallinet and Ross (2007), Mayer et al. 

(2010), and Mahoney et al. (2009).

Derived Variables:

Total Chinook and steelhead consumed by predator species based on bioenergetics modeling 

(e.g., Hewett and Johnson 1992).

Numbers of predators by species (based on standardized CPUE for piscine predators and visual 

monitoring of pinnipeds, Caspian Terns, and double-crested cormorants).

Mortality rates.

Proportion of SAR associated with predation.

Calculate abundance and productivity with and without predation.

Analysis:

Bioenergetics modeling (e.g., Hewett and Johnson 1992).

Estimate the standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the abundance and 

productivity estimates with and without predation (ICTRT 2007).

Combine the abundance and productivity estimates and plot them with their associated SE and 

95% CI on the viability curve (ICTRT 2007).

Track predation rates over time.

Possible Funding Entities:

Each hydro operator will be responsible for sampling at their project(s). BPA and USACE will 

like fund most of the work. 

USFWS funds through BPA via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP-funded 

program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.

Objective 2: Determine the prevalence, transmission, and distribution of diseases within each 

population.

Monitoring Questions:

What is the prevalence and distribution of disease in populations of concern?

Is disease being transferred between hatchery and naturally-produced fish?
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 510

Sampling Design:

Random selection of sampling sites within natural production areas (sites selected from the 

Washington State ―master sample‖ list).

Systematic sample of hatchery and naturally produced fish. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Monitor hatcheries that have a high incidence of disease. 

Sample fish from natural production areas adjacent to the hatcheries and in distant, remote 

production areas.

Sample once every five years.

Measured Variables:

Number of diseased hatchery and naturally produced fish.

Disease within hatchery influent and effluent water.

Measurement Protocols:

Push net, lift net, or pop net sampling within hatcheries.

Passive (smolt traps) and active (seines, hook-and-line, etc.) fish sampling methods in streams.

Standard disease identification through tissue (e.g., gill tissue) and water samples.

Derived Variables:

Percentage of hatchery fish diseased.

Percentage of naturally produced fish diseased.

Spatial distribution of disease.

Percent of caged fish diseased.

Percent of caged fish that died from disease.

Analysis:

Changes in prevalence of disease within hatcheries over time.

Changes in prevalence of disease within naturally produced fish over time.

Changes in the distribution of disease over time.

Differences in numbers of diseased fish within cages upstream and downstream from hatchery 

facilities.

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA funds through USFWS via the LSRCP and other BPA funds. 

State and/or federal funds needed to do the analyses and comparisons with recovery criteria. 

Implementation and Coordination:

Field work is implemented and coordinated by the co-managers.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will coordinate activities between the LSRCP-funded 

program and comparison of data to recovery metrics.

This is a medium priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 511

C.3.9 Regulatory Mechanisms Status and Trend Monitoring

There are several federal, state, tribal, and local regulatory mechanisms that protect listed species and 

their habitats. The lack of enforcement of existing regulations may limit the viability of Snake River 

populations. Monitoring the status and trend of enforcement of existing regulations is needed.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board does not have resources to monitor regulatory mechanisms. 

However, individual board member can identify and communicate regulations that are inadequate or that 

may need to be revised to support salmon recovery objectives to those agencies or entities with regulatory 

authority. If resources become available, the following outline could be implemented to assess the effects 

of regulatory mechanisms on recovery of Snake River populations. 

Objective 1: Identify Federal, state, tribal, and local regulatory mechanisms that benefit 

and/or protect listed ESUs/ DPSs.

Monitoring Questions:

What regulatory mechanisms are in place to maintain or further reduce risk of the primary 

limiting factors associated with disease and predation, habitat, hydropower, harvest, and 

hatcheries?

Sampling Design:

Complete census (listing) of regulations and jurisdiction or intent.

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

List of federal, state, tribal, and local regulations across all sectors. 

Measured Variables:

Identification of county ordinances, federal and state statutes, and tribal laws.

Description of the intent of each regulatory mechanism.

Measurement Protocols:

Review of existing regulatory mechanisms within each sector.

Legal/literature search and interviews.

Derived Variables:

Estimated effect of regulatory mechanism on limiting factor(s) within each sector.

Analysis:

Analysis will focus on whether specific regulatory mechanisms are affecting limiting factors.

Possible Funding Entities:

Local, state, and federal agencies. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 512

Implementation and Coordination:

Implementation and coordination through the SRSRB.

This is a Very-high priority objective.

Objective 2: Determine the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 

Monitoring Questions:

Are regulatory mechanisms adequate to meet salmon habitat protection and restoration goals?

Are the regulatory mechanisms identified under Objective 1 being implemented in a manner to 

meet recovery or restoration goals? 

Are the regulatory mechanisms identified under Objective 1 being enforced?

Sampling Design:

Complete census of enforcement of regulatory mechanisms. 

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Assessment of federal, state, tribal, and local regulations and their enforcement across all sectors. 

Measured Variables:

Presence/Absence of enforcement of county ordinances, federal and state statutes, and tribal laws.

Identification of regulations that are not enforced, or are not enforced consistently throughout the 

SEWMU. 

Measurement Protocols:

Review of existing enforcement within each sector.

Legal/literature searches and interviews.

Derived Variables:

None 

Analysis:

Changes in enforcement of regulations across sectors and throughout the SEWMU over time. 

Possible Funding Entities:

Local, state and federal agencies. 

Implementation and Coordination:

The SRSRB will implement and coordinate monitoring of enforcement of regulatory mechanisms 

in the SEWMU. 

This is a high priority objective.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 513

C.3.10 Natural Factors Status and Trend Monitoring

Natural factors that can limit the viability of Snake River populations include poor ocean conditions, fires, 

floods, droughts, and landslides. The most important natural factors limiting Snake River populations are 

poor ocean conditions and drought. Thus, ocean conditions, which are largely beyond the control of 

management agencies, can have a large effect on the viability of SEWMU populations. 

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board does not have resources to monitor natural factors. If resources 

become available, the following outline could be implemented to assess the effects of natural factors 

(ocean and drought conditions) on recovery of Snake River populations. 

Objective 1: Describe the status and trend of ocean conditions important to Snake River 

populations. 

The Fish Ecology Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC) developed a module for 

monitoring ocean conditions related to salmonid status. A monitoring plan for the estuary was developed 

under the FCRPS BiOp (Johnson et al. 2008). Outlined below is relevant information from these 

programs. 

Monitoring Questions:

What is the status and trend of ocean conditions important to Snake River populations?

Sampling Design:

Use designs identified in NFSC Fish Ecology Division research program 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/climatechange.cfm)

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Sample at spatial and temporal scales identified in NFSC Fish Ecology Division research 

program (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/climatechange.cfm)

Measured Variables:

Upwelling

Atmospheric pressure

Size of warm-water tongue

Sea-surface temperature

Cloudiness

Deep water temperature and salinity

Copepod species richness

Northern Copepod biomass anomalies

Predator fish abundance (e.g., Pacific hake (a.k.a. Pacific whiting) catch)

Coho catch in September

Spring Chinook catch in June

Forage fish abundance
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 514

Measurement Protocols:

Use protocols identified in Johnson et al. (2008).

Use protocols identified in NFSC Fish Ecology Division research program 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/climatechange.cfm)

Derived Variables:

Upwelling index based on Ekman mass transport calculation

Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) Index

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Index

Zooplankton Index

Hake Index (catch per volume from trawl samples)

See NFSC Fish Ecology Division research program 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/climatechange.cfm)

Analysis:

Use method identified in the NFSC Fish Ecology Division research program 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/climatechange.cfm)

Possible Funding Entities:

NOAA and research grants would be the primary funding entities. 

Implementation and Coordination:

NOAA and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership would implement and coordinate 

monitoring activities.

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a low priority objective.

Objective 2: Describe the status and trend of climate change in the Snake River Basin. 

The metrics needed to assess drought conditions are currently measured by state and federal agencies 

throughout the SEWMU. Methods used in the SEWMU need to be consistent with other regional 

programs. Outlined below is relevant information for assessing drought conditions and other impacts 

associated with climate change.

Monitoring Questions:

What is the trend in drought conditions within the Snake River Basin?

What is the trend in water quality (especially water temperatures) within the Snake River Basin 

(see Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring section)?

Sampling Design:

Systematic sampling of stream flows, precipitation, and air and water temperatures
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 515

Spatial/Temporal Scale:

Hourly sampling within each subbasin (Tucannon, Walla Walla (including Touchet), Asotin, and 

Grande Ronde). 

Measured Variables:

Stream flows (cms or cfs)

Air and water temperatures (°C)

Precipitation (mm)

Measurement Protocols:

Use existing USGS/WDOE gauging stations and weather stations in the southeast Washington 

State recovery area.

Measure water temperatures using methods described in Zaroban (2000).

Derived Variables:

Annual peak and base stream flows. 

Seasonal averages (June-August, September-November, December-February, and March-May) of 

air temperature and precipitation.

MWMT, MWAT, daily maximum, daily average, and temperature exceedances.

Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI).

Analysis:

Changes in drought indices over time. 

Possible Funding Entities:

BPA and NOAA would be the primary funding entities. 

Implementation and Coordination:

The SRSRB will implement and coordinate monitoring of drought conditions in the southeast 

Washington State recovery area. 

Coordination of results from these programs and recovery metrics should occur through the 

SRSRB.

This is a low priority objective.

C.3.11 Prioritization of limiting factors status and trend monitoring

Prioritization summaries were not necessary for Disease and Predator, Regulatory Mechanism, and 

Natural Factors status and trend monitoring because they are all low-medium priority except Regulatory 

Mechanisms. For Regulatory Mechanisms, the Board suggests monitoring when additional money is 

available.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 516

For Population (Table C-5), Habitat, Hydro, and Harvest (Table C-7) and hatcheries (Table C-8), specific 

basin recommendations are suggested above. 

C.4 IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE MONITORING PLAN 

This plan requests that all recovery actions include implementation monitoring. Implementation 

monitoring documents the type of action, its location, and whether the action was implemented properly 

and completely or complies with established standards. Indicators for implementation monitoring include 

visual inspections, photographs, and field notes on numbers, location, quality, and area affected by the 

action. It does not require collection of environmental or biological data. Success is determined by 

comparing field notes with what was specified in the plans or proposals (detailed descriptions of 

engineering and design criteria). Thus, design plans and/or proposals serve as the benchmark for 

implementation monitoring. Any deviations from specified engineering and design criteria should be 

described in detail. 

Implementation monitoring will answer two primary questions: (1) were the actions implemented 

completely and according to the implementation schedule and (2) were the actions implemented correctly. 

Because the implementation schedule addresses habitat actions, this section of the monitoring plan 

focuses on monitoring the implementation of habitat actions. Although recovery actions implemented 

within other sectors (e.g., harvest, hatcheries, and hydro) are not explicitly addressed here, the following 

forms can be used with some minor modification to monitor implementation of harvest, hatchery, and 

hydro actions. The Adaptive Management Plan will be used to determine if implementation targets or 

goals were achieved.

Below are project tracking forms that should be completed for each habitat project implemented in the 

southeast Washington State recovery area. Information contained in the forms can be used by the SRSRB 

to answer the two primary questions above. The following project tracking forms were largely developed 

by Katz et al. (2006) and represent a regional approach to tracking the implementation of projects.

General Project Information

Project Name/Identification 

Number Name of the project to be implemented/Project identification number

Project Grantee Primary grantee of the project

Project Subgrantee Sub-grantees of the project

Project Objective Objective of the project

Project Description Description of the project

Expected Project Benefits Expected benefits to VSP and habitat conditions 

Project Area Name Location of the project (stream name and 5th field HUC)

Selection Date Date that funding was committed to the project

Start Date Start date of the project

Deliverable Date Date that project deliverables are completed 

Scheduled End Date Date that the contract is scheduled for completion

Actual End Date Date that the project is actually completed
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 517

Federal Fiscal Fund Year The Federal fiscal year in which the funding was awarded

Proposed Funding The amount of money asked for in the proposal

Funding Received The amount of money received to do the work

Total Funding Spent The total amount of money spent to complete the project

Project Leads Names of entities receiving funds to do the project work

Project Contacts Contact person/people for the project

Worksite Information

Project Name/Identification 

Number Name of project to be implemented/Project identification number

Work Start Date Date that work actually started

Work End Date Date that work ended

State State in which the project is located

County County in which the project is located

Latitude Latitude coordinate value for worksite (0-90 degrees)

Longitude Longitude coordinate value for worksite (0-180 degrees)

Stream Name Name of stream in which the project is located (from StreamNet)

LLID LLID of the stream in which the project is located

Begin Feet Distance (ft) from the stream confluence that the project site begins

End Feet Distance (ft) from the stream confluence that the project ends

Township Township in which the project is located

Range Range in which the project is located

Section Section in which the project is located

3

rd Field HUC 3rd Field HUC in which the project is located

4

th Field HUC 4th Field HUC in which the project is located

5

th Field HUC 5th Field HUC in which the project is located

Targeted ESU(s) ESUs and/or DPSs targeted by the project 

Targeted Population(s) Populations targeted by the project

General Habitat Expense Information

Year Year in which projects were implemented

Habitat Restoration and Protection Money spent on habitat restoration and protection

Instream Funds Money spent on instream activities
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 518

Fish Screening Money spent on fish screening activities

Fish Passage Improvement Money spent on fish passage improvement projects

Instream Flow Money spent on instream flow activities

Instream Habitat Money spent on instream habitat activities

Upland Habitat Money spent on upland habitat activities

Water Quality Money spent on water quality activities

Riparian Habitat Money spent on riparian habitat activities

Land Acquisition Money spent on land acquisition (lease) activities

Wetland Money spent on wetland activities

Planning and Assessment Money spent on planning and assessment activities

Research Monitoring Money spent on research, monitoring and evaluation

Project Specific Information

Habitat Action Type Specific Habitat Actions Metric

Fish Screening Fish Screen Installed Number of screens installed and flows (cfs) at 

screened diversion

Fish Screen Replacement Number of screens installed and flows (cfs) at 

screened diversion

Fish Passage Fish Ladder Improvement Number of ladders improved or removed and 

names of fish that benefit from action

Fish Ladder Installation Number of ladders installed and names of fish 

that benefit from action

Fishways (ladders, chutes, or pools) Number of fishways installed or improved and 

names of fish that benefit from action

Barriers (dams or log jams) Number of barriers removed or made passable 

and names of fish that benefit from action

Diversion or Push-Up Dam Removal Number of barriers removed and names of fish 

that benefit from action

Road Crossings (not culverts)

Number of road crossings removed or made 

passable and names of fish that benefit from 

action

Culvert Improvements or Upgrades Number of culverts improved and names of 

fish that benefit from action

Culvert Installation Number of culverts installed and names of fish 

that benefit from action

Culvert Removal Number of culverts removed and names of fish 

that benefit from action

Weirs (log or rock) Number of weirs improved and names of fish 

that benefit from action

Instream Flow Water Leased or Purchased Amount of flow (cfs) leased or purchased
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 519

Habitat Action Type Specific Habitat Actions Metric

Irrigation Practice Improvement Amount of flow (cfs) returned to the stream

Instream Structure Streambank Stabilization Length (miles) of stream stabilized (add 

lengths treated on both sides of the stream)

Channel Connectivity Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Channel Reconfiguration Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Deflectors or Barbs Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Log (Control) Weirs Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Off-Channel Habitat Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Plant Removal or Control Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Rock (Control) Weir Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Spawning Gravel Placement Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Large Woody Debris Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Boulders Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Rootwads Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Log Structure or Log Jam Length (miles) of stream channel treated

Beaver Introduction Number of beavers introduced

Off-Channel Wetland Wetland Creation Area (acres) of wetlands created

Wetland Improvement or Enhancement Area (acres) of wetlands improved or 

enhanced

Wetland Restoration Area (acres) of wetlands restored

Wetland Vegetation Planting Area (acres) of wetlands treated

Wetland Invasive Species Removal Area (acres) of wetlands treated

Riparian Habitat Livestock Water Development Number of livestock water developments (may 

be more than one per project)

Water Gap Development Number of water gaps developed

Fencing Length (miles) of riparian habitat fencing

Forestry Practices or Stand Management Area (acres) of riparian habitat treated

Planting Area (acres) of riparian habitat planted and 

species planted

Livestock Exclusion Area (acres) of riparian habitat protected 

from livestock

Conservation Grazing Management Area (acres) of riparian habitat treated

Weed Control Area (acres) of riparian habitat treated and 

species controlled

Sediment Reduction Road Reconstruction Length (miles) of road reconstructed

Road Relocation Length (miles) of road relocated

Road Stream Crossing Improvements Length (miles) of road improvements 

Road Drainage System Improvements Length (miles) of road improvements

Road Obliteration Length (miles) of roads obliterated
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 520

Habitat Action Type Specific Habitat Actions Metric

Erosion Control Structures Number of erosion control structures installed

Sediment Control Number of sediment structures installed

Upland Agriculture Livestock Management Area (acres) of uplands treated

Agriculture Management (BMPs) Area (acres) of uplands treated

Fencing Length (miles) of upland fencing

Water Development Number and type of water developments

Upland Vegetation Planting Area (acres) of upland vegetation plantings

Invasive Plant Control Area (acres) of uplands treated

Vegetation or Stand Management Area (acres) of uplands treated

Slope Stabilization Area (acres) of slope stabilization

Upland Wetlands Wetland Creation Area (acres) of wetlands created

Wetland Improvement or Enhancement Area (acres) of wetland improved or enhanced

Wetland Restoration Area (acres) of wetlands restored

Wetland Vegetation Planting Area (acres) of wetland vegetation planted

Wetland Invasive Species Removal Area (acres) of wetland invasive sp removed

Water Quality Improvement Return Flow Cooling Temperature (°C) of return flow

Refuse Removal Weight (lbs) of refused removed

Sewage Clean-Up Area (acres) of stream cleaned up

Toxic Clean-Up Area (acres) of stream cleaned up and name 

of toxicants

Land Protection, 

Acquisition, or Lease Streambank Protection

Length (miles) of streambank protected (count 

both sides of the stream if both sides are 

protected)

Upland Protection Area (acres) of uplands protected

Wetland Protection Area (acres) of wetlands protected

Nutrient Enrichment Fertilizer Weight (lbs) of fertilizer added and the area 

(acres) of stream treated

Carcass Analog Weight (lbs) of analogs added and the area 

(acres) of stream treated

Carcass Placement Weight (lbs) of carcasses added and the area 

(acres) of stream treated

Project Maintenance Site Maintenance Length (miles) of stream treated

The information contained in these project tracking forms will be maintained in a database that will be 

queried annually to determine what actions were implemented, where they were implemented, how big 

they were, and when they were implemented. This information will then be used to determine if actions 

were implemented correctly and according to the implementation schedule. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 521

C.5 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING APPROACH 

Effectiveness monitoring is a type of monitoring that tests if recovery actions are working. If they are not, 

monitoring points the way toward changes in strategies or actions. Thus, effectiveness monitoring is an 

important part of a recovery plan. As noted earlier, hydro, harvest, and hatchery actions are, or will be, 

monitored for effectiveness because it is required through regulatory mandates (e.g., U.S. v OR, BiOps, 

Relicensing Agreements, etc.). Habitat actions, on the other hand, should be selected for effectiveness 

monitoring based on assurance of implementation, the assumed size of the treatment effect (large signalto-noise ratio), and the presence of adequate controls/references that can be maintained for the life of the 

monitoring study. Therefore, not all actions can, nor should be, intensively monitored for effectiveness. 

This section outlines the steps needed to develop valid effectiveness monitoring plans. Monitoring plans 

will be developed as specific actions meeting the requirements above are funded. 

Effectiveness monitoring is more complex, more difficult, and longer term than implementation 

monitoring. This is in part because effectiveness monitoring can occur across many different spatial 

scales and may involve the measurement of several different environmental and biological parameters 

over long periods of time. For example, if the objective is to use nutrient enrichment techniques (carcass 

analogs) to increase egg-smolt survival of spring Chinook in the Tucannon Basin, then the spatial scale 

covered by the monitoring study must include the entire area inhabited by the eggs, fry, parr, and smolts. 

If, on the other hand, the objective is to use sediment reduction techniques to increase egg-fry survival of 

spring Chinook within a specific reach of stream, then the study area would only encompass the reach of 

stream used by spawners of that local group. Clearly, the objectives and hence the parameters measured 

dictate the spatial scale at which effectiveness monitoring is conducted. As a general rule, as the spatial 

scale for monitoring increases, a more complex program and a longer period of time are needed to detect 

a treatment effect.

The ―amount‖ or ―intensity‖ of monitoring needed to assess treatment effects also depends on the 

monitoring question. For example, if one wants to know if the project affected the environmental 

parameters (physical habitat) that were the target of the action, then less intensive monitoring is needed to 

answer the question. In contrast, if one wants to know if the project affected the biological parameters 

(survival or productivity) at a population scale, more intensive monitoring is needed to answer the 

question. This is because habitat actions rarely affect biological parameters directly. The usual approach 

is to manipulate the environment (add wood, rock, vegetation, nutrients, passage, etc.) in the hope that the 

change in the environment will result in a desired change in the population (biological parameters). In the 

chain-of-causation, the ―cause‖ is the treatment, which directly ―affects‖ the stream environment (first 

link). The change in the stream environment should then cause a biological response (second link). 

Because the biological response is more than one link from the treatment, more intensive monitoring is 

needed to detect biological responses. As a general rule, the more links between the treatment (cause) and 

the desired effect, the more intensive the monitoring must be in order to detect a treatment effect. This is 

because several other factors may have a greater effect on the desired outcome than the treatment. 

Regardless of the question or scale of the project, all effectiveness monitoring should be implemented 

according to standard rules of experimental design. There are several logical steps that should be taken 

when designing any monitoring program. These include establishing project goals and objectives; 

identifying key questions and specific hypotheses; selecting the appropriate monitoring design; selecting

monitoring parameters; identifying appropriate spatial and temporal scales; selecting a sampling scheme 

for collecting parameters; implementing the monitoring program; and analyzing and communicating 

results (Figure C-2). Each of these steps is described briefly below.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 522

Define goals and objectives

Identify questions and

specific hypotheses

Select appropriate monitoring

design

Determine sampling scheme

Analyze and report results

Implement monitoring

program

Select parameters

Determine

number of sites

and years to

monitor

Effectiveness Monitoring Logic Path

Refine future

restoration

projects

Figure C-2. Basic steps for setting up an effectiveness monitoring program for 

recovery actions (modified from Roni et al. 2005).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 523

Define Goals and Objectives

Before initiating a study to evaluate a recovery action, the overall goal of the project and the monitoring 

objectives must be clearly identified. Goals are typically broad and strategic, while objectives are more 

specific and quantifiable. For example, the goal of a stream restoration project may be to increase habitat 

diversity and improve overwinter survival of juvenile steelhead. In contrast, the objectives would be to (1) 

determine if the addition of three rock cross vanes increase pool frequency and quality (depth) and (2) 

assess if the rock structures increased overwinter survival of juvenile steelhead by 20%. It is critical that 

the restoration goals and monitoring objectives be identified before implementation of the project. The 

goals and objectives help to determine the monitoring design, monitoring parameters, and the sampling 

scheme. Answering the following questions will aid in defining goals and objectives.

1. What is the problem that needs to be corrected by the action?

2. What are the current conditions at the project site?

3. What factors (including their spatial and temporal scales) contributed to the current conditions?

4. What specific actions (treatments) are needed to improve or correct the existing condition?

5. What are the independent variables in the study?

Define Key Questions and Hypotheses

The monitoring objectives need to be refined into key monitoring questions and hypotheses. If the 

monitoring objectives have been well defined, they can be easily translated into questions and then 

redefined more specifically into testable hypotheses. Following the example above, the key questions and 

hypotheses are:

Key Question 1: Does the addition of three rock cross vanes increase the number of high-quality 

(>1 m deep) pools within the stream?

Hypothesis 1: The addition of three rock cross vanes has no effect on the number of highquality pools within the stream.66

Key Question 2: Does the presence of high-quality pools (>1 m deep) increase overwinter 

survival of juvenile steelhead by 20% in the stream?

Hypothesis 2: The presence of high-quality pools has no effect on the overwinter survival of 

juvenile steelhead within the stream.

Key questions and hypotheses will differ among projects and will depend on the overall objectives of the 

project and monitoring program. 

 

66 The hypothesis to be tested is stated as no difference. This is referred to as the ―null‖ hypothesis.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 524

Select Monitoring Design

There are many potential study designs for monitoring restoration actions. Although none is ideal for all 

situations, ―before-after‖ study designs can be used for monitoring environmental changes. A before-after 

study refers to a design where data are collected both before and after treatment. Data collected before 

treatment serve as pre-treatment or control data (temporal control), while data collected after treatment 

serve as post-treatment data. If there is a treatment effect, then the post-treatment score should be more 

desirable than the pre-treatment score (e.g., number of high quality pools within the stream increased 

from 2 to 5 after the addition of rock cross vanes). 

By adding spatial control site(s), the before-after study becomes a ―Before-After Control-Impact‖ (BACI) 

study, which, if implemented correctly, is a better monitoring design than the before-after study design. 

Under the BACI study design, a control site67 is evaluated over the same time period as the treatment 

(impact) site. The addition of a spatial control site to the before-after study design is meant to account for 

environmental variability and temporal trends found in both the control and treatment areas and, thus, 

increase the ability to differential treatment effects from natural variability. Adding more than one control 

site further increases the probability of detecting a treatment effect. The BACI study design is the 

preferred design for effectiveness monitoring and to the extent possible sponsors should use this design. 

Answers to the following questions will help investigators determine the validity of the monitoring design 

(see Hillman 2006 for more detail).

1. How will treatments and controls be assigned to sampling units?

2. Will the study include true replicates, sub-samples, or both?

3. Are treatments and controls independent of each other (i.e., are controls completely unaffected by 

the recovery actions?)?

4. What are the potential threats to the validity (internal and external) of the study?

5. What covariates (if any) will be measured?

Select Monitoring Parameters

Identifying which environmental and/or biological parameters to measure depends on the goals and 

objectives, key questions and hypotheses, selection of a monitoring design, and the availability of 

monitoring tools and protocols. Monitoring parameters should be relevant to the questions asked, strongly 

associated with the restoration action, ecologically significant, socially acceptable, and efficient to 

measure. Moreover, parameters must change in a measurable way in response to treatment, must be 

directly related to the resource of concern, and must have limited variability. Hillman (2006) provided a 

list of habitat indicators that should be measured with each type of habitat action (reproduced here as 

Table C-10). 

 

67 Control sites need to be as similar as possible to the treatment sites. The design does not require exact pairing; 

parameters simply need to ―track‖ each other. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 525

Table C-10. Rankings of the usefulness of physical/environmental indicators to monitoring effects of different tributary 

habitat actions. Rankings vary from 1 = highly likely to be useful; 2 = moderately likely to be useful; and 3 = unlikely to be 

useful or little relationship, although the indicator may be useful under certain conditions or may help interpret data from a 

primary indicator. Table is from Hillman (2006). 

General 

characteristics Specific indicators

Classes of habitat actions

Diversion 

screens

Barrier 

removal

Sediment 

reduction

Water quality 

improvement

Nutrient 

enhancement

Instream 

flows

Riparian 

habitat

Instream 

structure

Water quality

Temperature 3 2 3 1 2 1-2 1 3

Turbidity 3 1-2 1 1 1 1-2 2 3

Conductivity 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3

pH 3 3 3 1 1 3 2-3 3

Dissolved Oxygen 3 2-3 2-3 1 1 1-2 2-3 3

Nitrogen 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3

Phosphorus 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3

Habitat access

Road crossings 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

Diversion dams 1-2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3

Fishways 2-3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

Habitat quality

Dominant substrate 3 2 1 3 3 1-2 2 1-2

Embeddedness 3 1-2 1 1-2 3 1-2 2 1-2

Depth fines 3 1-2 1 1-2 2 2 2 1-2

LWD 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1

Pools 3 1-2 1-2 3 3 1-2 1-2 1

Residual pool depth 3 1-2 1 3 3 1 1-2 1

Fish cover 3 2 1 1-2 1-2 1 1-2 1

Off-channel habitat 3 2 2 3 3 1 1-2 1

Channel condition Stream gradient 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 526

Width/depth 3 1-2 1-2 3 3 1-2 1-2 1

Wetted width 3 1-2 1-2 3 3 1-2 1-2 1

Bankful width 3 1-2 1-2 3 3 1-2 1-2 1

Bank stability 3 2 1-2 3 3 2 1 1

Riparian condition

Riparian structure 3 3 2 2-3 3 2 1 1-2

Riparian disturbance 3 3 2 2-3 3 2 1 1-2

Canopy cover 3 3 2 2-3 3 2 1 1-2

Flows/hydrology Streamflows 3 1-2 3 3 3 1 2 1-2

Watershed condition

Road density 3 3 1-2 2 3 2-3 2-3 2

Riparian-road index 3 3 1-2 2 3 2-3 1 2

Land ownership 2 2 1 1 2-3 1 1 2

Land use 1-2 1-2 1 1 2-3 1 1 2
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 527

In addition to measuring various environmental and/or biological parameters, all sponsors should 

establish photo points to document changes within treatment and control sites. Annual photographs taken 

at the same locations within treatment and control areas both before and after treatment provide an 

excellent tool for demonstrating environmental effectiveness. Hall (2001) describes methods for 

documenting environmental change using photo points.

Identify Number of Sites and Years to Monitor

Estimating the number of sites and years to monitor can be a difficult and involved process for most 

monitoring programs. It usually requires an understanding of spatial and temporal variability of the 

parameter of interest, statistical decision rules (i.e., Type I and II errors), and effect sizes. Using this 

information, a ―power analysis‖ can then be conducted to estimate the number of sites and years to 

monitor. There are a number of tools that can be use to estimate total sample size. Cohen (1988) provides 

tables and equations for calculating sample sizes. Various computer packages also estimate sample sizes, 

such as PASS 2000, SYSTAT, and Methodologist‘s Toolchest.68 It is recommended that the investigator 

use the method that meets their particular needs. See Hillman (2006; pages 22-26) for a more detailed 

discussion on choosing sample sizes for effectiveness monitoring. 

Answers to the following questions will help investigators estimate sample sizes.

1. What is the statistical population(s) to be sampled?

2. How will sampling units be identified in the study?

3. How many sampling units make up the sampling frame?

4. What is considered ―practical significance‖ (i.e., what size of change is acceptable or 

unacceptable?)?

5. How will effect sizes be detected?

6. What is the variability or estimated variability of the statistical population(s)?

7. What Type I and II errors will be used in statistical tests?

Determine Sampling Scheme

Before initiating monitoring, one needs to determine the methods (protocols) and spatial allocation of 

sampling within a site or study reach. Hillman (2006) identifies methods for measuring environmental 

and biological parameters. For spatial allocation of sampling, it is recommended that all treatment sites 

and their corresponding control sites be sampled completely (complete census). However, in some 

situations, it may not be feasible to sample the entire treatment reach. For example, restoration projects 

such as nutrient enrichment and large conservation easements may extend for several stream kilometers, 

making a complete census impossible or expensive. In this case, a sub-sampling strategy (scheme) that 

reduces effort but provides unbiased estimates of treatment effects is necessary. Although no one 

sampling design is best for all situations, the preferred approach is a simple random sample or stratified 

random sample. The optimal sampling design will depend on the spatial arrangement of the parameters of 

interest and the logistics of moving between locations and collecting samples (see discussion in Hillman 

2006; pages 19-22). 

 

68 The use of trade or firm names in this plan is for reader information only and does not imply endorsement by an 

agency or the SRSRB of any product or service.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 528

Answers to the following questions will help investigators identify measurement methods.

1. What methods and instruments will be used to measure indicators?

2. What is the precision of each measuring instrument?

3. What effects will the measuring instrument have on the sampling units?

4. How will the study deal with an instrument that affects the sampling unit?

5. What steps will be taken to minimize systematic errors?

6. What will be the sampling frequency for each measurement?

Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting

Data acquisition, management, and analysis are key parts of any effectiveness monitoring program. This 

includes determining how the data will be entered and stored in a database and making sure the database 

is consistent with the field forms. Because observer error can be quite large, it is important that field 

crews understand how data are to be collected. Tools such as data loggers and computer clipboards can 

simplify entering data into a database but may be expensive and complicate field data collection. 

Before collecting data, it is important to consider how the data will be analyzed and what statistical 

methods should be used. Before-after and BACI designs are well suited to t-tests, analysis of variance, 

regression, and time series methods. It is also important to use graphical methods to analyze data. 

If the Board, managers, and funding entities are to learn from restoration activities, monitoring results 

should be reported to both the scientific community and the general public. Regardless if a restoration 

project is a success or failure, it is important to report the findings. Often failures go unreported. To avoid 

making the same mistakes in the future, it is probably just as important to report failed efforts as 

successes.

The steps outlined above should be carefully considered when designing a monitoring plan to assess the 

effectiveness of any recovery action, regardless of how simple the proposed action may be. Even 

monitoring the effectiveness of irrigation screens requires careful consideration of all steps in the outline. 

In some cases, the investigator may not be able to address all steps with a high degree of certainty, 

because adequate information does not exist. For example, one may lack information on population 

variability, effect size, ―practical significance,‖ or instrument precision. In this case the investigator can 

address the questions with the best available information, even if it is based on professional opinion, or 

design a pilot study to answer the questions.

More detailed guidance can be found in Hillman (2005 and 2006). Hillman (2005) provides detailed 

guidance to investigators interested in determining if a given project has affected the environmental 

parameters that were the target of the action. That document addresses all sorts of recovery actions, 

including riparian restoration, floodplain restoration, instream habitat restoration, restoration of 

connectivity, instream diversion restoration, and acquisitions and conservation easements. Hillman (2006) 

provides guidance to investigators interested in determining if a given project has affected environmental 

and biological parameters at different spatial scales. Both guidance documents were written for 

monitoring projects to be implemented in the Upper Columbia Basin. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 529

C.6 DATA MANAGEMENT 

A large volume of data will be generated in the southeast Washington State recovery area as part of the 

Recovery Plan. Summarizing these data based on how, when, and where they were collected, supporting a 

range of analytical methods, and adapting to changing requirements in the future is critical. An example 

of a large-scale data storage process is the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

(ISEMP). Currently ISEMP is creating systems of data processing, storage, analysis, reporting, and 

distribution to meet the needs of managers and analysts in various subbasins within the Columbia Basin. 

This plan recommends that either these systems or others like it be used to manage the large volume of 

data generated as part of the Recovery Plan. In addition, the plan calls for close coordination between 

these programs and the Northwest Environmental Data-Network (NED; 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/ned/Default.asp) and the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership 

(PNAMP) data management workgroup (http://www.pnamp.org/web/content.cfm?WorkGroupID=5).

The ISEMP data management system is far along in development. The ISEMP system is presently housed 

and managed by NOAA Fisheries at the Science Center in Seattle. The ISEMP system is currently funded 

by BPA and NOAA Fisheries. Below is a brief summary of the ISEMP data management system (from 

Chapter 6 in Terraqua 2006). A detailed description of each system can be found at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/mngt.cfm.

Data Management Strategy

The ISEMP has standardized data communication and flow through the development of a generic STEM 

Databank, the Aquatic Resource Schema (ARS) to manage the metadata, and Archive Template Modules 

(ATMs) that facilitate the field data collection, data uploading, and communication between 

elements. The data management elements together define a standardized data structure for storing, 

sharing, and analyzing fish, water quality, stream habitat, and landscape classification data. The several 

component processes and structures operate as step-wise functions to enter, manage, summarize, and 

distribute aquatic resource field data and metadata (Table C-11; Figure C-3).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 530

Table C-11. Functions and component processes and structures of the ISEMP data 

management strategy.

Functions Component processes and structures

Track and catalog data collection methodologies Protocol Manager

Standardize field data collection Standardized protocols and methodologies data 

dictionary

Organize data at the local (e.g., field collector, agency) level ATMs – archive template modules

Facilitate efficient transfer of data Programming code between ATMs and STEM 

Databank

Archive data in secure, centralized repositories STEM Databank and Geospatial Databases

Organize data within centralized repositories ARS – Aquatic Resource Schema; other schemas

Facilitates the interaction between centralized repositories Programming code between STEM Databank 

Geospatial Databases

Facilitate data manipulation (e.g., summarization, metric 

calculation, basic analyses) within the repositories 

Programming code within STEM Databank and 

Geospatial Databases

Facilitate efficient output of data to data analysts and other 

users

Website and other media (e.g., DVDs)

Train system users in the use of each component of the data 

management system Demonstrations, workshops and training sessions
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 531

Figure C-3. An illustration of data flow and data structures under the ISEMP data 

management strategy (from Terraqua 2006). 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 532

Protocol Manager

The first step in the data management system is the management of the scientific protocols used in 

monitoring. Protocols refer to suites of methodologies used by researchers to collect information about an 

ecosystem. Tracking protocols in a large-scale monitoring program is important because the quality of 

observational data can vary by protocol and, often, data from one protocol is not compatible with data 

from alternative protocols. A Protocol Manager (PM), developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and 

Nation Park Service was adopted to perform the necessary protocol management function. The PM tool is 

also being adopted by PNAMP in an attempt to prescribe standardized methods for field data collection 

across a regional scale. PM increases the ease, accuracy, and efficiency of documenting protocols by 

allowing users to select from existing protocols, modifying existing protocols, or creating new protocol 

documentation. All data stored within the ATMs and the STEM Databank are associated with a method 

catalogued in PM, which allows automated access to full metadata descriptions of every value within the 

databases. The synchronization of PM with the STEM Databank supports efficient protocol comparisons, 

site comparisons, or analysis of functional relationships.

Archive Template Modules (ATMs)

ATMs are small databases functioning at the agency or desktop scale operated by field data collectors that 

facilitate data entry and quality control and can perform database functions specific to recovery plan 

reporting needs. ATMs ensure data integrity by requiring metadata to be documented before observation 

values can be entered, and by forcing entered values to conform to the specifications of the protocol. Most 

importantly, ATMs provide a standard procedure to deposit data into the STEM Databank; simple output 

queries operated within the ATMs produce tables that are directly loaded into the STEM Databank 

without the need for additional formatting or filtering.

ATMs for water quality, stream habitat, and fish abundance currently exist and consist of a set of data 

entry forms, data tables, and summary queries built according to the ARS (Figures C-4 and C-5). 

Additional ATMs will be created to handle other types of data (e.g., macroinvertebrate). The ATMs were 

developed with Microsoft Access and they expand upon PM by not only tracking protocol and method 

information, but also managing attribute, domain, and range information for each data element. The 

ATMs are flexible and popular among data collectors.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 533

Figure C-4. An example schematic of an ATM (from Terraqua 2006).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 534

Figure C-5. An example of a data entry form that allows for easy data entry for field 

staff and provides data validation (from Terraqua 2006). 

The STEM Databank

The STEM Databank is the central data repository and provides data validation, long-term storage and 

back-up, and supports multi-users and a web-based user interface. It was developed to:

Accommodate large volumes of data from multiple agencies and projects;

Track protocols and methods for all stored data;

Support a range of analytical methods;

Develop a web-based data query and retrieval system; 

Adapt to changing requirements.

The architecture of the databank was designed to be very flexible, allowing the addition or removal of 

attributes without modifying the underlying structure of the repository. The Databank flexibility also 

allows the integration of data from external electronic sources that are needed for recovery needs (e.g., 

National Resource Information System, Streamnet, or EPA‘s Water Quality Data Exchange). These 

features have been accomplished by normalizing the STEM Databank architecture and the use of the 

ARS. A normalized relational database architecture means that data are organized and stored with the 

minimal redundancy of attributes possible that retains all metadata associated with a unique value. Note 

that it is possible for the STEM Databank to store data according to other schemas, as long as they are 

consistent with the ISEMP ARS. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 535

The STEM Databank has several key characteristics, including:

Data summary in a variety of formats to meet most reporting and analytical requirements;

Built-in functions calculate standard metrics and generate standard summary statistics;

Synchronized with PM to enhance data analysis by having protocols attached to individual data 

values;

Synchronized with the ATMs for automated upload of field data;

Synchronized with the geospatial databases in the ArcSDE software environment.

ARS and Other Schemas

The ARS is a database structure that was developed to organize the ISEMP data within the STEM 

Databank and to serve as a template to support non-ISEMP agencies within the Columbia River Basin in 

managing, documenting, and analyzing aquatic resource data. The ARS resulted from a design process 

that focused on development of small-scale, data type specific prototypes, employing ecologist to test the 

prototypes, gathering input from other database designers, and then integrating the lessons learned. The 

ARS improves upon previous efforts by imposing a structure on the data that is robust against protocol 

variation, by supporting the development of cross-walks between protocols (cross-walks define the 

process for transforming an attribute measured under one methodology to a roughly equivalent value if 

the attribute had been measured under an alternate methodology), and by defining relationships inherent 

to the data. The primary characteristics of the ARS include:

It is a data model that is robust against variations in data collection protocols. The ARS assumes 

that data collection protocols will vary depending on the resource management questions being 

addressed and that protocols will continue to evolve over time as both scientific understand and 

measurement methodologies evolve;

It supports procedures for ensuring increased data integrity at the time of data entry;

It supports proper analysis and summarization of aquatic resources data.

The ARS includes tables for documenting projects, sites, statistical designs, data collection events, 

sampling units, observations, and measurement methodology. The database schema requires that 

appropriate metadata about field observations be recorded before entering field data into the database. 

The schema requires that a statistical design, a site, and a protocol exist before data collection events can 

be created, and that a data collection event exists before observations of water quality, fish abundance, or 

stream habitat can be created. This referential integrity helps to ensure data integrity at the time of data 

entry. Additionally, metadata about the data collection protocol and measurement methodologies are used 

to place restrictions on data entry forms, thereby providing data validation at the time of data entry and 

ensuring consistency between a protocol and data entered under that protocol.

Geospatial Databases

Geodatabases are databases designed to store geospatial data (i.e., ―GIS data layers‖) in a standardized 

format. This format maintains the integrity of metadata and the geographic projections that define the 

spatial coordinate system. The unique ability of geodatabases to define spatially explicit relationships 

between data elements allows geodatabases to support advanced spatial analyses.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 536

The ISEMP uses two types of geodatabases: an enterprise geodatabase and personal geodatabases. The 

enterprise geodatabase is an Oracle database managed through the ESRI ArcSDE software that is 

maintained on a central server at NOAA Fisheries. The enterprise geodatabase acts as the primary archive 

of geospatial data, stores geospatial data for regional scale analyses, and provides the spatial context for 

data stored in the STEM Databank. The STEM Databank maintains links to the enterprise geodatabase 

through the use of unique identifiers, which allow monitoring data in the STEM Databank to be 

represented and analyzed in a spatial context.

Personal geodatabases are desktop-scale databases (Microsoft Access database managed through the 

ESRI ArcCatalog software) designed to facilitate the distribution of geospatial data (the small size of 

personal geodatabases means they can be distributed via DVDs) and to support subbasin specific 

analyses. Personal geodatabases are also used to develop and troubleshoot spatial analysis procedures, 

which can later be implemented on the enterprise geodatabase. For example, the Wenatchee geodatabase 

was used to define the process of characterizing monitoring sites and upstream catchments. Now that the 

process has been defined, it can be replicated on the central server using the enterprise geodatabase and 

performed for other sites throughout the region.

Data Distribution

The current system facilitates data distribution through the ISEMP website, STEM Databank website 

linkages, geodatabases, the ATMs, and by other media. The ISEMP website 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/?CFID=31055621&CFTOKEN=7378

0522&jsessionid=643090c2f7705e3e7334) is accessible by the public and contains documents, such as 

annual reports and presentations, map products, and data management tools. This website will eventually 

contain links to the STEM Databank interface when that tool is ready for public use. 
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 537

C.7 REFERENCES 

AHSWG (Ad Hoc Supplementation Workgroup). Beasley C. A , B. A. Berejikian, R. W. Carmichael, D. 

E. Fast, M. J. Ford, P. F. Galbreath,J. A. Hesse, L. L. McDonald, A. R. Murdoch, C. M. Peven, and D. A. 

Venditti. 2008. Recommendations for Broad Scale Monitoring to Evaluate the Effects of Hatchery 

Supplementation on the Fitness of Natural Salmon and Steelhead Populations. Final Report. 82 pgs

Bumgarner, J., L. Ross, and M. Varney. 2000. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Tucannon River 

Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 1998 and 1999 Annual Reports to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Cooperative Agreements 1448-14110-98-J057 and CA-14110-9-J070. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Report # FPA00-17.

Bumgarner, J and J. Dedloff. 2009. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: Summer Steelhead and 

Trout Report 2006 and 2007 run year. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation 

Plan Offices, Boise, ID.

BURPTAC (Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Project Technical Advisory Committee). 1999. 1999 

beneficial use reconnaissance project workplan for wadable streams. Idaho Division of Environmental 

Quality, Boise, ID. Web link:http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/surface_water/99_burp_workplan.pdf

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence-Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Crawford, B.A., and S. Rumsey. 2009. Guidance For Monitoring Recovery of Pacific Northwest Salmon 

and Steelhead Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). 

DRAFT. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 129 pages.

Gallinat, M. P., J. D. Bumgarner, L. Ross, and M. Varney. 2001. Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon 

Hatchery Evaluation Program 2000 Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative 

Agreement 1411-09-J070. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Report # 

FPA01-05.

Gallinat, M. P, and L. A. Ross. 2009. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation program. 

2008 Annual Report. WDFW report to the USFWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Offices, 

Boise, ID.

Hall, F. C. 2001. Photo point monitoring handbook: part A—field procedures. USDA, General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-526, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr526/

Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG)–Lars Mobrand (chair), John Barr, Lee Blankenship, Don 

Campton, Trevor Evelyn, Tom Flagg, Conrad Mahnken, Robert Piper, Paul Seidel, Lisa Seeb and Bill 

Smoker. 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Long Live the Kings, 

1305 Fourth Avenue, Suite 810, Seattle, WA 98101 (available from www.hatcheryreform.org).
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 538

Hewett, S. W. and B. L. Johnson. 1992. Fish bioenergetics model 2: an upgrade of a generalized 

bioenergetics model of fish growth for microcomputers. WIS-SG-91-250, University of Wisconsin Sea 

Grant Institute, Madison, WI. 

Hillman, T. W. 2005. Project monitoring: a guide for sponsors in the Upper Columbia Basin. First 

edition. BioAnalysts, Inc. Prepared for Chelan County Natural Resource Department, Wenatchee, WA.

Hillman, T. W. 2006. Monitoring strategy for the Upper Columbia Basin. Second draft report. 

BioAnalysts, Inc. Prepared for the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, Bonneville Power 

Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New 

York, N.Y.

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2005. Interior Columbia Basin TRT: 

viability criteria for application to interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007. Viability Criteria for application to 

interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. Review draft. NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA.

Johnson, G. E., H. L. Diefenderfer, B. D. Ebberts, C. Tortorici, T. Yerxa, J. Leary, and J. R. Skalski. 

2008. Research, monitoring, and evaluation for the Federal Columbia River Estuary Program. Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Jordan, C., and 37 others. 2003. Research, monitoring and evaluation plan for the NOAA-Fisheries 2000 

Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. NOAA Fisheries, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation, Portland, OR. 

Katz, S. L., K. Barnas, and S. Toshach. 2006. Data management needs for regional project tracking to 

support implementation and effectiveness monitoring. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA.

Kaufmann, P. R., P. Levine, E. G. Robinson, C. Seeliger, and D. V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying physical 

habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. eb link: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/phyhab.html

Keefer, M.L, C.C Caudill, C.A Peery, and C.T. Boggs. 2008. Non-direct homing behaviours by adult 

Chinook salmon in a large, multi-stock river system. Journal of Fish Biology (2008) 72, 27–44

Larson, D. P., A. R. Olsen, and D. L. Stevens, Jr. 2007. The concept of a master sample and its use as a 

framework for integrating stream monitoring programs. Paper submitted for publication. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 539

Lazorchak, J. M., D. J. Klemm, and D. V. Peck (editors). 1998. Environmental monitoring and 

assessment program—surface waters: field operations and methods for measuring the ecological 

condition of wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. Web link: 

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/ws_abs.html

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope; integrating science and politics for the environment. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.

Mahoney B. D., Glen Mendel, Michael Lambert, Jeremy Trump, Preston Bronson, Michael Gembala and 

Michael Gallinat. 2009. Walla Walla Subbasin Collaborative Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation 

Project: 2007 and 2008 Annual Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Project No. 2000-039-00.

Mayer, K., M. Schuck, and P. Iversen. 2010. Assess salmonids in the Asotin Creek watershed. 2009 

Annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Report submitted to Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project No. 2002-053-00.

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156.

Moberg, J. 2007. A field manual for the habitat protocols of the Upper Columbia monitoring strategy. 

Terraqua, Inc. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration‘s Integrated Status and Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program, Portland, OR. 

Mobrand, L.E., J. Barr, L. Blankenship, D.E. Campton, T.T.P. Evelyn, T.A. Flagg, C.V.W. Mahnken, 

L.W. Seeb, P.R. Seidel, and W.W. Smoker. 2005. Hatchery reform in Washington state: principals and 

emerging issues. Fisheries 30:11-23.

Moore, K., K. Jones, and J. Dambacher. 2002. Methods for stream habitat surveys; aquatic inventory 

project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Inventories Project, Natural Production 

Program, Corvallis, OR. Web link: 

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/methods.html

Morghan et al. 2006 (need from NMFS)

Murdoch, A. and C. Peven. 2005. Conceptual approach to monitoring and evaluating the Chelan County 

Public Utility District Hatchery Programs. Prepared for the Chelan PUD Habitat Conservation Plan‘s 

Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, WA.

Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and 

habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Monograph I, Leavenworth, WA.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 540

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of 

effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. The National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Environmental Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, Seattle, WA.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 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/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/Final-BOs.cfm

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon and 

steelhead monitoring and evaluation plan. Working Draft. Appendix P to Upper Columbia spring 

Chinook and steelhead recovery plan.

OPSW (Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds). 1999. Water quality monitoring, technical guide book. 

Version 2.0. Corvallis, OR. Web link: http://www.oweb.state.or.us/publications/index.shtml

Overton, C. K., S. P. Wollrab, B. C. Roberts, and M. A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain 

Regions) fish and fish habitat standard inventory procedures handbook. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-346, Ogden, UT.

Parker, M. A. 2000. Fish passage – culvert inspection procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical 

Circular No. 11. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forest, British Columbia.

Parmenter, A. W., A. Hansen, R. E. Kennedy, W. Cohen, U. Langener, R. Lawrence, B. Maxwell, A. 

Gallant, and R. Aspinall. 2003. Land use and land cover in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: 1975-

1995. Ecological Applications 13:687-703.

Peck, D. V., J. M. Lazorchak, and D. J. Klemm. 2001. Environmental monitoring and assessment 

program—surface waters: western pilot study field operations manual for wadeable streams. Draft Report. 

EPA/XXX/X-XX/XXX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Web link: 

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/ewwsm01.html

Peven, C. M. 1990. The life history of naturally produced steelhead trout from the mid-Columbia River 

Basin. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Peven, C., A. Giorgi, J. Skalski, M. Langeslay, A. Grassell, S. G. Smith, T. Counihan, R. Perry, and S. 

Bickford. 2005. Guidelines and recommended protocols for conducting, analyzing, and reporting juvenile 

salmonid survival studies in the Columbia River Basin. Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, 

WA.

Reeves, G. H., and nine others. 2001. Aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring plan for the 

Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR.

Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD.
APPENDIX C: Adaptive Management, Research Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 541

Roni, P., M. C. Liermann, C. Jordan, and E. A. Steel. 2005. Steps for designing a monitoring and 

evaluation program for aquatic restoration. Pages 13-34 in: Roni, P., editor. Monitoring stream and 

watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schuett-Hames, D., R. Conrad, A. Pleus, and M. McHenry. 1999. Method manual for the salmonid 

spawning gravel composition survey. Timber-Fish-Wildlife TFW-AM9-99-006, Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA. Web link: http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/TFW/documents.asp

Stevens, D. L. 2002. Sampling design and statistical analysis methods for the integrated biolgocial and 

physical monitoring of Oregon streams. Report No. OPSW-ODFW-2002-07, The Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR.

Terraqua. 2006. A review of the integrated status and effectiveness monitoring program: 2003-2006. 

Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/docs_isemp.cfm

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Press, New York, N.Y.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Fish passage barrier and surface water 

diversion screening assessment and prioritization manual. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Habitat Program, Environmental Restoration Division, Olympia, WA. Web link: 

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm

WFC (World Forestry Center). 1998. Pilot study report, Umpqua land exchange project. World Forestry 

Center, Portland, OR. Web link: http://www.or.blm.gov/umpqua/documents.htm

WFPB (Washington Forest Practices Board). 1995. Washington forest practices board manual: standard 

methodology for conducting watershed analysis under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 3.0. Washington 

Forest Practices Board, Olympia, WA. Web link: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watershedanalysis/

WSRFB (Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board). 2003. Draft 5/16/2003 monitoring and 

evaluation strategy for habitat restoration and acquisition projects. Washington Salmon Recovery Funding 

Board, Olympia, WA. Web link: http://www.iac.wa.gov/srfb/docs.htm

Zaroban, D. W. 2000. Protocol for placement and retrieval of temperature data loggers in Idaho streams. 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. Web link: http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/tlp.htm
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 542

APPENDIX D HATCHERY MANAGEMENT SNAKE RIVER SALMON 

RECOVERY PLAN SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE MANAGEMENT UNIT
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 543

Table of Contents – Appendix D

Hatchery Management SRSR Plan SEWMU

D.1 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS...................................................................................... 545

D.2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 548

D.2.1 Purpose and Role of this document ....................................................................... 548

D.3 USE OF HATCHERY PROGRAMS AND THE BENEFITS AND RISKS WHEN 

USED AS A TOOL FOR CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ................................... 549

D.4 ROLES OF CO-MANAGERS AND SRSRB IN RELATIONSHIP TO 

HATCHERY PROGRAMS................................................................................................ 550

D.4.1 Review of hatchery programs................................................................................ 551

D.5 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 552

D.6 CURRENT HATCHERY PROGRAMS............................................................................ 553

D.7 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS........................................................................... 559

D.7.1 Limiting factors ..................................................................................................... 559

D.7.2 Current Threats...................................................................................................... 560

D.7.3 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes................................................................................................................. 560

D.7.4 Disease or Predation .............................................................................................. 560

D.7.5 Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting its Continued Existence.......... 561

D.8 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RECOVERY........................................ 561

D.8.1 Hatchery strategies................................................................................................. 561

D.8.2 Discussion of strategies ......................................................................................... 562

D.8.3 Research and Monitoring Strategies...................................................................... 563

D.8.4 Summary of strategies for all programs................................................................. 565

D.9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 570
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 544

Table of Figures – Appendix D

APPENDIX D - HATCHERY MANAGEMENT SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PLAN 

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE MANAGEMENT UNIT.................................................. 542

FIGURE D-1. THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE RECOVERY 

MANAGEMENT UNIT..................................................................................................... 548

List of Tables – Appendix D

APPENDIX D - HATCHERY MANAGEMENT SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PLAN 

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE MANAGEMENT UNIT.................................................. 542

TABLE D-1. DIFFERENT STRATEGIES OF HATCHERY PROGRAMS. ............................... 549

TABLE D-2. ANADROMOUS SALMONID POPULATIONS AND MAJOR LIMITING 

FACTORS CONCERNING HATCHERY PROGRAMS AFFECTING SE 

WASHINGTON SALMONIDS......................................................................................... 559

TABLE D-3. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES 

AND ACTIONS BY MPG WITHIN THE SEWMU......................................................... 566
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 545

Appendix D - Hatchery Management Snake River Salmon Recovery 

Plan Southeast Washington State Management Unit

December 2010

D.1 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

The following are definitions of terms and acronyms used throughout this chapter:

BiOp Biological Opinion

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

Broodstock Adult salmon and steelhead collected for hatchery fish egg harvest and 

fertilization.

CWT coded-wire tag

Conservation Program

An artificial propagation program that conserves genetic resources. The 

intent of a conservation program is to increase the number of individuals 

in an ESU or steelhead DPS and reduce the short term extinction risk (also 

see ―supplementation‖). 

DPS Distinct Population Segment

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit

FCAP Fall Chinook salmon Acclimation Program

HGMP Hatchery Genetic Management Plan

HOF Hatchery Origin Fish - any fish produced by a hatchery, but typically 

referring to returning adults

HOS Hatchery Origin Spawners - hatchery-origin fish that spawn in the natural 

environment

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group

IPC Idaho Power Company

Integrated hatchery program

An artificial propagation program that includes natural-origin fish as 

broodstock. Typically also has returning HOF spawning in the natural 

environment.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 546

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team

LSRCP Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

LFFCP Lyons Ferry Fall Chinook salmon Program

LFH Lyons Ferry Hatchery

LFHC Lyons Ferry Hatchery Complex

LGD Lower Granite Dam

MAT Minimum Abundance Threshold

Mitigation In this sense, a process by which hatchery programs are used to 

compensate for construction and operation of hydroprojects on the 

mainstem Snake and Columbia rivers.

MPG Major Population Group

Naturally produced Progeny of fish that spawned in the natural environment, regardless of the 

origin of the parents.

NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

NOB Natural Origin Broodstock

NOF Natural Origin Fish - fish resulting from spawning in the natural 

environment, regardless of the origin of the spawners.

NOS Natural Origin Spawners

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

pHOS Proportion of Hatchery Origin Spawners

PNI Proportionate Natural Influence - in a population influenced by a hatchery, 

the expected equilibrium value for a trait relative to the natural optimum 

as per the model of Ford (2002). 

pNOB Proportion of Natural Origin Broodstock

SEWMU In this paper, the SEWMU is defined as Souteast Washignton State, 

encompassing the Walla Walla, Snake, Tucannon, Asotin, and portion of 

the Grande Ronde basins within Washington State.

R/S Return per spawner

RRS (Relative reproductive success)

The relative ability of hatchery spawners to produce viable offspring under 

natural conditions; typically calculated as the number of offspring 

produced per hatchery spawner divided by the number of offspring 

produced per wild spawner.

RM&E Research, monitoring, and evaluation.

RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

Segregated hatchery program
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 547

An artificial propagation program in which ideally no NOF are used as 

broodstock and returning adults are spatially or temporally isolated from 

the target population(s) so that the proportion of HOF on the spawning 

grounds is very low

SAR Smolt-to-adult survival rate is a measure of the number of adults that 

return from a given smolt population or release.

SR Snake River 

SRSRB Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

Stray rate The rate at which hatchery produced fish return to areas they were not 

intended to return to and spawn (also see wandering).

Supplementation A hatchery program strategy where hatchery fish are stocked into 

locations with the intention they return to these locations as mature adults, 

spawn naturally, and contribute to natural production.

TSCSP Tucannon spring Chinook salmon supplementation program

TFH Tucannon Fish Hatchery

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

VSP Viable Salmonid Populations

Wandering The phenomenon by which fish return to areas they were not intended to 

return to, which may lead to straying (spawning in the area they were not 

natal to) or continuing their migration to areas where they either spawned 

or were intended to return to.

Wild A naturally produced fish, regardless of parentage
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 548

D.2 INTRODUCTION

D.2.1 Purpose and Role of this document 

The purpose of this document is to provide information on hatchery programs within the Southeast 

Washington State recovery management unit (SEWMU) and how these hatchery programs support 

salmon and steelhead recovery within the SEWMU. The SEWMU encompasses the Snake River and its 

tributaries, including the Tucannon, Asotin, and lower Grande Ronde rivers. In addition, smaller 

tributaries also have anadromous fish (e.g., Alpowa Creek). The SEWMU also includes the Walla Walla 

subbasin (Figure 1).69

Figure D-1. The southeast Washington State recovery management unit.

 

69 It is important to note that the steelhead (and spring Chinook salmon) in the Walla Walla River basin are not 

considered part of either the Snake River DPS (steelhead) or ESU (spring Chinook salmon). Therefore, any 

discussion on these programs is provided because of its geographic proximity and jurisdictional inclusion with the 

other species that make up the SEWMU from the Snake River basin. For further detail on status, scope of limiting 

factors, etc., please refer to the mid-Columbia steelhead recovery plan (NOAA Fisheries 2009).
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 549

D.3 USE OF HATCHERY PROGRAMS AND THE BENEFITS AND RISKS WHEN 

USED AS A TOOL FOR CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY 

In general, the purpose of hatchery programs has historically been to produce fish to mitigate for lost 

habitat and habitat function from various perturbations and to increase harvest opportunities. In recent 

years, due to declines in population abundance resulting in ESA listings, the focus of many hatchery 

programs has shifted more to conservation based principles. However, many programs maintain a focus 

on increasing harvest opportunity for tribal and non-tribal stakeholders because of legal requirements.

The hatchery programs in Southeast Washington are part of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

(LSRCP). The purpose of the LSRCP is to replace adult salmon, steelhead and rainbow trout lost by 

construction and operation of four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington.

Hatchery programs are generally defined as either conservation70 or harvest augmentation based. In 

many areas, programs have dual roles; when population abundance is low, they serve as conservation, and 

in higher abundance, as increasing harvest opportunities. In addition, as summarized by the hatchery 

scientific review group (HSRG) (2004), programs can be integrated with a natural spawning population, 

or segregated from one (Table D-1; see glossary for definition of integrated and segregated hatchery 

programs).

Table D-1. Different strategies of hatchery programs.

Purpose

Natural population influence

Integrated Segregated

Conservation √

Harvest augmentation √ √

Benefits (based on NOAA Fisheries 2008a)

Adult fish returning from prior hatchery releases have been helpful in maintaining or restoring historical 

fisheries, increasing the abundance to historical spawning habitat, and potentially adding spatial structure 

for the population. Recently, hatchery programs have become a tool to help improve viability as the other 

factors limiting viability (impacts from hydro, habitat, and harvest) are addressed. 

Hatchery programs have also been used as a tool to conserve the genetic resources of depressed natural 

populations and to reduce short-term extinction risk. Hatchery programs can preserve the raw materials 

(i.e., genetic resources) that ESU and steelhead DPS conservation depends on. In this role, hatchery 

programs can reduce the risk of extirpation, and thereby diminish the immediacy of an ESU‘s extinction 

risk. 

 

70 Conservation hatcheries include ―safety net,‖ supplementation, and reintroduction programs.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 550

Risks

However, it should be cautioned that benefits like those described above should be considered transitory 

or short-term and do not necessarily contribute to abundance and productivity changes needed to meet 

ICTRT viability criteria (for natural-origin fish). It is important to note that salmon and steelhead 

populations that rely on hatchery production are not considered viable, based on VSP parameters that are 

used to assess recovery (McElhany et al. 2000). Hatchery programs are not a proven technology for 

achieving sustained increases in natural-origin adult production (NRC 1996), and the long-term benefits 

and risks of hatchery supplementation remain untested (Araki et al. 2007).

Hatchery programs that conserve vital genetic resources are not without risk because the manner in which 

these programs are implemented can have significant impacts on the genetic structure and evolutionary 

trajectory of the target population by reducing population or ESU/DPS-level variability and patterns of 

local adaptation (ICTRT 2007). In fact, when hatchery programs are relied upon to conserve genetic 

resources and reduce short-term extinction risk, there likely is a trade-off between reducing short-term 

extinction risk and potentially increasing long-term genetic risk.

Summary from NOAA Fisheries (2008a):

Increasing knowledge and experience is another important factor in the application of 

hatchery supplementation. Hatchery supplementation is an “experimental” technology. It 

is relatively new and there is little data on long-term benefits and risks – study results for 

a single generation of Pacific salmon take a minimum of three to five years. The good 

news is that new information is emerging from ongoing research and important new 

research will be implemented as a result of NMFSs Biological Opinions. . . . NMFS 

intends that the information emerging from ongoing and new studies will shape future 

decisions over hatchery supplementation up and down the west coast.

D.4 ROLES OF CO-MANAGERS AND SRSRB IN RELATIONSHIP TO HATCHERY 

PROGRAMS

Hatchery programs within the SEWMU are managed by the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (CTUIR), the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), collectively called the co-managers. Since 

most of the populations of anadromous fish within the SEWMU are listed under the ESA, NOAA 

Fisheries is responsible for issuing permits for the hatchery programs and thus has a large influence on 

how the programs are managed.

These programs are managed through the Lower Snake River Compensation Program (LSRCP) and US v 

OR.

71

 Funding is provided through BPA and Idaho Power Company (IPC), and program coordination by 

the USFWS (for programs under the LSRCP).

 

71 For a definition of US v OR, please see the Harvest Module.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 551

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) has an interest concerning the hatchery programs 

within the SEWMU, but no management authority. However, as an interested stakeholder, they may 

offer suggestions. 

D.4.1 Review of hatchery programs

Hatchery Scientific Review Group

In the 2000s, the hatchery scientific review group (HSRG) was first developed to review and make 

recommendations for hatcheries in the Puget Sound region, and then the Columbia Basin. Their 

recommendations are not the only alternatives for hatchery programs to meet conservation and harvest 

goals. From the Policy Statement that accompanied the HSRG report to congress on the Columbia Basin 

(HSRG 2009): 

The HSRG recommendations are technical and scientific in nature. They are not intended 

to be policy decisions, but rather their function is to inform policy decisions. They also 

are not mandates that carry the force of law or policy, and the intent is not for them to be 

a litmus test or the exclusive basis for deciding HGMPs or funding decisions. As such, 

any changes to hatchery programs in response to the recommendations must also be 

informed by and consistent with existing legal and policy mandates. These mandates 

include, but are not limited to, the following items: 

Legislatively authorized and mandated mitigation obligations of the FCRPS and other 

dams to provide fish. The mitigation obligations associated with the FCRPS and other 

dams are substantial and continuing into the future; 

Legally mandated harvest agreements in (U.S. v. Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty) and 

tribal treaty trust reserved fishing rights; 

Logistical challenges and facility constraints; 

Funding needs for new infrastructure and operating budgets (which have been 

stagnant or decreasing) necessary for implementation and appropriate M&E. 

This list is not complete but it conveys the magnitude of the management issues, goals, and decisions that 

have been made and are being made by the states, tribes, and federal agencies at the same time that this 

effort was proceeding.

While the HSRG recommendations are not legally binding, many agencies have adopted some of the 

recommendations and have begun the process of trying to meet agreed upon targets recommended by the 

HSRG.

Hatchery Review Team
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 552

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) initiated a series of hatchery reviews in May 2005 to assure that 

its hatchery programs in the Northwest are part of a scientifically sound and integrated strategy —

consistent with State, Tribal, and other Federal strategies — for conserving wild stocks and managing 

fisheries in watersheds within the Region. 

The USFWS‘s Hatchery Review Team (HRT) completed their reviews of the LSRCP hatchery programs 

and facilities in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (USFWS 2010). The HRT applied the HSRG's scientific 

framework and hatchery review tools to develop reform recommendations for each hatchery program. 

D.5 BACKGROUND 

Authorizing purpose

The hatchery programs in the SEWMU were authorized to mitigate for the construction of the lower four 

Snake River dams.72 This process began with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and culminated 

with the development of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan; both of which are described below.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958 (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. as 

amended) required an analysis of fish and wildlife impacts associated with federal water projects as well 

as compensation measures to avoid and/or mitigate for loss of or damage to wildlife resources (refer to 

Section 662 (b) of the Act). The USFWS and NMFS provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) with a FWCA on the Lower Snake River Project in 1972. Using the FWCA, the USACE wrote 

a report to Congress in 1975 (USACE 1975) detailing losses of fish and wildlife attributable to the 

Project. Congress authorized the LSRCP as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 

(Public Law 94-587).

Lower Snake River Compensation Program

The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan is a congressionally mandated program pursuant to PL 99-

662 and PL 103-316. Congress authorized the Lower Snake River Project on March 2, 1945 by Public 

Law 14, 79th Congress, First Session. The project was authorized under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1945. It consists of Ice Harbor Dam, completed in 1962; Lower Monumental Dam, 1969; Little Goose 

Dam, 1970 and Lower Granite Dam, 1975. The project affected over 140 miles of the Snake River and 

tributaries from Pasco, Washington to upstream of Lewiston, Idaho. The authorized purposes of the 

project were primarily navigation and hydroelectric power production. 

The LSRCP is funded by Bonneville Power Administration with power revenues. Funding is 

administered to the facility operators through the USFWS LSRCP Office. The WDFW administers and 

implements Washington‘s portion of the program. Specific mitigation goals include ―in-place‖ and ―inkind‖ replacement of adult salmon and steelhead. The LSRCP program for steelhead and trout in 

 

72 In addition, one program (Walla Walla spring Chinook salmon) is authorized by the Mitchell Act (see Section 3.1 

for reference to Mitchell Act.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 553

Washington was begun in 1982 and for salmon in 1984. The LSRCP program in Washington has been 

guided by the following objectives: 

1. Establish broodstock(s) capable of meeting egg needs, 

2. Maintain and enhance natural populations of native salmonids, 

3. Return adults to the LSRCP area which meet designated goals, and 

4. Improve or re-establish sport and tribal fisheries. 

Specific mitigation goals for the LSRCP were established in a three-step process. First the adult 

escapement that occurred prior to construction of the four dams was estimated. Second an estimate was 

made of the reduction in adult escapement (loss) caused by construction and operation of the dams (e.g., 

direct mortality of smolts, inundation of spawning habitat). Last, the catch to escapement ratio (4:1 for 

Chinook and 3:1 for steelhead) was used to estimate the future production that was forgone in commercial 

and recreational fisheries as a result of the reduced spawning escapement and habitat loss. Assuming that 

the fisheries below the project area would continue to be prosecuted into the future as they had in the past, 

LSRCP adult return goals were expressed in terms of the adult escapement back to, or above the project 

area. Other than the recognition that the escapements back to the project area would be used for hatchery 

broodstock, no other specific priorities or goals regarding how they might contribute to fisheries, be 

allowed to spawn naturally, or otherwise used was established in the enabling legislation or supporting 

documents.

Under the mitigation negotiations, local fish and wildlife agencies estimated a 48% cumulative loss rate to 

juvenile downstream migrants passing through the four lower Snake River dams. Hatchery production 

was designed to compensate for this 48% loss. It was expected that the remaining 52% of production 

would be produced through natural production. Unfortunately, natural populations and productivity 

experienced a significant decline resulting in the hatchery programs being refocused on conservation of 

the remnant natural production.

D.6 CURRENT HATCHERY PROGRAMS

Within the SEWMU, there are hatchery programs for spring/summer Chinook salmon (Tucannon River 

basin), fall Chinook salmon (Lyons Ferry Hatchery Complex, and associated acclimation facilities and 

direct releases upstream of LGR)73, and steelhead (Walla Walla, Touchet, Tucannon, Grande Ronde 

basins and Lyons Ferry Hatchery; Figure 1-1). All of the hatchery programs in the SEWMU are 

authorized and funded through the Lower Snake River Compensation Program (LSRCP). In addition, 

these production programs are consistent with the 2008-2017 U.S. vs OR Management Agreement (Tables 

B1, B4A and B4B, Table B6).

HGMPs will be developed for each program, and will define to a greater degree the detailed components, 

facilities, and other important information concerning these hatchery programs. HGMPs are developed by 

the operating entities to describe the hatchery impact on listed species. NOAA uses the HGMPs as a 

basis for providing ESA coverage of hatchery operations through Section 7 consultations and Section 10 

permits. The following is meant as a broad overview of the existing programs. 

 

73 This section will not review the Snake River fall Chinook salmon hatchery program. That information will reside 

in a separate appendix within the comprehensive Snake River Recovery Plan.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 554

Tucannon Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation Program

Under the mitigation negotiations for the LSRCP, local fish and wildlife agencies determined through a 

series of conversion rates of McNary Dam counts that 2,400 (2%) spring Chinook annually escaped into 

the Tucannon River. The agencies also estimated a 48% cumulative loss rate to juvenile downstream 

migrants passing through the four lower Snake River dams. The Tucannon spring Chinook hatchery 

program was designed to escape 1,152 adults back to the project area after a harvest of 4,608 (4x 

escapement goal) downstream. As such, 1,152 fish of Tucannon River origin needed to be compensated 

for, with the expectation that the other 1,248 (to meet the 2,400) would come from natural production. 

The agencies also determined through other survival studies at the time that a SAR of 0.87% was a 

reasonable expectation for spring and summer Chinook salmon. Based on that, it was determined that 

132,000 fish should be produced by the LSRCP hatchery program to meet compensation needs. However, 

after it was apparent that not enough naturally produced fish were returning, the program goals were 

revised to be more conservation-based. 

Goal

The immediate short-term (Conservation) goal of the program is to prevent extinction of 

the population and contribute to the re-building of the population for de-listing. The 

long-term (Mitigation) goal is to provide a total annual return of between 2,400-3,400 

hatchery and natural origin fish back to the Tucannon River which should include at 

least 750 natural origin fish over an 10-year geometric mean (abundance viability 

threshold). 

Program history 

The current hatchery supplementation program has used Tucannon River endemic stock since the 

program‘s inception in 1985. The Tucannon River stock was derived from fish captured at the TFH adult 

trap. The Biological Opinion issued by NMFS on the Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon program 

(NMFS 1995) considered the supplementation program to be important in reducing the risk of extinction 

of natural spring Chinook salmon within the Tucannon River.

It has been observed that about 24% of the adult Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon that had been 

PIT tagged as juveniles bypassed the Tucannon River when they returned from the ocean and were 

detected at Lower Granite Dam (Gallinat and Ross 2009). The phenomenon does not appear to be related 

to origin as both hatchery and natural origin fish bypassed at approximately the same rate. 

Spring Chinook salmon from other river systems (strays) are periodically recovered in the Tucannon 

River and have accounted for over 5% of the total Tucannon River in the past (Gallinat et al. 2001), 

although in recent years, the rates of straying have been less than 5% (Gallinat and Ross 2009). 

Beginning with the 2006 brood year, the annual smolt goal was increased from 132,000 to 225,000 to 

increase adult returns and ensure at least 132,000 smolts are released. In a further effort to increase adult 

returns co-managers are also conducting an experiment to examine size at release as a possible means to 

improve SARs.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 555

In addition, RPA number 39 from the FCRPS BiOp instructs the Action Agencies to continue funding this 

hatchery and RPA 41 calls for the program to build genetic diversity using local broodstock and a sliding 

scale for managing the composition (HOF and NOF) of natural spawners.

In the initial years of the spring Chinook salmon supplementation program, between 8 (1985) and 127 

(1988) natural origin adults were collected to create the hatchery mitigation broodstock. High prespawning mortality forced managers to collect more fish to reach program production goals. Beginning 

in 1992, broodstock were held at LFH in the cooler, pathogen free well water, which significantly reduced 

pre-spawning mortality, and the numbers needed for broodstock was reduced. From 1992-2005, WDFW 

attempted to collect 100 fish annually for the broodstock. From 2006 to the present WDFW has 

attempted to collect 170 fish for broodstock. The goal of the program since 1992 has been to collect equal 

numbers of natural- and hatchery-origin fish for broodstock.

In some years, shortage of fish in the run, and shortage of natural fish forced WDFW to collect all fish 

(natural or hatchery-origin) that returned to the TFH adult trap. For example, in 1995 this amounted to 43 

total fish, of which only 10 were natural origin. The co-managers inclusion of the entire run was done 

with the intent to reduce the demographic risk to the population.

Captive brood program

Fish from the 1997-2002 brood years were raised in the hatchery to adults and spawned. The final 

captive brood progeny were released into the Tucannon River in 2008 (2006 brood year). Hatchery 

operations for the captive broodstock program ended with the last release. Monitoring and final 

evaluation of the captive broodstock program will continue until 2011, when the last adults from the 

captive brood program are expected to return to the Tucannon River. 

Walla Walla River Spring Chinook salmon Program:

74

Although Walla Walla River spring/summer Chinook salmon have been extirpated and therefore cannot 

be a part of any ESU, EDT analysis indicate that the subbasin may be capable of supporting selfsustaining populations of spring/summer Chinook salmon in certain watersheds if habitat actions that are 

proposed are successfully implemented. Therefore, one strategy being implemented by CTUIR is the 

reintroduction of spring/summer Chinook salmon into the Walla Walla subbasin through the development 

of an integrated supplementation/re-introduction program.

The program (which is funded under the Mitchell Act) is being implemented in two phases. Phase 1 

entails the release of 250,000 spring/summer Chinook salmon smolts (Carson stock) per year in the South 

Fork of the Walla Walla River, as well as the outplanting of up to 100 Carson stock adults in Mill Creek 

and possibly the Touchet River. The smolt releases began in spring 2005; while the adult outplants are a 

continuation of a CTUIR program that began in 2000. 

 

74 Walla Wall basin spring Chinook salmon are not part of the Snake River ESU and their viability will not be 

considered when assessing the Snake River or mid-C because they are not listed and never will be ESU. 
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 556

Under Phase 2, the existing adult holding facility on the South Fork would be expanded to a full hatchery 

capable of producing 500,000 smolts per year for release into the South Fork. Brood stock would be 

switched from out-of-basin sources to local returns as soon as possible. Adult outplants would also be 

continued under the proposed Master Plan. The Walla Walla Hatchery Master Plan is currently in Step 2 

(preliminary design) of the NPCC‘s 3-Step process. 

The short-term strategy is continued implementation of Phase 1 of the reintroduction program, 

transitioning in the long-term to Phase 2 once hatchery improvements to the South Fork facility have been 

made 

Asotin Creek Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Program: 

For spring/summer Chinook salmon, the short term hatchery strategy the co-managers propose will be to 

implement an integrated hatchery program designed to re-establish spring/summer Chinook salmon 

production in Asotin Creek (currently considered functionally extinct by WDFW and ICTRT). Initial 

concerns include the identification of an appropriate donor stock and the formulation of procedures to 

collect broodstock. Recent genetic analysis suggests that the use of Tucannon stock would be consistent 

within the MPG. No program will be implemented without a management plan agreed to by the comanagers.

This population is considered functionally extinct by ICTRT; reaching viability levels is only needed for 

the Tucannon population for de-listing. However, expanding spring Chinook salmon into this subbasin 

may increase the viability of the MPG.

Steelhead Programs (Walla Walla, Touchet, Tucannon, Grande Ronde, and Lyons Ferry)

The LSRCP presently funds production of lower Snake River summer steelhead. The programs were 

established as compensation for lost fish resources and fisheries resulting from construction and operation 

of hydroelectric projects in the Snake River. 

Goal

The short-term goal of the steelhead programs is to mitigate for fish lost through the 

hydrosystem, and, in some cases (e.g., Tucannon River, initially) to prevent extinction of 

the populations and contribute to the re-building of the populations for de-listing. The 

long-term goal is to provide large enough returns of hatchery and natural origin fish 

back to the rivers that full mitigation is met and enough natural origin fish to meet 

abundance viability thresholds.

Steelhead hatchery programs in the SEWMU are:
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 557

Walla Walla summer steelhead75: The only hatchery program within the Walla Walla population is a 

segregated harvest program.76 This program began in 1983, and used Wells, Wallowa, Ringold, and 

Lyons Ferry brood stock from 1983 - 1990. Since 1991, however, only the Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock 

has been used.

The segregated program releases age-1 smolts at ~4.5 fpp from a point below the Mill Creek confluence 

(~RM 35) in mid April (April 15 – 25). The fish are not acclimated before release because earlier studies 

indicated hatchery return rates were higher for direct releases than acclimated releases, presumably 

because of very poor water quality in the lower river. Acclimation studies were conducted in the Walla 

Walla, and confirmed in the Tucannon River. Hatchery releases were reduced to 100,000 beginning with 

the 2003 brood year. In recent years, releases have been reduced to 85,000. 

Touchet River summer steelhead (see footnote 4): Two hatchery programs occur within the Touchet 

River drainage, a segregated harvest program utilizing out-of-population stock, and an integrated program 

using NORs captured at the adult trap at Dayton. The segregated program began in 1983, and between 

1983 and 1990 used a variety of stocks --Wells, Wallowa, Ringold, and Lyons Ferry. Since 1991 only the 

Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock has been used.

The segregated program releases age-1 smolts at ~4.5 fpp from an acclimation pond in Dayton, WA (RM 

54 Touchet River near Patit Creek confluence). Historically, the mean number of fish released per year 

has been 116,000 (CBFWA Program Amendment Process 2007). Beginning with the 2003 broodyear, 

the releases have been approximately 85,000 per year. Releases are volitional between early March and 

late April, and forced thereafter. All smolts are adipose-clipped and a minimum of 20,000 are CWT as 

well. In recent years a proportion has also been PIT-tagged. The segregated program releases Lyons Ferry 

stock smolts from the acclimation pond, below the weir at Dayton, Washington, and the integrated 

program releases endemic stock smolts upstream of the weir (about 0.5 miles). WDFW estimates that 

about 20% of the returning hatchery adults from the Lyons Ferry program are recovered either at Lyons 

Ferry Hatchery or in traps in the Walla Walla and Touchet rivers. The remaining fish are either harvested 

or spawn naturally. Lyons Ferry adults captured at the Dayton trap have been recycled ~10 miles 

downstream (to Waitsburg, WA) to augment harvest and limit introgression with the endemic stock, 

however, they are currently being removed. In 2010, 601 natural origin steelhead were counted passing 

 

75 Walla Wall basin steelhead are not part of the Snake River DPS and their viability will not be considered when 

assessing the Snake River DPS. They are part of the middle Columbia DPS and are considered part of the SE WA 

SEWMU.

76 (From footnote # 7 of Table B6 of US v OR (2008)):The US v OR Parties agree on current production levels to 

achieve mitigation objectives for the Walla Walla, Touchet, Tucannon, and lower Grande Ronde (Cottonwood) 

programs but not necessarily the stock used (non-local) or the release location. These steelhead programs may 

change during the period covered by this Agreement. To guide this change, the Parties commit to developing 

steelhead management plans for broodyear 2010, designed to transition to endemic stocks or segregated programs. 

The management plans will incorporate the hatchery mitigation requirement, timing of the transition, fishery 

objectives, marking, supplementation component linked to passage improvements on Mill Creek (Walla Walla 

basin), release locations, criteria to be met for collecting natural-origin adults from the upper Walla Walla basin, 

marking, etc.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 558

the Touchet River weir. The total number of steelhead counted at the weir was 814, with 149 hatchery 

fish from the endemic program and 64 from the LFH (that were removed).

The endemic program collects ~36 unmarked NORs for broodstock. Between 2000, when the program 

began, and 2004, an average of 52,982 yearling smolts (range 31,440 – 58,733) have been released above 

the Dayton trap/weir (RM 57.2) without acclimation. Release dates have varied from early April to early 

May based on stream flow conditions and expected size of fish at release. None of the endemic stock 

smolts are ad-clipped, to reduce harvest losses and facilitate monitoring and evaluating this stock. 

However, all fish are coded wire tagged in the snout and a VI tag is placed in the adipose eye tissue for 

external identification. If the endemic program proves successful, Lyons Ferry releases may be halted and 

the endemic program expanded. Another potential option could be that if the endemic program is 

successful and the LFH release is terminated, that there will be a proportion of endemic smolts ad-clipped 

for harvest purposes. Most of the hatchery origin spawners in the natural escapement in the upper Touchet 

(above the trap RM 54) are fish released from the endemic, integrated program. Differentially marked 

returns from the endemic program are passed upstream at the Dayton trap/weir, while LFH adults are 

removed to reduce the number of hatchery-origin spawners.

Tucannon River summer steelhead: Two summer steelhead stocks have historically been released into 

the Tucannon River77. Lyons Ferry Hatchery (LFH) stock steelhead (non-native stock) reared at LFH are 

released directly into the lower Tucannon River for harvest mitigation. Tucannon River endemic stock 

steelhead, are also reared at LFH and Tucannon Hatcheries and released into the upper Tucannon River to 

supplement the natural population. 

WDFW (Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009) has observed a high percentage (65% in 2006-2007) of the 

natural-origin and hatchery-origin steelhead tagged and/or released in the Tucannon River bypassing the 

river and passing over Lower Granite Dam. While some of the fish (approximately 15-20% of those that 

pass Lower Granite) eventually find their way back to the Tucannon River to presumably spawn, many 

fish are still detected upstream of Lower Granite that do not make their way back to the Tucannon River 

(Bumgarner and Dedloff 2009). Further research has been proposed to determine the mechanisms that 

may be causing this phenomenon.

Unmarked steelhead adults were collected in the lower Tucannon River (temporary trap) to create the 

endemic broodstock. This trap could have low efficiency and may have trapped fish disproportionate to 

the run timing of the overall population (M. Schuck, WDFW, personal communication). Currently, the 

goal is to collect 17-18 females and 20 males for broodstock by trapping at the Tucannon Fish Hatchery 

intake dam fish ladder that will produce approximately 50,000 smolts for release. The hatchery 

production goals were changed in 2010 to transfer the Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock out of the Tucannon 

River and ramp up production using the endemic Tucannon stock to eventually trap 40-90 broodstock and 

release 150,000 endemic stock smolts (100,000 adipose clipped) designed to escape 875 steelhead back to 

the project area after a downriver harvest of 1,750.

As adult return numbers increase, a proportion of smolts will be ad-clipped for harvest purposes; the goal 

is 100,000 ad-clipped smolts and 50,000 CWT only.

 

77 The co-managers have recently decided to terminate the release of Lyons Ferry stock fish into the Tucannon basin 

(G. Mendel, pers. comm.), however this description is left in here for informational purposes.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 559

Lower Snake River Mainstem and Tributaries (Lower Snake River MPG): Summer steelhead released 

into the lower Snake River are from a segregated hatchery program operated at Lyons Ferry Hatchery. 

The program goal is to provide fish for harvest and hatchery broodstock. 

LFH stock steelhead are currently trapped, reared, and released on-station at LFH. LFH production 

consisted of 60,000 smolts (100% adipose clipped) released to provide 630 hatchery adults (assuming a 

1.05% SAR) for mitigation harvest and as hatchery broodstock for LFH stock releases in the Snake River 

(at LFH) and in the Walla Walla Basin (Mid-Columbia River Basin). In 2010, the LFH releases 

previously programmed for the Tucannon River (100,000) were temporarily added to on-station releases 

at LFH while the Tucannon hatchery program transitioned to a full endemic steelhead stock program. 

This additional release from LFH is expected to return 1,050 adults to the Snake River for fishery 

mitigation. No hatchery programs are proposed for the lower Snake River small tributaries (Almota, 

Deadman, and others).

Asotin Creek: No hatchery programs for steelhead are proposed within the Asotin subbasin. WDFW 

released hatchery steelhead into Asotin Creek for a few years in the 1980s and Asotin endemic stock 

hatchery fish were released into Asotin Creek in the 1960s. The co-managers have agreed to manage 

Asotin Creek for natural production only, and therefore no hatchery fish are released, or allowed to pass 

upstream of the weir. However, a high percentage (39-63% over 3 years) of hatchery steelhead return and 

spawn in Alpowa Creek, which is included as part of the Asotin steelhead population.

Grande Ronde River summer steelhead: Wallowa stock steelhead are currently trapped on Cottonwood 

Creek in the lower Grande Ronde River basin. Gametes collected are returned to LFH where the fish are 

reared to pre-smolt size. Smolts are then returned to the Grande Ronde River for acclimation at the 

Cottonwood Creek Acclimation Pond. Current smolt production is set at 200,000 smolts (within US v OR

process (2010), Table B6) (100% adipose clipped) to return 1,500 hatchery adult steelhead back to the 

Snake River basin for harvest. ODFW also releases Wallowa stock steelhead in the upper Grande Ronde 

Basin that provide for fishing opportunities in the Snake and lower Grande Ronde rivers. 

D.7 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS

D.7.1 Limiting factors

In Table D-2 below, the limiting factors concerning hatchery programs are listed for SE Washington 

anadromous salmonid populations. Currently, hatchery programs within the SEWMU are not considered 

to be the primary limiting factor associated with the viability of any of the populations shown in Table D2. 

Table D-2. Anadromous salmonid populations and major limiting factors concerning 

hatchery programs affecting SE Washington salmonids (based on SRSRB 2006 and 

NOAA Fisheries 2008b).

Population

Hatchery Program Major 

Factor(s) Currently Limiting 

Population Recovery

Othera Major Factor(s) Currently 

Limiting Population Recovery

Walla Walla River steelhead

Ecological interactions, including 

competition for limited space and 

Hydroelectric projects and associated 

Touchet R. steelhead affects on water quality and flow.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 560

Population

Hatchery Program Major 

Factor(s) Currently Limiting 

Population Recovery

Othera Major Factor(s) Currently 

Limiting Population Recovery

Tucannon R. steelhead resources in streams and estuary.

Predation of wild fish by hatchery fish 

or an increase in predation as a result 

of predators being attracted to 

hatchery release points, areas 

downstream (avian predation at the 

mouth).

Genetic effects resulting from 

hybridization of domesticated hatchery 

fish and wild fish leading to the 

reduced productivity or survival

Loss of spawning and rearing habitat and 

reduction in quality.

Possibly transportation.

Asotin Creek steelhead

Lower Grand Ronde R. steelhead

Joseph Cr steelheadb

Tucannon spring Chinook salmon

Wenaha spring Chinook salmonb

Asotin spring Chinook salmon

a Other factors than fisheries management (see separate chapter on fisheries management)

b

Joseph Creek steelhead and Wenaha spring Chinook salmon are included because of their geographic inclusions 

(or parts of their watersheds) in the SEWMU.

D.7.2 Current Threats

In this section current threats related to hatchery management that continue to affect the existence of the 

focal species are summarized. The threats listed below are generalized and can be applied to all hatchery 

programs. These threats are organized according to three of the five categories below as set forth in 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that apply to this recovery plan:

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

3. Disease or predation.

4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

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

D.7.3 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes

The effects of recreational and commercial fishing on naturally produced Chinook salmon and steelhead 

may be heightened during fisheries for hatchery produced Chinook salmon (all runs) and steelhead.

Incidental (or direct) harvest mortality in mixed-stock fisheries and commercial fisheries contributes to 

the loss of naturally produced Chinook salmon and steelhead.

Illegal harvest (poaching) continues to threaten Chinook salmon and steelhead.

D.7.4 Disease or Predation

Disease transmission from hatchery fish to wild fish is unknown, but may be detrimental.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 561

Direct predation: large, hatchery-reared smolts can prey directly on wild juveniles.

Supporting predator populations: releases of hatchery fish can help to support an increased predator

population, thereby increasing predation rates on wild fish.

D.7.5 Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

The use of non-locally derived broodstock for hatchery programs may negatively affect genetic 

integrity.

Use of locally derived broodstock for hatchery programs may not entirely prevent the negative 

genetic impact of hatchery fish on wild populations.

The collection of naturally produced Chinook salmon and steelhead for hatchery broodstock may 

harm small or dwindling natural populations if not done with caution.

Competition and genetic introgression resulting from hatchery introductions may reduce the 

productivity and survival of naturally produced Chinook salmon and steelhead.

D.8 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RECOVERY

D.8.1 Hatchery strategies 

The following strategies relate to the hatchery programs within the SEWMU. Specific hatchery program 

strategies will be identified in the list below if applicable. These strategies are not meant to be an 

inclusive list, but are intended to be reflective of current plans and legally binding processes, and are 

ensured to assist in meeting overarching recovery objectives.

Strategies for the Snake River fall Chinook salmon will not be captured in this section of the plan. Those 

strategies will be coordinated through the larger ―roll-up‖ of the Snake River Basin Recovery Plan.

Short-term Strategies

1. Continue to use artificial production to maintain critically depressed populations in a manner that 

is consistent with recovery and avoids extinction.

2. Use artificial production to seed unused, accessible habitats.

3. Use artificial production to provide for tribal and non-tribal fishery obligations as consistent with 

recovery criteria.

4. Use harvest or other methods, e.g., removal at weirs, increased daily and season bag limits, etc to 

reduce the proportion of hatchery-origin fish in naturally spawning populations.

5. Where appropriate, use local broodstocks in hatchery programs.

6. Reduce the amount of straying from current hatchery programs.

Long-Term Strategies

1. Ensure that ongoing hatchery programs are consistent with recovery.

2. Meet tribal and non-tribal fishery goals.

3. Use harvest or other methods to reduce the proportion of hatchery-origin fish in naturally 

spawning populations.

4. Manage hatcheries to achieve sufficient natural productivity and diversity to de-list populations 

and to avert re-listing of populations.

Research and Monitoring Strategies
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 562

1. Employ the best available technology to monitor the effects of hatchery releases on natural 

populations and natural production.

2. Monitor achievement of fishery goals.

3. Develop marking programs to assure that hatchery produced fish are identifiable for harvest 

management, accounting towards escapement goals, and reproductive success studies.

4. Evaluate existing programs and redesign as necessary so that artificial production does not pose a 

threat to recovery.

5. Integrate and coordinate monitoring activities between federal, state, and tribal programs.

6. Examine the reproductive success of naturally produced and hatchery produced spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead spawning in the wild.

7. Examine the ecological interactions (competition and predation) between hatchery- and naturalorigin salmon and steelhead.

8. Examine residualism of hatchery produced steelhead.

This plan recognizes the need to balance recovery strategies with legal obligations and mandates under 

LSRCP, the Mitchell Act, federal government and tribal agreements, Hatchery and Genetic Management 

Plans (HGMPs), U.S. v. Oregon, and relicensing agreements. 

D.8.2 Discussion of strategies

This section summarizes existing and proposed hatchery operations and further defines strategies that 

could reduce conservation risks identified for each program in Section 2. Each strategy listed above will 

be followed by appropriate actions.

Short-term

1. Continue to use artificial production to maintain critically depressed populations in a manner that is 

consistent with recovery and avoids extinction.

Each hatchery program has been reviewed by the HSRG, and most by the HRT. Some of the 

recommendations by the HSRG and HRT have been implemented on a case-by-case basis through the 

appropriate legal process (e.g., US v OR). Detailed implementation of each program and how the 

implementation will affect recovery and avoid extinction will be determined through the HGMP process. 

2. Use artificial production to seed unused, accessible habitats.

Attempts will be made by the co-managers to balance the need to seed underutilized habitat with potential 

risk to the long-term fitness of the natural population through interbreeding between hatchery- and 

natural-origin fish. Detailed implementation and potential use of ―sliding scale‖ to balance risks to fitness 

and use of habitat will be determined through the HGMP process.

3. Use artificial production to provide for tribal and non-tribal fishery obligations as consistent with 

recovery criteria.

The numbers of fish released for each program is determined through the original analysis for the LSRCP 

and is modified through US v OR, except those fish released for mitigation for IPC and CTUIR. Those 

numbers and other details will be presented in the HGMPs.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 563

4. Use harvest or other methods to reduce the proportion of hatchery-origin fish in naturally spawning 

populations.

The co-managers propose to control the number of hatchery fish allowed to spawn in the wild to the 

extent possible in all basins, once abundance levels begin to rise in response to limiting factors being 

addressed.

78 By controlling the percentage of hatchery origin spawners, the co-managers are attempting to 

reduce potential negative effects of hatchery fish on naturally produced fish populations. A sliding scale 

needs to be developed by the co-managers and the RTT to determine triggers that will dictate the 

percentage of the run that can be used for broodstock at various population levels and the level of pHOS 

in specific streams. The details for each program will be determined through the HGMP process.

5. To the extent possible use local broodstocks in hatchery programs.

Where appropriate, the use of local broodstock has been implemented in many hatchery programs within 

the SEWMU. Details can be found within the HGMPs.

6. Reduce the amount of straying from current hatchery programs.

Straying has been shown to be a concern, especially fish from the Tucannon River straying elsewhere. 

However, further information is needed to determine the mechanisms that lead to Tucannon fish straying, 

since it appears to not be limited to hatchery-origin fish.

Steelhead from SEWMU programs also appear to stray and wander into lower Columbia River streams 

(like the Deschutes). Further information concerning whether there are hatchery operations that might be 

causing this behavior should be investigated, and will be determined through the HGMP process. Actions 

that could be considered to improve homing could be how long fish are acclimated, where fish are 

released, etc.

Long-term

The long-term strategies are mostly the same as the short term, and any actions identified for the long 

term strategies will be determined through the HGMP process. One strategy that is long-term and not 

captured in the short-term strategies is: 

Manage hatcheries to achieve sufficient natural productivity and diversity to de-list populations and to 

avert re-listing of populations.

The actions subscribed to under the other short- (and long-) term strategies should cover this strategy also. 

The details on how this will be accomplished will be agreed to under the HGMP process.

D.8.3 Research and Monitoring Strategies

 

78 The co-managers have instituted hatchery fish removal in some places already, like Asotin Creek and the upper 

Touchet.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 564

1. Employ the best available technology to monitor the effects of hatchery releases on natural 

populations and production.

Research, monitoring, and evaluation plans will be determined through the HGMP process. The comanagers are encouraged to participate in basin-wide planning of their monitoring programs so costsharing and efficiencies are realized within the SEWMU programs and that the most current technology is 

being utilized.

2. Develop marking programs to assure that hatchery produced fish are identifiable for harvest 

management, escapement goals, and reproductive success studies.

Marking fish is an important component of evaluating the hatchery program. The level of marking will 

be discussed within the HGMPs and determined through processes such as US v OR.

3. Evaluate existing programs and redesign as necessary so that artificial production does not pose a 

threat to recovery.

Reviews of SEWMU programs have been accomplished through reviews from the HSRG and HRT. 

However, adaptive management of these programs will rely on feedback from the monitoring and 

evaluation plans that are developed through the HGMP process.

4. Integrate and coordinate monitoring activities between federal, state, and tribal programs.

Stakeholders involved with SEWMU hatchery programs already coordinate monitoring activities with 

various regional programs. There is currently an effort underway to develop a process where various 

managers, and other stakeholders from around the entire Columbia basin will be developing 

recommendations to implement the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Supplementation Workgroup 

(AHSWG 2008). By participating in this effort, the monitoring activities within the SEWMU will be 

coordinated with a basin-wide effort.

5. Examine the reproductive success of naturally produced and hatchery produced spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead spawning in the wild.

Relative reproductive success (RRS) of hatchery origin fish in the wild can affect the productivity of the 

natural origin population. If RRS for hatchery origin fish are substantially below that of natural origin 

spawners, then over time, the productivity of the population will be decreased. As such, it is essential to 

understand this critical uncertainty within each population that is affected by hatchery fish. 

However, it is not reasonable or prudent to believe that all populations that are being supplemented can 

have RRS measured because of the time and expense involved in doing these studies (usually at least 2-3 

generations). Therefore, it is recommended that a review of RRS studies being conducted throughout the 

Columbia basin be undertaken to determine if results from those studies can inform the management of 

the conservation hatchery programs within the SEWMU. If it is concluded that other studies cannot be 

applied to the local hatchery programs, then a RRS study should be developed and implemented 

following the guidelines suggested by the AHSWG (AHSWG 2008). 
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 565

6. Examine the ecological interactions (competition and predation) between hatchery- and natural-origin 

salmon and steelhead.

Ecological interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish is a critical uncertainty. Ecological 

interactions can be characterized by the following (from RIST 2009)

Direct predation. Large, hatchery-reared smolts can prey directly on wild juveniles.

Supporting predator populations. Releases of hatchery fish can help to support an increased

predator population (including human predators), thereby increasing predation rates on wild fish.

Competition among juveniles. Releases of hatchery fish may also increase competition among

juveniles for food, territories, and cover from predators, decreasing growth, increasing mortality,

and potentially affecting population dynamics by inhibiting density-dependent compensation.

Competition among adults. When hatchery-origin adults are allowed to spawn in the wild, they

can compete with wild adults, occupying spawning and rearing resources that could be used by

the wild population. This situation can be worsened when hatchery fish are selected to breed

early (taking up space) or late (superimposing redds on wild redds) in comparison with wild fish.

Vectors of disease. Hatchery fish can have higher rates of disease, and be selected for disease

resistance, and can pass on disease pathogens to the natural environment.

While there have been many studies documenting effects of ecological interactions between hatchery- and 

natural-origin fish (summarized in Kostow (2008) and Pearsons (2008)), most of these have occurred

within the natal stream where hatchery fish are released, not in the migration corridor, estuary or ocean. 

Fish are released from hatcheries in most cases at sizes and assumed readiness to migrate to the ocean, 

thus not competing with natural juveniles in the rearing environment. However, unless there have been 

specific studies to observe interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish in the wild (both 

juveniles and adults), the assumption will not be verified. In addition, recent research (e.g., Larsen et al. 

2004, 2010) suggests that a substantial portion of the male hatchery fish released may not migrate due to 

early maturation. Thus, ecological impacts of fish that are assumed to migrate to the ocean may be 

greater than believed. Determining what studies may occur in the SEWMU will most likely take place 

through regional processes.

For some hatcheries, steelhead that are either below or above the targeted size of release may not migrate 

after release. 

D.8.4 Summary of strategies for all programs

The following table summarizes the current status, proposed hatchery strategies and actions and future 

expectations from the actions.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 566

Table D-3. Summary of current status and proposed strategies and actions by MPG 

within the SEWMU. Actions to be considered have not been agreed to by all 

stakeholders, and will be finalized through the HGMP and permitting processes.

MPG Population

Current Status 

and (ICTRT 

recovery criteria 

to achieve < 5% 

risk of ext. in 

100 yrs)

Proposed 

Hatchery 

Strategies

Actions to be 

Considered 

and/or 

Implemented

Expectation 

from the 

Actions

Lower Snake 

River 

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon

Asotin Creek 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook salmon

Functionally 

extirpated 

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 500 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of 1.90)

Integrated 

(reintroduction and 

donor stock selection 

process)

Increase abundance 

by seeding the area 

with juvenile fish or 

ripe spawners. 

Reintroduced 

population that 

assists MPG in 

meeting viability 

criteria, when fish 

are available, and to 

a lesser extent, after 

habitat restoration 

projects are 

implemented.

Tucannon 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook salmon

High risk

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 750 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of 2.10) 

Integrated (U.S. v 

Oregon agreement to 

increase to 225,000 

smolts)

Hold adults at 

hatchery and release 

in upper basin when 

ripe to improve 

distribution.

Implement a 

relative 

reproductive 

success study.

Explore installation 

of a weir lower in 

the basin (to collect 

broodstock or to 

remove strays).

Determine what 

factors influence the 

migration of adults 

past Lower Granite 

Dam.

Determine why 

natural spawning 

produces less than 

one adult per 

spawner and 

implement actions.

Determine how to 

improve SARs

Increase of 

abundance with 

increased survival 

and numbers of fish 

released.

Increase in 

productivity by 

reducing pHOS and 

strays.

Increase in spatial 

structure.

Achieve LRSCP 

mitigation/restoration 

goals

Walla WallaUmatilla 

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon

Walla Walla 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook salmon

Extirpated 

(no viability criteria 

for extinct population)

CTUIR proposed -

Integrated reintroduction 

supplementation 

program currently at 

250K smolts 

Reintroduce 

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon 

into the Walla 

Walla (and 

Touchet) River with 

Reintroduced 

naturally 

perpetuating 

population that 

contributes to harvest 

and maintains locally 
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 567

MPG Population

Current Status 

and (ICTRT 

recovery criteria 

to achieve < 5% 

risk of ext. in 

100 yrs)

Proposed 

Hatchery 

Strategies

Actions to be 

Considered 

and/or 

Implemented

Expectation 

from the 

Actions

increasing to 500K 

under Walla Walla 

Hatchery Master Plan.

Continued outplanting 

of ~250 Carson stock 

adults.

appropriate local 

stock.

Adequately monitor 

to ensure straying to 

neighboring 

populations is 

within acceptable 

limits (< 5%).

adapted broodstock 

needs.

Grande 

Ronde/Imnaha 

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon

Grande Ronde 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook salmon

No hatchery programs 

are proposed in the 

Washington portion of 

the basin.

None

Wenahaa

Spring/Summer 

Chinook salmon

None – reserved for 

wild production

Monitor for 

hatchery strays 

Maintain 

monitoring adult 

abundance

Wild fish sanctuary 

that maintains selfsustaining natural 

populations

Lower Snake 

River steelhead

Tucannon 

Summer 

Steelhead

High risk

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 1,000 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of ≥ 1.2)

Integrated use of 

endemic broodstock in 

hatchery releases up to 

150,000 fish.

Increase monitoring 

to understand 

pHOS and improve 

ability to estimate 

total returning 

adults for the entire 

basin.

Develop and 

potentially 

implement study to 

improve homing 

and reduce crossing 

LWG

Increase 

productivity by 

reducing pHOS and 

strays.

Investigate the use 

of a weir lower in 

the basin (to collect 

broodstock or to 

remove strays).

Develop and 

implement a RRS 

study to assist in 

long term 

management of the 

population.

Increase of 

abundance with 

increased survival 

and numbers of fish 

released.

Increase in 

productivity by 

reducing pHOS and 

strays.

Achieve LRSCP 

mitigation/restoration 

goals
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 568

MPG Population

Current Status 

and (ICTRT 

recovery criteria 

to achieve < 5% 

risk of ext. in 

100 yrs)

Proposed 

Hatchery 

Strategies

Actions to be 

Considered 

and/or 

Implemented

Expectation 

from the 

Actions

Manage to increase 

PNI.

Asotin Creek 

Summer 

Steelhead

High risk

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 500 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of ≥ 1.2)

None – reserved for 

wild production

Ensure that 

hatchery origin fish 

are excluded from 

the basin on an ongoing basis.

Ensure robust 

monitoring 

continues to assess 

adult origin, 

abundance, and 

juvenile 

productivity in all 

tributaries that are 

part of this 

population.

Continue 

monitoring hatchery 

strays in Alpowa Cr 

and potentially take 

corrective actions if 

agreed to by 

stakeholders.

Wild fish sanctuary 

that maintains selfsustaining natural 

populations, and 

potentially used as a 

reference stream for 

hatchery evaluations.

Snake River 

mainstem 

steelhead

Lower Snake 

River steelhead 

(not a recognized 

population)

(because of lack of 

basin-specific 

information, no 

criteria have been set 

by the ICTRT)

Maintain the existing 

segregated hatchery 

program to provide 

fisheries mitigation.

Increase monitoring 

in tributaries and at 

Lower Granite Dam 

for hatchery 

straying 

Maintains steelhead 

fisheries and meets 

LSRCP mitigation 

goals

Walla WallaUmatilla 

steelhead

Walla Walla 

Summer 

Steelhead

High risk

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 1,000 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of ≥ 1.35)

Segregated hatchery 

program in lower river

Explore ways to 

robustly estimate 

the origin and 

abundance of fish 

reaching the 

spawning areas. 

Actions should be 

taken to ensure that 

the upper basin is 

maintained as a 

wild fish refuge.

Maintains steelhead 

fisheries and meets 

LSRCP mitigation 

goals

Maintenance of 

natural populations

Touchet

Summer 

Steelhead

High risk

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 1,000 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of ≥ 1.35)

Integrated 

(Experimental, 

evaluate need to 

transition to totally 

integrated)

Segregated (intensify 

monitoring of 

hatchery fish in 

Ensure that 

monitoring is 

effective in 

determining the 

potential impacts of 

the segregated 

program on the 

natural population. 

Segregated hatchery 

program that 

contributes to harvest 

goals

Maintains steelhead 

fisheries and meets 

LSRCP mitigation 
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 569

MPG Population

Current Status 

and (ICTRT 

recovery criteria 

to achieve < 5% 

risk of ext. in 

100 yrs)

Proposed 

Hatchery 

Strategies

Actions to be 

Considered 

and/or 

Implemented

Expectation 

from the 

Actions

natural escapement 

and removal at Dayton 

Dam)

Manage to 

appropriate levels 

of NOB and pHOS 

based on sliding 

scale developed by 

co-managers.

Determine longterm strategy for 

whether hatchery 

program is 

integrated or 

segregated

goals

Maintenance of 

natural populations

Lower Grande 

Ronde steelhead

Lower Grande 

Ronde Summer 

Steelhead

Moderate risk of 

extinctionb

(10-yr geomean of 

minimum of 1,000 

naturally produced 

spawners and 20-yr 

R/S of ≥ 1.14)

Continue segregated 

program 

Increase monitoring 

in nearby streams to 

insure straying is at 

acceptable levels.

Manage to increase 

PNI.

Increase of 

abundance with 

increased survival 

and numbers of fish 

released.

Increase in 

productivity by 

reducing pHOS and 

strays.

Ultimately to achieve 

LRSCP 

mitigation/restoration 

goals

Joseph Creek None – reserved for 

wild production

Monitor for 

hatchery strays and 

adult abundance

Wild fish sanctuary 

that maintains selfsustaining natural 

populations, and 

potentially used as a 

reference stream for 

hatchery evaluations.

a The Minam River (not in SEWMU) is also considered to be a reference stream, and will be managed as a wild fish 

sanctuary.

b

The ICTRT (2007) did not have enough information to determine the overall viability rating, but postulated that 

based on the VSP parameters, this population was at moderate risk for abundance and productivity and low risk for 

spatial structure and diversity, with an overall extinction risk of ―moderate.‖
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 570

D.9 REFERENCES

AHSWG (Ad Hoc Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation Workgroup). Beasley C. A , B. A. 

Berejikian, R. W. Carmichael, D. E. Fast, M. J. Ford, P. F. Galbreath,J. A. Hesse, L. L. McDonald, A. R. 

Murdoch, C. M. Peven, and D. A. Venditti. 2008. Recommendations for Broad Scale Monitoring to 

Evaluate the Effects of Hatchery Supplementation on the Fitness of Natural Salmon and Steelhead 

Populations. Final Report. 82 pgs

Araki, H., W.R. Arden, E. Olsen, B. Cooper, and M.S. Blouin. 2007. Reproductive success of captivebred steelhead trout in the wild: evaluation of three hatchery programs in the Hood River. Conservation 

Biology 21(1):181-190.

Bumgarner, J.D., and J.T. Dedloff. 2009. Lyons Ferry Complex Hatchery Evaluation: summer steelhead 

annual report 2006 and 2007 run year. Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative 

Agreement 1411-06-J013, 1411-07-J011. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 107 p.

Gallinat, M.P., J.D. Bumgarner, L. Ross, and M. Varney. 2001. Tucannon River Spring

 Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2000 Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Cooperative Agreement 1411-09-J070. Washington Department of 

 Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Report # FPA01-05. 44 p.

Gallinat, M.P., and L.A. Ross. 2007. Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery 

 Evaluation Program 2006 Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Cooperative Agreement 1411-06-J013. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

 Olympia, Washington. Report # FPA07-09. 73 p.

Gallinat, M.P., and L.A. Ross. 2009. Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery

 Evaluation Program 2008 Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Cooperative Agreement 1411-08-J011. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

 Olympia, Washington. Report # FPA09-08. 75 p.

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of 

the Hatchery Scientific Review Group.
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 571

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2009. Columbia River hatchery reform system-wide report.

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2007. Considering alternative artificial 

propagation programs: implications for the viability of listed anadromous salmonids in the interior 

Columbia River.

Kostow, K. E. 2008. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery 

programs and some mitigating strategies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

Larsen, D.A., B.R. Beckman, K.A. Cooper, D. Barrett, M. Johnston, P. Swanson, and W.W. Dickhoff. 

2004. Assessment of high rates of precocious male maturation in a spring Chinook salmon salmon 

supplementation hatchery program. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133: 98-120.

Larsen, D.A., B.R. Beckman, and K.A. Cooper. 2010. Examination of conflict between smolting and 

precocious male maturation in spring (stream-type) Chinook salmon salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 139: 

564-578.

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. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42,156 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Biological Opinion for 1995 to 1998 hatchery operations in the 

Columbia River Basin. NOAA/NMFS, April 5, 1995. 82 pp.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008a. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power 

System and Mainstem Effects of the Upper Snake and other Tributary Actions. Appendix C Artificial 

Propagation for Pacific Salmon. 1230 pgs

NOAA Fisheries. 2008b. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power 

System and Mainstem Effects of the Upper Snake and other Tributary Actions. Appendix D Hatchery 

Effects Report. 1230 pgs

NOAA Fisheries. 2009. Middle Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment ESA recovery 

plan. 260 pgs

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Pearsons, T. N. 2008. Misconception, reality, and uncertainty about ecological interactions and risks 

between hatchery and wild salmonids. Fisheries 33:278-290.

RIST (Recovery Implementation Science Team) Brown, G.M., C. Busack, R. Carmichael, T. Cooney, K. 

Currens, M. Ford, G. Helfman, J. Hesse, P. Lawson, M. McClure, P. McElhany, G. Reeves, B. Rieman, 
APPENDIX D: Hatchery Management SRSRP SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 572

M. Ruckelshaus, B. Thompson. 2009. Hatchery reform science. A review of some application of 

science to hatchery reform issues. 93 pgs. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/index.cfm

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB). 2006. Technical Document

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington. Prepared for the Washington Governor‘s 

Salmon Recovery Office. Draft report. 583 pages

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District (USACE), Walla Walla, Washington. 1975. Special Report: 

Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan. 95 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Pacific Region Federal Hatchery Review - National Fish 

Hatchery Recommendations: Draft Summary Report, February 2010. Hatchery Review Team, Pacific 

Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. <http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

fisheries/Hatcheryreview/ team.html>.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 573

APPENDIX E FISHERY MANAGEMENT – SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON

MANAGEMENT UNIT
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 574

Appendix E. Fishery Management - Southeast Washington 

Management Unit

Table of Contents – Appendix E

Fishery Management - SEWMU

E.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 576

E.1.1 Geographic scope................................................................................................... 576

E.2 FISHERIES WITHIN THE SEWMU ................................................................................ 577

E.2.1 Spring/summer Chinook........................................................................................ 578

E.2.2 Steelhead................................................................................................................ 578

E.3 HARVEST WITHIN THE SEWMU.................................................................................. 579

E.3.1 Spring/summer Chinook........................................................................................ 579

E.3.2 Steelhead................................................................................................................ 581

E.4 THREATS AND LIMITING FACTORS AND CONSERVATION BENEFITS 

ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT FISHERY MANAGEMENT..................................... 583

E.4.1 Limiting factors ..................................................................................................... 583

E.4.2 Current Threats...................................................................................................... 583

E.5 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RECOVERY........................................ 584

E.5.1 General Strategies.................................................................................................. 584

E.5.2 General Actions..................................................................................................... 584

E.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT WITHIN 

THE SEWMU..................................................................................................................... 584

E.7 MANAGEMENT UNCERTAINTIES.............................................................................. 585

E.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 587
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 575

Table of Figures – Appendix E

APPENDIX E FISHERY MANAGEMENT – SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT 

UNIT ............................................................................................................................................ 573

FIGURE E-1. SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT UNIT................... 577

FIGURE E-2. TOTAL HATCHERY FISH ESTIMATED TO BE 

HARVESTED WITHIN ALL STEELHEAD FISHERIES OF THE SEWMU................. 581

List of Tables – Appendix E

APPENDIX E FISHERY MANAGEMENT – SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT 

UNIT ............................................................................................................................................ 573

TABLE E-1. SUMMARY OF SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK SALMON FISHERIES 

IN THE SEWMU ............................................................................................................... 579

TABLE E-2. SUMMARY OF STEELHEAD HARVEST IN SEWMU STREAMS 

FROM 1986-87 RUN YEAR TO 2009-10 RUN YEAR.................................................... 582

TABLE E-3. ANADROMOUS SALMONID POPULATIONS AND MAJOR 

LIMITING FACTORS CONCERNING HARVEST PROGRAMS AFFECTING 

SE WASHINGTON SALMONIDS ................................................................................... 583

TABLE E-4. A SUMMARY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 

THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE 

SEWMU. ............................................................................................................................ 585

TABLE E-5. MANAGEMENT UNCERTAINTIES AND PROPOSED OBJECTIVES 

AND STRATEGIES WITHIN THE SEWMU................................................................... 586
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 576

E.1 OVERVIEW 

This appendix briefly describes fishery management within the Southeast Washington Management Unit

(SEWMU) affecting populations inside the SEWMU79. It is important to understand that:

fisheries (especially salmon) outside of the SEWMU in the ocean and lower Columbia 

River strongly affect the opportunity to provide fisheries within the SEWMU.

For a description of fishery management outside the SEWMU, refer to the harvest module80. 

E.1.1 Geographic scope

The SEWMU encompasses the Snake River and its tributaries, including the Tucannon, Asotin, lower 

Grande Ronde, Touchet and Walla Walla rivers. In addition, smaller tributaries also have anadromous 

fish (e.g., Alpowa Creek) (Figure E-1) and trout fisheries that may allow harvest of hatchery steelhead.

 

79 Snake River fall Chinook salmon will not be covered in this appendix, and will be discussed in detail in the fall 

Chinook salmon appendix to the comprehensive Snake River Recovery plan.

80 The Harvest Module was developed by NMFS and can be found within the comprehensive Snake River Salmon 

Recovery Plan.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 577

Figure E-1. Southeast Washington Management Unit.

E.2 FISHERIES WITHIN THE SEWMU

All fisheries that affect ESA-listed species within the SEWMU can be authorized under the Endangered 

Species Act 4(d), Section 7 or Section 10 processes. The mainstem Snake River spring Chinook fisheries 

up to the Idaho border in Clarkston have been included with the lower Columbia River fisheries in the 

U.S. v. Oregon81 Management Agreement and associated fisheries BiOP. Up to now, and since Snake 

River Basin, and mid-Columbia Basin (e.g. Walla Walla Basin) ESUs and DPSs were listed under the 

ESA, most fisheries in the SEWMU have occurred without ESA authorization. 

Recently, a process called the Snake Basin Harvest Management Forum (SBHMF) was created with the 

purpose of developing coordinated management frameworks for ESA-listed species in the Snake River 

Basin. The SRMF concept was introduced at the January 2009 U.S. v. Oregon Plenary Session and it has 

convened several times since July 2009. However, the SRMF has yet to result in the development of 

long-term Fishery Management Plans for the SEWMU and other areas of interest. Participants include 

representatives from three states (Washington, Oregon and Idaho), and Snake River basin tribes (Nez 

Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes) and 

NMFS. 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted a short-term Fishery Management 

and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) for steelhead and miscellaneous fisheries to NMFS in December 2009 that is 

 

81 United States v. Oregon, originally a combination of two cases, Sohappy v. Smith and U.S. v. Oregon (302 F. Supp. 899), 

legally upheld the Columbia River treaty tribes reserved fishing rights. Although the Sohappy case was closed in 1978, U.S. v. 

Oregon remains under the federal court's continuing jurisdiction.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 578

considered an interim plan that is to be replaced by a plan developed in coordination with other SEWMU 

co-managers through the SBHMF. A main feature of future fishery management plans is the inclusion of 

abundance-based and population-specific harvest rate schedules that limit the take of ESA-listed species. 

The main goal of WDFW‘s current interim steelhead and miscellaneous fisheries FMEP is to provide 

harvest opportunity for a large subset of recreational fisheries in Washington‘s portion of the Snake River 

basin in a manner that promotes recovery of ESA-listed salmonids in the near-term. Fisheries targeting

hatchery-origin spring/summer Chinook salmon were not included in WDFW‘s 2009 FMEP for the 

SEWMU, and will be included in a future FMEP. Three U.S. v Oregon tribes (Nez Perce Tribe, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes) have also 

indicated plans to submit Tribal Resource Management Plans under the Tribal 4(d) Rule for fisheries 

targeting Snake River steelhead, Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon in the SEWMU. 

The WDFW‘s 2009 FMEP, currently under consideration for the SEWMU, includes miscellaneous 

fisheries and fisheries targeting hatchery-origin steelhead, with associated incidental take of ESA-listed 

Snake River steelhead and Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon. The current framework 

for WDFW‘s FMEP includes incidental ESA limits that are as low as practicable under the current fishery 

regimes and population-specific, but are not abundance-based. The current ESA limits for WDFW‘s 

FMEP are set and constant irrespective of expected population abundance under most conditions; only 

when the running three-year average for Snake River steelhead is below some critical threshold, fisheries 

would not occur. 

E.2.1 Spring/summer Chinook

From 1977 to 2000, salmon-directed sport fisheries were not allowed in the SEWMU with the exception 

of some limited fisheries for jack salmon, because Snake River salmon populations were at such low 

levels that WDFW was concerned that salmon-directed fisheries would have adverse effects on wild 

stocks. Beginning in 2001, WDFW(and other co-managers) authorized spring Chinook salmon fisheries 

in the Snake River Basin targeted at hatchery stocks. The SEWMU fishery was in May, which coincides 

with peak migration of hatchery fish. Wild fish (not marked with a clipped adipose fin) had to be 

released. Since 2003, WDFW has opened sport fisheries targeting spring Chinook salmon on the Snake 

River under emergency in-season procedures. The Snake River fisheries have often been terminated 

earlier than planned because of lower than expected run size and higher than anticipated ESA impacts in 

the lower Columbia River.

Limited tribal C&S fisheries targeted at salmon occur within the Snake River Basin, but most of these 

fisheries are outside the SEWMU in Idaho and Oregon. 

E.2.2 Steelhead

The States of Washington, Oregon and Idaho allow in-region recreational fisheries directed at steelhead. 

In Washington, regulations direct harvest on surplus hatchery fish while protecting wild fish. Wild 

steelhead release regulations were adopted by WDFW, and adjacent states, beginning in 1984 (based on 

stubbed dorsal fin regulations). Area closures and fishery timing are used to optimize wild steelhead 

protection in the recreational fishery. The upper Tucannon River watershed and all tributaries to 

Tucannon and Grande Ronde rivers are closed to steelhead fishing to protect fish in important natural 

spawning and rearing areas. Steelhead fishing is closed in Asotin Creek, Joseph Creek, upper Touchet 

River and upper Mill Creek, to protect wild steelhead. Wild steelhead refuge areas are established in 
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 579

Asotin Creek and its tributaries, the Joseph Creek Basin, most of the Wenaha Basin (including all of the 

WA portion), and the upper portions of the Touchet and Mill creek in the Walla Walla Basin.

E.3 HARVEST WITHIN THE SEWMU

As stated above, fisheries for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River are opened on an 

―emergency regulation‖ basis by WDFW in the SEWMU, while steelhead fisheries are planned in and 

approved in advance. Below is a description of the annual harvest within the SEWMU based on records 

and reports by WDFW.

E.3.1 Spring/summer Chinook

Spring Chinook salmon fisheries have been held near Little Goose Dam in the Snake River since 2001. 

Other areas of the Snake River have also been opened periodically when fish numbers have supported it. 

Between 1977 and 2000, the Snake River had not been opened for Chinook fishing (Trump and Mendel 

2010). Table E-1 summarizes the harvest results since 2001 for spring/summer Chinook in the SEWMU. 

Table E-1. Summary of spring/summer Chinook salmon fisheries in the SEWMU (data 

from Trump and Mendel 2010).

Year Area open

Season 

(actual)

Harvest 

(expanded)

Fish released 

(expanded)

2001

Little Goose (Texas Rapids 

boat launch upstream to the 

Corps of Engineers boat 

launch approximately one mile 

upstream of Little Goose Dam 

on the south bank of the river)

May 1-May 31

Adults: 1,076

Jacks: 50

Wild adults: 373

Lower Granite (the mouth of 

Casey Creek upstream to the 

fishery restriction boundary 

400 feet below Lower Granite 

Dam)

May 1-May 31

Adults: 147

Jacks: 7

Wild adults: 69

Cent. Ferry (taken from Table 

28 of Trump and Mendel 2010; 

no description of area)

May 1-May 31

Adults: 216

Jacks: 10

Wild adults: 116

2002

Little Goose April 25-May 26

Adults: 866

Jacks: 0

Wild adults: 351

Upper Snake River (Heller 

Bar to Southway Bridge) April 25-May 26

Adults:105

Jacks: 0

Wild adults: 16

Wild jacks: 0

Hatchery Adults: 63

Hatchery jacks: 0

2003 Little Goose April 26-June 16

Adults:513

Jacks: 282

Wild adults: 405

Wild jacks: 202

Hatchery Adults: 21

Hatchery jacks: 172

2004 Little Goose April 16-May 7

Adults:1,224

Jacks: 21

Wild adults: 337

Wild jacks: 0
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 580

Year Area open

Season 

(actual)

Harvest 

(expanded)

Fish released 

(expanded)

Hatchery Adults: 10

Hatchery jacks: 0

Unknown jacks: 10

Above Lower Granite Dam 

(Redwolf Bridge down to 

mouth of Wawawai Creek)

April 16-May 7 No estimate because no fish were observed 

harvested or released

Upper Snake River April 24-May 31

Adults:150

Jacks: 0

Wild adults: 75

Wild jacks: 35

Hatchery Adults: 10

Hatchery jacks: 7

2005 Little Goose June 11-June 

30

Adults:77

Jacks: 4

Wild adults: 83

Wild jacks: 2

Hatchery Adults: 0

Hatchery jacks: 2

2006 Little Goose May 17-June 30

Adults:192

Jacks: 21

Wild adults: 100

Wild jacks: 15

Hatchery Adults:30

Hatchery jacks: 12

2007 Little Goose May 9-June 30

Adults: 284

Jacks: 207

Unknown: 13

Wild adults: 67

Wild jacks: 108

Hatchery Adults: 14

Hatchery jacks: 238

2008

Ice Harbor (railroad bridge 

near the mouth of the Snake 

River upstream to Ice Harbor 

Dam)

April 22-May 11

Adults: 149

Jacks: 30

Unknown: 26

Wild adults: 40

Wild jacks: 9

Hatchery Adults: 9

Hatchery jacks: 0

Little Goose April 24-May 11

Adults: 366

Jacks: 35

Wild adults: 88

Wild jacks: 7

Hatchery Adults: 0

Hatchery jacks: 0

2009 Little Goose April 24-May 17

Adults: 498

Jacks: 183

Wild adults: 100

Wild jacks: 33

Hatchery Adults: 17

Hatchery jacks: 213

2010

Ice Harbor April 20-May 21

Adults: 760

Jacks: 135

Wild adults: 101

Wild jacks: 68

Little Goose April 24-May 21

Adults: 832

Jacks: 48

Wild adults: 87

Wild jacks: 19

Lower Granite April 24-May 21

Adults: 15

Jacks: 0

Wild adults: 11

Wild jacks: 0

Clarkston (Blyton Landing April 24-May-21 Adults: 56 Wild adults: 0
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 581

Year Area open

Season 

(actual)

Harvest 

(expanded)

Fish released 

(expanded)

Boat Launch (~12 miles above 

Lower Granite dam) upstream 

about 19 miles to the boat 

dock behind the Quality Inn in 

Clarkston)

Jacks: 0 Wild jacks: 30

E.3.2 Steelhead

Steelhead fishing in the SEWMU has been on-going, and currently targets hatchery-origin fish only. 

Between 1986 and 2009, the number of hatchery fish harvest has steadily increased in the mainstem 

Snake River and tributaries (including the Walla Walla) of the SEWMU (Figure E-2).

Figure E-2. Total hatchery fish estimated to be harvested within all steelhead fisheries 

of the SEWMU (data from WDFW catch record cards).

Table E-2 is a more detailed summary of the number of steelhead (both hatchery and naturally produced) 

caught in SEWMU streams since the 1986-87 run year.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 582

Table E-2. Summary of steelhead harvest in SEWMU streams from 1986-87 run year to 2009-10 run year (data from 

WDFW catch record cards). Note that the number of wild fish recorded in the table is reliant on catch record cards, and 

there may be some associated error because of it.

Total 

Hatchery

Total 

Wild

Run Year Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild Hat. Wild

1986/87 4 7 156 44 206 40 283 8 1,451 133 171 6 629 24 1,338 16 589 4 4,314 137 9,181 379

1987/88 288 5 180 9 25 207 12 800 14 57 438 691 6 444 4 1,916 31 5,046 81

1988/89 511 4 255 74 231 1,097 121 686 917 739 4,060 8,691 4

1989/90 823 310 60 505 1,691 193 800 1,610 969 7,085 14,046 0

1990/91 2 653 337 34 334 1,474 110 812 1,361 1,068 1,801 7,986 0

1991/92 2,060 10 320 6 18 2 380 6 489 10 720 33 1,650 6 1,880 8 1,076 19 6,041 75 14,634 175

1992/93 1,458 49 354 4 100 212 5 852 32 507 14 1,874 70 2,510 149 9,321 72 4,030 261 3,368 105 24,586 761

1993/94 1,294 57 159 7 1 194 11 1,020 14 308 10 1,300 43 1,715 54 901 27 1,911 89 1,319 86 10,128 392

1994/95 939 28 164 12 299 14 402 26 126 835 19 1,523 45 364 40 921 29 1,270 44 6,855 245

1995/96 18 3 2,824 50 593 10 148 28 559 15 1,382 12 155 1,666 57 5,361 98 1,270 79 2,045 243 3,071 128 19,092 723

1996/97 3,322 33 830 6 101 285 4 1,463 65 85 5 2,030 41 4,908 86 815 16 1,556 192 3,285 74 18,680 522

1997/98 40 4,511 86 748 68 509 4 1,857 25 201 9 2,660 61 4,290 64 1,216 31 36 2,185 104 4,400 68 22,721 452

1998/99 4 1,440 30 246 44 16 51 282 44 4 934 19 2,007 68 519 12 1,358 41 2,614 40 9,515 258

1999/00 2,077 71 1,124 22 13 180 6 521 16 40 1,362 57 3,126 60 1,631 23 2,009 164 2,990 88 15,073 507

2000/01 6 5,755 70 592 18 15 452 18 992 22 114 4 1,769 49 2,721 106 1,156 13 3,294 141 4,254 110 21,120 551

2001/02 6 3 7,981 67 1,731 28 3 805 15 1,961 50 506 2,410 15 6,491 93 1,771 50 4,077 157 6,724 74 34,466 552

2002/03 5,349 1,149 12 180 715 324 2,321 4,578 1,787 5,549 3,960 25,924 0

2003/04 4,710 1,026 223 500 184 1,612 2,445 775 3,441 4,665 19,581 0

2004/05 4,642 1,352 6 268 1,484 141 2,246 3,008 911 3,029 3,299 20,386 0

2005/06 4,512 589 4 156 367 94 2,154 3,692 943 2,705 2,928 18,144 0

2006/07 2,977 527 7 140 460 169 2,516 2,932 810 2,159 2,145 14,842 0

2007/08 4,231 744 63 403 213 3,399 4,112 1,228 3,665 4,117 22,175 0

2008/09 3,220 1,228 4 228 539 296 3 2,483 3,853 1,003 3,398 2,949 19,201 3

2009/10 12,641 1,260 31 459 786 336 4,430 4,519 2 1,880 5,200 2 8,767 5 40,309 9

SEWMU

Touchet Walla Walla

Snake River

Below Ice 

Harbor 

Dam

Ice Harbor to 

Lwr 

Monumental

Lower 

Monumental 

to Little 

Goose

Little 

Goose to 

Lower 

Granite

Above 

Lower 

Granite 

(old area)

Lower 

Granite 

Dam to 

Interstate 

upstream 

of the 

Interstate 

Bridge

Asotin 

Creek

Grande 

Ronde Tucannon

Mill Creek 

(Walla 

Walla Co.)
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 583

E.4 THREATS AND LIMITING FACTORS AND CONSERVATION BENEFITS 

ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT FISHERY MANAGEMENT

In this section, harvest threats and limiting factors are identified, methods that have been used to assess 

the threats and limiting factors are discussed, and finally, the results of the analyses are summarized. 

E.4.1 Limiting factors

Factors related to fisheries management that could be limiting population recovery are listed below (Table 

E-3). It is important to note the complexity of harvest management and also the improvements that have 

been made in recent years. 

Table E-3. Anadromous salmonid populations and major limiting factors concerning 

harvest programs affecting SE Washington salmonids (based on SRSRB 2006).

Population

Fisheries

Program Major 

Factor(s)Currently Limiting

Population Recovery

Other Major Factor(s) Currently 

Limiting Population Recoverya

Touchet and Walla Walla steelhead

ESA-listed Salmon and steelhead 

from the SEWMU are impacted by 

commercial, sport, and tribal 

ceremonial and subsistence 

fisheries, both within and outside 

the SEWMU (see harvest module).

Tributary fisheries in the SEWMU 

are being developed in such ways 

that are not considered limiting 

factors for recovery.

Hydroelectric projects and associated 

affects on water quality, flows, fish 

homing (e.g. bypassing the Tucannon 

River) and predator abundance and 

distribution.

Tributary habitat impairments, barriers, 

water withdrawals, etc.

Loss and/or reduction in the amount 

and quality of spawning and rearing 

habitat.

Possibly transportation (barges).

Tucannon River steelhead

Asotin Creek steelhead

Lower Grande Ronde River and 

Joseph Creek steelhead

Tucannon spring Chinook salmon

Lower Grande Ronde River spring 

Chinook salmon

a Other factors than hatchery management (see separate appendix on hatchery management)

E.4.2 Current Threats

Within Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, the following categories are listed to determine threats affecting listed 

species:

The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Disease or predation.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 584

Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

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

The only one of these threat categories that relates to fisheries management is Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. The factors that could be threatening fish 

related to this category outside of the SEWMU are dealt with in the harvest module. The factors that 

could be threatening fish within the recovery area related to this category are:

Incidental or direct fisheries effects on ESA-listed natural-origin Chinook and steelhead.

Illegal, unregulated and unreported harvest could threaten ESA-listed natural-origin 

Chinook and steelhead.

Current and future management provisions, particularly those being developed through the SBHMF, are 

attempting to reduce the impacts from these potential threats.

E.5 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RECOVERY

This section deals with general harvest strategies and actions within the SEWMU to promote recovery of 

Snake River steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon. The specific actions are being developed 

through the SBHMF. Harvest strategies and actions outside the SEWMU are dealt with in the Harvest 

Module. General strategies and actions are those that discuss overarching effects, while specific ones will 

be developed in relationship to specific populations or species. 

E.5.1 General Strategies

Use harvest management to remove hatchery-origin fish and reduce abundance and proportion of 

hatchery spawners in the wild. 

Use harvest management to limit and reduce impacts on natural-origin fish. 

Leave open the possibility to target natural-origin stocks depending on the health of the 

populations, particularly for tribal fisheries.

Closed fisheries to protect wild steelhead and spring Chinook populations in refuge areas (e.g. 

Asotin, Joseph creeks, and Wenaha Basin within WA), and in upper portions of the Tucannon and 

Touchet rivers, Mill Creek and most small tributaries within the SEWMU. 

E.5.2 General Actions

Use the Snake Basin Management Forum to develop coordinated fishery plans for fisheries 

within the SEWRU

E.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT WITHIN 

THE SEWMU.

To determine whether a fishery program within the SEWMU is meeting its goals, robust monitoring and 

evaluation is needed. Information obtained from monitoring and evaluation can also assist managers in 

making informed decisions concerning fishery programs, allowing for adaptive management. Table E-4

lists fishery monitoring and evaluation activities that are necessary within SEWMU for adequate fishery 

management. 
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 585

Table E-4. A summary of monitoring and evaluation activities that are necessary for 

fisheries management within the SEWMU.

Monitoring and Evaluation Approach or Focus Description

Spawner Abundance Total number of adults that spawn within the 

population boundary in a single spawning season.

Escapement 

Number of adult fish that have "escaped" past 

fisheries and other sources of mortality to a certain 

point (e.g., into a tributary or spawning area).

Harvest rates The proportion of population that is taken by a 

specific fishery

Exploitation rates The proportion of the total stock or population

harvested in all fisheries

Creel surveys

Statistical significant creel surveys need to be 

conducted by WDFW (jointly with Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, as appropriate) 

and the tribes to estimate total catch, harvest and 

incidental “take” of ESA-listed fish. Biological data, 

including mark information, fish length, and the 

presence of marks or tags need to be collected.

Catch record cards (CRC)

Non-Indian salmon and steelhead anglers are 

required to submit CRCs with specific data for all 

fish retained, including species, date and location 

of catch, age (adult or jack), and mark status 

(hatchery or wild). 

Coded wire tag (CWT) and PIT information and 

analysis

Collection and analysis of coded-wire tag and PIT 

information can provide useful information for 

fishery management such as: run timing, in-season 

runsize updates, and well as stock-specific 

information for hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

fish captured or retained in the various fisheries.

E.7 MANAGEMENT UNCERTAINTIES 

The major fishery-related management uncertainties are:

Mortality of fish caught and released in mark-selective fisheries

Mortality of fish caught that escape fishing gear

Magnitude and distribution of unreported fishing

Magnitude and distribution of harvest impacts

Table E-5 lists the uncertainties, objectives and strategies related to improving fishery management 

within the SEWRU.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 586

Table E-5. Management uncertainties and proposed objectives and strategies within 

the SEWMU.

Uncertainty

Objective to address the 

uncertainty Strategies Comments

Mortality of 

fish caught 

and released 

in markselective 

fisheries

Determine the mortality rates of 

Snake River steelhead and

Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook salmon that are caught 

and released in mark-selective 

fisheries in various environmental 

conditions.

Develop and implement 

studies or analyses that 

can help determine catchand-release mortality for 

Snake River steelhead 

and Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook 

salmon in the SEWMU 

under the expected 

various environmental 

conditions, or review and 

consider applying results 

from other similar studies. 

Magnitude and 

distribution of 

unreported 

fishing

Determine where, when and how 

much unreported fishing is 

occurring for Snake River 

steelhead and Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon 

within the SEWMU

Develop and implement 

(or expand existing efforts) 

a monitoring program that 

is fully funded for five 

years that can meet this

objective.

The SRSRB, utilizing 

BPA funds, will 

conduct education 

and outreach in the 

summer of 2011 to 

fishers on the 

Tucannon River

Magnitude and 

distribution of 

harvest 

impacts

Determine what affect harvest 

impacts have on the VSP 

parameters for Snake River 

steelhead and Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon 

populations within the SEWMU.

Develop and implement 

modeling exercise, in 

conjunction with comanagers to estimate the 

impact of various harvest 

rates on the abundance, 

productivity and potentially 

spatial structure and 

diversity of ESA-listed 

populations within the 

SEWMU.
APPENDIX E: Fishery Management - SEWMU

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 587

E.8 REFERENCES

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB). 2006. Technical Document Snake River Salmon 

Recovery Plan for SE Washington. Prepared for the Washington Governor‘s Salmon Recovery Office. 

Draft report. 583 pages

Trump, J. and G. Mendel. 2010. Snake River spring Chinook salmon fishery report, 2010. WDFW, 25 

pages.

United States versus Oregon. 2008. 2008-2017 United State v. Oregon Management Agreement.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Fisheries Management and Evaluation 

Plan for the Incidental Take of Listed Species Submitted Under ESA Section 10/4(d). 

WDFW Recreational Fisheries for summer steelhead, warmwater fish, sturgeon, carp and other species. 

103 pages.
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 588

APPENDIX F ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT (EDT)
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 589

Table of Contents – Appendix F

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)

F.1 DEFINITION OF ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT (EDT) .................. 590

F.1.1 The Stream Unit Types used in EDT are:.............................................................. 591

F.1.2 The Environmental Attributes used in EDT are: ................................................... 591

F.1.3 The Habitat Attributes used in EDT are: ............................................................... 592

F.2 DEFINITION OF PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITIONS, AS APPLIED IN

EDT ANALYSES............................................................................................................... 597

F.3 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 598

Table of Figures – Appendix F

APPENDIX F ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT (EDT)................................................... 588

FIGURE F-1. EXAMPLE OF A PLOT OF RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 

PRIORITIES ALONG A STREAM................................................................................... 593

FIGURE F-2. DRAFT STREAM REACH ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SANDY RIVER 

CHINOOK SALMON. ....................................................................................................... 594
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 590

Appendix F. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)

This Appendix is divided into two parts; Part 1 explains EDT and illustrates the assumptions and 

attributes that are used within the model, and Part 2 discusses how properly functioning conditions (PFC) 

are developed into attributes within the EDT model.

F.1 DEFINITION OF ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT (EDT)

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) is a system for rating the quality, quantity, and diversity of 

stream habitat relative to the needs of a ―focal‖ salmonid species. The methodology was designed to be a 

practical, science-based approach for watershed planning. It gives resource managers a scientific tool to 

link habitat characteristics to salmon performance and provides a basis for prioritizing protection and 

restoration activities, evaluating progress, and refining restoration strategies. 

EDT was developed by Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. (MBI) in the 1990s with input from state, federal, and 

tribal agency scientists. A partial list of articles and other documents containing more information about 

EDT appears at the end of Part 1. To date, EDT has been used in most anadromous watersheds in Puget 

Sound and in the Columbia River Basin. In 2001-2002, MBI worked with the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council to bring EDT into the web environment to make the methodology available to the 

public.

EDT is a methodology that includes a conceptual framework for decision making and modeling tools that 

organize environmental information in a centralized database. It is a ―scientific expert‖ system that 

translates watershed and population information into population performance parameters (abundance, 

productivity, and diversity) for salmonids. In effect, EDT provides a description of the way in which the 

focal species would rate conditions in a stream, based on scientific understanding of their needs. 

This system allows users to predict how stream habitat might change in response to future conditions such 

as watershed restoration and development. These types of predictions provide a basis for adaptive 

management of stream restoration. 

Application of the EDT methodology results in a scientifically based assessment of environmental 

conditions, identification of restoration and protection needs, prioritization of restoration actions to 

maximize potential benefits to salmonids, and formulation of long-term restoration plans for watersheds 

based on adaptive management principles. 

An EDT analysis begins with a description of the stream environment. The stream is divided into 

segments, or ―reaches.‖ Each reach is described quantitatively in terms of the Stream Unit Type, such as 

riffles, pools, and so on. 
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 591

F.1.1 The Stream Unit Types used in EDT are:

Backwater pools

Beaver ponds

Large cobble/boulder riffles

Primary pools

Pool tailouts

Glides

Off-channel areas

Small cobble riffles

Each reach is then described qualitatively in terms of Environmental Attributes, such as temperature, 

flows, sediment, and so on. 

F.1.2 The Environmental Attributes used in EDT are:

Alkalinity Harassment Riparian function

Artificial confinement Hatchery outplants Salmon carcasses

Bed scour Icing Temperature maximum

Benthos community richness Metals in soil Temperature minimum

Diel flow pattern Metals in water Temperature spatial variation

Dissolved oxygen Natural confinement Turbidity

Embeddedness Natural flow regime Water withdrawals

Fine sediment Nutrient enrichment Within year high flow

Fish community richness Obstructions Within year low flow

Fish pathogens Pollutants in water Wood

Fish species introductions Predation

Gradient Regulated flow regime

The quantitative and qualitative descriptions, combined with some general geographic descriptors, e.g., 

subbasin, stream, and reach names; channel width and length, form the basic habitat inputs to EDT.
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 592

The next step in EDT is to define the species being analyzed, i.e., the ―focal‖ species. Spawning reaches 

and times and harvest patterns are defined. Life history patterns (profiles) are created for both juveniles 

and adults within the defined population. 

Once the environment has been described and the focal species defined, the next step is to rate the quality 

and quantity of habitat with respect to the needs of the species. The measure of habitat value is the 

biological productivity and carrying capacity of the stream for the selected focal species under the habitat 

conditions described. In EDT, habitat quality is rated using a set of ―rules‖ that relates conditions, such as 

water temperature, to the survival of a particular life stage of the focal species. The rules are developed by 

consulting with scientific experts on the habitat needs of the focal species and by examining scientific 

literature.

F.1.3 The Habitat Attributes used in EDT are:

Channel stability Obstructions

Chemicals Oxygen

Competition Pathogens

Flow Predation

Food Salinity

Habitat diversity Sediment load

Harassment Temperature

Key habitat Water withdrawals

Combining the Environmental Quality Attributes into Habitat Attributes allows the quality of the habitat 

to be related to the survival of one or more life stages of the focal species. For example, the Habitat 

Attribute ―habitat diversity‖ is formed by combining survival relationships for a particular life stage, such 

as juvenile rearing over the summer, with Environmental Quality Attributes such as stream gradient, 

natural and artificial channel confinement, riparian function, and presence of woody debris. The result is 

that the survival of the juvenile summer rearing life stage can be related to habitat diversity as a function 

of gradient, channel confinement, riparian function, and woody debris.

The quantity of habitat is rated by summing the amount (total area) of different stream unit types in a 

stream reach and weighting them according to their potential value for a given life stage. For example, 

small cobble riffles are more important (weighted heavily) for spawning whereas primary pools are not 

important for this life stage and receive a weight of zero.

By rating the quantity and quality of habitat as seen ―through the eyes‖ of the focal species reach by reach 

and performing an EDT analysis based on these inputs, it is possible to identify those areas where 

conditions are particularly good or bad for the fish. Actions that could be taken in ―bad‖ areas to fix them 
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 593

and in ―good‖ areas to preserve them can also be identified. The EDT output identifies the restoration and 

protection value for each reach as shown in Figure F-1.

Figure 3. Example of ranking of reaches relative to restoration and 

degradation reference conditions

Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration

Figure A-1 Example of a plot of restoration and protection priorities along a stream

 a stream Protection Value Restoration Value

Figure F-1. Example of a plot of restoration and protection priorities along a stream.

Baseline reports from EDT describe population performance potential (under specified habitat conditions) 

in terms of capacity, productivity, and diversity. Factors limiting each life stage are identified. 

Restoration actions based on the population performance potential and limiting factors may then be 

developed and combined into scenarios. Scenarios demonstrate how a salmonid population‘s performance 

can be expected to change as a result of future actions. Different actions or combinations of actions may 

be compared in terms of their biological effectiveness. Comparison may also be made to the original 

stream reach data. These comparisons allow planners and managers to choose actions that will yield the 

greatest benefit for the least cost.

The EDT output report referred to as a ―reach analysis‖ is presented using a ―Consumer Reports‖ format 

with different sized dots representing different sized impacts (the larger the dot, the more severe the 

impact) on survival for each focal species at a given life stage. 

The EDT Online Web site was developed by MBI in cooperation with government agencies and 

organizations in the Pacific Northwest. The site is designed to allow planners and technical teams to 

assess habitat conditions in their areas and to analyze the benefits and risks of recovery actions. 
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 594

Figure F-2. Draft Stream Reach Analysis Summary for Sandy River Chinook Salmon. 

(Note: Revisions Expected)

DRAFT - STREAM REACH ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SANDY RIVER CHINOOK SALMON (REVISIONS EXPECTED!)

Species/Component: Spring Chinook

Restoration Potential: Current conditions versus Historic Potential

Restoration Emphasis: Restoration or maintenance/improvement of historic life histories

Stream(s) / Water(s): Sandy River Sub-Watershed:

Reach Length (mi):

Reach Code:

Restoration Benefit Category: A Life History Diversity Rank: Potential % change in diversity:1/

Combined Performance Rank: 2 Productivity Rank: Potential % change in productivity:1/

% of Total Life History Trajectories Affected: 100% Average Abundance (Neq) Rank: Potential % change in Neq:1/

Change in attribute impact on survival

Spawning Sep 2.6% -89.9% 3

Egg incubation Sep-Apr 2.6% -100.0% 1

Fry colonization Mar-May 5.3% -7.3% 10

0-age resident rearing Mar-Oct 12.9% -10.7% 5

0-age transient rearing Mar-Aug 14.8% -2.2% 11

0-age migrant Oct-Nov 13.8% -3.2% 9

0,1-age inactive Oct-Mar 6.4% -35.4% 4, 2

1-age migrant Mar-Jun 68.9% -0.7% 8

1-age resident rearing Mar-May 6.4% -3.7% 12

1-age transient rearing

2+-age transient rearing

Prespawning migrant Apr-Aug 100.0% -0.9% 6

Prespawning holding May-Sep 2.6% -24.3% 7

Loss Gain

1/ Value shown is for overall population performance. KEY None

Notes: Changes in key habitat can be caused by either a change in percent key habitat or in stream width. NA = Not applicable Small

 Potential % changes in performance measures for reaches upstream of dams were computed with full passage Moderate

 allowed at dams (though reservoir effects still in place). High

 <HP> indicates highest priority given due to fragmentation of habitat by dam or reservoir. Extreme

Life stage Competition (other sp) Obstructions

Reach: Sandy1 extends from confluence with Columbia River upstream 

5.4 miles (near Dabney Park)

4

% of life 

history 

trajectories 

affected

Productivity 

change (%)

Relevant 

months Life Stage Rank Channel stability Chemicals Competition (w/ hatch) Flow Habitat diversity Harvest Oxygen % Key habitat (quantity)

9

2 Nutrient load Withdrawals

7.6% Pathogens Predation Sediment load Temperature

28.2%

5.4

Sandy1

5.6%

Table Heading Descriptions

Species/Component – Identifies the species to which the reach analysis applies. In this case, the 

species being examined is spring Chinook.

Restoration Potential – Identifies the comparison being used to determine the restoration 

potential of the reach. For the Sandy River, current habitat conditions are being compared to 

historic (Template) conditions.

Restoration Emphasis – Identifies the emphasis of the restoration approach. Typical restoration 

approaches could include increasing salmon productivity, re-establishing lost life-history patterns, 

or improving habitat quality through active restoration.

Stream(s) Water(s) – Used to identify basin, major river, ocean reach, etc.

Reach – Provides a brief description of the reach location.
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 595

Sub-watershed – Line provided to allow modelers to break the basin into subbasins for analysis 

purposes.

Reach Length – The length of the reach in either miles or kilometers.

Reach Code – Identifies the specific reach the data in the table applies to and its EDT modeling 

designation.

Restoration Benefit Category – The reach category is an arbitrary grouping of reaches based on 

a visual examination of the change in diversity index, productivity, and abundance for the reach if 

the reach were fully restored to the historic condition (Template). In this example, Sandy1 was 

assigned to the ―A‖ category as its restoration has great potential for improving spring Chinook 

diversity, productivity, and abundance. 

Life History Diversity, Productivity and Average Abundance (NEQ) Rank – Shows the 

ranking of the reach relative to all others for these performance measures. For this example, 

Sandy1 was the 4th best candidate reach for improving spring Chinook life history diversity, 9th 

for productivity, and 2nd for increasing abundance. 

% of Total Life History Trajectories Affected – Calculates the percent of all modeled fish 

trajectories that this reach impacts. Sandy1 affects 100% of the trajectories, as it is the first reach 

in the basin. In general, the further upstream the each, the fewer trajectories the reach affects.

Combined Performance Rank – Combined reach ranking is the average rank among the three 

performance ranks in comparison to all reaches in the basin. In other words, the three ranks are 

averaged for each reach, the average scores for the reaches are then sorted lowest to highest, the 

lowest score is then converted to a 1 (reach with highest restoration potential) other reaches 

assigned ranks based on ascending order. In this example, Sandy1 was rated ―2‖; therefore, there 

is only 1 reach with a higher restoration benefit.

Potential % Change in Productivity, Abundance, and Diversity – These are the basic 

parameters for comparing the benefit category and reach ranking. They show the potential for 

improvement in overall population performance if this reach were fully restored to historic 

conditions. The restoration of Sandy1 would result in a 5.6%, 7.6%, and 28.2% increase in spring 

Chinook diversity, productivity, and abundance (NEQ), respectively.

Life Stage – This column shows the life stages examined in the model (may vary by species).

Relevant Months – The months, or target month, when the life stage occurs.

% of Life History Trajectories Affected By Life Stage – This column shows how the reach is 

used by the entire spring Chinook population. Trajectories are computer-generated pathways 

through the landscape. Trajectories originate with spawning and end with pre-spawning holding, 

i.e., closed life history. It should be noted that:

1. The percent of the life history trajectories affected for pre-spawning, egg incubation, and 

spawning are reach specific. For example, note that the % of life history trajectories is the same for all of 

these life stages (2.6%).

2. Note that the values for other life stages vary considerably as fish from different reaches in the 

basin use this reach differently. For example, 68.9% of the 1-age migrant trajectories pass through this 

reach, but only 5.3% of the fry colonization trajectories use the reach. The fry trajectories are made up of 

fry produced in the reach and those migrating downstream from the next reach or two upstream.

Productivity change (%) – This is the change in life stage specific productivity resulting from 

the change in the attributes shown across the row (black dots). For Sandy1, the reach analysis 

shows that spawning productivity has decreased by 89.9% due primarily to a change in 

temperature in this reach in comparison to Template conditions.

Life Stage Rank – Rank is a combination of productivity loss and relative use of the reach by a 

particular life stage. A reach that is heavily used for a particular life stage and that has 

experienced a large loss will rank high. A reach may have experienced a large change in 
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 596

productivity for a life stage but if the reach is not used heavily by that life stage it will rank lower. 

In this example, egg incubation (1) was the life stage most heavily affected by the change in the 

attributes, followed by 1-age inactive (2) and spawning (3).

Change in attribute impact on survival – A Consumer Report style format is used to show the 

change in each attribute in comparison to the Template condition. Larger black circles indicate 

greater effect on survival as the result of a decrease in habitat quality. Circles are scaled in 

comparison to all other circles presented for the reach. Note that a lot of small black circles 

spread across multiple attributes could equal or exceed the effect of a single large circle. Thus, 

both the life stage rank and the size of the circles must be examined to discern the conclusions 

presented in this table. Clear circles show where conditions have improved for a life stage. For 

example, the addition of a reservoir would increase pool habitat which in turn would result in an 

increase in key habitat for juvenile rearing.
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 597

F.2 DEFINITION OF PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITIONS, AS APPLIED IN

EDT ANALYSES

Properly functioning conditions (PFC) is a concept created originally by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) to assess the natural habitat-forming processes of riparian and wetland areas (Pritchard et al. 

1993). When these processes are working properly, it can be assumed that environmental conditions are 

suitable to support productive populations of native anadromous and resident fish species. The notion of 

Properly Functioning Conditions for salmonid systems has also been advanced by the NMFS (1996) in 

connection with recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The PFC concept has been translated into a set of EDT Level 2 attribute ratings—ratings that define a 

PFC environmental condition relevant to anadromous salmonids within Pacific Northwest streams.

PFC does not imply pristine or template conditions. There are many examples of healthy populations 

occupying degraded habitat. With this in mind, PFC ratings were applied to all reaches regardless of 

current habitat rating, e.g., if riparian function is 100 percent for the current condition, the PFC condition 

would still apply the 70 percent functional rating. Also, PFC is not intended to imply a standard against 

which all streams are compared. PFC cannot be ―better‖ than historic conditions for a stream reach, e.g., 

if percent fine sediment in historic reconstruction was 15 percent, the PFC rating for sediment must be 

greater than or equal to 15 percent.

Properly Functioning habitat conditions outlined by the NMFS (1996) were used to help define the EDT 

PFC Level 2 ratings. 
APPENDIX F: EDT

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 598

F.3 REFERENCES

American Fisheries Society. 1994. Proceedings of the Northwest Pacific Chinook and Coho Salmon 

Workshop of the American Fisheries Society, November 1994, Eugene, Oregon.

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied ecosystem analysis – a 

primer, EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method. Bonneville Power Administration. Project 

No. 9404600, Portland, Oregon.

Lichatowich, J.A. and L.E. Mobrand. 1996. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) in the 

Columbia River: the components of decline. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., compiler. Report 5 of 8 in 

Applied Ecosystem Analysis – background, EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Lichatowich, J., L.E. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis and 

treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries 20(1): 10-18.

Mobrand, L.E., L. Lestelle, and L. Gilbertson. 1995. An approach to planning ecosystem restoration with 

specific reference to the Grande Ronde Watershed, Oregon. In: M.L. Keefe (ed.) Salmon Ecosystem 

Restoration: Myth and Reality, Proceedings of the 1994 

Mobrand, L.E., L.C. Lestelle, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1997. An approach to describing 

ecosystem performance ―through the eyes of salmon‖. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 54: 2964-2973.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making ESA determinations of effect for individual or 

grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat 

Conservation Branch, Portland, OR.

Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P. Hansen, B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy. 

1993. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR 1737-9. Bureau 

of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737, Service Center, Co.