per
 

Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan 

Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan 

with Updates 

September 30th, 2009 

Compiled by: 

Alex Conley, Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 

Joel Freudenthal, Yakima County 

David Lind, Yakama Nation 

Phil Mees, Benton County 

Richard Visser, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Cover photo by Ken Bevis, WDFW 

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 

http://www.ybfwrb.org/

Contact: info@ybfwrb.org or (509) 453-4104
 p. i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires listing species that have declined to 

the point that they are threatened with extinction and sets up regulations to protect these 

species. Recovering a listed species to the point that it no longer needs protection under 

the ESA is an important goal, both for people with a direct interest in the health of that 

species and for the individuals and groups who may be negatively affected by regulations 

put into place to protect a listed species. The ESA requires development of recovery 

plans that review a listed species’ status, set recovery goals, and identify actions required 

to recover it and remove it from the list. Recovery plans are non-regulatory documents 

that provide guidance on how to recover a species; they do not create any binding 

commitments or legal mandates. 

In 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) classified Middle Columbia River Steelhead as a 

threatened species under the ESA. In 2006, NOAA Fisheries revised its listing to apply 

only to the anadromous (ocean-going) form of Oncorhynchus mykiss, commonly known 

as steelhead.1

 This listing applies to steelhead that spawn in a large portion of central and 

eastern Washington and Oregon (See Figure 1.1). This document, the Yakima Steelhead 

Recovery Plan, is a recovery plan for those listed Middle Columbia Steelhead that spawn 

in the Yakima Basin and are collectively referred to as the Yakima Major Population 

Group (MPG). 

This document is an updated version of the steelhead portion of the 2005 Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, which NOAA Fisheries approved as an interim 

recovery plan for Yakima Basin populations of the Middle Columbia Steelhead River 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in May 2006. This 2007 Yakima Steelhead Recovery 

Plan will be incorporated into NOAA Fisheries’ Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery 

Plan, which will be released in final form in the fall of 2009. 

The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board developed this plan to guide 

steelhead recovery efforts in the Yakima Basin. The Board is a locally based organization 

governed by representatives of Yakima, Benton, and Kittitas counties, the Yakama 

Nation, and cities in the basin. The Board’s mission is to “to restore sustainable and 

harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and other at-risk fish and wildlife 

species through the collaborative, economically sensitive efforts, combined resources, 

and wise resource management of the Yakima River Basin.” It is recognized by the State 

of Washington as one of the regional organizations at the heart of the state’s salmon 

recovery efforts. 

The Board and its partners followed guidance from NOAA Fisheries, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Governor’s Salmon 

 

1

 The freshwater-resident form of O. mykiss (commonly known as rainbow trout) is not listed, and 

falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
 p. ii 

Recovery Office (GSRO) in developing this plan. Local planners also provided 

information and feedback to the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) 

that NOAA Fisheries convened to develop science-based viability criteria and 

assessments of the status of steelhead populations. The ICTRT stock status assessments 

for Yakima Basin steelhead populations are incorporated into this document by reference. 

This plan is built on the belief that healthy steelhead populations can be rebuilt in a 

manner that coexists with vibrant human communities and the local economies that 

support them. This plan emphasizes that steelhead recovery should build on existing fish 

and wildlife recovery programs and should rely on voluntary, non-regulatory approaches 

to habitat improvement. While this plan focuses on recovery efforts in the Yakima Basin, 

it acknowledges the need for ongoing recovery actions in the Columbia River, its estuary, 

and the Pacific Ocean. These are further addressed in NOAA Fisheries’ Middle Columbia 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Recovery of steelhead in the Yakima Basin will not occur in a vacuum. In addition to 

steelhead, the basin once supported large populations of Chinook, coho, and sockeye 

salmon, oceangoing lamprey, and migratory bull trout. While only bull trout and 

steelhead are listed under the ESA, all of these species have declined significantly over 

the last 150 years. Recovering steelhead is just one objective of ongoing efforts to restore 

conditions that allow all of these species to thrive. 

Chapter 1 provides more detail on the planning process and its broader context. 

Species Status 

Chapter 2 presents detailed empirical data about the status, distribution, characteristics, 

and life histories of Yakima Basin steelhead. Steelhead in the Yakima Basin are divided 

into four populations: the Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and Upper 

Yakima River populations. The NOAA ICTRT identifies the Satus Creek population as 

steelhead that spawn in the Satus Creek drainage on the Yakama Indian Reservation, the 

mainstem Yakima River below Satus Creek, and tributaries to the lower mainstem. For 

management purposes, local planners have subdivided the Satus population into the Satus 

block, which spawns in the Satus Creek drainage, and a mainstem block, whose current 

and historic status is uncertain. The Toppenish population consists of steelhead that 

spawn in Toppenish Creek, its tributaries and the short stretch of the mainstem between 

Toppenish and Satus creeks, and is entirely on the Yakama Reservation. The Naches 

population includes steelhead spawning in the Naches River and its tributaries (including 

the Tieton, Little Naches, American, and Bumping rivers and Cowiche, Rattlesnake and 

Nile creeks), the mainstem Yakima from the Naches confluence to the Toppenish Creek 

confluence and the tributaries to that reach of the Yakima, including Ahtanum Creek. The 

Upper Yakima population consists of all steelhead that spawn in the Yakima River and its 

tributaries upstream of the Naches confluence. Together these four populations make up 

the Yakima MPG. 

Estimates of the number of adult steelhead returning to the Yakima Basin prior to 

European settlement range from 20,800 to 100,000. In contrast, the number of adults 

passing fish counting facilities at Prosser Dam (on the mainstem Yakima downstream of 

virtually all current spawning locations) between 1985 and 2006 has ranged from 450 to 
 p. iii 

4,491 with an average of 1,764. The ICTRT estimated the 10-year (1996-2005) geometric 

average by population as 379 for the Satus population, 322 for the Toppenish population, 

472 for the Naches population, and 85 for the Upper Yakima.

Map A: Basin overview and status of steelhead habitat 

The ICTRT modeled the extent of historically available steelhead habitat. This plan 

reviews that model, presents local planners revisions to the model, and compares that to 

current steelhead distribution (see Map A). Steelhead spawning is widely distributed 

throughout the areas accessible to them, except in the lower Yakima River and its 

tributaries (below the Satus Creek confluence). The extent and distribution of spawning 
 p. iv 

in the mainstem from the Columbia to Roza Dam is uncertain. Steelhead currently cannot 

access the watersheds above Tieton, Bumping, Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus dams2

and a number of significant tributaries (e.g., Wenas, Manastash, and Naneum creeks in 

the Upper Yakima population area, and until just last year, Cowiche Creek in the Naches 

population area). 

The Yakama Nation and WDFW have emphasized maintaining the natural genetic 

composition of Yakima Basin steelhead stocks. The last release of hatchery-origin 

juvenile steelhead in the Yakima Basin occurred in 1993. Stray hatchery-origin fish from 

other basins made up only 3% of the run from 1999 to 2005. 

Instead of dying immediately after spawning like most salmon, steelhead can survive, 

return to the ocean, and spawn again. The Yakama Nation is currently capturing postspawning steelhead at Prosser Dam and reconditioning them in hatchery facilities to 

increase the number that survive to spawn again. 

Our knowledge of steelhead status in the upper portions of the basin is complicated by 

the fact that steelhead and rainbow trout are different forms of the same biological 

species that can interbreed. Better understanding the historic, current, and future potential 

for steelhead production in these areas will require determining how habitat conditions, 

genetics, and survival rates for oceangoing smolts interact to affect the balance between 

resident and anadromous life histories. 

The ICTRT assessed the viability of Yakima Basin steelhead populations and concluded 

that none currently meet its standards for viability. The Satus population comes nearest to 

meeting the ICTRT’s standard, while the Upper Yakima population is farthest from the 

standard. The ICTRT analysis is based on NOAA Fisheries’ Viable Salmonid Population 

(VSP) framework, which calls for managing salmon and steelhead populations based on 

an understanding of their abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Factors for Decline 

Chapter 3 reviews the factors that led to the order of magnitude decline in abundance of 

steelhead in the Yakima Basin over the last 150 years. This decline parallels that of 

salmon throughout the Columbia Basin and is a function of both in-basin habitat changes, 

major impacts in the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean associated with extensive 

harvest in fisheries, development of the Columbia River hydropower dams—Yakima 

steelhead must pass four on migrations to and from the sea—and management of 

hatchery programs in a manner that adversely affected wild populations. 

Major in-basin factors for decline include: 

1) Alteration of stream flows due to development of irrigation systems, including 

both the dewatering of lower reaches in many tributaries and the high and low 

flows in the mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers associated with water storage 

and delivery from upstream reservoirs 

 

2

 The Bureau of Reclamation is currently evaluating passage options at the five storage dams. 
 p. v 

2) Creation of passage barriers associated with both small and large diversion dams, 

road crossings, and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) storage dams 

3) Reductions in floodplain function due to diking, channel simplification, and 

floodplain development for agricultural and urban uses 

4) Impacts to riparian areas and upland hydrology due to past and, to a lesser extent, 

current, grazing, and forestry practices 

5) Changed ecological dynamics, including reduction in beaver populations, 

reductions in delivery of oceanic nutrients to headwaters by salmon, introduction 

of exotic species, and increased predation by native species 

Significant progress has been made to address many of these threats, even as other threats 

have intensified because of changes in socio-economic conditions. Chapter 3 details the 

past and current status of these factors for each of the four populations (Satus, Toppenish, 

Naches, and Upper Yakima) and links them to the limiting factors framework used by 

NOAA Fisheries in the Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Recovery Goals, Criteria, and Strategies 

Chapter 4 identifies three different recovery thresholds for the Yakima MPG: 

• An ESA de-listing threshold based on the ICTRT’s framework that calls for one 

population to be viable, one to be highly viable, and two to be at “maintained 

status” or better 

• A short-term recovery threshold that is based on the ICTRT framework, but 

emphasizes bringing all four Yakima populations to viable status 

• A long-term recovery threshold that calls for restoring access to all historic habitat 

that can be restored consistent with the Board’s commitment to sustaining local 

traditions and economies and improving abundance to levels that support broad 

ecological and harvest goals 

The Board sees these three thresholds as points on a continuum. The Board concurs with 

NOAA Fisheries and the ICTRT that when the delisting threshold is met for the Yakima 

MPG and all other MPGs in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, it will be 

appropriate to consider removing the ESA listing. The Board expects recovery actions to 

continue after that point, even without the immediate motivation of the ESA. The longterm goals are less definite, but are meant to affirm that the Board and its partners believe 

that long-term recovery to significantly higher abundance levels is both feasible and 

desirable. 

The abundance and productivity criteria associated with each of these thresholds are 

presented below. The delisting and short-term recovery criteria are drawn from the 

ICTRT viability analysis. Chapter 4 also sets out specific criteria for spatial distribution 

and diversity. 
 p. vi 

Abundance and Productivity Criteria 

Delisting Threshold Short-Term Recovery Long-term Recovery 

Population Avg. # Prod. Avg. # Prod. Avg. # Prod. 

Satus: 

 Satus Watershed 

 Mainstem Block* 

500 

500 

2.00 

1.56 

500 

500 

1.56 

1.56 2,000 1.2 1.2 

Toppenish 250 1.2 500 1.56 1,500 1.2 

Naches 1,500 1.26 1,500 1.26 5,400 1.2 

Upper Yakima 500 1.2 1,500 1.26 7,700 1.2 

Total 3,250 4,500 16,600 

*Either spawners in the lower mainstem, or additional spawners above targets in other population areas, as 

described in Chapter 4 

Achieving recovery goals for the Satus Population will require implementing these 

strategies: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat 

2) Continuing ongoing efforts by the Yakama Nation to improve watershed and 

riparian conditions within the Satus drainage 

3) Restoring floodplain function and channel complexity in lower Satus Creek 

4) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River 

Achieving recovery goals for the Toppenish Population will require implementing these 

strategies: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat 

2) Significantly improving passage, flows, and riparian conditions in Toppenish 

Creek and its tributaries 

3) Restoring floodplain function in lower Toppenish Creek 

4) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River 

Achieving recovery goals for the Naches Population will require implementing these 

strategies: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat 

2) Significantly protecting and improving passage, flows, and instream and riparian 

conditions in tributaries (Ahtanum, Bumping, Cowiche, Rattlesnake, Nile, and 

Little Naches watersheds) 
 p. vii 

3) Addressing the effects on steelhead of reservoir operations and irrigation 

withdrawals in the Tieton, lower Bumping, and lower Naches rivers 

4) Improving floodplain function and conditions in the mainstem Naches River 

5) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River 

Achieving recovery goals for the Upper Yakima Population will require implementing 

these strategies: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat 

2) Providing unimpeded passage for steelhead in key tributaries (Manastash, 

Taneum and, if feasible, Naneum and Cle Elum) 

3) Improving outmigration conditions at Roza Dam 

4) Addressing the effects of reservoir and irrigation system operations on 

winter/spring/fall low flows and summer high flows in the lower Cle Elum and 

mainstem Yakima rivers 

5) Protecting and enhancing floodplain conditions along the mainstem Yakima 

6) Improving flows and instream and riparian conditions in tributaries and side 

channels 

7) Improving migration conditions in the lower mainstem Yakima River 

Recovery Actions 

Chapter 5 identifies 94 steelhead recovery actions. These are broken into basinwide 

actions (16), Lower Mainstem Yakima actions (9), Satus Creek actions (8), Toppenish 

Creek actions (10), Naches actions (32), and Upper Yakima actions (21). These actions 

implement the strategies described above. 

Implementing some or all of the set of actions presented here should significantly 

improve the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of steelhead in the 

Yakima Basin. Recovery planners anticipate that the full suite of actions presented here, 

if combined with expected improvements outside of the Yakima Basin, will be more than 

sufficient to meet de-listing and short-term recovery goals, but that additional actions 

may be needed to reach long-term broad sense recovery goals. 

The scope and level of detail of specific actions varies considerably. The Yakima Basin 

Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is committed to working with partners who will 

implement recovery actions to refine action descriptions and develop a more specific 

implementation schedule. 

Initial cost estimates for implementing all of the actions identified in this plan over 15 

years total $1,168.3 million, with $269.3 million of that cost directly attributed to 

steelhead recovery. The remaining portion of the total cost is attributed to other sources 

based on anticipated benefits to agricultural producers (e.g. irrigation system 

improvements), flood control, open space, other fish and wildlife species, etc. This is a 
 p. viii 

simple and very preliminary estimate of actual implementation costs for actions. It is not 

a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed actions and does not include indirect costs such as 

opportunity and compliance costs associated with recovery efforts. It should not be taken 

as the total cost of recovery, as achieving delisting goals may require only implementing 

some of the actions included in this plan, while long-term recovery may require 

additional actions not included in the plan. 

Plan Implementation 

This plan is a beginning, not an end. Chapter 6 describes how this plan will be 

implemented. Achieving recovery goals will require sustained long-term efforts by a 

wide range of stakeholders. Salmon recovery is not a new pursuit in the Yakima Basin. 

Fish screening efforts began in the early 20th century, and intensive recovery efforts have 

been ongoing since the 1980s. The steelhead recovery actions proposed in this plan are a 

natural extension of this work. 

Key recovery partners include the Yakama Nation, WDFW, BOR, USFS, NOAA 

Fisheries, USFWS, the Washington Department of Ecology, county and municipal 

governments, local Conservation Districts, non-profit organizations, and other 

landowners and managers throughout the basin. Developing collaborative partnerships 

between existing organizations should take precedence over the creation of new 

organizations and programs unless there is a clear need for a new structure. 

This plan focuses on voluntary, non-regulatory approaches to implementing recovery 

actions. While it does call on decision-makers to effectively implement existing 

regulatory programs, it does not mandate specific regulatory actions or call for new 

regulatory programs. 

Coordinating diverse recovery efforts and ensuring that limited funding is used 

effectively requires ongoing collaboration between in-basin stakeholders and state and 

federal agencies. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board has committed to 

working with recovery partners to 1) develop a regularly updated implementation 

schedule that prioritizes future recovery actions, 2) track completion of recovery actions, 

3) promote effective use of existing funding3

, 4) work with partners to develop new 

sources of support for recovery actions, and 5) ensure Yakima Basin recovery efforts are 

coordinated with recovery efforts across the range of the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS. 

 

3 Current funding sources include the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (which 

distributes both federal Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund dollars and state funds), the 

BPA/NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project, and the Washington Department of Ecology’s Columbia River Initiative.
 p. ix 

Research Monitoring and Evaluation 

Our understanding of steelhead biology and the factors that affect steelhead habitat and 

survival is continually improving. Chapter 7 reviews key uncertainties and the research, 

monitoring, and evaluation actions that will answer them. While the extent of empirical 

data about Yakima Basin steelhead populations is much greater than for most other 

populations of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, successfully implementing 

this plan will require additional data collection and analyses. Targeted empirical research 

is needed to increase our ability to effectively and efficiently implement recovery actions. 

Tracking the response of steelhead to specific actions and broad habitat trends and 

evaluating progress towards meeting quantifiable recovery goals will require a robust 

monitoring and evaluation program. This research and monitoring will build on the 

extensive research capacity built by the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Program and others. 

Chapter 7 reviews the need for research and monitoring and identifies key uncertainties 

that will need to be addressed as part of implementing this recovery plan. The Yakima 

Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board will develop a Research, Monitoring and 

Evaluation Plan that builds on Chapter 7 of this plan to identify critical research and 

monitoring needs and assess how they can be incorporated into an effective and practical 

adaptive management framework. 

Public Education and Outreach 

Chapter 8 reviews outreach and education needs and presents some initial proposals for 

future actions. Effectively implementing the recovery actions identified in this plan will 

require outreach and education activities that: 1) build support for steelhead recovery 

actions among decision makers, land managers, and the public at large, and 2) increase 

public understanding of how individual actions affect steelhead and their habitat. 

Outreach activities are often forgotten in the push to implement on-the-ground recovery 

actions, yet they are vital to sustaining the political and financial support that achieving 

recovery will require. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is committed 

to working with partners throughout the basin to support and expand education and 

outreach programs. 
 p. x 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.1 Overview of Recovery Planning .......................................................................................1

1.1.2 Requirements for a Recovery Plan ..................................................................................3

1.1.1 Listing of Yakima Basin Steelhead ..................................................................................1

1.1.3 Development of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan........................................3

1.2 Vision and Guiding Principles for Local Planning ............................................................5

1.2.2 Guiding Principles ..........................................................................................................5

1.2.1 Vision ..............................................................................................................................5

1.2.3 Non-Regulatory Nature of Recovery Plans .....................................................................6

1.3 Process Used to Develop the Plan .....................................................................................7

1.3.2 Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................8

1.3.1 Drafting of the Plan ........................................................................................................7

1.3.3 Incorporating the Local Plan into NOAA’s Recovery Plan ............................................8

1.4 Relationship to Other Recovery Activities ........................................................................9

1.4.2 Relationship to Ongoing On-the-Ground Recovery Efforts ..........................................10

1.4.1 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ..........................................................................9

2 Species Status ...........................................................................................................................12

2.1 Regional Setting ..............................................................................................................12

2.1.2 Ecological Setting .........................................................................................................18

2.1.1 Geographic Setting........................................................................................................12

2.2 Identification of Populations ...........................................................................................19

2.3 Steelhead Distribution .....................................................................................................20

2.3.2 Toppenish Population ...................................................................................................26

2.3.1 Satus Population ...........................................................................................................26

2.3.3 Naches Population ........................................................................................................27

2.3.4 Upper Yakima Population .............................................................................................27

2.4 Steelhead Abundance ......................................................................................................28

2.4.2 Current Abundance and Productivity ...........................................................................30

2.4.1 Estimates of Historic Abundance ..................................................................................28

2.5 Population Characteristics and Life Histories .................................................................35

2.5.2 Spawning .......................................................................................................................42

2.5.1 Adult Upstream Migration ............................................................................................35

2.5.3 Role of Kelts ..................................................................................................................46

2.5.4 Incubation and Emergence ...........................................................................................47

2.5.5 Juvenile Rearing............................................................................................................48

2.5.6 Resident/Anadromous Interactions ...............................................................................49

2.5.7 Smolt Outmigration .......................................................................................................50

2.5.8 Ocean Residence ...........................................................................................................54

2.6 Viability Assessments for Yakima Basin Steelhead .......................................................54

2.6.2 Toppenish Population ...................................................................................................59

2.6.1 Satus Creek ...................................................................................................................56
 p. xi 

2.6.3 Naches Population ........................................................................................................61

2.6.4 Upper Yakima Population .............................................................................................64

3 Factors for Decline ..................................................................................................................68

3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................68

3.1.2 Ongoing Efforts to Address the Decline of Steelhead ...................................................70

3.1.1 General Overview of Steelhead Population Decline ....................................................68

3.2 Definition of Threats and Limiting Factors .....................................................................70

3.2.2 Limiting Factors ............................................................................................................71

3.2.1 Threats ..........................................................................................................................70

3.2.3 Relationships of Threats to Limiting Factors ...............................................................93

3.3 In-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors ............................................................................93

3.3.2 Lower Mainstem Threats and Limiting Factors .........................................................106

3.3.1 Basinwide Threats and Limiting Factors ......................................................................93

3.3.3 Satus Population Threats and Limiting Factors .........................................................108

3.3.4 Toppenish Population Threats and Limiting Factors .................................................109

3.3.5 Naches Population Threats and Limiting Factors ......................................................111

3.3.6 Upper Yakima Population Threats and Limiting Factors ..........................................114

3.4 Out-of-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors ..................................................................117

3.4.2 Columbia River Dams .................................................................................................118

3.4.1 Out-of-Basin Effects on the Lower Yakima Basin .......................................................118

3.4.3 Columbia River Estuary ..............................................................................................119

3.4.4 Ocean Conditions ........................................................................................................119

3.4.5 Out-of-Basin Harvest ..................................................................................................120

3.4.6 Predation .....................................................................................................................120

3.4.7 Competition with Non-Native Species .........................................................................121

4 Recovery Goals and Criteria ................................................................................................122

4.1 Recovery Goals .............................................................................................................122

4.1.2 Short-term Recovery Threshold ..................................................................................124

4.1.1 Delisting Threshold .....................................................................................................122

4.1.3 Delisting & Short-term Recovery Threshold Differences ...........................................124

4.1.4 Long-term Recovery Threshold ...................................................................................125

4.1.5 Relationship of Recovery Thresholds to NOAA Delisting Decisions ..........................125

4.2 Recovery Objectives and Criteria ..................................................................................125

4.2.2 Productivity .................................................................................................................127

4.2.1 Abundance ...................................................................................................................126

4.2.3 Spatial Structure .........................................................................................................128

4.2.4 Diversity ......................................................................................................................129

4.3 Recovery Strategies .......................................................................................................130

4.3.2 Predation Strategies ....................................................................................................130

4.3.1 Habitat Strategies........................................................................................................130

4.3.3 Harvest Strategies .......................................................................................................130

4.3.4 Hatchery Strategies .....................................................................................................130

4.3.5 Recovery Strategies Outside of the Yakima Basin ......................................................131

4.3.6 Recovery Strategies Affecting All Yakima Populations ..............................................131
 p. xii 

4.3.7 Role of Areas Above Storage Dams in Steelhead Recovery ........................................131

4.3.9 Satus Population Recovery Strategies ........................................................................132

4.3.8 Toppenish Population Recovery Strategies ................................................................132

4.3.10 Naches Population Recovery Strategies .....................................................................134

4.3.11 Upper Yakima Population Recovery Strategies ..........................................................135

5 Recovery Actions ...................................................................................................................139

5.1 Identifying and Describing Recovery Actions ..............................................................139

5.2 Timeframe for Implementing of Actions ......................................................................141

5.3 Necessity and Sufficiency of Proposed Actions ............................................................142

5.4 Overall Cost of Recovery ..............................................................................................143

5.5 Recovery Action Descriptions .......................................................................................143

6 Plan Implementation .............................................................................................................204

6.1 Approach to Implementation .........................................................................................204

6.1.2 Coordination of Existing Recovery Programs ............................................................205

6.1.1 Voluntary and Non-Regulatory Nature of Plan ..........................................................204

6.1.3 Coordination with Bureau of Reclamation Yakima Project .......................................205

6.1.4 Coordination with Land Management Agencies .........................................................206

6.1.5 Coordination with Other Planning Efforts .................................................................207

6.1.6 Coordination with Local Land Use Planning .............................................................207

6.1.7 Role of Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board .............................................207

6.2 Funding ..........................................................................................................................208

6.2.2 Funding Sources .........................................................................................................208

6.2.1 Total Time and Cost of Recovery ................................................................................208

6.3 Implementation Scheduling ...........................................................................................209

6.4 Adaptive Management ...................................................................................................210

6.4.2 Monitoring Habitat and Population Trends ...............................................................210

6.4.1 Tracking Implementation ............................................................................................210

6.4.3 Designing Recovery Actions to Test Key Assumptions ...............................................210

6.4.4 Revising the Recovery Plan .........................................................................................211

6.5 Removing Roadblocks to Implementation ....................................................................211

6.5.2 Providing ESA Assurances ..........................................................................................211

6.5.1 Permit Streamlining ....................................................................................................211

6.5.3 Building Technical Capacity .......................................................................................212

6.5.4 Supporting Network of Recovery Practitioners ..........................................................212

6.6 Maintaining Links to Larger Recovery Efforts .............................................................212

6.6.2 Middle Columbia DPS-wide Coordination .................................................................213

6.6.1 Washington State Salmon Recovery Strategy .............................................................212

6.6.3 Integration with Columbia River, Estuary and Ocean Recovery Efforts ....................213

7 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................214

7.1 Understanding Steelhead Population Trends .................................................................215

7.1.2 Spatial Structure .........................................................................................................216

7.1.1 Abundance and Productivity .......................................................................................215

7.1.3 Diversity ......................................................................................................................217
 p. xiii 

7.2 Understanding Key Factors Affecting Survival ............................................................218

7.2.2 Separating In and Out-of-Basin Survival Rates ..........................................................219

7.2.1 Role of Life-Cycle Models ...........................................................................................218

7.2.3 Impacts of Mainstem Conditions on Smolt Survival ...................................................219

7.2.4 Impacts of High Delivery Flows on Juvenile Rearing ................................................219

7.2.5 Factors Affecting Upmigrating Adults ........................................................................219

7.2.6 Resident/Anadromous Interactions .............................................................................220

7.3 Understanding Habitat Trends and Threats Criteria ......................................................220

7.4 Evaluating Recovery Action Effectiveness ...................................................................220

7.5 Understanding Critical Ecological Dynamics ...............................................................221

7.5.2 Interspecies Effects......................................................................................................222

7.5.1 In-Basin Predation ......................................................................................................221

7.5.3 Changes in Nutrient Transport ...................................................................................222

7.5.4 Expansion of Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................222

7.5.5 Impacts of Pesticides and other Toxins .......................................................................223

7.6 Understanding Impact of Long-Term Trends ................................................................223

7.6.2 Future Growth Impacts ...............................................................................................224

7.6.1 Global Warming Impacts ............................................................................................223

7.7 Coordinating Research and Monitoring Efforts ............................................................224

7.7.2 Out-of-Basin Research Needs .....................................................................................225

7.7.1 Integration with Regional Monitoring Programs .......................................................225

8 Public Education and Outreach ...........................................................................................227

8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................227

8.2 Education and Outreach Goals and Principles ..............................................................228

8.3 Proposed Outreach Actions ...........................................................................................228

8.3.2 Stakeholder Group Presentations ...............................................................................229

8.3.1 Short-Term Recovery Board Outreach Actions ..........................................................228

8.3.3 Newsletter/Annual Report ...........................................................................................229

8.3.4 Project Tours ...............................................................................................................230

8.3.5 Posters and Handouts .................................................................................................230

8.3.6 Workshops and Conferences .......................................................................................230

8.3.7 Mailing to Shoreline Landowners ...............................................................................230

8.3.8 Create “Stream Stewards” Positions .........................................................................230

APPENDIX A: Local Review of ICTRT Habitat Model ...................................................232

A.1 Overview of Review of ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Model ............................................232

A.2 Satus Population Area ...................................................................................................234

A.3 Toppenish Creek Steelhead Population .........................................................................235

A.4 Naches Population Area ................................................................................................236

A.5 Upper Yakima Population Area ....................................................................................238

APPENDIX B: EDT Model Results for Yakima Steelhead ..............................................241

B.1 Overview of EDT Estimates of Population Performance ..................................................241

B.2 Restoration Potential and Limiting Factors by Populations ..............................................243
 p. xiv 

B.2.1 Naches River Steelhead .................................................................................................244

B.2.3 Toppenish Creek Steelhead............................................................................................247

B.2.2 Satus Creek Steelhead ...................................................................................................246

B.2.4 Upper Yakima River Steelhead ......................................................................................249

B.2.5 Integration of Restoration Priorities Across Populations .............................................252

B.3 Preservation Potential for Individual Populations .............................................................254

B.3.2 Satus Steelhead ..............................................................................................................254

B.3.1 Naches Steelhead ...........................................................................................................254

B.3.3 Toppenish Steelhead ......................................................................................................255

B.3.4 Upper Yakima Steelhead................................................................................................255

B.4 Use of EDT to Model Restoration Scenarios .....................................................................256

APPENDIX C: RECOVERY PROGRAMS OVERVIEW ...............................................260

C.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................260

C.2 NPCC/BPA Programs ........................................................................................................260

C.2.2 Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program ...........................................................262

C.2.1 The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project ........................................................................262

C.2.3 Yakima Side Channels Program ....................................................................................263

C.2.4 Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project ......................................................................263

C.2.5 Manastash Creek Passage/Screening/Flow Projects ....................................................263

C.2.6 Teanaway Watershed Protection and Enhancement .....................................................263

C.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Programs ..............................................................................263

C.3.2 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project .........................................................264

C.3.1 System Operations .........................................................................................................263

C.3.3 Yakima River Basin Water Storage Options Feasibility Study .....................................265

C.3.4 Storage Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study ...............................................................266

C.4 US Forest Service Restoration Programs ...........................................................................266

C.5 Washington State Fish Recovery Programs ........................................................................266

C.5.2 Salmon Recovery Funding Board Programs .................................................................267

C.5.1 Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups .....................................................................266

C.5.3 Regional Salmon Recovery Organizations ....................................................................267

C.5.4 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Restoration Program ............................................................268

C.6 Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Programs ..........................................268

C.8 Yakima Basin Joint Board ..................................................................................................268

C.9 Local Government Land Use Regulations ..........................................................................269

C.9.2 Shoreline Management Act ...........................................................................................269

C.9.1 Growth Management Act ...............................................................................................269

APPENDIX D: Stakeholder and Public Meetings .............................................................271

D.1 Stakeholder Meetings Held 2005 .......................................................................................271

D.2 Stakeholder Meetings Held April 2006 to January 2008 ...................................................272

D.3 Plan Outreach During 2008 NOAA Comment Period .......................................................273

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................275
 p. xv 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1: Land ownership in the Yakima Basin ...........................................................................14

Table 2.3: EDT estimates of “historic” abundance ........................................................................28

Table 2.2: Intrinsic Potential Analysis modeled habitat areas .......................................................23

Table 2.4: Historic abundance estimates derived from Intrinsic Potential Analysis .....................29

Table 2.5: Available dam count and redd data ..............................................................................32

Table 2.6: Natural-origin spawner abundance by population, 1995-2004 .....................................33

Table 2.7: ICTRT extrapolation from Prosser to population-specific abundance .........................34

Table 2.8: Spawner/return ratios for the brood years 1985-1999 ..................................................35

Table 2.9: Timing of dam passage by adult steelheads .................................................................36

Table 2.10: Sex ratios of returning steelhead .................................................................................39

Table 2.11: Prosser Denil age structures, 2002-3 to 2004-5 return years ......................................39

Table 2.12: Roza Dam age structures, 2002-3 to 2004-5 return years ..........................................40

Table 2.13: Spawning locations of known-age steelhead by population, 1990-92 .......................40

Table 2.14: Known spawning locations from 1990 to 1992 radio tracking ...................................43

Table 2.15: Naches redd survey results .........................................................................................44

Table 2.16: Presumed spawning locations of steelhead tracked by Karp et al. (2009) .................45

Table 2.17: Numbers of kelts .........................................................................................................47

Table 2.18: Size in millimeters for outmigrating smolts at Prosser by age class ..........................52

Table 2.19: Steelhead travel times from tributary tagging locations to Prosser Dam ...................53

Table 2.20: Survival rates of steelhead smolts from selected tributaries .......................................54

Table 2.21: ICTRT risk ratings for Yakima steelhead populations ...............................................56

Table 2.22: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Satus population ........................58

Table 2.23: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Toppenish population ................60

Table 2.24: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Naches population .....................63

Table 2.25: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for Upper Yakima population ...............66

Table 3.1: Basinwide threats and limiting factors .........................................................................73

Table 3.2: Lower mainstem Yakima threats and limiting factors ..................................................75

Table 3.3: Satus population area threats and limiting factors ........................................................77

Table 3.4: Toppenish population area threats and limiting factors ................................................79

Table 3.5: Naches population area threats and limiting factors .....................................................82

Table 3.6: Upper Yakima population area threats and limiting factors .........................................86

Table 4.1: Minimum abundance criteria for recovery thresholds ................................................126

Table 4.2: Sources for long-term recovery abundance targets ....................................................127

Table 4.3: Spawners and spawner:spawner ratio .........................................................................128

Table 4.4: Possible combinations of spawning areas for the Upper Yakima ..............................129

Table B.1 Current and historic performance generated by EDT .................................................243

Table B.2 Restoration geographic areas for the Naches steelhead population ............................245

Table B.3: Restoration geographic areas for the Satus steelhead population ..............................247

Table B.4: Restoration geographic areas for the Toppenish steelhead population ......................248

Table B.6: Summation of individual geographic areas across steelhead populations .................253

Table B.7: Geographic preservation priorities for the Naches population ..................................254

Table B.8: Geographic preservation priorities for the Satus Creek population ...........................255

Table B.9: Geographic preservation priorities for the Toppenish population .............................255

Table B.10: Geographic preservation priorities for the Upper Yakima population ....................256

Table B.11: EDT Subbasin restoration summary as developed in 2005 .....................................258
 p. xvi 

Table B.12: EDT 2005 Subbasin restoration summary as adjusted in 2008 ...............................259

Table C.1: BPA-funded programs in the Yakima Basin ..............................................................261
 p. xvii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1: Location of Yakima MPG within Middle Columbia River DPS ..................................2

Figure 2.2: Yakima Basin land ownership .....................................................................................15

Figure 2.1: Yakima Basin ..............................................................................................................13

Figure 2.3: Irrigated areas and major storage & diversion dams ...................................................16

Figure 2.4: ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Analysis & population areas in the Yakima ......................21

Figure 2.5: Available habitat, current distribution, and blocked areas ..........................................24

Figure 2.6: ICTRT spawning areas and WDFW steelhead distribution ........................................25

Figure 2.7: Yakima Basin steelhead abundance ............................................................................31

Figure 2.8: Lower Yakima River and McNary Pool temperatures ................................................37

Figure 2.9: Size class by ocean age ...............................................................................................41

Figure 2.10: Individual and median dates for spawning initiation 1990-1992 ..............................46

Figure 2.11: Steelhead smolt ages at Prosser Dam ........................................................................51

Figure 2.12: Satus abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve .............................57

Figure 2.13: Toppenish abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve ....................59

Figure 2.14: Naches abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve .........................62

Figure 2.15: Upper Yakima abundance & productivity compared to viability curve ...................65

Figure 4.1: VSP parameter risk ratings for Yakima steelhead populations .................................124

Figure A.1: July 2007 ICTRT Intrinsic Potential model with local adjustments ........................234

Figure B.1: Example stock-production relationship ....................................................................242

Figure B.2: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Naches population ..................................246

Figure B.3: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Satus Creek population ..........................247

Figure B.4: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Toppenish Creek population ..................248

Figure B.5: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Upper Yakima population ......................251
 p. xviii 

ACRONYMS 

BIA BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BKD BACTERIAL KIDNEY DISEASE 

BOR UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (also Reclamation) 

BPA BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 

BW BASINWIDE 

CAG CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP 

CFHMP COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN 

cfs CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

CREP CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PRORAM 

CWT CODED WIRE TAG 

DPS DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT 

DOE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

EDT ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 

EIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ESU EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT 

FTE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE 

FPS FISH PASSAGE CENTER 

GMA GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT 

GSRO GOVERNOR’S SALMON RECOVERY OFFICE 

ICTRT INTERIOR COLUMBIA TECHNICAL RECOVERY TEAM 

ID IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

KCT KITTITAS CONSERVATION TRUST 

KID KENNEWICK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

LM LOWER YAKIMA RIVER MAINSTEM 

LWD LARGE WOODY DEBRIS 

MF MIDDLE FORK 

MPG MAJOR POPULATION GROUP 

MSA MAJOR SPAWNING AREA (DEFINED BY ICTRT) 

MiSA MINOR SPAWNING AREA 

N NACHES RIVER 

NF NORTH FORK 

NOAA NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

NMFS NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (A DIVISION OF NOAA ALSO 

REFERRED TO AS NOAA FISHERIES) 

NPCC NORTHWEST POWER AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

NPPC NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL (NOW NPCC, SEE ABOVE) 

NRCS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

PCSRF PACIFIC COAST SALMON RECOVERY FUND 

PIT PASSIVE INTEGRATED TRANSPONDER 

RC & D RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

RFEG REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUP 

RM RIVER MILE 
 p. xix 

RME RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION 

S SATUS CREEK 

SAR SMOLT ADULT RATIO 

SF SOUTH FORK 

SMA SHORELINES MANAGEMENT ACT 

SOAC SYSTEMS OPERATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BOR YAKIMA PROJECT) 

SR STATE ROAD 

SRFB SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD 

SVID SUNNYSIDE VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

T TOPPENISH CREEK 

TLC TOPPENISH LATERAL CANAL 

TMDL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD 

U UPPER YAKIMA RIVER 

USDA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

USFS UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE 

USGS UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

USFWS UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

VSP VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION 

WDFW WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

WDNR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

WDOE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

WIP WAPATO IRRIGATION PROJECT 

WRIA WATERSHED RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 

WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WSU WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY 

YBFWRB YAKIMA BASIN FISH & WILDLIFE RECOVERY BOARD (ALSO THE BOARD) 

YFO YAKIMA FIELD OFFICE (OF BOR) 

YKFP YAKIMA/KLICKITAT FISHERIES PROJECT 

YN YAKAMA NATION 

YRBWEP YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 

YSPB YAKIMA SUBBASIN FISH AND WILDLIFE PLANNING BOARD 

YTAHP YAKIMA TRIBUTARY ACCESS AND HABITAT PROGRAM 
 p. 1 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Overview of Recovery Planning 1.3 Process Used to Develop the Plan 

1.2 Vision and Guiding Principles 1.4 Relationship to Other Recovery Activities 

1.1 Overview of Recovery Planning 

1.1.1 Listing of Yakima Basin Steelhead 

Anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) have declined significantly in abundance 

and geographic extent in the last one and a half centuries, but are still found across a 

broad geographic area. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for applying the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) to anadromous salmon and steelhead. NOAA Fisheries 

has divided habitat areas with salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California into 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs), while dividing habitat areas with steelhead in 

those states into Distinct Population Segments (DPSs). Yakima Basin steelhead were first 

listed under the ESA as part of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU, which NOAA 

Fisheries first designated as threatened on March 25, 1999 4. The Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead ESU (later DPS) included the Columbia River and its tributaries from above 

the Wind River in Washington and the Hood River in Oregon, upstream to, and 

including, the Yakima River, in Washington. Snake River basin steelhead are not 

included (see Figure 1.1). 

In 2005-6, NOAA Fisheries revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead 

under the ESA, delineating steelhead-only “distinct population segments” (DPS) in place 

of the earlier ESUs. NMFS listed the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS as 

threatened on January 5, 2006 5

. The area occupied by the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS remained the same as the area originally designated as an ESU. The 

steelhead DPS does not include rainbow trout, the non-anadromous freshwater form of 

Oncorhynchus mykiss, which are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS).6

 

4

 See the Federal Register, Volume 64, p. 14517. 

5

 See the Federal Register, Volume 71, p. 834. 

6

 For a good overview of the history of the listing and the reasoning underlying NOAA’s decision 

to list only the anadromous form of O. mykiss as a DPS, see the January 5, 2006 Federal Register 

notice (Volume 71, p. 834). 
 p. 2 

Figure 1.1: Location of Yakima MPG within Middle Columbia River DPS 
 p. 3 

1.1.2 Requirements for a Recovery Plan 

Section 4(f) of the ESA calls for the development of recovery plans. The following are 

the key provisions: 

• 4(f)(1) – Recovery plans shall be developed and implemented for listed species 

unless the Secretary “...finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation 

of the species.” 

• 4(f)(1)(A) – Priority is to be given, to the maximum extent practicable, to 

“...species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to 

benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict 

with construction or other forms of economic activity.” 

• 4(f)(1)(B) – Each plan must include, to the maximum extent practicable, “(i) a 

description of site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve 

the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; (ii) objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination...that the 

species be removed from the list; and, (iii) 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.” 

A recovery plan is a guidance document, or “road map” that describes the current status 

of a species and the actions that the federal agencies administering the ESA (NOAA 

Fisheries and the USFWS) have determined will lead to recovery of the listed species and 

its associated habitats. Recovery requires reversing the decline of a listed species and 

removing the threats to the long-term survival of a species that led to its listing under the 

ESA. When this is accomplished a species may be removed from the ESA list, or 

“delisted.” Recovery, as defined by NOAA Fisheries, requires restoring listed species so 

that they become viable components of their ecosystem.7 This document addresses the 

status and recovery needs of the portion of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS 

that utilize the Yakima Basin. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is 

providing it to NOAA Fisheries in order to assist in its efforts to develop a federal 

recovery plan for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 

1.1.3 Development of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan 

This document is builds upon the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, which was 

prepared by the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board (YBFWRB, also the 

Board), and its predecessor organization, the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife 

Planning Board (YSPB). These Boards developed this plan in response to the 

Washington State Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 77.85), which encourages the creation of 

regional recovery plans that address the needs of ESA-listed salmonid species. The 

 

7

 A “viable” population is defined by NOAA Fisheries as an independent population that has 

negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental 

variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe (ICTRT 2004b). 
 p. 4 

Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan addressed the recovery needs of both of the 

ESA-listed fish species found in the Yakima Basin: steelhead and bull trout. The Salmon 

Recovery Act states that the fish and wildlife resources of the state are currently managed 

by state resource agencies, and that it is in the interest of the citizens of the State of 

Washington to retain management responsibility for these resources. Accordingly, local 

organizations, in cooperation with state, tribal, and federal governments, are developing 

recovery plans. This approach accelerates the required recovery planning process and 

ensures that NOAA Fisheries and USFWS consider local expertise and concerns in the 

preparation and approval of recovery plans. 

In order to implement the Salmon Recovery Act, the Washington Salmon Recovery 

Funding Board and the Office of the Interagency Committee (known as the Recreation 

and Conservation Office) contracted with the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife 

Planning Board to develop a local salmon recovery plan based on guidance from the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Office (GSRO). The YSPB was originally convened to develop the Yakima 

Subbasin Plan for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and consisted of 

representatives from local governments in the Yakima Basin.8 The YSPB worked with 

local partners and stakeholders to develop and review the initial draft of Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan. 

The draft plan was approved by the state and forwarded to NOAA Fisheries and the 

USFWS on October 26th, 2005. NOAA Fisheries subsequently reviewed the draft plan 

and developed a response entitled “Supplement to the Draft Yakima Subbasin Salmon 

Recovery Plan” (NMFS Northwest Region 2006). NOAA Fisheries announced the 

availability of the draft plan and the agency’s supplement in the Federal Register on May 

3, 2006 9

, with a formal comment period that extended until July 3, 2006. 

In April 2006, in an effort to consolidate salmon recovery efforts, the Planning Board was 

dissolved and its duties taken on by a new organization, the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board. The new Board also took on the role of Lead Entity from the 

Yakima River Salmon Recovery Board, a separate Board that was also dissolved. The 

YBFWRB assumed responsibility for the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan.10

Since the formation of the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, the original 

October 2005 draft has been revised to incorporate new information, improve clarity, and 

address issues identified in the NOAA Fisheries’ supplement and comments received in 

response to publication in the Federal Register. In order to ensure clarity and facilitate 

incorporation into NOAA Fisheries’ Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan, 

 

8

 Membership in the Yakima Subbasin Planning Board included the Yakama Nation, Benton 

County, Yakima County, the cities of Benton, Ellensburg, Granger, Kennewick, Prosser, 

Richland, Roslyn, Selah, Sunnyside, West Richland, Union Gap, and Yakima, and WDFW. 

9

 See the Federal Register, Volume 71, p. 26052. 

10 Membership in the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board includes the Yakama 

Nation, Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima counties and 18 of the 24 municipalities in the Yakima 

Basin. Its work is overseen by a Board of Directors and conducted through a non-profit 

organization that reports to the Board. For more information see http://www.ybfwrb.org. 
 p. 5 

this steelhead-specific plan was compiled from the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery 

Plan. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board has followed existing statutory 

and policy guidance to develop what we believe is an effective and practical recovery 

plan for steelhead in the Yakima Basin. 

1.2 Vision and Guiding Principles for Local Planning 

1.2.1 Vision 

The recovery plan built upon the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board’s 

(YSPB) Vision 2020 (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005). Vision 

2020 describes in general terms the desired future conditions of fish and wildlife habitats 

and populations in the Yakima Basin. It states: 

Yakima River basin communities have restored the Yakima River basin 

sufficiently to support self-sustaining and harvestable populations of 

indigenous fish and wildlife while enhancing the existing customs, 

cultures, and economies in the basin. Decisions that continuously improve 

the river basin ecosystem are made in an open and cooperative process 

that respects different points of view and varied statutory responsibilities 

and benefits current and future generations. 

1.2.2 Guiding Principles 

The Guiding Principles set the direction for the recovery plan by taking into account local 

economic and social conditions and concerns, generally accepted biological assumptions, 

treaty rights, and other applicable laws and policies. The Guiding Principles developed by 

the YSPB for the subbasin planning process are: 

• The natural environment, including its fish and wildlife resources, is the common 

heritage of our diverse human community. The underlying premise of the Vision 

is to prepare and implement a balanced plan of action that plays a key role in the 

long-term sustainability of this common cultural and biological heritage in the 

Yakima Basin. 

• The quality of water and a near natural timing and quantity of water flow 

(normative hydrograph) are principal indicators of a healthy river ecosystem. 

These indicators must be improved and monitored. 

• The continued exercise of the Yakama Nation treaty-reserved and aboriginal 

rights to religious, subsistence, commercial, and recreational use of natural 

resources is recognized. 

• Planning and implementation is based on voluntary actions and incentives. 

• The processes of plan preparation, implementation, and amendment are open and 

equitable. 
 p. 6 

• The costs of plan actions are estimated in relation to benefits. Alternatives that 

achieve the highest benefit relative to costs are preferred. Costs of habitat and 

species restoration should be mitigated and distributed equitably. 

• Programs and actions must be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness and may 

be altered as necessary. 

• Balanced sustainable resource management recognizes these basic precepts: 

− The physical and biological environments are functionally interdependent 

relative to productivity. 

− At any level of function, productivity is finite. 

− Without actions to restore degraded functions, and to protect, avoid, and 

mitigate impacts to the physical and biological environment, the increasing 

demands of human population growth could reduce productivity to zero, with 

unacceptable costs to the cultures and economies of the Yakima subbasin. 

The primary focus of this plan is “recovery” of listed species to levels that no longer 

require those species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. However, both the 

mission of the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board and the specific goals 

identified in Chapter 4 go beyond just delisting of these species, and include maintaining 

population levels that support sustained harvest and diverse ecological functions. In order 

to reach these goals, recovery to the point where delisting is possible is a necessary first 

step, but not the end point. Meeting the long-term population and harvest goals of the 

Board will require ongoing actions even after the initial goal of delisting is met. 

1.2.3 Non-Regulatory Nature of Recovery Plans 

The NOAA Fisheries Recovery Plan for Middle Columbia River Steelhead and the 

Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan are not regulatory documents. They lay out 

recommended actions, but do not require anyone to implement those actions. The intent 

of the plans is to provide information and guidance to those looking for ways to recover 

listed species. The recommendations made in the plans can only become binding 

commitments if decision makers subsequently incorporate them into requirements 

established by other governmental entities or programs according to their regular 

processes. The plans themselves create no obligations. 

Both local and NOAA Fisheries recovery planners have repeatedly assured basin citizens 

and stakeholders that these recovery plans are not a regulatory mechanism, and that their 

implementation will not usurp or diminish the existing authority under state law or 

federal treaty, of any government or special district. The Board envisions that 

implementation of the plan will be inclusive, transparent, collaborative, cooperative, and 

voluntary. This approach is essential in order to build the long-term social and political 

support required for successful steelhead recovery. While the science, metrics and overall 

recovery strategy of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan must guide what 

actions should be taken to increase steelhead productivity, there will often be additional 

considerations that will determine the sequence of actions that are taken, and how the 

actions should best be implemented so that recovery goals can be achieved in an 
 p. 7 

atmosphere of trust and cooperation. The organizations that promote implementation of 

these recovery plans must be flexible and innovative in using their resources so that broad 

understanding, support, involvement, and enthusiasm for salmon recovery is nurtured. 

1.3 Process Used to Develop the Plan 

1.3.1 Drafting of the Plan 

In the initial 2005 draft of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, the limiting 

factors and actions were developed based on consideration of both bull trout and 

steelhead. The plan took a watershed-based approach that focused on protecting existing 

habitat and supporting natural habitat-forming processes. In this updated steelhead 

version, we have extracted the steelhead-specific information for ease of reference and 

incorporation into NOAA Fisheries’ Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

We will update the bull trout section of the 2005 plan in conjunction with the USFWS’s 

development of a bull trout recovery plan. 

This plan was developed as follows: 

• The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) identified 

“Independent” populations for steelhead (ICTRT 2003; ICTRT 2005c). See 

Section 2.2 for definition of these populations. 

• Current and historical conditions of each population were described, with 

emphasis on four general Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters: 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany et al. 2000). 

• Limiting factors that led to the decline of each population in the Yakima Basin 

were identified. Limiting factors were identified in the Yakima Subbasin Plan 

based on Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model runs specific to 

steelhead, other watershed assessment documents and plans, the species 

management programs by the Yakama Nation (YN) and WDFW, NOAA 

Fisheries’ Draft Guidelines for Limiting Factors and Threats Assessments, and 

recent research on habitat conditions and populations. 

• Specific recovery actions were selected from those listed in the subbasin plan, and 

additional actions were identified consistent with “An Outline for Salmon 

Recovery Plans” (WDFW 2003). The plan also includes actions to respond to 

extinction risks consistent with the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team’s 

guidelines (ICTRT 2004a; ICTRT 2004b), actions based on threats identified by 

stakeholders, and actions stakeholders identified for the first time during this 

planning process. 

• The benefits, practicability, and relative cost of actions for each population were 

assessed. 

• A suite of actions that could be implemented, were reasonable, and should 

provide the greatest benefit to the listed and other species was selected. 
 p. 8 

Planners believe that the proposed actions are sound. The actions identified in the plan 

address the range of threats to steelhead as they are understood at this time. However, 

outcomes are uncertain because of the lack of comprehensive knowledge about the 

ecological and social processes that affect fish. Unpredictable events will continue to 

affect recovery efforts. In order to ensure that the recovery strategy effectively 

incorporates improved knowledge and changing conditions, the plan calls for monitoring 

and evaluation efforts that assess the outcomes of recovery efforts and the response of 

target fish populations. Participants will take this information and updated cost estimates 

and use them to re-evaluate proposed actions and their priorities and update the plan. 

1.3.2 Public Involvement 

The public participation process for the preparation of Yakima Subbasin Salmon 

Recovery Plan was a continuation of the process carried out for the Yakima Subbasin 

Fish and Wildlife Plan. The contact list developed during the subbasin planning process 

was used and updated to keep interested parties informed and involved in the progression 

of the draft salmon recovery plan. The Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning 

Board’s website remained active and updated, the media were kept informed, and there 

was a public comment period on each agenda of the advertised Board meetings. Board 

staff continued to give presentations and updates to various interested groups. During the 

preparation of the Salmon Recovery Plan, however, public participation activities 

emphasized involving stakeholders—the agencies, special districts, non-profits, economic 

interests, local government departments, and others that are daily engaged in 

consumptive use, management, or acquisition of resources that directly or indirectly 

affect salmon and salmon habitat. These entities include irrigation districts, conservation 

districts, state and federal agencies (e.g., BOR, USFS, and Washington Department of 

Transportation), greenways and land trusts, and local government planning and public 

works departments. These stakeholders funding, abilities, constraints, legal authorities, 

constituent interests, and internal policies will determine whether or not they can commit 

to the changes in their operations and programs identified in the draft Recovery Plan as 

necessary to restore salmon habitat. 

Within the salmon recovery planning process, the interaction with stakeholders is called 

the Policy Forum. Board staff consulted with stakeholders during the months of March, 

April, and early May, beginning with a well-attended workshop held at the Yakima 

Convention Center on March 2, 2005. The list of Policy Forum stakeholders is shown in 

Appendix D. Additional outreach efforts were made throughout the planning process, as 

described in Appendix D, and changes were made in response to comments made during 

the September to December 2008 NOAA Fisheries comment period on the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Chapter 8 of this document discusses information and outreach needs associated with 

recovery efforts. 

1.3.3 Incorporating the Local Plan into NOAA’s Recovery Plan 

NOAA Fisheries is currently preparing its recovery plan for the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS, as mandated by the ESA. The geographic area of the DPS encompasses 
 p. 9 

much of north-central Oregon and south-central Washington. The Yakima MPG is one of 

four MPGs in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. It contains 20% of the acreage 

and four of the 18 extant steelhead populations in the DPS (see Figure 1.1). It is the intent 

of both NOAA Fisheries and the YBFWRB that the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery 

Plan be the basis for the Yakima MPG portion of NOAA Fisheries’ Mid-Columbia 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

This excerpt includes the portion of the updated version of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon 

Recovery Plan that address the recovery needs of the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS. It 

has been prepared specifically for reference by NOAA Fisheries in preparation of the 

formal federal recovery plan for Middle Columbia River Steelhead, and this excerpt is 

expected to be included by NOAA Fisheries as an Appendix in its final recovery plan. 

For the sake of brevity and clarity, this excerpt does not include those portions of the 

Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan that focus solely on bull trout. Where bull trout 

recovery needs influence and/or overlap recovery needs for steelhead, this is noted in the 

excerpt. 

The steelhead that spawn in the Yakima Basin spend their first years in the basins streams 

and rivers, and then migrate out the Columbia to the Pacific ocean before turning around 

and, as adult fish, migrating up the Columbia and Yakima rivers to their spawning 

grounds. Recovering Yakima steelhead will require taking actions that improve survival 

rates for steelhead in the Yakima Basin, the Columbia River, its estuary, and the ocean. 

The Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan and this steelhead excerpt focus on the 

factors that affect steelhead during the portions of their lives spent in the Yakima Basin. 

The NOAA Fisheries Recovery Plan for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS will 

combine this within-basin information with an assessment of the many factors that affect 

steelhead during their time outside of the Yakima Basin. These include passage through 

the mainstem Columbia hydropower system, conditions in the Columbia River and its 

estuary, harvest by both fisheries and predators, and ocean conditions. The NOAA 

Fisheries recovery plan will incorporate proposed actions that address these out of basin 

impacts. 

1.4 Relationship to Other Recovery Activities 

1.4.1 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 

The Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan draws from several related planning efforts 

undertaken in the basin in recent years. In 2000, the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (formerly the Northwest Power Planning Council) adopted a revised Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program with the intent that the program will be more 

comprehensive than, but complementary to, regional, state, county, and tribal efforts. 

Their revised program called for an ecosystem-based approach for planning and 

implementing mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife from the Columbia Basin 

hydroelectric system. To provide specific recommendations for the Yakima Basin, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) contracted with the Yakima 

Subbasin Fish & Wildlife Planning Board to develop the Yakima Subbasin Plan (Yakima 

Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005), which was completed in 2004 and is 
 p. 10 

the basis of much of the information contained in this recovery plan. While the Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan focuses more narrowly on steelhead and bull trout, other 

resident and anadromous fish species should also benefit from the actions it identifies. 

The Washington State Conservation Commission drafted a Limiting Factors Analysis of 

fish habitat in the Yakima Basin (Haring 2001) as part the Washington State Salmon 

Recovery Strategy laid out in House Bill 2496 in 1998. It provides a detailed stream-bystream discussion of habitat conditions in the basin. 

The Yakima River Basin Watershed Management Plan was developed as part of the 

state-wide watershed planning process under House Bill 2514. The draft plan was 

completed in November 2005, and addresses water supply, water quality, and fish habitat 

issues. Yakima, Benton, and Klickitat counties have adopted the plan, but neither Kittitas 

County nor the Yakima Nation have approved it. The Yakima Basin Water Resources 

Agency has developed a Detailed Implementation Plan for the Watershed Plan and is 

coordinating its implementation. It is our hope that implementation of the Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan can be closely coordinated with efforts to implement the 

Watershed Plan. 

1.4.2 Relationship to Ongoing On-the-Ground Recovery Efforts 

WDFW and the Yakama Nation work together as co-managers to manage the basin’s fish 

resources. These co-managers and numerous partners (including federal agencies, local 

governments, non-profit organizations, Conservation Districts, and local landowners and 

managers) have a strong history of working together to improve habitat and recovery 

salmon and steelhead in the Yakima Basin. Fish management programs in the basin are 

described in Appendix A and include fisheries enhancement projects funded by the 

Bonneville Power Administration’s Fish & Wildlife Program, salmon restoration projects 

funded by the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board via the Lead Entity system 

developed by HB 2496, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project, restoration projects conducted by the Wenatchee National Forest, 

local comprehensive and shoreline management plans and their respective regulatory 

programs, and numerous voluntary efforts by private individuals and organizations. The 

recovery strategy described in the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan is built on 

continuing and enhancing these fish restoration efforts. Meeting the recovery goals for 

ESA-listed fish populations within the Yakima Basin will likely require sustained efforts 

over the course of several decades. The estimated cost attributed to steelhead recovery for 

all actions identified in this plan is $269.3 million. Local budgets and economies within 

the basin cannot fund such expenditures on their own, and success in salmon recovery 

will depend on the ongoing support of state and federal governments. This support needs 

to be sufficient, reliable, and consistent over time. 

Successfully delisting steelhead in the Yakima Basin will also require coordinating 

efforts with other areas within the Middle Columbia River DPS. NOAA Fisheries will 

only delist the Yakima steelhead Major Population Group (MPG) if delisting is deemed 

to be appropriate for the entire DPS. This is dependent on progress towards recovery in 

other MPGs in the DPS (the John Day, Walla Walla/Umatilla, and East Cascades Major 

Population Groups). This means that local communities in different basins that cross 
 p. 11 

local and state boundaries are dependent upon each other for success in meeting delisting goals, and will need to work together to insure that their shared goals are met. 
 p. 12 

2 Species Status 

2.1 Regional Setting 2.4 Abundance 

2.2 Identification of Populations 2.5 Population Characteristics & Life Histories 

2.3 Distribution 2.6 Viability Assessments for Yakima Steelhead 

This section describes the Yakima Basin, its steelhead populations, and their population 

structure, distribution, abundance, characteristics, and life histories. It then reviews 

existing viability assessments of Yakima Basin steelhead populations. In this document, 

steelhead refers to the anadromous component of O. mykiss in the Yakima Basin, as 

described in Chapter 1, the Introduction. 

2.1 Regional Setting 

2.1.1 Geographic Setting11

The 214-mile Yakima River and its tributaries drain a 6,150 square mile watershed that 

runs from the crest of the Cascade Mountains (over 8,000 feet in elevation) to the 

Columbia River 333 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean (340 feet in elevation). The 

Yakima River and its tributaries run through landscapes that range from the forested, 

mountainous terrain of the Cascades to the dry, shrub-steppe hills of the Columbia Basin. 

The Yakima Basin occupies two physiographic provinces (the Columbia Plateau and 

Cascade Mountains), and three major ecoregions, Cascades, Eastern Cascades Slopes and 

Foothills, and Columbia Basin (Omernik 1987). Climate, topography, precipitation, and 

vegetative cover are highly variable across the basin. Precipitation in the basin ranges 

from over 120 inches in the mountains to 7 inches in the lower Yakima Valley. Figure 2.1

shows the major rivers and streams in the Yakima Basin discussed in this recovery plan. 

Basin geology dictates the form of the river valleys in the Yakima Basin. At the highest 

elevations of the Naches and Upper Yakima systems, streams flow through wide glacially 

carved valleys and glacial lakes that have been converted to serve as storage reservoirs. 

At lower elevations, and in other tributaries, stream channels have incised narrow 

canyons into the basalt and other bedrock. Valley floors near the towns of Ellensburg, 

Selah, Yakima, and Wapato contain deep alluvial floodplains composed of glacial 

outwash materials separated by geologic nickpoints consisting of bedrock outcroppings 

or anticlinal basalt ridges (e.g., Manastash, Umtanum, Yakima, and Ahtanum ridges). In 

the lower Yakima Valley, the Yakima River assumes a meandering planform atop broad 

floodplains composed of wind-blown soils and lacustrine silts from the Missoula Floods 

of the late Pleistocene (Bretz 1969). 

 

11 Unless otherwise noted, information for this section comes from the Yakima Subbasin Plan 

(Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005). 
 p. 13 

Figure 2.1: Yakima Basin 

The longitudinal profiles of anadromous salmonid streams in the Yakima Basin respond 

to these physiographic and geologic factors, with stream gradients ranging from greater 

than 15% in the upper reaches of tributaries to the Naches River to less than 0.1% in 

meandering reaches of the Lower Yakima River. In many areas, the floodplains that once 

contained a complex network of braided channels covered by dense riparian forests have 

been reduced to simplified channels confined by transportation infrastructure and levees. 

The basin includes parts of four counties (Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, and Benton) and 

has a population of about 300,000 people. The largest towns in the basin are Ellensburg, 
 p. 14 

Yakima, and part of two of the Tri-Cities (Richland and Kennewick). Table 2.1 and 

Figure 2.2 summarize land ownership in the basin. 

Table 2.1: Land ownership in the Yakima Basin 

OWNERSHIP ACRES %

Private 1,246,818 31% 

Yakama Nation 889,786 22% 

Federal 1,303,297 33% 

Forest Service 892,509 22% 

Bureau of Land Management 48,893 1% 

Department of Defense 199,099 5% 

Department of Energy 160,098 4% 

Other Federal 2,698 0% 

State 361,403 9% 

Department of Fish & Wildlife 156,712 4% 

Department of Natural Resources 203,085 5% 

Other State 1,606 0% 

Other/Unknown 168,870 4% 

TOTAL 3,970,174 

 Compiled from the Yakima Subbasin Plan (YSPB 2005) 

Forests and rangelands each cover 40% of the basin. From an economic perspective, the 

primary land uses in the basin include irrigated agriculture (1,000 square miles or 16% of 

land area), commercial and residential development (60 square miles or 1% of land area), 

and transportation. Figure 2.3 shows irrigated acreage and major dams in the basin. 

Secondary land uses include recreation, forestry, floodplain gravel mining, and grazing. 

For a more detailed description of the Yakima Subbasin, see Chapter 1 of the Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 

2005). Overviews of each population area’s geography are given below; population area 

boundaries are shown in Figure 2.4. 
 p. 15 

Figure 2.2: Yakima Basin land ownership 
 p. 16 

Figure 2.3: Irrigated areas and major storage & diversion dams 

Satus Creek 

With a drainage area of 612 square miles, Satus Creek comprises 10% of the Yakima 

Basin area. Many of the headwater streams in the Satus Creek watershed flow across 

plateaus bordered by wet meadows. As they flow generally eastward the headwater 

streams cascade through narrow canyons toward the relatively broad Satus Creek canyon. 

Satus Creek exits the canyon at RM 12.5 and flows eastward across the Yakima River 

floodplain to the confluence with the Yakima River. Most of the Satus Creek watershed 

is undeveloped and is not exposed to agricultural, industrial, or domestic effluents, but 

because of riparian conditions and low flow, maximum weekly average temperatures can 
 p. 17 

exceed 26o C in the reach of Satus Creek between Logy Creek and Wilson Charley Creek 

(RM 39.3). Logy Creek cools Satus Creek for a few miles downstream from their 

confluence. Water quality suffers, although water quantity increases as Satus Creek flows 

through the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) in its lower eight miles. The relatively 

young and rapid steelhead out-migration from Satus Creek appears to be a population 

response to harsh historic and current summer conditions. 

Toppenish Creek 

The Toppenish Creek watershed, at 625 square miles, is similar in size to the Satus Creek 

watershed. Upper Toppenish Creek consists of three forks along with several smaller 

tributaries draining the Cascade foothills between Toppenish and Ahtanum ridges. These 

are all high gradient streams in narrow basalt canyons. Anadromous access is limited by 

steadily increasing gradient and coarsening substrates, not the distinct waterfalls typical 

in the Satus Creek system. Agency and Wahtum creeks flow into Simcoe Creek, which 

joins Toppenish Creek at low elevation. A few miles downstream of the Simcoe Creek 

confluence, the Toppenish Creek channel historically assumed a branched appearance 

and flowed through an extensive network of wetlands for nearly 30 miles to the Yakima 

River. This network has a gradient of less than 0.1%. The complexity of this network has 

been significantly reduced. 

Naches River 

The Naches River drains some of the highest and wettest terrain in the Yakima Basin. 

The Naches and Tieton rivers are considerably steeper and naturally more confined than 

the most of the Upper Yakima River. Nevertheless, the predevelopment floodplain 

reaches of the mainstem Naches River and its tributaries provided a labyrinth of channels 

surrounded by extensive riparian forests that maintained cool summer temperatures and 

habitat complexity for all life stages of salmon and steelhead (Kinnison and Sceva 1963; 

Snyder and Stanford 2001; Stanford et al. 2002). In an unregulated condition, the flow of 

the Naches River would be characteristic of snowmelt-dominated systems where 

discharge peaks between May and June concurrent with melting snow and reaches base 

flow in August and September. Late autumn rainfall and minor snowmelt would augment 

summer base flow, with occasional winter high water events under the influence of 

Chinook winds. Above the confluence with the highly regulated Tieton River, the Naches 

River and its tributaries have some of the most natural flow regimes in the Yakima Basin. 

Below the Tieton confluence, the Naches River floodplain widens, although a highway 

and other structures have isolated the river from part of the active floodplain. Rimrock 

Reservoir blocks passage to upstream habitat and has a major effect on flows in the 

Tieton River and lower Naches mainstem. 

Upper Yakima River 

The Yakima River above the Naches confluence is nearly 100 miles long and drains 

nearly twice as much area as the Naches drainage. Much of the mainstem of the Upper 

Yakima has relatively low gradient with extensive floodplains that once contained 

multiple channels and large areas of spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids, as 

around the towns of Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and Selah. Other reaches run through 
 p. 18 

large bedrock canyons between Cle Elum and Ellensburg and Ellensburg and Selah. The 

mainstem Yakima, Teanaway River, and Swauk Creek support most of the current 

steelhead use in the Upper Yakima population area. A number of other tributaries to the 

Upper Yakima River (e.g., Wilson, Naneum, Big, Little, Taneum, Manastash, Tucker, 

Cooke, Caribou, Coleman, and Reecer creeks) are likely to have historically supported 

steelhead, but impassable dams, dry reaches below dams and unscreened diversions have 

greatly reduced or eliminated steelhead use of these tributaries. The upper watershed 

contains three natural glacial lakes that now serve as storage reservoirs; historically 

accessible habitat above Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus dams has been unavailable to 

steelhead since the early 20th century. 

2.1.2 Ecological Setting 

Steelhead use a wide range of aquatic habitats in the Yakima Basin, ranging from small 

intermittent streams to large multi-channel floodplains. Steelhead share the aquatic 

environment with at least 46 other fish species in the Yakima Basin (Fast and Berg 2001). 

Other species of importance include spring and fall Chinook salmon, reintroduced coho 

salmon, bull trout, Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), and westslope cutthroat trout 

(O. clarki lewisi). Sockeye are extinct in the basin, but kokanee (O. nerka) exist in five 

upper-basin storage reservoirs, and four of the populations may be descended in part from 

sockeye salmon present before dam construction. Summer Chinook were historically 

present but are now extinct in the basin. Anadromous salmon runs are thought to have 

once reached half a million fish or more; in recent decades combined numbers for all 

anadromous species have ranged from less than 3,000 in the early 1990s to more than 

40,000 in 2001.12

Active conservation-oriented hatchery programs exist for Chinook and coho salmon. Bull 

trout are listed as threatened under the ESA and are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS; 

they are addressed in detail in the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan. Bull trout 

and steelhead distributions in the Yakima Basin currently overlap in the Naches, 

Ahtanum, and Upper Yakima systems. Historically bull trout would have been present 

across much of the current steelhead distribution, and steelhead would have been present 

in areas now blocked by storage dams. Currently, Pacific lamprey, and westslope 

cutthroat are designated as species of concern by USFWS. Steelhead recovery actions 

identified in this plan should benefit all these species. 

There are also potential negative interactions between steelhead and other fish species. 

Three salmonid species (brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis; lake trout S. namaycush; 

brown trout, Salmo trutta) have been introduced in the basin and may compete with or 

prey on juvenile steelhead, along with a variety of exotic sunfish, perch, catfish, and 

minnow species. Smallmouth bass are established in the lower river. Before the 

introduction of exotics, northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), sculpin 

 

12 Data compiled from Prosser Dam fish counts available online at 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/ 
 p. 19 

(Cottus spp.), bull trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and burbot (Lota lota) were the 

primary piscivores in the basin. 

2.2 Identification of Populations 

NOAA Fisheries classified Yakima Basin steelhead as summer run steelhead within the 

Middle Columbia River ESU when the 1999 Endangered Species Act listing was 

completed.13 Yakima Basin steelhead are the upstream-most part of the Middle Columbia 

River DPS. NOAA Fisheries considered including them as part of the Upper Columbia 

ESU but they were ultimately included in the Middle Columbia ESU due to their genetic 

similarity to Klickitat steelhead and the similarity of their life histories and habitat types 

to other Middle Columbia populations (Busby et al. 1996). Genetic analyses of Yakima 

Steelhead include Loxterman et al. (2003) and Phelps (2000). The ICTRT has classified 

Yakima Basin steelhead as one of the four Major Population Groups (MPGs) within what 

is now the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. (The others are the East Cascades, 

Umatilla/Walla Walla, and John Day MPGs.) The ICTRT has further subdivided the 

Yakima MPG into the Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and Upper Yakima 

River populations (ICTRT 2003; ICTRT 2005c). The population level is the basic unit 

used in this plan for developing recovery goals, strategies, and actions. Figure 2.4 shows 

the ICTRT’s boundaries for the spawning areas for each of the four populations. 

The Toppenish and Upper Yakima population boundaries correspond well to the informal 

population designations used by fish managers in the basin. The ICTRT has included the 

Yakima River and its tributaries from the confluence of Satus Creek to the Columbia 

River in the Satus Creek Population area, while fish managers in the basin generally 

consider the Satus Creek steelhead to include only steelhead that spawn in the Satus 

Creek drainage. While currently almost all the spawning in the ICTRT Satus population 

area occurs within the Satus drainage itself, the large extent and uncertain historic habitat 

value of the lower mainstem and its tributaries do affect assessments of historic potential 

and current viability of this ICTRT population area. Local planners have addressed this 

by dividing the Satus population into two parts: the Satus Creek block, which spawns 

within the Satus Creek watershed, and the mainstem block, which spawns in the lower 

mainstem and its tributaries below Satus Creek. While the Satus Creek block represents 

an area with known and wide spread spawning, the current and historic status of the 

mainstem block is uncertain. This issue is addressed in more detail in Sections 2.3.1 and 

4.1.1. 

The ICTRT has also included the Yakima River from Selah Gap to the mouth of 

Toppenish Creek and the Ahtanum Creek drainage in the Naches River population area, 

while fish managers in the basin have generally considered the Naches population to 

include only steelhead that spawn in the Naches River and its tributaries. The current and 

historic level of steelhead use of this portion of the mainstem Yakima is not well 

understood. While Ahtanum Creek steelhead may be genetically distinct from other 

Naches Basin populations (Small et al. 2006), the similarity in habitat and geographic 

 

13 See the Federal Register, Volume 64, p.14517. 
 p. 20 

proximity of Ahtanum Creek makes its inclusion as part of the ICTRT Naches population 

appropriate. The Naches population would still rank as a large population even if 

mainstem area were excluded, so no there is no separate “mainstem block.” 

2.3 Steelhead Distribution 

Steelhead are the most widespread anadromous fish in the Yakima Basin. They range 

from intermittent streams in semi-arid watersheds to headwaters high in the Cascades. A 

consensus of local managers on the current distribution of steelhead for the Yakima Basin 

is represented in WDFW’s SalmonScape online mapping system (included as orange 

symbol in Figure 2.4).14 The USFS and the Yakama Nation maintain more detailed 

estimates of distribution for specific areas. The overlap between anadromous and resident 

forms of O. mykiss can make determining the exact distribution of steelhead in the 

Naches and Upper Yakima populations challenging. Redd surveys and radio-tracking 

data (Hockersmith et al. 1995; Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005) provide the most 

definitive information on areas used by anadromous spawners in recent years. 

Numerous qualitative efforts have been made to estimate the historic and/or potential 

distribution of steelhead in the Yakima Basin (Haring 2001; Tuck 1995; Yakima 

Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005). The ICTRT developed its Historic 

Intrinsic Potential Analysis to enable comparisons between modeled estimates of historic 

steelhead distribution and abundance and current steelhead distribution and abundance. 

These comparisons play a key role in the ICTRT’s efforts to assess the current status and 

potential viability thresholds for individual steelhead populations. The ICTRT has 

described its viability assessment procedure (ICTRT 2007b) and the Historic Intrinsic 

Potential Analysis (Cooney and Holzer 2006). The model estimates the amount of 

historically available steelhead habitat using defined decision rules and quantitative data 

captured in a Geographic Information System (GIS). The model focuses on identification 

of spawning and early rearing habitat within the Columbia Basin. It uses stream widths to 

calculate habitat areas in addition to simple linear stream lengths. The ICTRT model also 

gives a relative habitat value (high, medium, or low) to all areas identified as potential 

habitat, which is used to develop estimates of habitat area weighted by relative value. 

Model results are intended to estimate the potential habitat accessible to steelhead in the 

Yakima Basin using readily available measurements and consistent rules. They should 

not be used to classify specific areas and their current habitat values and/or potential. 

 

14 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape 
 p. 21 

Figure 2.4: ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Analysis & population areas in the Yakima 

Local recovery planners worked closely with the ICTRT to review the results of the 

preliminary ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Analysis, provide additional information for 

inclusion into the GIS (e.g., locations of natural barriers to steelhead access), note 

discrepancies between results of the ICTRT analysis and previous historic/potential 

analyses, and propose adjustments to the decision rules that would reduce the 

discrepancies. To assure the integrity of their model, the ICTRT did not adjust specific 

model outputs to correspond with local reviews. The ICTRT adjusted the model by 

making changes to decision rules based on documented rationales and then applying the 

revised rules to the entire regional database. In general, the most current iteration of the 

ICTRT model takes into account these local assessments of habitat potential, but 
 p. 22 

continues to overestimate the extent of potential habitat in arid areas. Figure 2.4 shows 

the potential habitat identified by the model and the locations where local planners did 

not concur with the model results. 

The model consistently assigned habitat potential to streams in semi-arid portions of the 

Basin that the review team identified as not generating enough flow to support steelhead. 

Correcting this may require refining the model’s approach to predicating flow in semiarid (under 16") precipitation regimes. The ICTRT has acknowledged this limitation and 

is exploring ways to build a decision rule that would better model arid watersheds. 

Inclusion of streams with watersheds that do not have the precipitation and/or watershed 

area to generate any sustained base flows was primarily an issue in the Satus Creek 

watershed and the lowest elevations in the Upper Yakima and Naches watersheds. These 

areas are marked in red in Figure 2.4. In a few cases, streams that are unlikely to have 

had sufficient flow to support steelhead under historic conditions now have flows that are 

enhanced by surface and subsurface irrigation return flows (purple on Figure 2.4) (Smith 

et al. 2006). 

In areas with over 16" annual precipitation, model results largely matched local surveys 

and expert opinion. The model consistently extended lower quality habitat higher up 

small tributaries and headwater reaches than locally derived maps, but these differences 

do not make significant differences in overall population-level weighted habitat area and 

were considered as feasibly within historic potential by local reviewers. 

The model also failed to include a few streams considered by the review team to be 

potential/historic habitat. In all of these cases, the streams were either distributary 

channels connected to other streams at both upstream and downstream ends or small 

spring-fed creeks in floodplains. The ICTRT has acknowledged that their model either 

does not recognize these streams as having sufficient watershed area to generate flow or 

routes flows down a single channel where channels diverged. These streams are colored 

green in Figure 2.4. For a more detailed description of remaining divergences between 

the ICTRT model and recovery planners’ assessments, see Appendix A. In this plan, the 

locally corrected model results are used as the basis for determining potential steelhead 

distribution. The weighted habitat areas identified by the ICTRT model and the locally 

adjusted model output are listed in Table 2.2. The table shows the habitat area cited in the 

most recent draft of the ICTRT stock status reports; the area indicated in the updated GIS 

coverage of the model results provided by NOAA Fisheries; and the area remaining after 

local edits to the model were made. In general, the ICTRT reports include more estimated 

habitat area than either the updated GIS-data or the locally edited model results. 
 p. 23 

Table 2.2: Intrinsic Potential Analysis modeled habitat areas 

Total stream 

area weighted by 

intrinsic potential 

(m2) 

Total stream 

area weighted by 

intrinsic potential, 

temp limited (m2) 

Branched stream 

area weighted by 

intrinsic potential 

(m2) 

Branched stream 

area (weighted 

and temp. 

limited, m2) 

Satus 

ICTRT Stock 

Status Report 

7/07 

4.111 1.28 1.7 0.992 

ICTRT GIS 7/07 2.981 1.053 1.447 0.802 

As Locally 

Adjusted 2.487 0.847 1.06 0.655 

Toppenish 

ICTRT Stock 

Status Report 

7/07 

1.909 1.171 1.17 0.803 

ICTRT GIS 7/07 1.802 1.101 1.136 0.769 

As Locally 

Adjusted 1.735 1.043 1.12 0.753 

Naches 

ICTRT Stock 

Status Report 

7/07 

7.207 5.849 5.088 4.495 

ICTRT GIS 7/07 7.033 5.724 5.021 4.422 

As Locally 

Adjusted 6.31 5.163 4.661 4.153 

Upper Yakima 

ICTRT Stock 

Status Report 

7/07 

9.038 8.795 7.531 7.456 

ICTRT GIS 7/07 8.818 8.591 7.422 7.347 

As Locally 

Adjusted 7.945 7.74 6.851 6.764 

Figure 2.5 shows current spawning and distribution data from Yakama Nation redd 

surveys in the Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum watersheds, USFS/WDFW redd surveys in 

selected Naches Population tributaries, and the WDFW SalmonScape database. Redd 

survey data are for varying spans of years and survey intensities; they show areas where 

spawning is confirmed to occur but should not be used as indicators of relative spawning 

densities. Redd surveys have not been done in most of the mainstem Naches and Tieton 
 p. 24 

rivers15 or in the Upper Yakima population area. Radio-tracked fish have been located in 

and are presumed to have spawned in all the habitat areas above Roza identified in the 

WDFW SalmonScape distribution (orange line) except for the Upper Yakima River 

above Easton Dam (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005). Figure 2.5 also shows currently 

accessible habitat, blocked habitat, and recently re-opened habitat. It indicates that the 

locally adjusted Intrinsic Habitat Potential map of high quality habitat corresponds well 

with current distribution and spawning for accessible areas. 

Figure 2.5: Available habitat, current distribution, and blocked areas 

 

15 A redd survey was conducted from RM 38 to RM 27 on the Naches River by Pat Monk on 

4/20/05. No redds were observed. 
 p. 25 

The ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Model (Cooney and Holzer 2006; ICTRT 2007b; ICTRT 

2008) was used to designate major spawning areas (MSAs) and minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within each population area. Local recovery planners have used this as the basic 

unit for assessing spatial distribution in this plan. Figure 2.6 shows the ICTRT’s MSAs 

and MiSAs overlaid with WDFW’s current steelhead distribution map. 

Figure 2.6: ICTRT spawning areas and WDFW steelhead distribution 
 p. 26 

2.3.1 Satus Population 

The ICTRT assigned two MSAs and four MiSAs to the Satus Creek steelhead population, 

based on historical intrinsic potential analysis (Figure 2.6). Both MSAs and one of the 

MiSAs are within the Satus Creek drainage itself. The remaining three minor spawning 

concentrations are associated with small tributary drainages of the mainstem Yakima 

River. 

Spawning is known to occur throughout the Satus and Dry Creek MSAs, as well as in 

Mule-Dry Creek MiSA. Spawning is also attributed to the Corral Creek MiSAs in 

WDFW’s SalmonScape online mapping system. Surveys of Snipes Creek and its 

tributary Spring Creek have revealed small numbers of O. mykiss (Monk 2001) and an 

adult steelhead was identified 0.5 miles up Spring Creek by WDFW in 2007 (Bartand, 

communication, 2007). Habitat surveys in 2001 revealed that, of the left-bank drains with 

suitable spawning substrate, only Spring Creek had sufficient flow in the non-irrigation 

season to provide adult steelhead access (Romey and Cramer 2001). O. mykiss presence 

during the summer was documented in Amon Wasteway (in the Coyote Canyon MiSA) 

during WDFW electroshock sampling by Paul Hoffarth in 2005 and during snorkel 

surveys by Dr. David Smith of the University of Idaho in 2002. A planned 2007 steelhead 

spawning ground survey was thwarted by high flow (P. LaRiviere, WDFW, 

communication, 2007).16

For the Satus Population, the local review team was generally agreed with the ICTRT 

model results for the Satus Creek watershed itself, with the exception of a few tributaries 

indicated on Figure 2.5 that were not believed to have the flows needed to support 

steelhead. The habitat area within the Satus Creek drainage itself would (both with and 

without the tributaries in question) classify as a Basic population under the ICTRT 

framework, with a minimum viable abundance target of 500 returning adults. When the 

mainstem and tributaries to the lower mainstem were included in the Satus population, it 

was classified as an Intermediate population, with an abundance threshold of 1,000 

spawners. The local review team felt most comfortable addressing management of these 

two portions of the Satus population area separately, with a threshold of 500 fish for 

Satus Creek watershed and another 500 for the mainstem component of the ICTRT 

population area; this is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.9. 

2.3.2 Toppenish Population 

The ICTRT assigned two MSAs and one MiSA to the Toppenish Creek steelhead 

population, based on historical intrinsic potential analysis (Figure 2.6). All are within the 

Toppenish Creek drainage itself. Spawning is known to occur throughout the Simcoe 

 

16 Spring, Corral, and Snipes creeks, and Amon Wasteway are referred to by the names used on 

the USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The first three are referred to as drainageways by local 

irrigation districts, while Amon Wasteway is often referred to as Amon Creek. The use of these 

names in this document is in no way meant to indicate any conclusions regarding ongoing 

disputes about the legal status of these waterways. 
 p. 27 

Creek and Toppenish Creek MSAs but WDFW’s SalmonScape online mapping system 

does not include the Mill Creek MiSA in its spawning or rearing databases. Resident O. 

mykiss were recently found in a perennial upper reach of Mill Creek (T. Resseguie, YN, 

communication, 2007), indicating that steelhead have used the intermittent Toppenish 

Creek tributary. Conversely, steelhead are shown to be present in Medicine Creek, a 

channel tributary to Simcoe Creek, in SalmonScape, but the ICTRT does not designate 

Medicine Creek as a spawning area. Medicine Creek is an abandoned distributary 

channel of Simcoe Creek that carried irrigation returns prior to 2003 (B. Rogers, YN, 

communication, 2007). 

Steelhead spawning has also been documented in Marion and Harrah drains, which join 

near the confluence of Toppenish and Simcoe creeks. Marion Drain then flows east and 

enters the Yakima River 3 km upstream of Toppenish Creek (B. Rogers, YN, 

communication, 2007). Both drains were excavated in the 1920s to carry return flows 

from the Wapato Irrigation Project to the Yakima River. 

2.3.3 Naches Population 

The ICTRT has identified eight major historical MSAs and two MiSAs associated with 

the Naches River steelhead population (Figure 2.6). Seven of the MSAs are in the Naches 

River drainage. The remaining MSA, Ahtanum Creek, is a major tributary to the Yakima 

River mainstem, entering just downstream of the Naches River confluence. Impassable 

storage dams block the upper portions of the Tieton and Bumping watersheds. Their 

MSA sizes are based on modeled historic (pre-dam) habitat area. The MSA identified by 

the ICTRT as “Upper Naches” is actually the Little Naches River and its tributaries. The 

two MiSAs are small tributaries to the Yakima River between the Naches River and 

Ahtanum Creek. Wide Hollow Creek begins in the dry foothills west of Yakima and 

becomes perennial upon reaching the irrigated agricultural area surrounding Yakima. 

Before irrigation development, springs may have kept lower reaches of the creek 

perennial. Because of significant groundwater inputs, Wide Hollow Creek has received 

some passage and habitat funding during the past 20 years. Moxee Drain is an excavated 

channel draining the Roza and Selah-Moxee irrigation districts east of Yakima and 

receives ephemeral runoff from the arid upper Moxee Valley. Monk (2001), along with 

Romey and Cramer (2001), concluded that Moxee Drain was not suitable for spawning or 

rearing salmonids. The lower reach of Moxee drain in the Yakima River floodplain has 

perennial flows and provides suitable juvenile habitat. Steelhead spawning is known to 

occur in all eight MSAs. WDFW’s SalmonScape online mapping system also includes 

Wide Hollow Creek and the lower end of Moxee Drain in its “documented presence” 

database. 

2.3.4 Upper Yakima Population 

The ICTRT has identified fourteen major historical MSAs and two MiSAs associated 

with the Upper Yakima River steelhead population (Figure 2.6). Of these, the ICTRT 

identifies seven as currently occupied (in both upper and lower portions) and another four 
 p. 28 

as occupied in their lower extent only (See Figure 2.6).17 Impassable storage dams block 

the Cle Elum and Kachess rivers and the uppermost reach of the Yakima River. The 

Upper Yakima and Cle Elum MSA sizes are based on modeled historic (pre-dam) habitat 

area. The lower Teanaway River is designated a MiSA, probably because of the ICTRT 

model’s branching algorithm that separated the North and West Teanaway MSAs from 

this lower section. The Roza Creek MiSA includes Burbank Creek which is on the other 

side of the Yakima River; Roza and Burbank creeks drain small, semi-arid watersheds. 

2.4 Steelhead Abundance 

2.4.1 Estimates of Historic Abundance 

Published estimates of the size of the annual return of adult steelhead to the Yakima 

Basin prior to European settlement range from 20,800 (Kreeger and McNeil 1993) to 

“less than 50,000” (Cramer et al. 2003) to 80,000 (Howell et al. 1985) to 100,000 

(Smoker 1956, as cited in WDF(1993, Appendix 3); although Cramer et al. (2003) note 

this is a misinterpretation of Smoker’s assessment). 

Table 2.3 shows estimates of “historic” abundance of anadromous spawners identified by 

EDT model runs conducted in development of the Yakima Subbasin Plan (see Appendix 

B). This estimate is based on historic conditions in the Yakima Basin coupled with 

current Columbia River and ocean conditions, and is not equivalent to a true historic 

scenario; it also does not fully address the interactions between resident and anadromous 

O. mykiss presumed to occur in the Upper Yakima and parts of the Naches basin. The 

population boundaries referenced here are similar, but not identical, to the updated 

ICTRT population designations used in this plan. 

Table 2.3: EDT estimates of “historic” abundance 

Population EDT Abundance

Satus 5,761

Toppenish 4,639

Naches 14,542

Upper Yakima 21,152

TOTAL 46,094 

The ICTRT used the Historic Intrinsic Potential analysis described in Section 2.4 to 

classify populations according to relative historic size, with Toppenish classified as a 

Basic population, Satus Creek as an Intermediate, and the Naches and Upper Yakima as 

Large populations (ICTRT In press). Table 2.4 goes a step further and uses the results of 

the Intrinsic Potential Analysis to extrapolate historic spawner abundance based on two 

calculations. 

 

17 See Section 4.2.3 for the ICTRT definition of “occupancy.” 
 p. 29 

Table 2.4: Historic abundance estimates derived from Intrinsic Potential Analysis 

Spawner Abundance 

Population 

Locally Adjusted 

ICTRT Weighted 

& Branched 

Area in km2 at 2000/km2 

 at 0.1 smolt/m2

and 4% SAR 

Satus 1.06 2,120 4,240 

Toppenish 1.120 2,240 4,480 

Naches 4.661 9,322 18,644 

Upper Yakima 6.851 13,702 27,404 

Total 13.692 27,384 54,768 

The first calculation is based on densities of spawning adults and multiples the estimated 

branched and weighted habitat area (see Figure 2.4 and Table 2.2) by an estimate of 

spawners per unit area. The value of 2000 spawners per km2

 is equivalent to 500 

spawners per 250,000 m2, which is the potential density of spawners used by the ICTRT 

to designate Major Spawning Areas based on branched habitat area (Cooney and Holzer 

2006). This corresponds to 20 spawners in a hypothetical high quality stream reach 1 km 

long and 10m wide, or, using conversions of 1.75 spawners/redd and 1.609 km/mile, 18 

redds per mile. This compares to rates of 5-10 redds per mile observed in portions of 

Satus Creek after an average or better steelhead run and up to 30 to 100 spawners per 

mile in some other areas (Rock Creek in Klickitat County at 34 to 45 redds per mile 

(NPPC 2004) and a range of 33 to 109 on the Middle Rogue River (ODFW 2005, p. 325). 

At the 2000/km2

 rate, the basin would produce about 31,000 spawners. Using 540 

spawners/km2 (which converts as above to about five redds/mile) results in 

approximately 8,400 fish. The second calculation is based on smolt production per unit 

area set at 0.1/m2

 and a smolt to adult survival rate of 4% (versus 2% generally assumed 

under current conditions) and results in ~62,000 spawners. Neither calculation models the 

impacts of resident/anadromous interactions on anadromous abundance. Note that when 

run with a smolt density of 0.01 smolts/m2

 and a SAR of 2% and limited to currently 

utilized habitat (both estimates based on empirical data from the Yakima Basin under 

current conditions), this simple model gives estimated abundances in line with current 

abundances. This admittedly simple model may serve as a useful thought tool with results 

that correspond with other estimates of historic abundance; its results should not be 

treated as definitive. 

While precise estimates of historic abundance are impossible to generate, it seems 

reasonable to conclude that historic spawners abundances were between 25,000 and 

75,000 per year. Major areas of uncertainty that affect our estimates of historic spawner 

abundance include: 
 p. 30 

• The extent of historic use by steelhead of the mainstem Yakima and its side 

channels 

• The outcomes of interactions between steelhead and other salmonid species also 

estimated to be far more numerous under pre-European conditions, including 

positive relationships (enhanced supply of nutrients in headwaters) and negative 

relationships (increased interspecific competition) 

• The nature of interaction between resident and anadromous O. mykiss

• The range of year-to-year variability in run size under pre-European conditions 

2.4.2 Current Abundance and Productivity 

Overall Abundance in the Yakima Basin 

Returning adult steelhead are counted and classified as wild or hatchery as they pass the 

fish ladders at Prosser Dam downstream from all major spawning areas.18 Since records 

began in 1985, estimated returns have ranged from a low of 450 in 1996 to a high of 

4,491 in 2002, with an average of 1,764. The run is dominated by wild fish, with a 

hatchery component of 8% over the period of record and 3% between 1999 and 2007. 

Figure 2.7 gives an indication of the variability of recent steelhead returns. At the time of 

listing (1999), the 10-year average abundance for wild steelhead was 933, the majority of 

which was being produced in a single tributary drainage (Satus Creek). Since then 

abundance has increased, with the current 10-year average at 2,269. Upstream dam, redd, 

and smolt trap counts have also revealed a somewhat wider distribution of steelhead in 

the Yakima Basin than was recognized in 1999. However, even the more recent estimates 

of steelhead abundance are at least an order of magnitude less than even the low to 

middle range of estimates of historic abundance. 

 

18 Very limited spawning has been observed in the Yakima River and its tributaries below 

Prosser, but whether or not offspring survive is unknown. 
 p. 31 

Figure 2.7: Yakima Basin steelhead abundance 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

# of Adult Steelhead passing Prosser

Year

Hatchery

Wild

Abundance by Population 

While the Prosser Dam counts provide excellent abundance estimates for the Yakima 

Basin MPG as a whole, determining the abundance of each of the four component 

populations is more challenging. The ICTRT’s current approach apportions the total 

Prosser count based on a combination of 1990-92 radio-tracking data (Hockersmith et al. 

1995), redd counts from Satus and Toppenish creeks and counts at the Roza Dam fish 

ladder. Table 2.5 summarizes available data from Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project dam 

counts, Yakama Nation Fisheries redd counts for Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum 

watersheds, and USFS/WDFW led redd counts for selected Naches tributaries. 
 p. 32 

Table 2.5: Available dam count and redd data 

Ladder Counts (July 1 to June 30) Redd Counts 

Year 

Ending 

Prosser 

Wild 

Prosser 

Hatchery 

Roza 

Wild 

Roza 

Hatchery Satus Toppenish Ahtanum 

Naches 

Tribs 

1985 2191 0 6 0 * * * * 

1986 2230 0 3 0 * * * * 

1987 2424 41 0 0 * * * * 

1988 2601 239 0 0 445 * * * 

1989 1066 96 0 0 404 45 * * 

1990 727 87 0 0 289 26 * * 

1991 730 104 0 0 125 * (32) * * 

1992 2012 251 107 9 *(121) *(38) * * 

1993 1104 80 15 0 73**(118) *(43) * * 

1994 540 14 28 0 114 *(49) * * 

1995 838 87 22 1 85***(131) *(55) * * 

1996 450 54 90 2 148 *(61) * * 

1997 961 145 22 0 76 5**(66) * * 

1998 948 165 51 0 190 13**(71) * * 

1999 1018 52 14 0 130 78 * * 

2000 1571 40 14 0 169 185 11 * 

2001 3032 57 133 7 252 355 8 * 

2002 4491 34 236 2 298 111***(291) 13*** * 

2003 2190 45 128 6 319 161***(227) 16*** * 

2004 2739 15 211 2 117 56***(163) 12*** 94** 

2005 3377 74 224 3 110 99 14 140 

2006 1995 10 121 2 60 21*** 1*** 19** 

2007 1523 14 60 0 87 44*** 4*** 44** 

2008 3025 285 171 5 110 68*** 8*** 11** 

2009 3412 24 204 0 119 79*** 3*** 29** 

* No survey; ** Partial survey; *** Survey affected by poor redd visibility; (#) Interpolation used by ICTRT 

Dam count data from www.ykfp.org; redd data from Yakama Nation staff except for USFS data for Naches 

data from USFS.

Given that we do not have direct counts for all populations, the best existing populationspecific abundance estimates are from the ICTRT stock status reviews (ICTRT In press) 

and are summarized in Table 2.6; Table 2.7 shows how Prosser counts were apportioned 

to derive these estimates. The ICTRT adjusted aggregate annual Prosser counts to 

account for estimated losses between Prosser Dam and tributary spawning by applying 

11% average loss rates from the 1990 to 1991 radio-tracking studies (losses directly 

associated with tagging were excluded). Prior to 1995, an additional 2% of the returns 

passing Prosser were attributed to harvest (directed harvest was closed after 1994). 

Population-specific abundance estimates for return years 1985-1989 were generated by 

applying the average distribution from the 1990 to 1992 radio tagging studies to the 

Prosser Dam count adjusted for pre-spawning mortality (Table 2.13). For those return 

years where radio tag-based distribution estimates were available (1990-92), the 

aggregate count over Prosser Dam was allocated among populations based on the relative 

distribution of radio tagged steelhead during the spring spawning time window. 

For each of the return years, 1993-2004, an estimate of the aggregate number of spawners 

in Satus and Toppenish creeks was generated by subtracting the Roza Dam count and the 
 p. 33 

Naches River abundance estimates from the Prosser count adjusted for prespawning 

losses. The resulting composite estimate was allocated to Satus Creek and Toppenish 

Creek based on the annual ratios of expanded redd counts for the two populations. Redd 

counts provide the only current index to adult abundance, and redd counting conditions 

are more favorable in these two watersheds than in the upper basin. Redd counts in the 

Naches River and its higher-elevation tributaries are not a reliable index of spawner 

abundance, and the lower Naches River lacks an impassable dam and counting facility 

similar to Roza Dam in the Yakima River above the Naches confluence. This leaves 

managers with 15-year-old radio-tracking data for allocating Prosser adults, after 

subtracting upper Yakima River returns, to the Naches River and a Satus-Toppenish 

composite. Genetic sampling of adults at Prosser and/or new radio-tracking studies would 

greatly improve population specific abundance and productivity estimates. 

For run years 1993-2004, Roza Dam counts were incorporated into abundance estimates 

for the Upper Yakima population. During the Hockersmith study, some radio tagged 

steelhead were tracked to the mainstem Yakima River below Roza Dam but above the 

confluence with the Naches River. To account for possible spawning below Roza Dam, 

the year-specific counts at Roza Dam were averaged with corresponding estimates based 

on the 1990-92 radio telemetry proportion returning to the Upper Yakima. 

Hatchery releases of steelhead into the Yakima system ceased after 1993 (Fast and Berg 

2001); the proportion of returning spawners at Prosser Dam that are of natural origin has 

averaged 94% since 1985 (99% for the most recent five years). The ICTRT assumed that 

hatchery strays were not disproportionately present in any specific populations. 

Table 2.6: Natural-origin spawner abundance by population, 1995-2004 

Population Low (year) High (year) 1995 to 2004 Geomean 

Satus 

138 (1998) 1,000 (2002) 379 

Toppenish 44 (1990) 1,252 (2002) 322 

Naches 142 (1996) 1,454 (2002) 472 

Upper Yakima 34 (1994) 283 (2002) 85 
 p. 34 

Table 2.7: ICTRT extrapolation from Prosser to population-specific abundance 

Year Prosser # Mortality Spawners % total # % total # % total # % total #

1985 2191 13% 1901 45% 849 12% 222 36% 691 7% 139

1986 2230 13% 1935 45% 864 12% 226 36% 703 7% 142

1987 2465 13% 2138 45% 955 12% 249 36% 777 7% 157

1988 2840 13% 2464 45% 1101 12% 287 36% 895 7% 181

1989 1162 13% 1008 45% 450 12% 118 36% 366 7% 74

1990 814 13% 706 43% 304 7% 49 43% 304 7% 49

1991 834 13% 723 37% 268 13% 94 40% 289 10% 72

1992 2263 13% 1963 54% 1060 15% 294 26% 510 5% 107

1993 1184 13% 1027 43% 446 16% 163 36% 373 4% 45

1994 554 11% 493 40% 197 17% 85 36% 179 7% 32

1995 925 11% 824 41% 340 17% 143 36% 299 5% 42

1996 504 11% 449 35% 158 15% 65 36% 163 14% 62

1997 1106 11% 985 32% 310 27% 270 36% 358 5% 47

1998 1113 11% 991 42% 413 16% 156 36% 360 6% 62

1999 1070 11% 953 37% 353 22% 212 36% 346 4% 42

2000 1611 11% 1435 28% 408 31% 446 36% 521 4% 60

2001 3089 11% 2753 13% 353 45% 1229 36% 1000 6% 171

2002 4525 11% 4032 26% 1040 31% 1261 36% 1465 7% 267

2003 2235 11% 1991 33% 659 24% 469 36% 723 7% 140

2004 2755 11% 2455 20% 496 35% 870 36% 892 8% 197

1995-2004 geomean all spawners 1389 405 344 505 87

Prosser # = Prosser wild plus Prosser Hatchery from Table 2.5

Presumed 11% mortality from Prosser to spawning from Hockersmith plus 2% in-basin harvest prior to 1994

1990 to 1992 run approtionment done using Hockersmith data for those years;

1985 to 1989 done using average run portion data from the Hockersmith study; 

1993 on:

 Hockersmith average used for Naches (36%)

 Avg of Hockersmith average & annual proportion of Roza to Prosser count used for Upper Yakima; 

 Remainder of Prosser count attributed to Satus and Toppenish; divided between the two based 

 on the relative redd numbers (gaps in redd data interpolated linearly)

Satus Toppenish Naches Upper Yakima

Productivity by Population 

The ICTRT used the adult age structure from the 1990-92 radio tagging study to calculate 

returns per spawner. To estimate intrinsic productivity (the rate at which the population 

rebuilds when depressed to low numbers), the ICTRT calculated geometric means of 

spawner/return ratios for those data pairs where parent spawner abundance was less than 

75% of the abundance target for the population. This approach is designed to minimize 

density dependant effects that may influence the average productivity value. The ICTRT 

then applied a further adjustment to compensate for annual basinwide fluctuations in 

marine survival. Table 2.8 shows the results. 
 p. 35 

Table 2.8: Spawner/return ratios for the brood years 1985-1999 

Population Low (year) High (year) 15-yr Adjusted* 

Satus 0.19 (1992) 2.36 (1996) 1.40 

Toppenish 0.30 (1985) 14.48 (1996) 1.60 

Naches 0.37 (1986) 5.03 (1996) 1.12 

Upper Yakima 0.35 (1988) 4.87 (1997) 1.12 

*Median delimited and adjusted based on marine survival, as per text and ICTRT (2007b) 

2.5 Population Characteristics and Life Histories 

2.5.1 Adult Upstream Migration 

Timing of Upstream Migration 

All Yakima Basin steelhead are classified as summer steelhead based on the timing of 

their return from the ocean to the Columbia River. Table 2.9 shows the seasonal 

progression of upstream migrants from Bonneville into the Yakima. Adult steelhead that 

were tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) in Satus, Toppenish, and 

Ahtanum creeks as juveniles have migrated upstream past Bonneville Dam from May 

through October, with 90% passing Bonneville in July (62%) and August (28%). About a 

third of the run then moves relatively rapidly up the Columbia past McNary in July 

(19%) and Aug (9%). The majority of the run holds in the Columbia between Bonneville 

and McNary into the fall, with Yakima steelhead presumably forming part of the large 

concentrations of steelhead found holding in the cool waters at the mouths of tributaries 

such as the White Salmon and Klickitat rivers. In September and October, 64% of the run 

continues past McNary, while in November and December the last 8% passes. Timing of 

movements through the Columbia may differ for steelhead from other parts of the 

Yakima Basin. Assessing this requires additional PIT-tag data from the Naches and 

Upper Yakima populations. 
 p. 36 

Table 2.9: Timing of dam passage by adult steelheads 

Bonneville McNary Prosser Roza 

n=58 n=47 n=19332 n=1088 

June 3% 0% 0% 0% 

July 62% 19% 0% 0% 

August 28% 9% 0% 0% 

September 3% 38% 12% 2% 

Oct 2% 26% 32% 3% 

Nov 0% 2% 19% 1% 

Dec 0% 6% 8% 0% 

January 0% 0% 10% 2% 

February 0% 0% 7% 4% 

March 0% 0% 6% 34% 

April 0% 0% 4% 49% 

May 2% 0% 1% 5% 

Bonneville & McNary data from PIT-tagged adults tagged as juveniles in 

Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum creeks, 2004 to 2006 

Prosser and Roza data from dam counts of adults, 2000 to 2006 

Most (63% of dam counts from 2000 to 2006) of the run continues from McNary 

relatively rapidly past Prosser in September, October and November. However about one 

third of the run holds between McNary and Prosser until December through April before 

passing Prosser. These fish may be using habitat in both the McNary Pool of the 

Columbia (where temperatures are lower through the summer) and the lower Yakima 

River, which cools off faster than the McNary Pool after September 1 (Figure 2.8). 

Where and how fish use the McNary Pool and the Lower Yakima and how that is 

affected by habitat conditions is noted as a key knowledge gap in Chapter 7. 

While limited numbers of PIT tags make any conclusions preliminary, existing data 

suggest that a significant percentage of Yakima-origin steelhead overshoot the mouth of 

the Yakima and continue up the Columbia, with some ascending as many as four more 

dams on the Columbia before turning downstream to return to the Yakima. The main 

source of evidence is from adult steelhead tagged in the trap at Priest Rapids dam. Of the 

3,890 adult steelhead tagged there between 7/12/06 and 10/16/08, 72 were subsequently 

detected at Prosser, with no returns from Prosser to the Upper Columbia noted so far. Of 

the 72 tagged steelhead, 2 were also detected at Ice Harbor after release from Priest 

Rapids: 1 before detection at Prosser and 1 after detection at Prosser. There were 6 Priest 

Rapids-tagged adults that reached Wells Dam before falling back and ascending Prosser 

Dam. One of them later ascended Roza Dam. 

Returns of adult steelhead PIT tagged as juveniles in the Yakima Basin also indicate 

some Yakima steelhead pass the Yakima to ascend farther up the Columbia. Fifty-one 

adult steelhead tagged as juveniles in the 2006-07 outmigration and earlier were detected 

ascending Prosser ladders from 5/28/05 through the 2008-9 adult migration. The nine 

adults that were tagged as juveniles in the Yakima Basin during the 2006-07 outmigration 
 p. 37 

have been detected as adults at Priest Rapids Dam as of October 2008. Of these nine 

Priest Rapids detections of Yakima steelhead, four returned to Prosser. The need to better 

understand the rates of overshot by returning adults, its causes, and the implications for 

survival and condition of returning spawners is highlighted as a key uncertainty in 

Section 7.2.5. 

Figure 2.8: Lower Yakima River and McNary Pool temperatures 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/1

10/111/112/1

Mean Daily Temp (Deg. F)

Columbia

Lower Yakima

Columbia temperature calculated from USGS data at Richland for the period of record, 10/1/75 to 3/2/95.

Low er Yakima temperature calculated from the USGS gage at Kiona for the period of recod, 7/17/01 to 9/13/07 

While at least some adult steelhead movement into the Yakima Basin and past Prosser 

Dam has been documented in every month of the year, the main migration past Prosser 

Dam occurs from September through April. Passage from the McNary Pool and/or Lower 

Yakima River past Prosser Dam appears to be driven by flow and temperature cues, with 

fish generally moving rapidly following increased flow and moderating water 

temperatures. 

In the two years between 1999 and 2007 when spring high flows (>2000 cfs) and lower 

river temperatures (< 68 oF at Kiona) continued into July, a portion of the run passed 

Prosser in July (28 in 1999 and 10 in 2002). In the only other year (2004) where mean 

daily temperatures in July were below 68oF at Kiona, flows remained lower (<1000 cfs) 

and no steelhead passed Prosser.19 Prior to regulation of flows in the Yakima and 

Columbia rivers, the high flows and lower temperatures of spring runoff would have 

prevailed longer into the summer. It is likely that historically, some portion of the 

steelhead run would have traveled rapidly from the ocean into the Yakima system during 

the summer, but that high temperatures in the Columbia and lower Yakima rivers now 

limit that run timing. 

 

19 Analyses based on passage data accessed via DART 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/dart.html; Prosser flow and temperature data at 

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/yakima/yakwebarcread.html. 
 p. 38 

In those years when more than two steelhead passed Prosser in August (2000, 2003, 2004 

and 2007), there appears to be a significant correlation between fish movements and 

periods when flows increase and temperatures drop below 70oF. The typical September 

beginning of the upstream run past Prosser occurs when river temperatures at Kiona 

consistently drop below 70oF (in 2001, when low flows and high temperatures persisted 

through most of September, steelhead movement past Prosser began in late September). 

Throughout the fall and winter run, fish tend to move in response to increased flows, 

though low water temperatures can limit the influence of a midwinter flow increase, and 

a midwinter rise in temperature can stimulate movement even when flow remains 

relatively constant. 

Most steelhead that pass Prosser in the fall overwinter in the Yakima River between 

Prosser and Sunnyside dams in reaches with deep pools and low velocity (Hockersmith et 

al. 1995). The final migration from holding areas to the spawning grounds begins 

between January and May, with fish that will spawn in lower elevation tributaries 

generally beginning to move earlier. Eighty-eight % of steelhead passage past Roza into 

the Upper Yakima occurs in March, April and May with the remaining 12% scattered 

from September through February. Radio tracking in 2002 through 2004 found that 

upstream movements above Roza towards spawning areas peaked in mid-March, but 

could occur anytime between November and late June (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 

2005). 

Currently the range of run timings for specific populations cannot be accurately 

determined; all information presented here (except for Roza passage) is for the Yakima 

MPG as a whole. Developing the ability to identify steelhead to population at Prosser and 

increasing the number of PIT tags for the Naches and Upper Yakima populations would 

facilitate determining if there are significant differences in run timing between the four 

populations. 

Age and Sex Distribution of Upstream Migrants 

From 2000 to 2006, an average of 75% of the returning adult steelhead handled at the 

Prosser Denil and Roza Trap were females, as shown in Table 2.10 over the three years 

of the Hockersmith study (1990-92), radio-tagged fish were 73%, 78%, and 64% female 

(Hockersmith et al. 1995). Currently the only population-specific sex ratio that can be 

determined is for the Upper Yakima Population, which is slightly higher than the 

aggregate rate. With improvements to our ability to assign fish to population at Prosser, 

we will be able to determine if sex ratios are similar across all four populations and their 

subpopulations, or if they differ (perhaps based on degree of overlap with resident fish). 
 p. 39 

Table 2.10: Sex ratios of returning steelhead 

 Prosser Roza 

Total Female % Total Female % 

2001-2 472 329 70% 210 153 73% 

2002-3 169 143 85% 126 110 87% 

2003-4 575 389 68% 207 154 74% 

2004-5 985 629 64% 201 167 83% 

Totals 2201 1490 68% 744 584 78% 

Yakima Basin steelhead cover a wide range of combinations of freshwater and ocean 

ages with residence in freshwater ages ranging from one to four years followed by one to 

three years of saltwater residence (the saltwater age does not include the winter spent by 

adults in freshwater prior to spawning). 

Table 2.11 shows the combinations of fresh and saltwater ages determined through scale 

analysis of steelhead handled in the Prosser Denil for the 2002-3 to 2004-5 return years 

(this sample is representative of steelhead passing Prosser in September to December, but 

does not include fish passing after December).20 The bulk of the run consists of age 2.1 

and 2.2 fish (with a combined total of between 63% and 80% all years). The age structure 

of the run can vary significantly from year to year, as indicated by the range separating 

minimum and maximum percentages for each age class. On average, males return at 

younger freshwater and ocean ages (1.1 fish make up 15% of males, versus 8% of 

females, and for fish of freshwater age two, males return proportionally more often as one 

ocean fish). Based on summary tables in Hockersmith et al. (1995), there is also a weak 

inverse correlation between freshwater age and saltwater age for the sample as a whole 

(i.e., younger smolts returned at slightly older average ocean age). 

Table 2.11: Prosser Denil age structures, 2002-3 to 2004-5 return years 

Ages from scale analysis; n = 1729 

Age Min % Max % Total % % Males % Females 

1.1 1.2% 25.5% 9.4% 14.6% 7.8% 

1.2 0.5% 11.2% 4.4% 3.7% 5.0% 

2.1 36.7% 77.0% 53.3% 64.0% 51.9% 

2.2 3.1% 28.4% 16.8% 8.7% 21.2% 

2.3 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 

3.1 1.2% 15.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.9% 

3.2 0.2% 3.0% 1.5% 0.4% 2.1% 

4.1 0.0% 1.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 

Rs 2.3% 17.2% 6.5% 0.8% 3.4% 

 

20 Ages are given as (# of freshwater winters) and (# of saltwater winters), so a 2.3 age fish would 

have had two winters in freshwater as a juvenile followed by three winters at sea. Rs = repeat 

spawner. 
 p. 40 

Age distribution appeared to differ somewhat among populations. Table 2.12 shows the 

age distribution of the steelhead sampled at Roza Dam, which comprise most of the 

Upper Yakima population for the 2002-3 to 2004-5 returns. When compared to the 

aggregate run at Prosser, Upper Yakima fish are weighted towards older fish freshwater 

and ocean ages: one freshwater fish represent 4% of returns vs. 14% for the aggregate 

sample, while two ocean fish represent 52% of the Roza return vs. only 23% at Prosser. 

Table 2.12: Roza Dam age structures, 2002-3 to 2004-5 return years 

Ages from scale analysis; n = 534 

Age Min % Max % Total % % of males % of females 

1.1 0.0% 3.3% 1.1% 2.3% 0.8% 

1.2 0.5% 5.6% 3.2% 1.2% 3.7% 

2.1 5.6% 69.6% 34.4% 58.3% 28.2% 

2.2 3.9% 72.6% 42.2% 33.7% 44.4% 

2.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

3.1 0.5% 19.3% 7.5% 2.3% 8.9% 

3.2 1.0% 11.0% 7.0% 0.6% 8.6% 

4.1 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 

4.2 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 

Rs 2.0% 7.1% 4.2% 1.6% 4.9% 

In contrast, data on the 70 of the 99 known-age adults that were tracked to spawning 

locations in the Hockersmith (1995) radio-tracking study (Table 2.13) found that knownage Satus spawners had younger freshwater ages than the other three groups and younger 

saltwater ages than the Naches and Toppenish groups. 

Table 2.13: Spawning locations of known-age steelhead by population, 1990-92 

Total 

Age 

Satus 

Spawners 

Naches 

Spawners 

Toppenish 

Spawners 

Yakima 

Spawners 

Total Aged 

Fish 

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 

1.1 3 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 5.1 

1.2 10 26.3 2 10.5 0.0 1 20.0 24 24.2 

1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 

2.1 10 26.3 4 21.1 1 12.5 2 40.0 20 20.2 

2.2 15 39.5 11 57.9 6 75.0 2 40.0 45 45.5 

2.3 0.0 2 10.5 1 12.5 0.0 3 3.0 

4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 

Totals 38 100 19 100 8 100 5 100 99 100 

Size of Returning Adults 

Fork lengths of returning steelhead measured at the Prosser Denil and Roza Trap from 

2001 to 2006 ranged from 49 cm to 88 cm. Length is associated with ocean age, with an 

average of 60 cm for fish that have passed one winter at sea, 71 cm for fish that have 

passed two winters at sea, and 68 cm for repeat spawners. Figure 2.9 shows the 

distribution of spawners by ocean age. 
 p. 41 

Figure 2.9: Size class by ocean age 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 >=80

Fork Length in cm

% of Sample

One-Ocean

Two-Ocean

Repeat Spawners

Survival Rates of Upstream Migrants 

The only Yakima-population specific data on survival during the upstream migration 

comes from a very limited number of PIT tag detections.21 For the period spanning the 

2003-04 to 2006-07 return years, 60 of 75 Yakima-origin PIT-tagged adult steelhead 

(80%) that were detected moving upstream past Bonneville were subsequently detected at 

McNary Dam. Three of those 60 strayed to the Snake or Upper Columbia, for a total of 

57 of the 75 (76%) known to have survived from Bonneville to above McNary and 

presumed to have entered the Yakima River. 

PIT tag detectors have been in place on all three fish ladders at Prosser Dam since August 

30, 2005. Of the 16 Yakima-origin adults detected at McNary between August 2005 and 

June 2007, 13 (81%) were detected at Prosser and 1 at Priest Rapids (6%). Two (12%) 

were not detected again above McNary. 

According to this very preliminary analysis, 80% of tagged fish passing Bonneville are 

known to have survived to above McNary and 20% died, strayed into other tributaries 

between Bonneville and McNary, or passed upstream or back downstream undetected. Of 

those PIT-tagged Yakima origin fish passing McNary, 81% passed Prosser into the 

Yakima Basin, 6% are known to have strayed into upstream areas, and 12% died, strayed 

into other tributaries to the McNary Pool, passed upstream undetected, or entered the 

Lower Yakima River but did not pass Prosser. Multiplying the 80% confirmed passage 

from Bonneville to McNary by the 81% confirmed passage from McNary to Prosser 

gives an estimated rate of confirmed passage from Bonneville to Prosser of 65%. 

A portion of the losses is attributable to harvest in tribal fisheries and incidental mortality 

in recreational fisheries in the Columbia River above Bonneville. NOAA Fisheries 

estimates that overall harvest rates of Middle Columbia steelhead in tribal fisheries 

average of 4.8% of the run (NMFS 2008, Sec. 6.3.7). Detection failure may account for 

 

21 Analysis based on data from the DART database http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/dart.html
 p. 42 

some, but not all, of the remaining loss between Bonneville and McNary. Of 57 fish 

detected at McNary in all return years, 4 had not been detected at Bonneville, a 7% 

detection failure. However, all of the 19 adults detected at Prosser since the first ladder 

went on line had been detected at McNary, indicating that detection rates at McNary are 

high. 

These preliminary survival estimates differ significantly from the estimate of 90% 

survival from Bonneville to tributaries commonly used. While the analysis presented here 

relies on a small and short-term dataset and should be considered preliminary at best, the 

results highlight the need for empirical population-specific estimates of survival rates for 

the upstream migration of both specific populations and the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS as a whole. 

Our only estimates of pre-spawning mortality of returning adults within the Yakima 

Basin come from radio-tracking studies. Of the 194 fish tracked by Hockersmith, 3.6% 

were confirmed to have died during migration and winter holding, 4% were harvested, 

and 9% were lost due to either harvest or failed transmitters prior to spawning 

(Hockersmith et al. 1995). Karp notes that 5 of 93 fish (5%) tagged at Roza in 2002-3 

were lost to anglers and 7 of 105 fish (7%) tagged at Roza in 2003-4 were presumed lost 

to anglers or otters (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005). Yakama Nation redd survey 

teams have also observed otter kills on Satus Creek. These studies support manager’s 

estimates of approximately 10% mortality between passage at Prosser and spawning. 

2.5.2 Spawning 

Distribution of Spawning 

Steelhead spawn across a broad seasonal and geographic range in the Yakima Basin, 

although based on intrinsic potential analysis and on planners’ professional judgments, 

the current spatial distribution is significantly decreased from historic conditions. 

Spawning locations include intermittent streams, mainstems, and side-channels of larger 

rivers, and perennial streams up to relatively steep gradients (Hockersmith et al. 1995; 

Pearsons et al. 1996). Most Yakima steelhead are tributary spawners, although the 

distribution of redds throughout the basin is highly variable from year to year and 

significant amounts of mainstem spawning are known to occur. 

Table 2.14 shows spawning locations identified in the Hockersmith radio-tracking study 

in the early 1990s. At that time 10 spawning areas (Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, 

Marion Drain, Naches River, the mainstem Yakima River below Roza Dam, the 

mainstem Yakima River in the Roza Canyon, Taneum Creek, Swauk Creek, the upper 

Yakima River [above Ellensburg], and the Teanaway River) were identified. 
 p. 43 

Table 2.14: Known spawning locations from 1990 to 1992 radio tracking 

Location Number Percent 

Satus Creek 

Satus Creek 30 28% 

Logy Creek 8 7% 

Dry Creek 11 10% 

Wilson-Charlie Creek 1 1% 

Total 50 46% 

Toppenish Creek 

Marion Drain 2 2% 

Toppenish Mainstem 12 11% 

Total 14 13% 

Naches 

Naches Mainstem 29 27% 

Little Naches 1 1% 

Bumping River 3 3% 

Rattlesnake Creek 1 1% 

Mainstem Yakima 5 5% 

Total 39 36% 

Upper Yakima 

Mainstem in Roza 

Canyon 3 3% 

Teanaway 2 2% 

Upper Yakima 

Mainstem 1 1% 

Total 6 6% 

TOTAL 109 100% 

Population-specific spawning location information comes from a variety of sources. For 

the Satus Creek watershed, the Yakama Nation has surveyed accessible reaches since 

1988. No surveys of mainstem spawning outside of the Satus Creek drainage have been 

conducted; there are anecdotal accounts of limited spawning in mainstem and lower 
 p. 44 

sections of Spring and Corral creeks and Amon Wasteway.22 For the Toppenish Creek 

Population, redd counts initiated in 1989 by the Yakama Nation give a detailed picture of 

spawning distribution. 

For the Naches Population, the Yakama Nation has conducted redd surveys in Ahtanum 

Creek since 2000. Since 2004, the USFS, WDFW, USFWS, the Yakama Nation, and 

others have worked together to survey portions of the Naches drainage (Table 2.15). This 

information has greatly improved our understanding of spawning distribution in the 

Naches basin, but inconsistent survey conditions due to high flows and poor visibilities 

(especially in 2006) limit their use in estimating abundance. No surveys have been 

conducted in the lower mainstem of the Naches and the associated reaches of the 

mainstem Yakima. Figure 2.5 shows surveyed redd locations for recent years. 

Table 2.15: Naches redd survey results 

2004 2005 2006* 2007 2008 2009

Little Naches River 27 70 4 16 Ns Ns 

Bumping River 2 16 11 Ns Ns Ns 

Nile Creek 33 20 2 13 8 20 

Rattlesnake Ck & Tribs 14 26 1 Ns Ns Ns 

Oak Creek 18 2 1 15 3 9 

American River Ns 4 0 Ns Ns Ns 

Cowiche Creek Ns 2 Ns Ns Ns Ns 

Total 94 138 19 44 11 29

*Poor survey conditions 

Our primary source of information on spawning locations for the Upper Yakima 

population comes from 2002 to 2006 radio-tracking surveys (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 

2005; Karp et al. 2009). Spawning locations are given in Table 2.16. The high proportion 

of mainstem spawners (87 of 183 spawners, or 48% for 2002-2004) is striking. The 

Teanaway system and Swauk Creek are the most consistently used tributary spawning 

areas.

 

22 Spring, Corral, and Snipes creeks and Amon Wasteway are referred to by the names used on 

the USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The first three are referred to as drainageways by local 

irrigation districts, while Amon Wasteway is often referred to as Amon Creek. The use of these 

names in this document is in no way meant to indicate any conclusions regarding ongoing 

disputes about the legal status of these waterways. 
 p. 45 

Table 2.16: Presumed spawning locations of steelhead tracked by Karp et al. (2009) 

Location of Presumed Spawning Number of Radio-tagged Steelhead 

Mainstem Yakima River1 133 (37.7%) 

Teanaway River 137 (38.8%) 

Swauk Creek 46 (13.0%) 

Taneum Creek 17 (4.8%) 

Cle Elum River 12 (3.4%) 

Lower Naches River, Umtanum, 

Cherry, Naneum, and Wilson creeks 8 (2.3%) 

 Total tributary 220 (62.3%) 

Total 353 

Timing of Spawning 

Based on radio tagging and redd surveys, most spawning is completed between late 

January and mid-May. Figure 2.10 shows spawning dates by tributary for the 86 

steelhead tracked to spawning in 1990-1992 (Hockersmith et al. 1995). In Satus Creek 

and its tributaries, the median spawning date was more than a month earlier than in any 

of the other tributaries, with spawning beginning in late January and predominantly 

occurring in February and March. In Toppenish Creek and the Naches spawning occurred 

mostly in March and April, while spawning in higher elevation tributaries occurred in late 

April and May. 

Fecundity 

Yakima steelhead have a relatively high fecundity in spite of their small size. Broodstock 

collected for species interaction experiments in brood years from 1986 to 1993 carried an 

average of 5,100 eggs (Fast and Berg 2001).23

 

23 A length/fecundity relationship of # eggs = 189.28 x Fork Length in cm—6449 was calculated based on 

data from broodstock collected from the 1988-89 return (Chris Fredrickson, Yakama Nation, personal 

communication). 
 p. 46 

Figure 2.10: Individual and median dates for spawning initiation 1990-1992 

1/1

3/1

3/31

4/30

5/30

 1/31 2/

 Satus Marion Toppenish Little Naches Bumping Rattlesnake North Fork

 Creek Drain Creek Naches River River Creek Teanaway

2.5.3 Role of Kelts 

Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and return to spawn again. During their 

return to the ocean they are called kelts. In spawning areas near the ocean, rates of repeat 

spawning can be as high as 79%. Natural rates of repeat spawning for Interior Columbia 

steelhead populations are unknown. Recent rates range include 17% for the Kalama 

River, 4.6% for the Hood River, 2-9% in the Walla Walla, and 1.5% in the Upper 

Columbia River (Branstetter et al. 2005). Natural repeat spawning by Yakima Basin 

steelhead is extremely limited; scale analysis in 1990-1992 indicated that 1.6% of 

returning adults were repeat spawners in the 1990-1992 brood years (Hockersmith et al. 

1995). It is hypothesized that the development of the mainstem Columbia hydropower 

system and the associated passage impediments, reduced spring flows, and increased 

temperatures have reduced kelt survival rates. 

Kelts typically migrate downstream from spawning areas in March through June. Kelts 

have been observed at the Chandler Juvenile Enumeration Facility (RM 47.1) into the 

middle of July, but water temperature approaches lethal levels by that time even in 

normal water years. Temperatures do not return to safe levels until early autumn (Fast 

and Berg 2001). Out-migration of kelts from the upper basin may be especially hazardous 

because later spawning dates combine with increased travel distance as the Yakima and 

Columbia rivers warm and their flow declines. 

To increase the contribution of repeat spawners to steelhead productivity in the basin, the 

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project initiated kelt reconditioning experiments in 2000 with 

funding from BPA. Post-spawning steelhead are captured as they pass through the 

Chandler Juvenile Facility at Prosser Dam on their downstream migration. From 2000 to 

2006, between 15 and 37% of the upstream adult count were captured (the remaining fish 
 p. 47 

either pass over Prosser Dam or it ladders without entering the juvenile facility or do not 

migrate downstream) (Table 2.17). Over 90% of collected kelts are female. 

Table 2.17: Numbers of kelts24

Year Collected % of 

run 

Inriver Noterm Reconditioned Shortterm Longterm Mortalities

2000 512 37% 0 0 512 0 91 421 

2001 551 19% 0 0 551 0 108 443 

2002 1113 25% 0 0 899 334 140 425 

2003 826 37% 0 0 690 187 298 205 

2004 966 35% 0 64 779 83 216 480 

2005 808 23% 67 96 541 96 65 380 

2006 520 26% 53 49 348 50 85 213 

2007 567 37% 53 38 465 38 221 206 

2008 855 26% 88 100 600 100 266 234 

Captured kelts are put into one of four groups: in-river, no-term, short-term, and longterm. In-river kelts are tagged and returned directly to the Yakima River to continue their 

downstream voyage. This treatment was established in 2005 to develop better estimates 

of current rates of natural repeat spawning (Branstetter et al. 2005). No-term kelts are 

tagged and immediately transported to release sites below Bonneville Dam. Short-term 

kelts are held and fed in the hatchery for three to five weeks prior to being released below 

Bonneville, while long-term kelts are held and fed for six to nine months prior to being 

released in the lower Yakima River prior to the next spawning season. 

The program is currently the only hatchery program for Yakima steelhead stocks. It is 

estimated to have increased the number of spawning steelhead in the Yakima Basin by 

7% (David Lind, Yakama Nation, personal communication, 2008.). The basin’s most 

famous kelt was captured and PIT-tagged as an adult headed above Roza Dam in 2002, 

then recaptured in 2003 and radio tracked to spawning in Swauk Creek. She then traveled 

downstream to Chandler where she was reconditioned, and after release, was tracked 

back to the same reach of Swauk Creek (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005). That is over 

1,500 miles of in-river migration by a single fish! 

Efforts to evaluate the reproductive success of reconditioned kelts began in 2004 

(Branstetter et al. 2005). The effects of the kelt reconditioning program on the steelhead 

populations’ genetic and life history diversity are unknown, but thought to be minor due 

to the natural origin of the fish themselves and the volitional release strategy that allows 

the reconditioned kelts to naturally select spawning sites. This issue is being investigated 

using genetic sampling and radio tracking of reconditioned adults. 

2.5.4 Incubation and Emergence 

Unlike other species in the Oncorhynchus genus, steelhead eggs incubate as temperatures 

increase. Hatching time varies with water temperature, region, habitat, and season 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). The timing of steelhead fry emergence in the Yakima Basin is 

poorly understood. Field studies indicate that 50% of steelhead trout in a redd will have 

 

24 Based on annual reports from BPA Project # 200001700 (Branstetter et al. 2005) 
 p. 48 

emerged when roughly 1,300 cumulative temperature units have been acquired. 25 Based 

on this relationship, fry emergence would occurs as follows (Yakima Subbasin Fish and 

Wildlife Planning Board 2005): 

• Satus Creek: early May to early June 

• Toppenish Creek: late May through early July 

• Lower Naches and Cowiche: early June through mid-July 

• Upper Naches: mid June through mid-July 

• Upper Naches tributaries: late June through late July 

• Middle Yakima and tributaries: early June through early July 

• Mainstem in Yakima Canyon (including tributaries): early June through early July 

• Upper Yakima mainstem above the Yakima Canyon: mid June through late July 

• Upper Yakima tributaries: late June through early August 

2.5.5 Juvenile Rearing 

Juvenile steelhead spend from one to three years in fresh water before migrating to the 

Pacific Ocean. Juveniles use tributary and mainstem reaches throughout the Yakima 

Basin as rearing habitat, until they begin to smolt and leave the basin. Some juveniles 

leave their natal areas and may spend considerable time from fall to spring rearing in 

areas that may have been inhospitable in the summer. 

Juvenile rearing conditions significantly affect the size and condition of outmigrating 

smolts. For example, Yakama Nation smolt trap data indicate that steelhead from 

Ahtanum Creek were substantially larger than those in Satus and Toppenish creeks in 

each age class in both seasons sampled. This higher growth rate may be related to lower 

rearing density and more favorable discharge and temperature for growth in late summer. 

Data from Toppenish Creek smolt traps demonstrate the value of seasonal rearing habitat. 

Five juveniles that were tagged prior to March 1 in a section of Toppenish Creek not 

hospitable to summer rearing were recaptured an average of 85 days later only 28 km 

downstream, and had tripled their average weight, indicating the potential significance of 

lower Toppenish Creek for pre-smolt rearing, despite substrate too fine for spawning and 

water temperatures that preclude summer use. 

Cramer et al. (2003; 2004) have used stock-recruit relationships to argue that Yakima 

Basin steelhead production is limited by juvenile capacity, assuming habitat capacity 

above Roza Dam is naturally predisposed to produce resident O. mykiss. (See below.) 

 

25 Cumulative temperature units are calculated by summing the daily average degrees Celsius 

over the number of days from spawning to emergence. 
 p. 49 

2.5.6 Resident/Anadromous Interactions 

Offspring of steelhead can residualize in tributaries and never migrate to sea, thereby 

becoming resident rainbow trout. Conversely, progeny of resident rainbow trout can 

migrate to the sea and thereby become steelhead. This dynamic expression of life-history 

characteristic makes O. mykiss very challenging to understand and manage. For an 

overview of the current understanding of the range of interactions between resident and 

anadromous O. mykiss, see Chapter 2 of WDFW’s recent draft assessment of steelhead 

status (Scott and Gill 2006) and NOAA Fisheries’ Salmon Recovery Science Review 

Panel Report on the topic (Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel 2004). Generally, the 

anadromous form of O. mykiss dominates the Satus and Toppenish populations, while the 

resident form currently dominates the Upper Yakima. In the Naches population, both 

anadromous and resident forms are geographically widespread. 

Steelhead/resident pairing during spawning has not been noted at any significant levels 

during Satus and Toppenish Creek redd surveys (Tim Resseguie, Yakama Nation 

Fisheries, personal communication, 2007) but has been observed repeatedly during redd 

surveys in the Naches drainage (Gary Torretta, USFS, personal communication, 2007). 

Pearsons et al. (1998) concluded that ecological and genetic evidence indicated that 

rainbow and steelhead trout in the upper Yakima interbreed when in sympatry, and 

document several cases of observed resident/steelhead matings. However during 2004 

radio tracking in the Upper Yakima, no resident/anadromous pairs were observed; all 15 

observed pairings were between male and female steelhead, and occurred in tributaries 

(Teanaway, Taneum, and Swauk creeks) (Karp et al. 2005). 

Cramer et al. (2003; 2004) assert that the Upper Yakima and portions of the Naches 

drainage would naturally primarily support the resident form of O. mykiss. Many others 

have asserted that the Upper Yakima would once have been a major producer of 

anadromous steelhead, and that changes in habitat conditions and introduction of nonnative hatchery rainbow trout have greatly reduced the expression of anadromy. Factors 

hypothesized to contribute to this shift include: 

• Reduction in survival rates for outmigrating smolts and returning adults 

associated with changed flow, predation, and passage conditions in the mainstem 

Yakima and Columbia that reduces the fitness of the anadromous life history 

relative to residents 

• Reduction in temperatures and increases in flow in mainstem habitat reaches 

associated with irrigation delivery flows increasing the relative benefits of 

residency 

• Loss of access to tributary habitat with conditions that promote anadromy 

• Reduction of mainstem habitat quality for year-0 juveniles due to simplified 

channels, high summer velocities associated with irrigation delivery flows and 

rapid changes in flows associated with flip-flop 

• Possible introgression of genes from non-anadromous hatchery trout and 

steelhead introductions 
 p. 50 

Genetic analysis indicates that in specific Upper Yakima tributaries, the anadromous and 

resident forms of O. mykiss are genetically more similar to each other than to the same 

life history in other tributaries, while the trout population in the mainstem is both 

genetically distinct from tributary O. mykiss and shows signs of introgression from 

hatchery stocks (Pearsons et al. 2007). 

Based on the goal built into NOAA Fisheries’ policy of conserving the anadromous 

component of O. mykiss as a Distinct Population Segment, interactions between resident 

and anadromous O. mykiss can have both positive and negative outcomes. The ICTRT 

viability framework identifies a significant shift by a predominantly anadromous 

population to increased residency as a factor that increases the extinction risk of the 

anadromous portion of the population. 

The ability of resident males to successfully breed with anadromous females and produce 

anadromous offspring can significantly increase the effective population size of the 

anadromous population, especially when spawner abundance is low, and can increase the 

resilience and persistence of the population. 

The ability of resident-resident pairings to produce anadromous offspring can also allow 

for re-establishment of an anadromous run in the absence of anadromous spawners. 

While this is known to occur, and may be an important survival mechanism for 

temporarily isolated populations, the persistence of this trait after many generations 

without anadromous returns contributing to the gene pool is unknown (Salmon Recovery 

Science Review Panel 2004; Scott and Gill 2006). Thrower (2004) found, however, that a 

resident population continued to produce smolts despite 70 years of isolation from 

anadromous adults. Thrower’s results indicate that the correlation between smoltification 

and other traits associated with fitness in the freshwater environment provide a 

mechanism to explain how a low level of smoltification could persist despite the loss of 

all smolts from the isolated population. However, this example is only 70 years old, 

which is fairly short from an evolutionary perspective. If the ability is retained, it is likely 

that interim absence of selection for traits favorable to anadromy may result in loss of 

these traits (Thrower 2004). 

The impacts of competitive interactions between larger resident individuals and juvenile 

anadromous O. mykiss may also reduce the production of smolts, especially where habitat 

conditions have shifted to promote residency. 

The nature of the relationship between resident and anadromous forms is inherently 

complex. Setting realistic goals for steelhead production in different parts of the Upper 

Yakima and Naches systems will require an improved understanding of the range of 

interactions between resident and anadromous life histories. This is identified as a key 

knowledge gap in Chapter 7. 

2.5.7 Smolt Outmigration 

Age and Size at Outmigration 

Steelhead smolt ages at Prosser Dam are shown in Figure 2.11 below, which is derived 

from more than 9,000 age determinations from 1988 through 2004. Overall, 39% of the 
 p. 51 

sample was age one, 58% was age two and 3% was age three. The percentage of age one 

steelhead smolts passing Prosser Dam (Fig. 2.1) is unusually high for an interior 

population (Peven et al. 1994). The age distribution of outmigrating smolts differs from 

the freshwater age distribution of returning adults (15% age one, 75% age two and 10% 

age three (calculated from Figure 2.11 and excluding repeat spawners), indicating 

significantly better survival from smolt to returning adult for older smolts. (Some of the 

difference could also be explained by smolts spending another winter in freshwater below 

Prosser Dam; however, this is not a known life history for Yakima Basin steelhead.) 

Figure 2.11: Steelhead smolt ages at Prosser Dam 

Very little data exist to estimate age at outmigration for specific populations. Based on 

scale samples from juvenile steelhead trapped by the Yakama Nation in Satus, 

Toppenish, and Ahtanum creeks during the 2001-02 and 2003-04 out-migration seasons, 

age one smolts appeared to be more prevalent than age two in Satus and Toppenish 

creeks, and age three smolts were uncommon in all three creeks. Table 2.18 shows the 

average size by smolt age for outgoing smolts sampled at the Chandler juvenile facility at 

Prosser. 
 p. 52 

Table 2.18: Size in millimeters for outmigrating smolts at Prosser by age class 

Year 1 2 3 4 

1988 147 187 210 

1989 155 189 217 

1990 133 179 220 

1991 148 179 210 300 

1992 160 190 232 

1993 137 183 216 

1994 127 170 235 

1995 151 179 209 

1996 136 181 226 

1997 152 189 208 

1998 131 173 

1999 137 178 247 

2000 162 183 255 

2001 174 198 

2003 132 194 243 

2004 136 186 195 

2005 179 195 206 

2006 139 204 

2007 160 202 236 

Average 147 186 223 

Abundance of Outmigrants 

Prosser Dam is located downstream of almost all steelhead spawning areas in the Yakima 

Basin. A juvenile fish counting facility is built into the fish screen bypass system, 

enabling both PIT tag detections and manual counts of entrained fish. Steelhead markand-recapture studies have not been conducted at Prosser Dam since before the June 23, 

1999 listing of Middle Columbia River steelhead. Instead, steelhead passage is estimated 

by applying entrainment, canal mortality, and sampling rate coefficients established for 

spring Chinook to manual counts of steelhead at the Prosser Juvenile Facility. The degree 

of bias introduced by this substitution is not known, but may be significant. For this 

reason, annual steelhead smolt counts are not considered reliable enough for year-to-year 

comparisons of the number of outmigrants. Estimates of the number of steelhead smolts 

passing Prosser Dam have ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 smolts between 1999 and 

2005 (2006 counts were hampered by high flows). 

Timing of Outmigration 

As noted in Section 2.5.4, some juveniles leave their natal areas and may spend 

considerable amounts in the fall through spring rearing in areas that may have been 

inhospitable in the summer. Others move fairly rapidly from their initial rearing areas 

towards the Columbia. Juvenile outmigration through the lower Yakima River and past 

Prosser Dam begins in November and peaks between mid-April and May. The timing of 
 p. 53 

the overall steelhead outmigration at McNary and Bonneville dams parallels the timing at 

Prosser, and runs from early April through the end of June. Steelhead smolts have been 

observed passing Prosser into the middle of July, but the Lower Yakima has warmed to 

lethal temperatures by that time even in normal water years and typically does not cool 

again to safe levels until early autumn (Fast and Berg 2001). Little information is 

currently available to determine if the timing of outmigration differs by population. 

Steelhead tagged in Satus Creek in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 seasons arrived earlier at 

Prosser Dam than smolts tagged in Toppenish Creek or Ahtanum Creek (Table 2.19). 

Table 2.19: Steelhead travel times from tributary tagging locations to Prosser Dam 

Release Year Trap Location 

Mean Dates 

Release Prosser 

2003-04 Toppenish 2/10/04 4/24/04 

2003-04 Ahtanum 4/8/04 5/8/04 

2003-04 Satus 3/25/04 4/20/04 

2004-05 Toppenish 3/12/05 4/25/05 

2004-05 Ahtanum 3/25/05 5/5/05 

2004-05 Satus 2/27/05 4/7/05 

Survival Rates for Outmigrants 

A series of PIT tag groups used for entrainment rate studies at Prosser Dam in the 

relatively high-flow year of 1999 were used to estimate juvenile steelhead survival rate of 

0.798 to McNary Dam by Williams et al. (2005). Subsequent years’ survival estimates to 

McNary Dam by the authors were lower, (0.314 in 2002 and 0.394 in 2003), and were 

likely derived from the 2001-02 and 2002-03 Toppenish Creek releases described below, 

thus having a point of origin well upstream from Prosser Dam. 

The Yakama Nation operates screw traps in Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum creeks, but 

widely fluctuating flows and heavy debris loads during the out-migration period hamper 

passage estimation at these locations. Toppenish Creek steelhead have been PIT tagged 

since the 2001-02 out-migration season, giving an opportunity to estimate downstream 

survival and return rates of tag groups. PIT tagging at the Ahtanum and Satus creek traps 

began in the 2003-04 season. 

Downstream survival rate of PIT-tagged juvenile steelhead to Prosser Dam can be 

estimated by dividing Prosser detections by Prosser entrainment rate on the date of each 

detection (using the aforementioned diversion-entrainment relationship) and also by 

using PIT tag detections at the McNary Dam juvenile bypass to calculate the Prosser 

entrainment rate. Table 2.20 shows tagging data and estimated survival rates. Calculated 

survival rates from tributaries to Prosser range from 14% to 74%. 

Table 2.20 supports the hypothesis that steelhead smolt survival rate to Prosser is related 

to travel distance. Fish from the Satus Creek trap, which is closest to Prosser Dam, 

survived best, while estimated survival rates from the Toppenish and Ahtanum creek 

traps were both lower, and much lower from Toppenish Creek in the drought year of 

2005. Within Toppenish Creek, survival rates were lower for upstream releases, 

especially in the 2001-02 outmigration period. There is a strong tendency for later out-
 p. 54 

migrants to travel faster downriver. Better understanding of the relationship between 

flows, habitat conditions, and outmigration timing and survival is identified as a key 

knowledge gap in Chapter 7. 

Table 2.20: Survival rates of steelhead smolts from selected tributaries 

Begin End

Number 

Tagged

Survival 

Rate

Standard 

Error, +/- Age 1 Age 2 Age 1 Age 2 Total Age 1 Age 2 Total

2002 Toppenish 247 12/5/01 5/22/09 955 29 7 9 2 0.94 0.21 1.15 3.29 0.73 4.02

2002 Toppenish 219 2/21/02 5/24/02 292 58 22 9 2 3.08 0.68 3.77 5.29 1.18 6.47

2003 Toppenish 247 11/12/02 3/3/03 575 40 11 11 2 1.91 0.35 2.26 4.78 0.87 5.65

2003 Toppenish 219 3/30/03 5/19/03 196 28 8 4 1 2.04 0.51 2.55 7.38 1.85 9.23

2004 Toppenish 247 12/10/03 5/5/04 467 28 11 3 0 0.64 0.00 0.64 2.33 0.00 2.33

2004 Toppenish 219 12/24/03 5/2/04 671 20 6 4 1 0.60 0.15 0.75 2.95 0.74 3.68

2004 Ahtanum 246 1/16/04 5/5/04 247 43 26 1 0 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.95 0.00 0.95

2004 Satus 183 1/13/04 5/5/04 61 47 25 1 0 1.64 0.00 1.64 3.51 0.00 3.51

2005 Toppenish 247 12/13/04 5/26/05 1420 14 6 9 2 0.63 0.14 0.77 4.69 1.04 5.73

2005 Ahtanum 246 12/14/04 5/21/05 386 10 3 0 1 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 2.60 2.60

2005 Satus 183 12/17/04 4/24/05 160 20 8 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 Toppenish 247 12/24/05 5/30/06 685 30 5 9 0 1.31 0.00 1.31 4.40 0.00 4.40

2006 Ahtanum 246 1/13/06 6/6/06 95 48 19 1 0 1.05 0.00 1.05 2.18 0.00 2.18

2006 Satus 183 12/27/05 5/25/06 176 68 14 2 1 1.14 0.57 1.70 1.66 0.83 2.49

1

Calculated by PitPro 4 (PitTag Processor), Columbia Basin Research, University of Washington

2

McNary smolts estimated from total releases multiplied by survival rate estimates to McNary

3

released from two locations on Snake Creek, a lower Toppenish Creek distributary

Tributary Smolt To 

McNary Adult

McNary Smolt to 

McNary Adult2

Adult Return Rate (%)

Outmigration 

Season Stream

Km To 

McNary 

Dam

Tagging Dates

Juvenile Survival

Rate to McNary (%)1

Adult Returns 

to McNary

2.5.8 Ocean Residence 

Yakima Basin steelhead typically spend between one and three years in the ocean before 

returning to natal streams to spawn, as detailed in the discussion of age structures in 

Section 2.5.1.2. Variability in estuary and ocean conditions is a major driver of year-toyear survival and growth of adult steelhead. Variation occurs because of changing 

climatic conditions, fisheries impacts (presumed minimal for the Middle Columbia 

Steelhead DPS), possible density-dependant competitive interactions with other salmon 

species and hatchery fish, and variability of prey and predator abundance. NOAA 

Fisheries’ Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan will address ocean and estuary 

effects on the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS as a whole. The only specific data 

about ocean survival rates of Yakima Basin steelhead comes from analysis of return rates 

of PIT-tagged smolts detected during their downstream and subsequent upstream 

migrations. Preliminary estimates show McNary smolt to McNary adult return rates of 

2.5% to 6.3%; general experience with PIT tag returns shows that they typically 

underestimate smolt to adult survival rates for the untagged portion of the run (FPC (Fish 

Passage Center) and Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee 2006). Future 

efforts to assess the impacts of size, age, and condition of outmigrating smolts on ocean 

survival rates will help guide efforts to manage conditions within the Yakima Basin in a 

manner that improves ocean survival of outgoing smolts. 

2.6 Viability Assessments for Yakima Basin Steelhead 

Several efforts have been made to assess the current status of steelhead in both the 

Yakima Basin and the Middle Columbia DPS as a whole. At the time of the initial listing 

under the ESA in 1999 (64FR14517 and Busby (1996)), habitat degradation, low 
 p. 55 

abundance, declining productivity, and the threat of hatchery practices to genetics of 

native stocks were identified as the primary factors justifying listing. 

Cramer et al. (2003; 2004) have emphasized that Yakima Basin steelhead are minimally 

affected by intermixing with hatchery spawners, that abundance and productivity trends 

improved significantly between the mid-1990s and 2004, and that steelhead production 

from parts of the basin may be limited by conditions that promote residency. They assert 

that steelhead are fully seeding currently available habitat and that the availability of 

rearing habitat is limits production. They do not address the degree to which 

improvements in existing habitat and increased access to currently inaccessible habitat 

could increase juvenile habitat capacity nor do they address how improvements in 

survival rates in migratory life stages (smolt and adult) could change the adult abundance 

supported by a given smolt production capacity. 

This plan incorporates the viability assessments developed by the ICTRT in 2004 through 

2007 based on the Viable Salmonid Population conceptual framework (McElhany et al. 

2000). The ICTRT Stock Status Assessments for the Yakima Basin (ICTRT In press) 

were prepared in accordance with ICTRT guidelines (ICTRT 2004a; 2004b; 2005a; 

2005b; 2007b). Supporting data were drawn from multiple sources, including previous 

drafts of this recovery plan. These analyses are based on the best information available. 

While this information is at times limited, the stock status assessments represent a solid 

effort to utilize existing data to evaluate viability. As noted in Chapter 7, these 

assessments should be updated as our ability to determine population-specific VSP 

parameter improves. 

Table 2.21 shows the results of the ICTRT analysis: the Satus and Toppenish populations 

were each assigned an abundance/productivity risk of moderate and a Spatial 

Structure/Diversity risk of moderate. The Naches population was assigned a high 

abundance/productivity risk and a Spatial Structure/Diversity risk of moderate. The 

Upper Yakima was ranked high for both risk classes. The rest of this section reviews the 

ICTRT’s basis for these assignments. 
 p. 56 

Table 2.21: ICTRT risk ratings for Yakima steelhead populations 

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 

Satus/ 

Toppenish 

High 

(>25%)

Naches Upper 

Yakima 

Viability Key: HV = Highly Viable; V = Viable; M = Not Viable, Candidate for Maintained Status 

2.6.1 Satus Creek 

Abundance and Productivity 

The ICTRT classified the Satus Creek steelhead population as “Intermediate” in size 

based on historical habitat potential analysis (ICTRT 2007). This classification requires a 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 wild spawners with sufficient productivity 

(greater than 1.35 returns per spawner at the abundance threshold) to avoid a 5% 

extinction risk on the ICTRT’s viability curve. With a 10-year (1996-2005) geomean 

abundance of 379 and a delimited/adjusted productivity value of 1.40 returns per 

spawner, the Satus Creek steelhead population is deemed to be at moderate risk of 

extinction, i.e., between the 5% and 25% risk lines for an intermediate-size population 

(Figure 2.12). 
 p. 57 

Figure 2.12: Satus abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Curve is for an intermediate-sized population. The point estimate includes a 1 standard error ellipse and 

95% confidence intervals (1.81 x SE for both productivity and abundance estimates). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Both MSAs and the MiSA in the Satus Creek drainage are rated as occupied.26 Table 

2.22 summarizes spatial structure and diversity risk assessment scores. The ICTRT 

placed the Satus Creek steelhead population at low risk for Goal A, which covers spatial 

structure factors, and moderate risk for Goal B, which covers genetic and phenotypic 

diversity. The three metrics contributing to the risk rating under Goal B were phenotypic 

variation due to constraints on migration timing, distribution across habitat types because 

of habitat loss in lower Satus Creek, and selective impacts related to migration timing 

constraints. Using the lower score for the two goals gives the population an overall 

spatial structure and diversity risk rating of moderate. 

According to the ICTRT the population status relative to Goal B could be improved by 

addressing B.1.b (phenotypic variation). The first step in addressing this component 

should be a more detailed evaluation of spawning and rearing timing. That assessment 

should be designed to evaluate the relative change in phenotypic characteristics for the 

population and the factors driving the shifts. If further analysis confirms a significant 

shift in phenotypic characteristics relative to the assumed historical condition or with 

unaltered reference populations in a similar habitat, geologic, and hydrologic setting, 

restoration actions should be initiated. Based on this scoring system, this metric must be 

addressed in order for the status of goal B to improve to low risk. 

 

26 See Section 4.2.3 for the ICTRT definition of “occupancy.” 
 p. 58 

Table 2.22: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Satus population 

Metric 

Risk Assessment Scores 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a Number and spatial 

arrangement of spawning 

areas 

L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 

0.66) 

Low Risk 

Moderate Risk 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or 

range of population L (1) L (1) 

A.1.c. Increase or 

decrease in gaps or 

continuities between 

spawning areas 

M (0) M (0) 

B.1.a. Major life history 

strategies L (1) L (1) 

Moderate 

Risk 

Moderate 

Risk 

B.1.b. Phenotypic 

variation M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c. Genetic variation VL (2) VL (2) 

B.2.a. (1) Out-of-DPS 

spawners L (1) 

Low 

Risk Low Risk 

B.2.a. (2) Out-of-MPG 

spawners L (1) 

B.2.a. (3) Out-ofPopulation spawners VL (2) 

B.2.a. (4) Withinpopulation hatchery 

spawners 

L (1) 

B.3.a. Distribution of 

population across habitat 

types 

M (0) M (0) M (0) 

B.4.a. Selective change 

in natural processes or 

selective impacts 

M (0) M (0) M (0) 

Overall, the Satus Creek steelhead population is not considered viable under the ICTRT 

guidelines—both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity elements indicate 
 p. 59 

moderate risk. To achieve viable status, the Satus Creek population must exceed the 

minimum threshold escapement of 1,000. To achieve very low risk status (high viability) 

the improvement in abundance would need to be accompanied by an increase in 

productivity and the changes in spatial structure and diversity described above.

2.6.2 Toppenish Population 

Abundance and Productivity 

The ICTRT classified the Toppenish Creek steelhead population as “Basic” in size based 

on historical habitat potential analysis (ICTRT 2007). This classification requires a 

minimum abundance threshold of 500 wild spawners with sufficient productivity (greater 

than 1.56 returns per spawner) to avoid a 5% extinction risk on the ICTRT’s viability 

curve. With a 10-year (1996-2005) geomean abundance of 322 and a delimited/adjusted 

productivity value of 1.60 returns per spawner, the Toppenish Creek steelhead population 

is deemed to be at moderate risk of extinction, i.e., between the 5% and 25% risk lines for 

a basic-size population (Figure 2.13). 

Figure 2.13: Toppenish abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve 

0

500

1000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean ab

1500

2000

undance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Curve is for a basic-sized population. The point estimate includes a one standard error 

ellipse and 95% confidence intervals (1.81 x SE for both parameters). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT classifies both MSAs as occupied. Table 2.23 summarizes spatial structure 

and diversity risk assessment scores. The ICTRT placed the Toppenish Creek steelhead 

population at low risk for Goal A, which covers spatial structure factors and moderate 

risk for Goal B, which covers genetic and phenotypic diversity. Using the lower score for 

the two goals gives the population an overall spatial structure and diversity risk rating of 

moderate. 
 p. 60 

Table 2.23: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Toppenish population 

Metric 

Risk Assessment Scores 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a Number and 

spatial arrangement 

of spawning areas 

L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

Mean = 0.66 

Low 

Risk 

A.l.b. Spatial 

extent or range of 

population 

M (0) M (0) 

A.1.c. Increase or 

decrease in gaps or 

continuities 

between spawning 

areas 

L (1) L (1) 

B.1.a. Major life 

history strategies M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk 

Moderat

e Risk 

B.1.b. Phenotypic 

variation M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c. Genetic 

variation M (0) M (0) 

B.2.a. (1) Out-ofDPS spawners L (1) 

Low Risk 

(1) Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a. (2) Out-ofMPG spawners L (1) 

B.2.a. (3) Out-ofPopulation 

spawners 

VL (2) 

B.2.a. (4) Withinpopulation 

hatchery spawners 

L (1) 

B.3.a. Distribution 

of population 

across habitat types 

L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a. Selective 

change in natural 

processes or 

selective impacts 

M (0) M (0) M (0) 
 p. 61 

Since listing of the DPS in 1999, problems with adult passage, juvenile entrainment, and 

instream flow have been addressed in part through several restoration projects and flow 

regulation in the agricultural portion of the Toppenish Creek watershed. However, 

seepage losses (which may be partly of human origin) combine in dry years with 

agricultural diversions to restrict passage to and from the most important spawning and 

rearing areas. Summer rearing is also precluded in lower Toppenish and Simcoe creeks. 

Eggs and fry in Marion and Harrah drains, a new spawning area, are unlikely to survive 

due to poor habitat and to irrigation spills during the emergence period. This ostensible 

increase in range may actually increase extinction risk, hence the moderate risk rating 

under the spatial extent metric. 

Under Goal B, risk is elevated with respect to life history strategies given rearing 

conditions in the lower creek, phenotypic variation because of constraints on adult 

migration timing, and in genetic variation due to low levels of heterozygosity that may be 

related to earlier passage bottlenecks. Migration timing constraints and loss of rearing 

habitat in the lower creek result in moderate risk with respect to the selective impacts 

metric. 

According to the ICTRT, at least two major components of the spatial structure/diversity 

criteria must be addressed to move this population to a low risk rating. Expansion of the 

current range into historically utilized rearing areas in the lower reaches of Toppenish 

Creek would increase the range of life history patterns towards historical levels. The 

status relative to goal B could be improved by addressing B.1.b (phenotypic variation). 

The first step in addressing this component should be a more detailed evaluation of 

spawning and rearing timing. That assessment should be designed to evaluate the relative 

change in phenotypic characteristics for the population and the factors driving the shifts. 

If further analysis confirms a significant shift in phenotypic characteristics relative to the 

assumed historical condition or with unaltered reference populations in a similar habitat, 

geologic, and hydrologic setting, restorations actions should be initiated. Based on the 

ICTRT scoring system, this metric must be addressed in order for the status of goal B to 

improve to low risk. 

Overall, the Toppenish Creek steelhead population is not considered viable under the 

ICTRT guidelines—both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity elements 

indicate moderate risk. To achieve viable status, the abundance of the population must be 

increased sufficiently to maintain the population above the minimum threshold 

escapement of 500 spawners. To achieve very low risk status (high viability) those 

improvements in abundance would need to be accompanied by the changes in spatial 

structure and diversity described above. 

2.6.3 Naches Population 

Abundance and Productivity 

The ICTRT classified the Naches River steelhead population as “Large” in size based on 

historical habitat potential analysis (ICTRT 2007). This classification requires a 

minimum abundance threshold of 1500 wild spawners with sufficient productivity 

(greater than 1.26 returns per spawner at the abundance threshold) to avoid a 5% 
 p. 62 

extinction risk on the ICTRT’s viability curve. With a 10-year (1996 to 2005) geomean 

abundance of 472 and a delimited/adjusted productivity value of 1.12 returns per 

spawner, the Naches River steelhead population is deemed to be at high risk of 

extinction, i.e., below the 25% risk line for a large-size population (Figure 2.14). 

Figure 2.14: Naches abundance & productivity compared to the viability curve 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Curve is for a large-sized population. The point estimate includes a 1 standard error ellipse and 95% 

confidence intervals (1.81 x SE for both productivity and abundance estimates). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT classified seven of eight MSAs in the Naches Population area as occupied 

(the Cowiche MSA was rated as unoccupied). Table 2.24 summarizes spatial structure 

and diversity risk assessment scores. The ICTRT placed the Naches River steelhead 

population at low risk for Goal A, which covers spatial structure factors, and moderate 

risk for Goal B, which covers genetic and phenotypic diversity. Using the lower score for 

the two goals gives the population an overall spatial structure and diversity risk rating of 

moderate. 
 p. 63 

Table 2.24: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for the Naches population 

Metric 

Risk Assessment Scores 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a Number and 

spatial arrangement 

of spawning areas 

VL (2) L (2) 

Low Risk 

Mean = 1.33 

A.l.b. Spatial extent 

or range of 

population 

L (1) L (1) 

A.1.c. Increase or 

decrease in gaps or 

continuities between 

spawning areas 

L (1) L (1) 

B.1.a. Major life 

history strategies M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk B.1.b. Phenotypic 

variation M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c. Genetic 

variation L (1) L (1) 

B.2.a. (1) Out-ofDPS spawners L (1) 

Low Risk 

(1) Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a. (2) Out-ofMPG spawners L (1) 

B.2.a. (3) Out-ofPopulation spawners VL (2) 

B.2.a. (4) Withinpopulation hatchery 

spawners 

L (1) 

B.3.a. Distribution 

of population across 

habitat types 

L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a. Selective 

change in natural 

processes or 

selective impacts 

H (-1) H (-1) H (-1) 
 p. 64 

Under Goal B, risk is elevated with respect to life history strategies and phenotypic 

variation, because of flow regulation, including the “flip-flop” water management 

strategy, affecting rearing conditions in the main stem below the Tieton River. Migration 

timing constraints in the lower Naches and the lower Yakima, and the aforementioned 

loss of rearing habitat in the lower Naches, both hamper mainstem rearing strategies and 

result in high risk with respect to the selective impacts metric. 

The status relative to goal B could be improved by addressing phenotypic variation, 

beginning with a more detailed evaluation of spawning and rearing timing to evaluate the 

relative change in phenotypic characteristics for the population and the factors driving the 

shifts. If further analysis confirms a significant shift in phenotypic characteristics relative 

to the assumed historical condition or with comparable unaltered reference populations, 

restoration actions should be initiated. The status rating could also be improved by 

evaluating detrimental selective impacts of activities affecting within-basin passage, and 

reducing those impacts if warranted. Based on the ICTRT scoring system, this metric 

must be addressed in order for the status of goal B to improve to low risk. 

Overall, the Naches River steelhead population is not considered viable under the ICTRT 

guidelines—both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity elements indicate 

moderate risk. To achieve viable status, the abundance of the population must be 

increased sufficiently to maintain the population above the minimum threshold 

escapement of 1500 spawners. To achieve very low risk status (high viability) those 

improvements in abundance would need to be accompanied by the changes in spatial 

structure and diversity described above. 

2.6.4 Upper Yakima Population 

Abundance and Productivity 

The ICTRT classified the Upper Yakima River steelhead population as “Large” in size 

based on historical habitat potential analysis (ICTRT 2007). This classification requires a 

minimum abundance threshold of 1500 wild spawners with sufficient productivity 

(greater than 1.26 returns per spawner at the abundance threshold) to avoid a 5% 

extinction risk on the ICTRT’s viability curve. With a 10-year (1996 to 2005) geomean 

abundance of 85 and a delimited/adjusted productivity value of 1.12 returns per spawner, 

the Upper Yakima River steelhead population is deemed to be at high risk of extinction, 

i.e., below the 25% risk line for a large-size population (Figure 2.15). 
 p. 65 

Figure 2.15: Upper Yakima abundance & productivity compared to viability curve 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Curve is for a large-sized population. The point estimate includes a 1 standard error ellipse and 95% 

confidence intervals (1.81 x SE for both productivity and abundance estimates). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Table 2.25 summarizes spatial structure and diversity risk assessment scores. The ICTRT 

placed the Upper Yakima River steelhead population at moderate risk for Goal A, which 

covers spatial structure factors, and high risk for Goal B, which covers genetic and 

phenotypic diversity. Using the lower score for the two goals gives the population an 

overall spatial structure and diversity risk rating of high. 
 p. 66 

Table 2.25: ICTRT spatial structure & diversity ratings for Upper Yakima population 

Metric 

Risk Assessment Scores 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population

A.1.a Number and spatial 

arrangement of spawning 

areas 

L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk

(Mean = 0) 

 Moderate Risk 

 High Risk 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or 

range of population M (0) M (0) 

A.1.c. Increase or 

decrease in gaps or 

continuities between 

spawning areas 

H (-1) H (-1) 

B.1.a. Major life history 

strategies H (-1) H (-1) 

High Risk 

High Risk 

B.1.b. Phenotypic 

variation M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c. Genetic variation H (-1) H (-1) 

B.2.a. (1) Out-of-DPS 

spawners 

NA 

Low 

Risk Low Risk 

B.2.a. (2) Out-of-MPG 

spawners 

NA 

B.2.a. (3) Out-ofPopulation spawners NA 

B.2.a. (4) Withinpopulation hatchery 

spawners 

VL (2) 

B.3.a. Distribution of 

population across habitat 

types 

L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a. Selective change 

in natural processes or 

selective impacts 

H (-1) H (-1) H (-1) 
 p. 67 

Under Goal A, extinction risk is elevated with respect to spatial extent or range and 

increase in gaps between spawning areas. Of the 14 MSAs, only seven are judged to have 

steelhead spawning in both their upper and lower portions (the ICTRT standard for 

occupancy). Another four MSAs are occupied in their lower portions only, and 

significant gaps exist between spawning areas. 

Under Goal B, risk is elevated with respect to life history strategies and phenotypic 

variation, because of flow regulation, including the “flip-flop” water management 

strategy, affecting rearing conditions in the mainstem and because of curtailment of 

presmolt migration within and between tributaries. Migration timing constraints in the 

lower Yakima, long migration distances coupled with past and present constraints on 

passage at Roza Dam, and the aforementioned loss of rearing habitat in the mainstem 

both hamper mainstem rearing strategies and result in high risk with respect to the 

selective impacts metric. 

Overall, the Upper Yakima River steelhead population is not considered viable under the 

ICTRT guidelines—both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity elements 

indicate high risk of extinction. The ICTRT concludes that improving the overall rating to 

Viable will require substantial improvements in current abundance and productivity 

relative to the recent base period. Improved passage at Roza Dam and into Taneum and 

Big creeks was only recently restored (post 1988), and further improvements in survival 

and in habitat availability (including provision of access into currently blocked areas) will 

likely be required to meet overall abundance and productivity objectives for this 

population. Key improvements in spatial/structure and diversity (described above) will 

also be required. 
 p. 68 

3 Factors for Decline 

3.1 Introduction 3.4 Relationship of Threats to Limiting Factors 

3.2 Definition of Threats 3.5 In-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors 

3.3 Definition of Limiting Factors 3.6 Out-of-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter gives an overview of the factors that have contributed to the decline in 

steelhead populations identified in Chapter 2. To provide a context for the actions 

presented in Chapter 5, this chapter discusses the threats and limiting factors currently 

affecting the four steelhead populations in the Yakima Basin. Chapter 3 does not give a 

reach-by-reach assessment of habitat conditions and limiting factors for Yakima Basin 

steelhead habitat. More detailed reach-specific assessments can be found in the habitat 

assessment portions of the Yakima Subbasin Plan (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife 

Planning Board 2005) and the Limiting Factors Analysis conducted for the Washington 

State Conservation Commission (Haring 2001); numerous other watershed assessments 

give information for specific geographic areas. These more detailed assessments will be 

incorporated into the implementation scheduling process described in Chapter 6. 

3.1.1 General Overview of Steelhead Population Decline 

Salmon, and trout recolonized and expanded their range in the Columbia River Basin 

after the most recent Ice Age (10,000-15,000 years ago). Native Americans had access to 

an abundant fish resource comprised of coho, chum, and sockeye salmon, spring, 

summer, and fall runs of Chinook, steelhead, bull trout, cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, 

and white sturgeon. Their cultures were formed around the availability of anadromous 

fish (Craig and Hacker 1940), with catches increasing as their populations rose and 

fishing techniques developed. Estimates of pre-development (late 1700s) abundance of 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead ranged from about 8 million (Chapman 1986) to 

14 million (NPPC 1986) fish.27 While questions exist about the degree of cyclic 

variations in freshwater and ocean habitat conditions, it is quite certain that salmon and 

steelhead have declined to a small fraction of their former abundance and distribution 

(NRC 1996, Figure 3-2). In recent decades, the total run of all salmon and steelhead has 

ranged from one to two million fish, with about three-quarters of the recent spring 

Chinook and summer steelhead runs consisting of fish cultured to smolt size in 

hatcheries. The overall decline of anadromous fish runs in the Columbia Basin has been 

reviewed extensively (Busby et al. 1996; Lichatowich 1999; Nehlsen et al. 1991; NPPC 

1986; NRC 1996). 

 

27 Estimates of pre-development salmon and steelhead numbers are based on multiplying the 

maximum catches in the latter part of the 1800s (which reached 3-4 million salmon and 

steelhead) with the assumed catch rates by all fishing gear. 
 p. 69 

The decline of salmon and steelhead in the Yakima Basin occurred in two major phases. 

During the first phase, between 1850 and roughly 1900, Yakima runs declined about 90% 

from historical values (Davidson 1953; Lichatowich 1999; Tuck 1995). Initial causes of 

decline include diversion of instream flows into unscreened watercourses for irrigation 

(Lichatowich 1999; Tuck 1995) and over-harvest in early mainstem fisheries. In the 

second phase, covering the years 1900 to the present, native sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. 

kisutch), and summer Chinook were extirpated and the abundance of the other stocks fell 

to small fractions of historical values. The construction of dams to convert natural glacial 

lakes into storage reservoirs early in the twentieth century blocked off many miles of 

spawning and rearing habitat and, along with reduced flows and increased temperatures 

in the lower Yakima, led to the extinction of native sockeye salmon. Reservoir and 

diversion operations cut off access to headwater streams and significantly changed flow 

and temperature regimes downstream, resulting in reductions in spawning, rearing, and 

migratory habitat quality and quantity. Unscreened diversions are known to have stranded 

large numbers of fish. While a long history of fish screening programs has greatly 

reduced extent of such stranding, many unscreened diversions remain. Irrigation 

diversions reduced flows, sometimes to the point of drying out specific stream reaches. 

Irrigation drains have severely impacted water quality in some tributaries and in the 

lower Yakima River, (although recently many components of some irrigation effluents 

have been reduced). 

Development of the Columbia River dams also had a large impact on anadromous fish 

runs by reducing survival rates for upstream and downstream migrants. Steelhead are 

able to return to the sea after spawning and then travel upstream to spawn again. The 

degree to which repeat spawners contributed to the productivity of Yakima Basin 

steelhead populations prior to European settlement is unknown, but is presumed 

depressed from historic levels due to general changes in habitat and the development and 

operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. Early hatcheries constructed to 

mitigate for fish loss at mainstem dams were operated without a clear understanding of 

population genetics. Although hatcheries were increasing the abundance of depleted 

stocks, they were probably also decreasing the diversity of the native populations with 

which they overlapped. 

Human population growth and associated land uses within the basin (agriculture, mining, 

timber harvest, transportation systems, and urban and rural development) have 

significantly affected salmon and trout spawning and rearing habitat. The National 

Research Council Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest 

Anadromous Salmonids identified habitat problems as a primary cause of declines in wild 

salmon runs (ISAB 1996; ISAB 2000; NRC 1996). They identified the fragmentation and 

loss of available spawning and rearing habitat, migration delays, degradation of water 

quality, removal of riparian vegetation, decline of habitat complexity, alteration of stream 

flows and stream bank and channel morphology, alteration of ambient stream water 

temperatures, sedimentation, and loss of spawning gravel, pool habitat and large woody 

debris. 

Floodplain development has degraded floodplain and channel function. Portions of the 

Yakima River and its tributaries have been detached from their historical floodplains, 

impairing floodplain function, reducing access to off-channel habitats, and reducing flow 
 p. 70 

and elevating temperatures. Urbanization (especially in alluvial floodplains) and livestock 

grazing practices have altered riparian habitat (Busby et al. 1996; NMFS 1996; 

Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993; West Coast Steelhead Biological 

Review Team 1999). Exotic species introductions have directly and indirectly affected 

steelhead. All these activities (harvest, hydropower, hatcheries, and habitat, both within 

and outside of the Yakima Basin) acted in concert to decrease the abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of steelhead populations in the Yakima 

Basin. 

The 2004 Yakima Subbasin Plan (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 

2005) and the Yakima River Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Yakima (Haring 

2001) describe, in some detail, the array of habitat modifications that currently affect the 

quantity and quality of salmonid habitat within the Yakima Basin. Although land and 

water management practices have typically improved in recent decades, factors such as 

storage dams, diversions, roads and railways, agriculture (including livestock grazing), 

residential development, and forest management all continue to affect steelhead and their 

habitat in the Yakima Basin. 

3.1.2 Ongoing Efforts to Address the Decline of Steelhead 

Changing land-use practices have reduced some threats to steelhead and increased others. 

Many activities that address threats and reverse the long-term decline of steelhead in the 

Yakima Basin have been initiated at the federal, state, and local levels (e.g., restrictive 

harvest regulations, habitat improvement projects, adoption of various land management 

rules, and development of conservation strategies and plans). Appendix C gives an 

overview of some of the major fish restoration programs in the Yakima Basin. While 

these efforts are important to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed species, 

additional work is needed to minimize current threats to recovery. Chapter 5 proposes 

specific actions to be taken to recover steelhead populations. The remainder of Chapter 3 

addresses the threats and limiting factors that currently affect steelhead populations in the 

Yakima Basin. This provides a context for understanding the purpose for actions 

proposed in Chapter 5. 

3.2 Definition of Threats and Limiting Factors 

3.2.1 Threats 

Section 4(a) (1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 lists five sets of threats to 

consider when determining species status under the ESA. These listing factors are: (A) 

the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 

disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Historical and current 

human activities associated with these five factors—especially habitat-related factors—

have negatively affected steelhead in the Yakima Basin to the point that they were listed 

under the ESA, as described in Chapter 1. The National Marine Fisheries Service (1996) 

listed a number of habitat-related factors affecting the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 
 p. 71 

ESU and the Yakima Basin that led to the 1999 listing. They included water withdrawal, 

conveyance, and storage, flood control, logging, agriculture, mining, road building, and 

urbanization. Their list closely corresponds to the definition of threats used in this 

document. 

The ESA describes the human and naturally induced actions that have resulted in the 

decline of steelhead populations as threats. According to NMFS’ Draft Guidelines for 

Limiting Factors and Threats Assessment (2005): 

Threats are the human actions or natural events (e.g., road building, 

floodplain development, fish harvest, hatchery influences, and volcanoes) 

that cause or contribute to limiting factors. Threats may be caused by the 

continuing results of past events and actions as well as by present and 

anticipated future events and actions. 

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are typically legitimate and 

necessary human activities that may at times have unintended negative consequences on 

fish populations—and that can also be managed in a manner that minimizes or eliminates 

these negative impacts. 

3.2.2 Limiting Factors 

Limiting factors are the specific changes in conditions through which threats affect the 

abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of the species of concern 

(NMFS 2005). Limiting factors are characterized in relation to the biological needs of the 

species. According to NMFS’ Draft Guidelines for Limiting Factors and Threats 

Assessment (2005): 

Limiting factors are the physical, biological, or chemical features (e.g., 

inadequate spawning habitat, high water temperature, insufficient prey 

resources) experienced by the fish at the population, intermediate (e.g., 

stratum or major population grouping), or ESU-levels that result in 

reductions in VSP parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity) at any life stage. Key limiting factors are those with the 

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

Table 3.1, Table 3.2, Table 3.3, Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 list the threats and 

associated limiting factors identified by recovery planners in the Yakima Basin. Sections 

3.3.1 thru 3.3.6 describe these in more detail for each population area. NOAA Fisheries 

has identified 12 basic limiting factors that affect the viability of Middle Columbia 

Steelhead populations, as described below: 

1) Degraded floodplain connectivity and function: The loss, impairment, or 

degradation of floodplain connectivity; access to previously available habitats 

(seasonal wetlands, off-channel habitat, side channels); and a connected and 

functional hyporheic zone. 
 p. 72 

2) Degraded channel structure and complexity: The loss, impairment, or 

degradation of channels; a suitable distribution of riffles and functional pools; 

functional amounts and sizes of large woody debris or other channel structure. 

3) Degraded riparian areas and LWD recruitment: Factor includes loss, 

degradation or impairment of riparian conditions important for production of food 

organisms and organic material, shading, bank stabilizing by roots, nutrient and 

chemical mediation, control of surface erosion, and production of large-sized 

woody material. 

4) Altered hydrology: Changes in the hydrograph that alter the natural pattern of 

flows over the seasons, causing inadequate flow, scouring flow, or other flow 

conditions that inhibit the development and survival of salmonids. 

5) Degraded water quality: Degraded or impaired water quality due to abnormal 

temperature, or levels of suspended fine sediment, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, 

heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and other contaminants (toxics). 

6) Altered sediment routing: Altered sediment routing leading to an 

overabundance of fine-grained sediments, excess of course-grained sediments, 

inadequate course-grained sediments, and/or contaminated sediment. 

7) Impaired fish passage: The total or partial human-caused blockage to previously 

accessible habitat that eliminates or decreases migration ability or alters the range 

of conditions under which migration is possible. This may include seasonal or 

periodic total migration blockage. 

8) Hatchery-related adverse effects: Any hatchery-related adverse effects on 

natural-origin salmonid population survival and productivity. 

9) Harvest-related adverse effects: Any harvest-related adverse effects on survival. 

10) Predation/Competition/Disease: Predation or competition levels that have been 

elevated above likely rates in a normative system due to human actions. 

11) Degraded estuarine and nearshore marine habitat: The loss, impairment or 

degradation of intertidal, salt marsh, and other functional estuarine and marine 

vegetation; altered amounts, quality, distribution, and timing of freshwater 

inflows; loss of estuary complexity; access to previously available habitats; and 

inadequate large woody debris. 

12) Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects: Any adverse 

effects caused by the operation of hydroelectric dams in the mainstem Columbia 

and Snake rivers. 

Table 3.1, Table 3.2, Table 3.3, Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 show the 

correspondence between the limiting factors used in this plan and these more general 

limiting factors from NOAA Fisheries. For more details on NOAA Fisheries’ limiting 

factors and their application to the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, see the 

Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (to be released in 2009).
Table 3.1: Basinwide threats and limiting factors Basinwide Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Regulation of stream flow for irrigation storage and flood control 

1 

Inadequate migration flow because of irrigation storage or flood control headspace targets 

Flow 4) Altered hydrology 

2 

Altered hydrograph affects riparian and submerged vegetation 

Flow 

4) Altered hydrology 3) Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

Water storage and diversion structures 3 

Entrainment, injury or delay of downstream migrants at diversions 

Withdrawals (entrainment), Obstructions 7) Impaired fish passage 

Forest harvest practices, road construction and fire suppression 

4 

Increased risk and severity of forest disease, pests and landscape scale fire Sediment load, Flow 

4) Altered hydrology 6) Altered sediment routing 

Climate variation and trends 5 

Drought worsens effects of other threats on adult spawning success and juvenile survival 

Flow, Temperature, Key habitat quantity 

4) Altered hydrology 5) Degraded water quality 

In-basin Harvest 

6 Incidental take in legal fisheries Harassment 9) Harvest-related adverse effects 

7 Illegal harvest of steelhead Harassment 9) Harvest-related adverse effects 
Basinwide Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Ecological Legacy 

8 

Slow recolonization of reopened habitats by small populations 

NONE NONE 

9 Lack of nutrients in rearing 

areas 

Food 5) Degraded water quality 

10 Reduction of beaver activity Channel stability, Flow 

4) Altered hydrology 2) Degraded channel structure & complexity 
Table 3.2: Lower mainstem Yakima threats and limiting factors Lower Mainstem Threats and Limiting Factors Threat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limited Factors 

Withdrawal of stream flow for irrigation and hydropower 

1 Inadequate migration flow below diversions Flow Altered hydrology 

2 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology 

3 

Increased summer water temperature below diversions 

Temperature Degraded water quality 

Conveyance of irrigation deliveries and return flow in streams 

4 

High temperature, sediment and other pollutants in summer flow 

Temperature, Sediment load, Chemicals 

Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing 

5 

False attraction due to high flow and/or mixing of sources 

Flow Altered hydrology 

Water storage and diversion structures 6 

Entrainment, injury or delay of downstream migrants at diversions 

Withdrawals (entrainment), Obstructions 

Impaired fish passage 

Floodplain constriction and development 

7 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

8 

Degraded riparian vegetation needed for shade, bank stability and food 

Habitat diversity 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 
Lower Mainstem Threats and Limiting Factors Threat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limited Factors 

9 

Reduced availability of woody debris in the channel and floodplain 

Key habitat quantity 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

10 

Simplified, degraded, and/or unstable stream channels 

Channel stability, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & comp

11 

Reduced quantity and/or quality of side channel habitat 

Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded floodplain connectivity & function 

Management of Gravel Pits 

12 Increased habitat for predatory and exotic fish 

Predation, Competition (with other species) 

Predation/Competition/Disease 

13 

River capture creating channel instability and raising water temperature 

Channel stability, Temperature 

Degraded channel structure & compDegraded water quality Altered sediment routing 

Non-native fish species 14 Predation by bass and catfish Predation Predation/Competition/Disease Native predatory fish species 15 Increased predation by northern pikeminnow Predation Predation/Competition/Disease Predatory birds and mammals 16 

Increased predation by gulls and pelicans, especially at inriver structures 

Predation Predation/Competition/Disease 
Table 3.3: Satus population area threats and limiting factors Satus Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Conveyance of irrigation deliveries and return flow in streams 

1 High temperature, sediment and other pollutants in summer flow Temperature, Sediment load, Chemicals Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing 

Water storage and diversion structures 2 Upstream migration blockages or delays at diversions Obstructions Impaired fish passage Floodplain constriction and development 

3 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

Temperature, Flow Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

4 

Simplified, degraded, and/or unstable stream channels 

Channel stability, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexi

5 

Reduced quantity and/or quality of side channel habitat 

Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded floodplain connectivity & functio

Forest harvest practices, road construction and fire suppression 

6 Impassable and/or unstable stream crossings Obstructions, Channel stability Impaired fish passag

Degraded channel structure & complexi
Satus Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors 

7 

Loss of riparian, floodplain and wetland function due to tree harvest and road building 

Habitat diversity, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

8 

Acceleration and degradation of runoff (sediment, high summer temperature) by road and skid trail drainage 

Sediment load, Temperature 

Altered sediment routing Degraded water quality 

Grazing Impacts 

9 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexiDegraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

10 Sedimentation of streams Sediment load Altered sediment routing 11 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to wet meadow storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 
Table 3.4: Toppenish population area threats and limiting factors Toppenish Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting FactorWithdrawal of stream flow for irrigation and hydropower 

1 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology 

2 

Increased summer water temperature below diversions 

Temperature Degraded water quality 

Conveyance of irrigation deliveries and return flow in streams 

3 

High temperature, sediment and other pollutants in summer flow 

Temperature, Sediment load, Chemicals 

Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing 

4 

False attraction due to high flow and/or mixing of sources 

Flow Altered hydrology 

5 

Stream channel modifications to convey irrigation or return flow 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity 

Water storage and diversion structures 6 

Entrainment, injury or delay of downstream migrants at diversions 

Withdrawals (entrainment), Obstructions 

Impaired fish passa

Floodplain constriction and development 

7 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

8 

Degraded riparian vegetation needed for shade, bank stability and food 

Habitat diversity 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 
Toppenish Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factor

9 

Reduced availability of woody debris in the channel and floodplain 

Key habitat quantity 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

10 

Simplified, degraded, and/or unstable stream channels 

Channel stability, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity 

11 

Reduced quantity and/or quality of side channel habitat 

Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded floodplain connectivity & function 

Forest harvest practices, road construction and fire suppression 

12 Impassable and/or unstable stream crossings Obstructions, Channel stability 

Impaired fish passaDegraded channel structure & complexity 

13 

Loss of riparian, floodplain and wetland function due to tree harvest and road building 

Habitat diversity, Flow 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment Degraded floodplain connectivity & function 

14 

Acceleration and degradation of runoff (sediment, high summer temperature) by road and skid trail drainage 

Sediment load, Temperature 

Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing 

Livestock grazing 15 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 
Toppenish Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factor

16 Sedimentation of streams Sediment load Altered sediment routing 17 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to wet meadow storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

18 

Stock water diversions during low stream flow periods 

Flow, Temperature 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 
Table 3.5: Naches population area threats and limiting factors Naches Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors 

NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Regulation of stream flow for irrigation storage and flood control 

1 

Inadequate migration flow below reservoirs because of irrigation storage or flood control headspace targets 

Flow Altered hydrology N30, BW1 

2 

Low June-August and high Sept-Oct flows below reservoirs 

Flow Altered hydrology N4 

Withdrawal of stream flow for irrigation and hydropower 

3 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology N1,2,3,4,15,17,21,2

BW5 

4 

Increased summer water temperature below diversions 

Temperature Degraded water quality N1,2,3,4,15,17,21,2

BW5 

Conveyance of irrigation deliveries and return flow in streams 

5 

Stream channel modifications to convey irrigation or return flow 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity 

Water storage and diversion structures 

6 Migration blockages at storage dams Obstructions Impaired fish passage N9 

7 

Upstream migration blockages or delays at diversions 

Obstructions Impaired fish 

passage 

N16 
Naches Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors 

NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

8 

Coarse sediment deficiency below storage dams 

Key habitat quantity 

Altered sediment routing 

Floodplain constriction and development 

9 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

N5,10,11,12, 19,20,28 

10 

Simplified, degraded, and/or unstable stream channels 

Channel stability, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity 

N10,11,12,14, 20,27,28 

11 

Reduced quantity and/or quality of side channel habitat 

Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded floodplain connectivity & function 

N5,10,11,12, 19,20, 27,28 

12 

Channel aggradation upstream from constrictions 

Obstructions Impaired fish 

passage N6,18,20 

13 

Impassable and/or unstable stream crossings 

Obstructions, Channel stability 

Impaired fish passage Degraded channel structure & complexity 
Naches Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors 

NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Forest harvest practices, road construction and fire suppression 

14 

Loss of riparian, floodplain and wetland function due to tree harvest and road building 

Habitat diversity, Flow 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitmentDegraded floodplain connectivity & function 

N7,8,14,22,23 

15 

Acceleration and degradation of runoff (sediment, high summer temperature) by road and skid trail drainage 

Sediment load, Temperature 

Altered sediment routing Degraded water quality 

N8 

16 

Loss of forest cover needed to moderate snowmelt 

Flow Altered hydrology BW10,13 

17 

Increased risk and severity of forest disease, pests and landscape-scale fire 

Sediment load, Flow 

Altered hydrology Altered sediment routing 

N23, BW10,13 

Livestock grazing 18 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment

N22,29 
Naches Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors 

NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

19 Sedimentation of streams Sediment load Altered sediment routing N22,29 

Streamside recreation 

20 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment

N13 

21 

Disturbance of spawning fish and redds 

Harassment NONE N13 

"Ecological Legacy" 22 

Slow recolonization of reopened habitats by small populations 

NONE BW7 
Table 3.6: Upper Yakima population area threats and limiting factors Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Regulation of stream flow for irrigation storage and flood control 

1 

High JuneAugust flow below reservoirs 

Flow Altered hydrology U3 

2 

Unstable and/or low Winter-Spring flows below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology 

U21 

Withdrawal of stream flow for irrigation and hydropower 

3 

Inadequate migration flow below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology U2 

4 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity below diversions 

Flow Altered hydrology U4 

5 

Increased summer water temperature below diversions 

Temperature Degraded water quality U4,5,B

Conveyance of irrigation deliveries and 

6 

High summer flow in delivery reaches 

Flow Altered hydrology U3,11 
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

return flow in streams 

7 

High temperature, sediment and other pollutants in summer flow 

Temperature, Sediment load, Chemicals 

Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing U19 

Water storage and diversion structures 

8 

Migration blockages at storage dams 

Obstructions Impaired fish passage U8 

9 

Upstream migration blockages or delays at diversions 

Obstructions Impaired fish passage U1,5,6

Floodplain constriction and development 

10 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality U12,1

11 

Degraded riparian vegetation needed for shade, bank stability and food 

Habitat diversity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment U15 
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

12 

Reduced availability of woody debris in the channel and floodplain 

Key habitat quantity 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment U13,1

13 

Simplified, degraded, and/or unstable stream channels 

Channel stability, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity 

U11,114,15 

14 

Reduced quantity and/or quality of side channel habitat 

Habitat diversity, Key habitat quantity 

Degraded floodplain connectivity & function U12,1

15 

Impassable and/or unstable stream crossings 

Obstructions, Channel stability 

Impaired fish passage Degraded channel structure & complexity 
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Watershed Development 

16 

Changes in timing and amount of stream flows due to altered upland runoff patterns (locally variable effects due to impervious areas, irrigation return flows etc.) 

Flow, Temperature 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

U15,1BW10 

17 

Stormwater runoff and associated water quality degradation 

Sediment load, Chemicals 

Degraded water quality Altered sediment routing U16,1

Management of Gravel Pits 

18 

Increased habitat for predatory and exotic fish 

Predation, Competition (with other species) 

Predation/Competition/Disease BW10 

19 

River capture creating channel instability and raising water temperature 

Channel stability, Temperature 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded water quality 

U13, BW10 
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Forest harvest practices, road construction and fire suppression 

20 

Impassable and/or unstable stream crossings 

Obstructions, Channel stability 

Impaired fish passage Degraded channel structure & complexity 

U10 

21 

Loss of riparian, floodplain and wetland function due to tree harvest and road building 

Habitat diversity, Flow 

Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment Degraded floodplain connectivity & function 

U13,1BW10 

22 

Acceleration and degradation of runoff (sediment, high summer temperature) by road and skid trail drainage 

Sediment load, Temperature 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality U18, B

23 

Loss of forest cover needed to moderate snowmelt 

Flow, Temperature 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality U18, B
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

Livestock grazing 

24 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment U14 

25 Sedimentation of streams Sediment load Temperature Altered sediment routing Degraded channel structure & complexity 26 

High water temperature, low flow in summer due to wet meadow storage loss 

Temperature, Flow 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality U20 

27 

Stock water diversions during low stream flow periods 

Flow, Temperature 

Altered hydrology Degraded water quality 

Streamside Recreation 

28 

Damage to stream channels, banks and riparian zones 

Channel stability, Habitat diversity 

Degraded channel structure & complexity Degraded riparian area & LWD recruitment 

29 

Disturbance of spawning fish and redds 

Harassment NONE 
Upper Yakima Threats and Limiting FactorsThreat # Limiting Factor 

Level 3 EDT Survival Factors NOAA Limiting Factors Actions 

30 Blockage of fish migration Obstructions Impaired fish passage 

"Ecological Legacy" 31 

Slow recolonization of reopened habitats by small populations 

NONE NONE BW7 
 p. 93 

3.2.3 Relationships of Threats to Limiting Factors 

The relationship between threats and limiting factors can be complex, with a single threat 

affecting many limiting factors, and a single limiting factor being a function of many 

interacting threats. Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.6 describe the interaction of threats and limiting 

factors that affect the basin as a whole, the shared migration corridor of the lower 

mainstem and the four population areas. Section 3.6 gives a brief overview of threats and 

limiting factors acting on Yakima Basin steelhead during their time outside of the 

Yakima Basin. 

3.3 In-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors 

The following sections describe the threats and limiting factors that occur throughout the 

basin, in the Lower Yakima River, and in the four population areas—Satus Creek, 

Toppenish Creek, Naches River and Upper Yakima. 

3.3.1 Basinwide Threats and Limiting Factors 

See Table 3.1. for a compilation of basinwide threats and limiting factors, which are also 

linked to the recovery actions described in Chapter 5, Recovery Actions. 

Basinwide Effects of Changed Flow Regimes 

In the Yakima Basin, water is an essential resource. Since the 1850s, extensive water 

supply systems have been developed to store and deliver water to irrigated agriculture 

and, to a lesser degree, to industrial, domestic, and hydropower users. This has made the 

Yakima Basin one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States and the 

world. The federal government authorized the Yakima Irrigation Project in 1905. This 

brought a number of private irrigation projects under the jurisdiction of the BOR and 

resulted in construction of five storage reservoirs that enabled expansion of irrigated 

acreage to 464,000 acres in six divisions. Lands irrigated under the Project extend from 

Cle Elum to the Tri-Cities. There are six major diversion dams (Easton, Roza, Tieton, 

Wapato, Sunnyside, and Prosser), 420 miles of canals, 1,697 miles of laterals, 30 

pumping plants, and 144 miles of drains. Generators served by Roza and Chandler canals 

produce hydroelectric power ((BOR 2002), and a generator was installed at Tieton Dam 

in 2006. The Wapato Irrigation Project diverts its water from the river just below Union 

Gap to serve 136,000 acres of irrigated lands on the Yakama Reservation. Water delivery 

and storage systems in the basin range from these larger systems to small ditches on 

tributaries owned and managed by one or two private landowners. Many tributaries have 

been converted into irrigation distribution systems, such as the Wilson/Naneum Creek 

system in the Kittitas Valley, or drainage systems such as lower Toppenish Creek and 

Marion Drain. 

These diverse systems are an essential part of the basin’s economy, past, and present. 

They have also had significant impacts on fish populations in the basin. Managing water 

supply and delivery systems in a manner that meets economic needs while minimizing 

negative impacts on fish populations is one of the principal challenges faced in 
 p. 94 

recovering steelhead populations. There have been many efforts to lessen the impact of 

this infrastructure on fish—improved screening, improvements in water use efficiency, 

reconstruction for improved or restored passage—but the infrastructure itself has 

remained in place and expanded over time. Additional changes in the configuration of 

infrastructure—the function and location of storage dams, delivery and return points for 

irrigation water conveyance, delivery, and routing of water—are required to address the 

impacts of the altered flow regimes (see Chapter 5). 

Adequate flows are necessary for migrating adult steelhead to pass upstream to spawning 

areas, provide rearing habitat, and facilitate smolt emigration to marine environments. 

Flows also affect other habitat parameters like temperature, riparian vegetation, and food 

supply. In an unregulated condition, the flows in the Yakima Basin would be dominated 

by snowmelt-driven discharge peaks in May or June that then decline to ground-water 

driven base flows in August and September. Late autumn rainfall and minor snowmelt 

would augment summer base flow, with Chinook winds causing occasional winter high 

water events. Steelhead are adapted to these natural seasonal flow patterns, which 

maintained a variety of habitats and facilitated migratory behavior. 

Management of water storage and delivery systems in the Yakima Basin has significantly 

altered this flow pattern. Now winter and spring runoff from the upper Yakima, Kachess, 

Cle Elum, Tieton and Bumping rivers is captured in storage reservoirs and is utilized to 

meet summer irrigation needs in accordance with yearly entitlements. These operations 

result in streamflows across the basin that are often out of phase with the life-history 

requirements of native salmonids (Fast et al. 1991; Stanford et al. 2002) and riparian 

species such as cottonwoods (Jamieson and Braatne 2001). The most significant changes 

in flow regimes are the creation of: 1) unnaturally low flows, 2) unnaturally high flows, 

3) rapidly changing flow levels, 4) return flows, and 5) altered sediment and wood 

transport. Issues associated with each of these are described below. The most significant 

area in which a largely natural flow regime has been maintained is the Naches River 

above its confluence with the Tieton. 

Reduced Flows 

Low flows arise under two basic situations. From April through October, irrigation 

diversions and other water withdrawals reduce streamflows in tributaries throughout the 

basin (examples include Manastash, Ahtanum, and Cowiche creeks and the Teanaway 

River), in the lower mainstem Naches, and in the mainstem Yakima below Sunnyside 

Dam.28 These low flows and associated increased temperatures limit the availability of 

summer and early fall rearing habitat in affected tributary and lower mainstem reaches 

and create passage barriers for migrating and rearing steelhead. As discussed in section 

2.5.1.1, the timing of the start of upstream migration into the Yakima River by adult 

steelhead is driven by flow and temperature conditions. Decreased flows and increased 

temperatures generally prevent adults from entering the Yakima River prior to 

September. Since fish are holding in either the Columbia or Yakima rivers from mid-

 

28 Winter diversions for power generation and, in some tributaries, for stock water, can also 

decrease stream flows. These instances are addressed in the area-specific discussions. 
 p. 95 

summer until spawning begins in late winter, the effect that this delay in in-migration has 

on survival and reproductive success is unknown. 

Low flows also occur in the Tieton River below Tieton dam and the Upper Yakima and 

Cle Elum rivers when releases from Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus dams are 

minimized to store water for irrigation. The effects of these low winter and spring flows 

on rearing juveniles are not well understood. Lowered flows also occur in the bypass 

reaches associated with the Roza and Chandler Hydro power plants. 

These low flows and associated increases in water temperature are hypothesized to 

increase travel times for migrating smolts, expose smolts to increased predation rates, and 

reduce the extent and variety of off-channel habitat available for use during the outmigration period. In many years, these low flows truncate the out-migration window for 

smolts migrating downstream and may alter the emigration cues that trigger smolts to 

emigrate towards the ocean. It is also likely that reduced streamflow and longer travel 

time in the lower Yakima River decrease survival of kelts during their downstream 

migration. The need for a better understanding of the relationship between flows, 

temperature and other habitat conditions and survival of outmigrating smolts is 

highlighted in Chapter 7. 

Overall, decreased flows and associated temperature regimes have a selective effect on 

Yakima Basin steelhead for both in-migration (delaying entry to the system) and outmigration (truncating the smolt run and kelt out-migration in late spring). EDT model 

results based on spawn timing and flow in the tributaries show that these effects probably 

are most severe on the Naches and Upper Yakima populations. The potential for viable 

steelhead life histories that included both short- and long-term juvenile rearing in 

mainstem habitats has been reduced by the loss of summer rearing habitat extent (low 

flow) and suitability (temperature) in the lower Naches River and the Yakima River 

below Sunnyside diversion dams. 

Increased Flows 

The mainstem Yakima, Cle Elum, Tieton, and lower Naches rivers are all used to deliver 

water stored in large headwater reservoirs to downstream users. This results in 

unseasonably high flows (Bumping Reservoir has a much more limited effect on the 

Bumping and Naches rivers due to its small size). Flows are increased further due to the 

“flip-flop” flow management strategy, which was established in 1981 in response to a suit 

brought against BOR by the Yakama Nation in order to protect spring Chinook redds in 

the Upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers. Flip-flop consists of delivering water primarily 

via the Upper Yakima in the spring and summer while conserving water in Rimrock 

reservoir for use in August through October, when flows in the Upper Yakima are 

dropped to the levels that will be sustained through the winter in order to protect redds. 

Water deliveries in general and flip-flop operations in particular result in high summer 

flow through the Cle Elum/Yakima arm until September when the water supply is 

switched to the Rimrock and Bumping reservoirs in the Tieton/Naches arm, which then 

experiences high flow until the irrigation season ends in October. While flip-flop has 

helped to protect upper Yakima spring Chinook, associated high flows have significantly 

impacted steelhead habitat. The most drastic impacts are in the Tieton River, where the 
 p. 96 

unnaturally high and sustained flows in late summer and fall are posited to have greatly 

reduced available habitat for rearing steelhead, both through the immediate influence of 

high velocities and the reduction in mid-to small sized sediment and woody debris 

(currently Oak Creek, a small tributary with unregulated flows, is the only part of the 

Tieton River watershed consistently used by spawning steelhead). 

Fry emergence in the Upper Yakima occurs from mid-June through the end of July, when 

natural flows would begin to drop. The sustained high flows associated with irrigation 

water deliveries are hypothesized to reduce growth and potentially survival. Pearsons et 

al. (1993) studied at O. mykiss in regulated reaches of the Yakima Basin and 

hypothesized that such flow fluctuations during the month following swim-up were 

responsible for the scarcity of young-of-the-year observed during subsequent snorkeling 

and electro-fishing surveys in areas with highest redd densities. They also found that O. 

mykiss in the Yakima River grow slower than trout in other regional rivers, and attributed 

these slow growth rates to degraded growing conditions produced by reservoir releases 

throughout the summer rearing period. Flow manipulation may also affect steelhead 

through competition for food, which becomes scarcer under fluctuating or artificially 

high flows (James et al. 1999). The increases in summer flows and associated decreases 

in summer temperatures in the Upper Yakima are hypothesized to favor resident life 

histories in the mainstem, potentially reducing the number of anadromous smolts 

produced. Chapter 7 identifies better understanding the impacts of delivery flows and 

flip-flop on juvenile steelhead as a key knowledge gap. 

In tributary settings, high flows associated with use for irrigation conveyance and 

operation spill from canals can have mixed effects on habitat conditions. This is primarily 

an issue in the lower reaches of tributaries to the Upper Yakima, which are used to 

convey irrigation delivery and return flows. 

Rapid Changes in Flow 

Flow oscillations during the irrigation season may also reduce habitat quality for juvenile 

steelhead. While a seasonal range of flows is vital, stable base flows support high 

salmonid growth rates during periods of high ecosystem production from late spring 

through early fall (Poff and Ward 1989; Stanford et al. 1996). Rapid reductions in flow 

associated with flip-flop operations in the Upper Yakima and Naches and the initiation of 

storage control below Parker can reduce macroinvertebrate populations that serve as food 

source (Arango 2001), and limit growth of riparian vegetation, especially cottonwood 

seedlings. Power plant operation and screen maintenance activities in the Chandler and 

Roza canals can also combine to produce large flow fluctuations in the Yakima River 

when the canals are dropped for maintenance and rewatered to generate power. 

Return Flows 

Return flows associated with irrigation use can increase stream temperatures and 

transport sediment and associated contaminants into natural waterways. Return flows can 

also create false attraction when water diverted upstream is released well downstream and 

attracts returning adults that gravitate towards the characteristics of the upper basin water 
 p. 97 

source. Note that subsurface return flows can also reduce water temperatures and provide 

habitat benefits. Specific return flow issues are addressed in subsequent sections. 

Affects of Altered Flows on Sediment and Wood Transport 

River systems naturally transport large amounts of sediment downstream. The continuous 

removal and deposition of sediment plays a key role in the formation of complex 

floodplains and associated fish habitat. These changes also affect fish through the 

availability of appropriately sized spawning gravels and the productivity of macroinvertebrate populations and other prey species. Both instream structures and changed 

flow regimes associated with water delivery and use can change sediment transport. 

Large dams may prevent movement of sediment, resulting in reduced availability of 

sediment downstream. Smaller diversion dams and other instream structures can 

dramatically change sediment dynamics in upstream and downstream reaches. Changes 

in flow regimes change the ability of stream systems to transport and deposit sediments. 

Reaches regularly exposed to artificially high flows may show scouring, loss of spawning 

gravels, channel simplification, and loss of habitat diversity; inversely, areas with 

reduced flows may show increased deposition of fine sediments. 

Dams, diversions, other structures, and changes in flow regimes can also significantly 

change the distribution of large woody debris in a river system by blocking its 

downstream movement in some areas and by washing it out of other areas. Woody debris 

has also frequently been removed as part of system operations and maintenance. 

Flow-induced Changes in Vegetation 

Altered flow regimes in most mainstem reaches are incompatible with the flow 

characteristics required for black cottonwood to successfully regenerate from seed 

(Jamieson and Braatne 2001). Cottonwood is dependent on a gradual reduction in the 

spring snowmelt runoff and on exposed sediments on gravel bars for seed establishment. 

Too rapid a drop in spring flows exceeds new seedlings’ root growth ability, resulting in 

loss of root contact with the local water table and seedling death. Constant of increasing 

streamflow from spring into summer (as occurs in the Upper Yakima) limits the exposure 

of suitable substrates. High streamflow during the fall months (as occurs in the Tieton 

and lower Naches rivers) scours and “drowns” newly established seedlings. The effects 

are most notable in the Naches and Wapato reaches, where the number of exposed gravel 

bars and the channel width/depth ratio has increased over time. In the Upper Yakima, 

higher flows allow replacement of cottonwood stands by other shrub and grass dominated 

riparian vegetation (typically dominated by Russian olive, Pacific willow, reed canary 

grass, or European silver willow). It is currently unknown how the loss of cottonwood 

recruitment will affect steelhead. Cottonwood is a keystone species to interior Columbia 

riparian zones. Loss of this species will affect shade, large wood input, temperature, 

width/depth ratios, availability of riparian prey items for salmonids, and other ecosystem 

scale effects. Natural high spring flows may also play a role in limiting the extent of 

aquatic vegetation in the lower mainstem Yakima River. 
 p. 98 

Unscreened Diversions 

Diversion structures and other water delivery infrastructure and practices (such as 

running irrigation ditches across natural streams) can also funnel fish into water delivery 

systems that are not managed as fish habitat. This can result in significant mortality when 

fish enter pumped systems or are stranded in irrigation ditches. It may also cause delay 

and injury for fish that are able to return to natural stream systems. Screening of 

diversions has been a priority in the Yakima Basin since the 1920s, when some of the 

first self-cleaning fish screen designs were developed in the basin. Many diversions, 

especially larger ones, have had effective fish screens installed, but there are also still 

many unscreened diversions in the basin. 

Floodplain Development 

The floodplain reaches of the Naches and Yakima rivers once consisted of complex 

networks of braided channels covered by dense riparian forests. In many areas, river 

channels have been leveed, armored, realigned, and shortened, severely diminishing 

natural river-floodplain interactions. Floodplains have always been favored sites for 

agricultural fields, industrial areas, residential and commercial structures, railways and 

roads, and extensive systems of dikes and drains have been built to protect these areas. 

Overall, floodplain development has resulted in profound alterations in fish habitat in the 

Yakima Basin, including: 

• Reduced connectivity between streams and adjacent riparian areas, floodplains, 

and uplands 

• Elevated fine sediment yields and water temperatures 

• Reduced large woody debris to trap sediment, stabilize banks and form pools 

• Reduced vegetative canopy to minimize solar heating of streams and provide 

bank stability and food 

• Modified streams channels with reducing rearing habitat and increasing water 

temperature fluctuations 

• Altered peak flow volume and timing, leading to channel changes and potentially 

altering fish migration behavior 

• Altered floodplain function, water tables, and base flows 

• Reduced flows in summer due to floodplain storage loss 

For more general background on the impacts of floodplain development, see Henjum et 

al. (1994), McIntosh et al. (1994), Rhodes et al. (1994), Wissmar et al. (1994), National 

Research Council (1996), Spence et al. (1996), and Lee et al. (Lee et al. 1997). The best 

references on floodplain conditions on the Yakima are Snyder and Stanford (2001), 

Sanford et al. (2002), and Eitemiller et al. (2002). 
 p. 99 

Gravel Mines 

Floodplain gravel mining has had significant impacts on floodplains throughout the basin, 

including along I-90 in Kittitas County, near the cities of Yakima and Selah and in the 

Wapato reach downstream. Dikes associated with gravel mines constrict the floodplain, 

and when they burst, gravel pits can cause avulsion of the river channel and act as 

sediment sinks that increase stream power and erosion downstream. Ponds in abandoned 

gravel pits can warm adjacent river temperatures and act as reservoirs for bass, catfish 

and other potential introduced species that prey on and/or compete with steelhead. 

Management of past, current and future gravel pit operations should strive to minimize 

these impacts (Yakima River Floodplain Mining Impact Study Team 2004). 

Upland Watershed Development 

While the effect of floodplain development on fish habitat is generally far more dramatic, 

upland development for commercial, residential, and agricultural use can also impact 

steelhead habitat. Increases in impervious area associated with buildings and pavement, 

reductions in vegetative cover, and the presence of roads, drainage ditches and storm 

water systems all facilitate rapid drainage of surface water, increasing streamflows and 

sediment inputs immediately after precipitation events, and reducing groundwater 

recharge and associated base flows in streams. Both overland flows and contamination of 

groundwater can result in transport of pollutants from upland areas to stream systems. 

Development pressure in the Yakima Basin is focused in the Naches and Upper Yakima 

population areas, in the greater Yakima area and in the corridor from Easton to 

Ellensburg. 

Population Growth and Associated Development 

While many of the impacts to fish habitat addressed in this plan are a function of past 

land use patterns, it must also address future development impacts. Human population 

growth in the Yakima Basin will continue, both from relatively high birth rates in the 

valley, and immigration into the valley. A review of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use 

maps of communities within the basin clearly indicate that whether urban or rural, the 

bulk of land use and development for future population growth will occur along the 

Yakima River main-stem and major tributary corridors where there is water, an existing 

core of rail and road transportation infrastructure, major concentrations of urban services, 

and high value shoreline property. Additionally, large numbers of eastern Washington 

residents recreate along the basin waterways. Population growth may increase camping, 

hiking, fishing, and off-road-vehicle activities, especially on the publicly owned lands of 

the upper watersheds. Numerous programs within local government, land use planning, 

and development regulations are designed to manage the impacts of population growth; 

applying these in a balanced manner that protects steelhead habitat while supporting 

economic growth and private property rights will require a strong commitment from local 

governments, landowners and the public at large. 

Increased Forest Disease, Pests, and Landscape-scale Fire 

The health and stability of many forest stands in the basin are declining, especially in the 

managed forests at lower and middle elevations on the Yakama Reservation, on state and 
 p. 100 

private lands, and on USFS lands in the Naches, Swauk, Teanaway, and Cle Elum 

drainages. A legacy of fire suppression has increased the density of less fire- and pestresistant tree species, and consequently catastrophic fire or pest outbreaks are 

increasingly likely to occur. While periodic, low-level disturbance contributes to overall 

forest health, landscape-scale fires would likely result in increased peak flows, lower 

summer flows, and increased sediment delivery for several decades, increasing the risk of 

extinction for steelhead. The relationship between wildland fire to aquatic ecosystems is 

reviewed by Dunham et al. (2003) and Riemann et al. (2003) Current low funding levels 

for efforts to improve forest health suggest that the risk may continue to increase. 

Forestry Practices 

Habitat conditions in the forested areas of the basin are generally better than in lowlands, 

but past forest harvest practices, road construction and maintenance, and fire suppression 

have all had impacts of steelhead habitat. These activities can lead to road encroachment 

on streams and floodplains, riparian damage, impassable and/or unstable stream 

crossings, acceleration of runoff, increased landslides and sediment loading, elevated 

water temperatures, and increased streamflows or flood frequency due to loss of forest 

cover, especially on south facing watersheds. Numerous programs are underway to 

improve habitat conditions on federal, state, and private lands, but it will take several 

decades for the full benefits of these actions to accrue. 

The Forest Service manages habitat for listed fish species on federal forestlands through 

several programs, including the Northwest Forest Plan and PACFISH/INFISH29

Biological Opinions. The State of Washington’s Forest Practice Rules address forest 

habitat conditions and functions needed for listed fish on non-federal lands, but there is 

some uncertainty as to the long-term adequacy of these rules to address all major 

ecological processes that maintain properly functioning habitat for all life stages of listed 

fish species. These efforts to regulate forestry activity will need to be reviewed to ensure 

that they adequately protect listed species and their habitats. 

Managing the existing networks of forest roads so as to minimize watershed impacts will 

continue to be a priority. Timber companies are disposing of large blocks of private 

forestland in the Yakima Basin. Efforts to work with landowners to maintain 

economically viable working forests that also sustain steelhead habitat will be an 

important part of larger efforts to reduce fragmentation of the landscape. 

Climate Change 

The regional climate in the Northwest may be changing in response to global atmospheric 

changes. Scientists predict reduced winter snow pack, increased winter rainfall and 

increased summer drought. These changes affect fish populations when changes in 

precipitation and snow pack patterns directly affect streamflows and when higher 

 

29 PACFISH is the Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern 

Oregon and Washington, and Portions of California. INFISH is the Interim Strategy for Managing Fishproducing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of 

Nevada.
 p. 101 

summer temperatures result in more evapotranspiration and increased water temperatures. 

Actions in this plan, including maintenance of habitats in high elevation areas, restoration 

of hydrology and passage, and improvement of riparian zones may reduce the effects of 

global warming. Climate change may also make colder habitats that are currently 

unsuitable for steelhead more suitable. The potential impacts of global climate change are 

recognized at national and international levels. The risks of global climate change are 

potentially great for Yakima Basin stocks because of the sensitivity of salmon stocks to 

climate-related 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 (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005). These 

changes could have significant effects on the success of recovery actions and the status of 

listed fish populations in the Yakima Basin (Climate Impacts Group 2009; Mastin 2008). 

Understanding and responding to changes in climate will be an important part of longterm recovery actions. 

In-basin Harvest 

Impacts of current fisheries in the basin are of two sorts: 1) incidental take during legal 

fisheries, and 2) illegal take and harassment. Both occur, but neither is considered a 

primary limiting factor for steelhead at this time. Past recreational steelhead fisheries had 

significant impacts on the run, with harvest levels ranging from 14% to 68% of the run 

between 1983 and 1988 (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005, p. 2-

193). The harvest rate dropped in the late 80s and early 1990s, and the Yakima River and 

its tributaries were closed to steelhead fishing in 1994. 

Current legal fisheries in the basin are highly regulated to reduce negative impacts on 

steelhead. Selective gear rules (no bait, single barbless hooks) for trout fishing are in 

effect in other tributaries known to support bull trout and steelhead spawning and rearing 

(e.g., Yakima River upstream of Roza Dam, Taneum, Swauk, Teanaway, Naches, Little 

Naches, Bumping, Rattlesnake, and American rivers). In some areas, including the 

Yakima River upstream of Roza Dam, the lower Cle Elum River, part of the Naches 

River and Rattlesnake Creek, trout fishing is limited to catch and release only. In 

remaining areas there are low catch limits for trout (generally two trout, minimum length 

8 or 12 inches). Areas near the mouths of Toppenish and Satus creeks are closed for coho 

and fall Chinook during fall salmon fisheries to protect pre-spawning steelhead that hold 

in these areas during upstream migration. These regulations are designed to protect adult 

and juvenile steelhead and bull trout populations, while allowing economically important 

recreational fisheries for resident trout. 

Despite these regulations, both incidental take and illegal harvest of steelhead occur. 

Angler interviews conducted by WDFW in the lower Yakima River during sport fisheries 

indicate that steelhead are incidentally hooked and released during Chinook and coho 

fisheries. Interviews suggest that there were between 13 and 146 steelhead caught and 

released each year during legal salmon seasons. Based on a 5% hooking mortality rate, 

this activity would kill up to seven steelhead in a given year. Both incidental take and 

poaching of steelhead during the winter fishery for whitefish pose a risk to steelhead 

adults holding prior to spawning. Starting in 2008, the winter whitefish fishery below 
 p. 102 

Granger was closed to protect holding steelhead, which are known to concentrate near the 

mouth of Satus Creek. 

Loss of Nutrients from Anadromous Species 

At the watershed scale, the loss of major contributors to the basin nutrient base, such as 

coho, sockeye, summer Chinook and components of the remaining steelhead and spring 

and fall Chinook populations, negatively affects the productivity of the ecosystem as a 

whole. Martin et al. (1994) suggested that low biomass in the Upper Yakima River may 

be related to low dissolved solids as expressed in conductivity measurements, but the 

correlation is not strong when certain other rivers are considered. Specific nutrients may 

correlate better with productivity, and salmon carcasses have been found in a number of 

studies to be a major source of these nutrients. Lowered ecosystem productivity has 

selective effects on steelhead life history (by reducing the tributary food base and 

selecting for shorter tributary residence), further reducing the potential for longer-term 

juvenile rearing within the basin. The lack of understanding about the actual effects of 

reduced nutrient transport by anadromous fish is a key knowledge gap identified in 

Chapter 7. 

Reduction in Beaver Activity 

In the Yakima Basin, the abundance and distribution of American Beaver (Castor 

canadensis) have been greatly reduced. Beaver have a tremendous influence on salmonid 

habitat quantity and quality. Loss of beaver dams has reduced the number of pools and 

straightened, widened, and incised channels. Streams have become disconnected from 

their floodplains and LWD supplies to streams have been diminished. The loss of beaver 

activity also alters sediment routing, stream temperature and hydrograph, and riparian 

zone composition and productivity. The loss of the ecological functions that beavers 

provide directly diminishes salmon productivity (Lichatowich 1999). These effects occur 

in both the upper watershed and in side channels along downstream river reaches. 

Increased Predation 

Fish, mammals, and birds are the primary natural predators of steelhead in the Yakima 

Basin. Although the behavior of steelhead precludes any single predator from focusing 

exclusively on steelhead, predation by certain species can be seasonally and locally 

significant. Recent changes in predator and prey populations along with major changes in 

habitat conditions have reshaped the role of predation (Li et al. 1987). Better 

understanding predation dynamics is identified as a knowledge gap in Chapter 7. 

Non-native salmonids with the potential to prey on steelhead include hatchery-strains of 

rainbow, brook trout, and brown trout, all of which are found in upper parts of the 

Basin.30 In the lower mainstem Yakima, introduced bass and catfish prey on steelhead, 

although the smolt out-migration occurs during periods that are cooler than optimal for 

 

30 WDFW ended stocking of brook trout and brown trout in the Yakima Basin in 2006 and now 

only stocks rainbow trout in lakes. 
 p. 103 

bass and catfish, and multiple years of bass diet data from the lower Yakima showed that 

bass generally do not prey on yearling-sized salmonids (Fritts 2004; Fritts 2006). 

Changes in ecological dynamics caused by habitat changes have also increased predation 

by native species. Northern pikeminnow (a native fish whose abundance has increased 

due to more favorable habitat conditions under current river management) has the 

greatest potential to negatively affect the abundance of juvenile salmonids in the Yakima 

Basin. The pikeminnow is a large, opportunistic predator that readily adjusts feeding 

patterns to prey availability. Most adult salmonids within the Yakima Basin are 

opportunistic feeders and are therefore capable of preying on juvenile steelhead and bull 

trout. Native salmonids likely to have some effect on the survival of juvenile salmonids 

include adult bull trout, rainbow/steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout. Native species such 

as sculpins also prey on salmonid eggs and juveniles (Hunter 1959; Patten 1962; Patten 

1971a; Patten 1971b). 

Predation risk is also linked to water temperature. Studies have indicated predation rates 

increase at higher temperatures (Collis et al. 2000a; Gray and Rondorf 1986; NMFS 

2000). Predation and high temperature may be acting synergistically to increase selection 

pressure on juvenile outmigration, although steelhead are considered less vulnerable than 

other salmonid species to piscine predators. 

Avian predation on fish contributes to the loss of migrating juvenile salmonids in the 

Yakima River Basin. Fish-eating birds that occur in the Yakima Basin include great blue 

herons (Ardea herodias), gulls (Larus spp.), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), common 

mergansers (Mergus merganser), American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), 

double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), Caspian terns (Sterna caspia), belted 

kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), 

Forster’s terns (Sterna forsteri), hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) and bald 

eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Stephenson and Fast 2005). These birds have high 

metabolic rates and require large quantities of food relative to their body size. 

Yakama Nation data (J. Siegel, personal communication, 2006) point to common 

mergansers as the primary avian fish predator in the Yakima River from Keechelus Dam 

downstream to Roza Dam, and white pelicans as the primary avian predator from Roza 

Dam to the Columbia River, with a significant gull population at Wanawish (Horn 

Rapids) Dam. These estimates are based primarily on census data multiplied by 

consumption rates from the literature and are not prey species-specific. However, O. 

mykiss is only a significant component of the fish biomass in the Yakima River upstream 

of Roza Dam (G. Temple,WDFW, communication 2006). 

Mammals may be an important agent of mortality to steelhead in the Yakima Basin. 

Predators such as river otters (Lutra canadensis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), mink 

(Mustela vison), and black bears (Ursus americanus) are common. These animals, 

especially river otters, are capable of removing large numbers of salmon and trout 

(Dolloff 1993). Otter-killed adult steelhead are frequently found along Satus Creek 

during spawner surveys (B. Rogers, YN, communication 2006). Black bears generally 

scavenge spawned-out salmon. 
 p. 104 

Increased Competition with Native Species 

Increased competition can occur not only between steelhead and introduced species that 

did not co-evolve, but also between steelhead and other native species. This happens 

when anthropomorphic induced habitat change alters competitive relationships. For 

example, Reeves et al. (1987) found that redside shiners dominated juvenile steelhead at 

warmer temperatures. Thus, where habitat changes result in increased water temperature, 

increased competition with shiners may affect steelhead. 

Human-caused changes in the relative abundance of native species can also change 

competitive interactions. For example, although coho salmon were native to the basin, the 

species was extirpated by the early 1980s. Recent efforts to re-establish coho (Hubble et 

al. 2004) and the ongoing supplementation of Chinook populations in the Yakima Basin 

are providing an opportunity for research on possible human-induced changes in 

competitive interactions. As noted in Section 3.5.1.11, however, these reintroduced coho 

and supplemented Chinook may also have the beneficial effect of importing oceanic 

nutrients into the basin. 

Recent analyses (Pearsons et al. 2004) of the potential effects of reintroduced species on 

steelhead and bull trout have found some depression of rainbow and steelhead mean size 

at age since coho reintroduction and spring Chinook supplementation began in the 

Yakima Basin. However, preliminary results of Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

(YKFP) research indicate that this trend was not related to supplementation activities. 

This YKFP research continues. 

Increased Disease 

A variety of bacterial, viral, fungal, and microparasitic pathogens can infect steelhead. 

Numerous diseases may result from pathogens that occur naturally in the wild or are 

transmitted to wild fish by infected hatchery fish. Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus, 

bacterial kidney disease (BKD) (Renibacterium salmoninarum), coldwater disease 

(Flavobacterium psychrophilum), and columnaris (F. columnare) have all been identified 

in salmonids in the Yakima River (BPA Division of Fish and Wildlife 1990; Pearsons 

and Thomas 2003; Yakima Indian Nation et al. 1990). Beginning as early as mid-April in 

water-short years, water temperatures in the lower Yakima River are in the range 

favorable for the development and serious progression of infectious salmonid diseases 

(Fryer and Sanders 1981; Jobling 1981). Steelhead are more resistant to BKD than are 

other salmon species, although Foott (1992) found high incidence of BKD in wild 

steelhead populations in the Trinity River. 

Sublethal chronic infections can impair the performance of steelhead in the wild, thereby 

contributing to mortality or reduced reproductive success. Fish weakened by disease are 

more sensitive to other environmental stresses and may become more vulnerable to 

predation (Hoffman and Bauer 1971) or less able to compete with other species. When 

Reeves et al. (1987) found that water temperature affected competitive interactions 

between redside shiners and steelhead, they determined that the outcomes of interactions 

were, in part, related to infection with F. columnare. In their study, most steelhead were 

infected at warmer temperatures, whereas shiners showed a higher incidence of infection 

at cooler temperatures. 
 p. 105 

Increased Gaps Between Populations 

Gaps between steelhead populations are assumed to have increased with the advent of 

irrigation, water storage, and floodplain development. Disproportionate decreases in 

abundance and productivity in lower tributaries of the Naches and Yakima rivers, (e.g., 

Cowiche Creek on the Naches; and Wenas and Umtanum creeks on the Yakima), along 

with increased mortality of the progeny of mainstem spawners due to flow manipulation 

and habitat damage, are believed to have widened the gaps between the Upper Yakima, 

Naches, and Satus steelhead populations. However, spawning in the Toppenish Creek 

watershed was probably limited to upper reaches throughout the Holocene epoch; also, 

spawning appears to be more prevalent today in the upper Yakima River mainstem than 

previously assumed (Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005). Whether successful spawning 

occurs in the Yakima below the Naches confluence is unknown and is identified as a 

knowledge gap in Chapter 7. 

Genetic Impacts of Past Hatchery Management 

Introduction of hatchery-origin rainbow trout or non-local steelhead from mixed 

Columbia Basin or Skamania stocks subjected all steelhead populations to some degree 

of genetic risk. During the 20th century, steelhead from several sources were introduced 

into the Yakima Basin; the predominant one was the Skamania stock from the Washougal 

River. In the mid-1980s, the Yakama Nation and WDFW agreed to produce fish from 

wild Yakima broodstock. Between 1985 and 1989, the Yakama Nation trapped 

broodstock at Prosser Dam for spawning, egg incubation, and rearing at the WDFW 

Yakima hatchery, with assistance from the Northwest Steelheaders and Trout Unlimited. 

The co-managers agreed to discontinue wild broodstock collection after 1989 because of 

the low smolt-to-adult survival rate and the inability to select population-specific 

broodstock at Prosser Dam. From 1990 through 1992, a small number of adult Yakima 

Basin steelhead were trapped and their progeny reared by YKFP researchers to evaluate 

species interactions in the upper Yakima River. Hatchery-produced steelhead smolts were 

last released in the Yakima Basin in 1993 (Fast and Berg 2001). Although these practices 

no longer occur, interbreeding with hatchery fish may have reduced the genetic fitness of 

some steelhead populations. 

Introductions of resident rainbow trout are believed to have contributed to the decline of 

the anadromous form of O. mykiss in the upper Yakima. Genetic introgression from nonindigenous hatchery trout populations into the rainbow trout population of the upper 

Yakima is believed to have occurred (Phelps et al. 2000). Because interbreeding of 

resident rainbow and steelhead has been observed in the field (Pearsons et al. 1998), this 

introgression likely has also occurred in what remains of the upper Yakima steelhead 

stock. There is less evidence of introgression into the Naches stock (Phelps et al. 2000). 

While planting of hatchery trout has ceased, the continued presence of non-native genes 

in the rainbow population presents genetic risks to steelhead. 
 p. 106 

3.3.2 Lower Mainstem Threats and Limiting Factors 

For an overview of the threats and limiting factors that occur in the lower mainstem 

Yakima (from the mouth to the Naches confluence), see Table 3.2. These threats are 

discussed in more detail below. 

Altered Streamflows 

Low flows in much of the lower Yakima River combine with high air temperatures, 

degraded riparian vegetation, and reduced floodplain function to create extended river 

reaches with water temperatures that exceed the physiological tolerances of native 

salmonids. Native and non-native predatory fish tolerate these conditions well and may 

be more efficient predators under these conditions. Additionally, poor water quality 

conditions in the lower Yakima River can lead to increased mortality rates in steelhead 

and other native anadromous smolts from water-borne pathogens (BPA Division of Fish 

and Wildlife 1990; Pearsons and Thomas 2003). High water temperatures persist in the 

lower Yakima River throughout the irrigation season. Migrating adult steelhead must 

hold on the Columbia River near the mouth of the Yakima River until the river cools in 

late summer or fall. 

Changes in flow and associated temperature regimes may have had a strong selection 

effect on all populations of steelhead during both upstream migration (delaying adult 

entry to the system) and the downstream migration (truncating the smolt run and kelt 

outmigration in late spring/early summer). Steelhead life histories that include both shortand long-term juvenile rearing in the lower mainstem are no longer viable due to high 

temperatures, reduced water quality, and the resulting loss of summer rearing habitats in 

the lower mainstem Yakima. 

Floodplain Alteration 

The lower mainstem Yakima River flows through extensive floodplains in the Union Gap 

and Wapato reaches. Highways, railroads, and dike systems have cut off significant 

portions of the floodplain, reducing floodplain function and the availability of sidechannel habitat. Stanford et al. (2002) identified the Union Gap reach as having the 

greatest potential for floodplain restoration. The Bureau of Reclamation’s YRBWEP 

program has acquired significant amounts of floodplain property and is working with the 

county, the city of Yakima, gravel mine operators, and others to significantly improve 

floodplain function in this reach. In lower reaches of the Yakima, residential development 

along the river and associated alterations to natural riparian vegetation are becoming 

increasingly common. Little attention has been given to the floodplain reaches in the TriCities area near the mouth of the Yakima River. 

Creation of False Attraction Flows 

Hydropower wasteways, such as Roza Power Plant Wasteway, irrigation drains, and 

spillways, including Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Marion Drain, discharge flow that can 

entrain or confuse adult steelhead during the upstream migration period. This can result 

in stranding of fish in unsuitable habitat and/or delays in upstream migration. 
 p. 107 

Reduced Water Quality 

Degraded water quality (especially pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], and temperature 

conditions) significantly reduces habitat quality in the lower Yakima. Intensive 

agricultural production, including drainage improvements, and the use of fertilizers and 

pesticides have left a legacy of contamination (i.e., DDT and DDE in aquatic sediments 

and arsenic and lead in the soil profile), and residual concentrations of nutrients (i.e., 

phosphorus in lower river sediments), which may diminish only slowly over time. 

Throughout the irrigation season, the lower Yakima River (downstream from Granger, 

RM 82) receives large volumes of irrigation return flows (Johnson et al. 1986; Rinella et 

al. 1999; Rinella et al. 1992). In 1997, the Roza Sunnyside Board of Joint Control 

initiated a water quality improvement program for drains and wasteways in the lower 

Yakima River, making significant strides at improving water quality in the lower river. In 

particular, fine sediment discharge has been reduced, although not eliminated. 

The recent explosive growth of water star-grass in the lower Yakima River has led to 

concerns about its effect on water quality (especially dissolved oxygen), habitat, and 

migration conditions for salmonids. Growth of this native plant may have been 

augmented by advances in controlling suspended sediments, which increased lightpenetration into the water column, and by long periods without bed-scouring high flows. 

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) has placed 72 watercourse segments 

throughout the Yakima Basin on the most recent 303(d) list (in 1998) of threatened and 

impaired water bodies (WDOE 1998). Primary impairments leading to these listings 

included increased temperatures, high agricultural pollutant concentrations (e.g., 4,4'-

DDE, DDT, dieldrin, 4,4'-DDD, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, and PCB), dissolved oxygen 

deficits, and a host of other water quality constituents (e.g., arsenic, mercury, silver, fecal 

coliform, pH, ammonia, chlorine, turbidity, and phosphorous) that are generally 

detrimental to fish health and persistence (Johnson et al. 1986; Morace et al. 1999; 

Rinella et al. 1999; Rinella et al. 1992). Current agricultural trends may result in reduced 

water use (e.g., conversion of large areas to wine grapes), but also increased nutrient 

loading and waste (e.g., from expansion of the dairy industry and other confined animal 

feeding operations). Recent dramatic improvements in water quality in the lower river 

have shown that concerted efforts by all parties can reduce agriculture’s impacts on water 

quality. 

Predation by Introduced Species 

Non-native fish species can prey on juvenile salmonids. Smallmouth bass have the 

greatest potential to negatively affect the abundance of juvenile steelhead in the lower 

mainstem of the Yakima. They are large, opportunistic predators that readily adjust their 

feeding patterns to prey availability. Abundant channel catfish also have the potential to 

prey on juvenile salmonids. WDFW currently has no catch limits on bass in the Yakima 

River, although only bass less than 12" or greater than 17" may be retained, of which no 

more than one may be over 17". There are no catch limits for channel catfish. Smolt 

outmigration generally occurs in conditions that are cooler than optimal for bass, as noted 

under predation in Section 3.3.1, but some overlap occurs. Better estimating the impacts of 

predation by bass is identified as a research need in Chapter 7. 
 p. 108 

Impaired Fish Passage 

Significant work has been done to ensure fish passage at major irrigation diversions in the 

mainstem Yakima River. However specific seasonal operations and flow conditions at 

some diversions with fish ladders can still hinder adult upstream migrations. There is also 

significant uncertainty over the impacts of diversion structures on the survival of 

downstream migrating smolts, with some structures known to cause physical injury 

and/or concentrate predation (e.g., Horn Rapids (Wanawish) Dam and the Chandler 

Canal screen entrance and bypass outfall). 

3.3.3 Satus Population Threats and Limiting Factors 

For an overview of the threats and limiting factors that occur in the Satus Creek 

Watershed, see Table 3.3. Loss of floodplain habitats, reduced riparian zone health 

caused by intrusive roads and poor grazing management practice, and increased peak 

flow and sediment loads from forestry activities, including an extensive network of forest 

roads, have all diminished habitat productivity in this system. The Yakama Nation has 

had an active watershed restoration program in this basin since the 1980s. 

Floodplain Alteration 

The lowest eight miles of Satus Creek (below Mule-Dry Creek) have been simplified and 

confined to increase agricultural acreage. Although excavation and filling essentially 

ceased in the late 1980s, impacts to channel morphology and function remain (Ringer and 

McCoy 1998). Farther upstream, State Route 97 crosses Satus Creek five times and 

confines it for several miles. Riparian roads parallel several tributaries, confining stream 

channels and acting as alternative drainage systems. 

Grazing Impacts 

Fencing, off-stream water development, and conservation leasing of key riparian parcels 

have largely addressed negative impacts from cattle grazing, but wild horses have a 

heavy impact on wide areas of the watershed. Tributary wet meadow systems have 

become incised through loss of stabilizing vegetation, woody debris, and reduced lower 

beaver activity. 

Forestry Impacts 

Increased peak flows and sediment loads from forestry activities and the associated 

network of forest roads negatively affect Satus Creek. Work is ongoing to address roadrelated issues in the watershed. 

Altered Streamflows 

Streamflow in Satus Creek is essentially unregulated. The four irrigation diversions 

present on Satus Creek in 1980 were all shut down by 1991 to protect instream flows. In 

dry summers, the creek can still dry up for several miles within the alluvial reach 

upstream of the Logy Creek confluence (mile 23.6). Past grazing practices and extensive 

flooding in the early 1970s and 1990s have degraded floodplain conditions; ongoing 
 p. 109 

efforts to improve floodplain and upland function will be required to improve flow 

conditions. 

Impaired Passage 

The Wapato Irrigation Project’s abandoned Satus diversion dam may act as a partial 

barrier to steelhead passage. A complete passage barrier exists where Highway 97 crosses 

Shinando Creek. Other barriers may exist on small tributaries in association with forest 

road networks. 

Reduced Water Quality 

Most of the Satus Creek watershed is undeveloped and is not exposed to agricultural, 

industrial, or domestic effluents, but because of degraded riparian habitats and low flows, 

maximum weekly average temperatures can exceed 26oC in the Satus Creek reach 

between Logy Creek and Wilson Charley Creek (RM 39.3). Logy Creek may cool Satus 

Creek for a few miles downstream from their confluence. Water quality suffers (although 

water quantity increases) as Satus Creek flows through the Wapato Irrigation Project 

(WIP) in its lower eight miles. Improved management of return flows would increase 

conditions in the lower eight miles of Satus Creek. The relatively young and rapid 

steelhead outmigration from Satus Creek described in an earlier section appears to be a 

population response to harsh summer conditions. 

3.3.4 Toppenish Population Threats and Limiting Factors 

For an overview of the threats and limiting factors that occur in the Toppenish population 

area, see Table 3.4. Reduction in habitat productivity in this system is related to loss and 

alteration of floodplain habitats in lower Toppenish Creek, altered surface 

water/groundwater interactions in lower Toppenish Creek, altered flow characteristics on 

the alluvial fan of Toppenish Creek, reduction in flow and passage barriers in the 

Simcoe/Wahtum/Agency creek systems, and increased peak flow and sediment loads 

from forestry activities. 

Floodplain Alteration 

The Toppenish Creek channel historically assumed an anabranched appearance 

downstream of the Simcoe Creek confluence and flowed through an extensive network of 

wetlands for nearly 30 miles to the Yakima River. This system has been simplified to 

facilitate agriculture, grazing, and management of waterfowl habitat. Between RM 45 and 

the Simcoe Creek confluence (RM 32.7), diking, channel straightening, installation of 

drains, and low-capacity crossings have caused alternating deep incision and heavy 

deposition as the creek traverses its alluvial fan, reduced riparian vegetation, and 

compromised floodplain function. 

Channel conditions upstream of the mouth of Toppenish Canyon are considered to be 

significantly better than in the downstream reaches. Riparian roads associated with timber 

harvest and the loss of beaver dams have straightened, widened, and incised the channel 

upstream of the mouth of Toppenish Canyon and degraded riparian conditions in the 

canyon portion of the watershed. Rapid deposition of gravel behind new channel grade 
 p. 110 

controls just below the canyon indicates more rapid erosion upstream than managers had 

assumed. 

Altered Streamflows 

The Toppenish Lateral Canal (TLC) at RM 44.2 historically diverted all flow in the creek 

from mid-June to mid-October. Despite recent adherence to a 10-cfs minimum flow 

requirement below the TLC diversion, natural seepage of up to 18 cfs into the expansive 

Toppenish Creek/Mill Creek alluvial fan results in a dry reach by late summer for several 

miles downstream from the three-way diversion. Most of the seepage does not reappear 

downstream before WIP return flows enter Toppenish Creek. A portion of the loss 

appears to seep into Simcoe Creek, which wraps around the toe of the fan, although 

seepage from the creek and from the TLC cannot be easily distinguished at this location. 

Other possible sinks are Harrah and Marion drains and large irrigation wells in the 

underlying basalt, which may be in communication with the fan. Despite this loss, the 

perennial section of stream downstream from the dam provides summer habitat for 

approximately 2,000 juvenile steelhead. 

Two irrigation diversions downstream from the TLC supply Unit 2 and the Satus area of 

the WIP, primarily using return flows routed into Toppenish Creek via Mud Lake and 

Marion drains. Marion Drain, which is much deeper than Toppenish Creek for much of 

its length, intercepts subsurface flows that once entered the creek from the north. 

The North Fork of Simcoe Creek provides the majority of flow in the Simcoe Creek 

watershed. Four private diversions and a WIP diversion (Simcoe Feeder Canal) 

historically took most of the base flow of Simcoe Creek. Since 2002, the Yakama Nation 

has worked to maintain minimum instream flows below all five Simcoe Creek diversions. 

Reduced Water Quality 

High water temperatures in lower Toppenish, Simcoe, and Agency creeks have resulted 

from diversion of annual spring flooding, draining of wetlands, riparian degradation, and 

the large volume of warm water irrigation returns routed from WIP down Simcoe and 

Toppenish creeks. As in Satus Creek, stream temperatures increase with proximity to the 

mouth of Toppenish Creek, with the highest weekly average temperature among four 

stations in 2004 approaching 24 degrees Celsius at a point 10 miles above the mouth. 

Data from the summer of 2007 indicate some cooling below stream mile 10 that may be 

related to upwelling. Temperatures in Marion Drain are about 6°C cooler in the summer 

and 5°C warmer in the winter than temperatures in the mainstem. This thermal 

moderation is attributable to the large proportion of groundwater in the drain; before the 

drain was constructed much of this groundwater presumably flowed into nearby 

Toppenish Creek. 

Impaired Passage 

In February 2006, Yakama Nation personnel confirmed that a private road crossing of 

Toppenish Creek just upstream from the Simcoe Creek confluence was impeding adult 

steelhead passage at moderately high streamflows of several hundred cfs. This crossing 

has the potential to hinder passage into the entire Toppenish Creek spawning population. 
 p. 111 

Several other passage barriers and unscreened diversions exist in Simcoe Creek and other 

tributaries. 

Grazing Impacts 

Fencing, off-stream water development, and conservation leasing of key riparian parcels 

have largely addressed negative impacts from cattle grazing, but wild horses have a 

heavy impact on wide areas of the watershed. Tributary wet meadow systems have 

become incised through loss of stabilizing vegetation and woody debris and lower beaver 

population size and activity. 

Forestry Impacts 

Increased peak flows and sediment loads from forestry activities and the associated 

network of forest roads affect the Toppenish Creek system. Work is ongoing to address 

road related issues in the watershed. 

3.3.5 Naches Population Threats and Limiting Factors 

For an overview of the threats and limiting factors that occur in the Naches population 

area, see Table 3.5. These threats are discussed in more detail below: 

Floodplain Alteration 

Most of the braided, alluvial floodplain reaches in the Naches system have been altered 

by highways, gravel pits, levees, local roads, agriculture, irrigation diversions, and rural 

and urban development, with the most severe impacts on the lower Naches below the 

Tieton confluence. The diversity of channel types in the Naches River upstream from the 

Tieton River confluence (RM 17.5) has been greatly reduced. Basalt canyon walls, 

riprapped dikes, road embankments, and revetments confine the upper channel. Bedload 

movement is apparent in some of the more narrowly confined reaches of the upper 

Naches River, and right-bank revetments, which protect homes, have cut off historic side 

channels and spring brooks. 

Downstream from the Tieton confluence, the Naches River floodplain widens, although a 

highway and other structures have isolated the river from part of the active floodplain. 

Floodplain activities and structures (e.g., highways, gravel pits, levees, local roads, 

agriculture, irrigation diversions, rural and urban development) have degraded, removed, 

or altered the functional condition of the river-floodplain ecosystem. 

The lower Little Naches River and the lower Bumping River are confined by highways 

and associated levees, which constrict floodplains and cut off historic side channels and 

meanders. 

Channel Simplification 

As noted earlier, changed flow regimes in the Tieton River combine with its natural 

confinement to simplify its channel. Tieton Dam captures the river’s main source of 

gravel, and the remaining gravel supply is readily transported by high flow. Because of 

unsuitable conditions in the mainstem Tieton, Oak Creek is the only portion of the Tieton 
 p. 112 

River watershed currently occupied by steelhead. Sections of the Little Naches have also 

been simplified by a highway that runs alongside the river for much of its length. 

Impaired Passage 

Tieton Dam has inundated or blocked the most productive habitats in the Tieton River 

drainage, which comprises a fourth of the entire Naches watershed, and Bumping Dam 

blocks six miles of upstream habitat. Telemetry data and spawning ground surveys 

suggest that only a small number of adult steelhead now reach the base of these dams, 

probably because upstream migration coincides with reservoir filling and low river 

discharge, which is most pronounced in the Tieton River, Migration efforts are further 

compounded by poor passage at the Yakima-Tieton diversion dam (RM 14.2). 

Modifications to the fish passage facilities at the Yakima-Tieton Diversion Dam are 

scheduled for completion in 2008. Passage into Cowiche Creek was eliminated or greatly 

reduced through the 20th century, but recent diversion improvements have reopened that 

watershed. Partial passage barriers have also been removed from the Ahtanum Creek 

watershed, and similar work is ongoing in Rattlesnake, Nile, and Wide Hollow creeks. 

Passage into other Naches tributaries is generally unimpaired. 

Grazing Impacts 

In the middle and upper portions of Cowiche Creek, Ahtanum Creek, and other midelevation tributaries, livestock have negatively impacted riparian zones by grazing and 

trampling streambanks. Cooperative projects with livestock managers have reduced 

grazing impacts in many of these areas. Extensive sheep grazing in the late 19th and early 

20th centuries also significantly affected upland and riparian conditions throughout the 

Naches population area. 

Forestry Impacts 

Past forest practices and road networks have been affected Ahtanum and Cowiche creeks; 

ongoing efforts to manage and improve road systems will be needed. The upper 

watershed of the Little Naches River has been heavily logged. Spawning gravel is 

abundant in the Little Naches River and tributaries, although deposition of fine sediments 

increased after the initiation of large-scale clear-cutting. The lower 4.4 miles of the Little 

Naches River now afford the poorest spawning and rearing habitat in the drainage due 

sedimentation and confinement by roads and levees. Fine sediment in spawning 

substrates may be declining since an apparent peak in 1993 (Muir 2003). 

Streamside Recreation 

The upper Naches River watershed is a popular recreation area. Activities, which include 

recreational mining, establishment of dispersed camp sites, and off-road vehicle use, have 

had major impacts on various streams, streamside habitats and species, increased 

sedimentation, reduced riparian and floodplain function, and reduced abundance and 

spatial structure of listed species. Impacts have been greatest in the Little Naches and 

American River watersheds, but recent efforts by the USFS and others are significantly 

moderating these impacts. 
 p. 113 

Altered Streamflows 

Flow regimes in the Naches Basin and associated tributaries can be put into three groups: 

1) the highly modified flows of the Tieton and Lower Naches rivers; 2) the relatively 

natural flow regimes of the Naches and its tributaries above the Tieton River and of 

tributaries above Rimrock and Clear lakes; and 3) the lower tributaries subject to 

irrigation withdrawals, such as Cowiche, Ahtanum, and Rattlesnake creeks. 

The Tieton River has the most skewed hydrograph of all Naches River tributaries, 

varying from less than 100 cfs, while the Rimrock Lake reservoir is filled from late 

October through March to nearly 2,000 cfs when the reservoir supplies most of the 

Yakima Project’s irrigation demand each September as part of flip-flop operations. These 

flow effects persist downstream, with Naches River discharge rapidly quadrupling in late 

summer as the Tieton Dam gates are opened. This rapid increase in flow in the Tieton 

and lower Naches during a time of year when natural flow fluctuations would be 

uncommon is likely to displace and even injure or kill early juvenile steelhead, which are 

not large enough to maintain position in high river flow. Although flip-flop flows in the 

lower Naches may open access to side- and off-channel areas that could be used by 

juvenile steelhead, the rapid increase and decrease in flow can cause dewatering and 

stranding. Monitoring is needed to understand what happens when these conditions 

occur. From October through early summer, the Naches, Tieton, and Bumping rivers are 

flowing below estimated unregulated stream flow levels, which also affect salmonid 

habitat values. 

During the summer months, irrigation withdrawals reduce flows in the lower Naches 

River, decreasing the availability of rearing habitat. Recently, the BOR and WDOE 

acquired the Wapatox hydropower site and its water right. Flows that formerly were 

diverted for power generation at this site are now remaining in-stream in a critical lowflow reach of the Naches River. However, the Wapatox Canal also serves irrigators, and 

their requirement for conveyance water limits the quantity of water that can be placed 

instream. 

In contrast to the Tieton and the lower Naches, the Naches River and its tributaries 

upstream from the Tieton River still exhibit a largely normative flow regime, regulated 

only by the relatively small Bumping Lake reservoir. 

Cowiche, Ahtanum, lower Nile, and Rattlesnake creeks have numerous irrigation 

diversions, which significantly reduce summer and fall flows, and at times have dried up 

portions of the creek beds. In recent years, significant efforts have been made to secure 

instream flows in Cowiche and Ahtanum creeks. The small steelhead subpopulation in 

Ahtanum Creek was mostly ignored through a century of over-appropriation and 

dewatering of the lower reaches, but appears to be responding to recent efforts to 

maintain a summer flow of 10 cfs throughout the mainstem. 

Rattlesnake Creek provides good to excellent habitats in its middle and upper reaches. In 

the lower reaches of Rattlesnake Creek, irrigation diversions, low flow associated with 

floodplain loss, and the accumulation of coarse sediments limit habitat availability and 

diversity. 
 p. 114 

Impacts from Increased Development 

Rapid population growth and development is occurring in Yakima County (including the 

cities of Yakima, Union Gap, Selah, Moxee, and outlying rural areas). In the Ahtanum 

Creek watershed, along the Naches River above the Tieton, and parts of the Cowiche 

Creek watershed, residential or recreational home development is often located adjacent 

to streambanks. Near the cities of Yakima and Union Gap, agricultural lands, many with 

shallow groundwater, are being converted to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 

Conversion of agricultural lands to other uses will be accompanied by fragmentation of 

ownerships and land uses, each with different management goals. The probability of 

conflict between new land owners/land uses and floodplain/stream channel functions 

(which sustain fish habitat and conveyance of water and sediment) is high. 

3.3.6 Upper Yakima Population Threats and Limiting Factors 

For an overview of the threats and limiting factors that occur in the Upper Yakima 

population area, see Table 3.6. These threats are discussed in more detail below: 

Floodplain Alteration 

The once extensive floodplains of the Upper Yakima in the Easton, Cle Elum, 

Ellensburg, and Selah reaches contained multiple channels and large areas of spawning 

and rearing habitat for steelhead. Roads, including I-90, railroads, and dikes associated 

with agriculture, development, and gravel mining have constricted these floodplains. 

Near Ellensburg significant efforts are being made to reopen access to side channel 

habitat that has been incorporated into irrigation systems. 

Impaired Passage 

Passage barriers have significantly reduced the habitat available to anadromous steelhead 

in the Upper Yakima population area. Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus dams block all 

upstream movements and allow only limited downstream movements. Cle Elum Dam has 

inundated or blocked an important component of Yakima River tributary steelhead 

habitat, the BOR estimating that 29.4 miles of potentially useable anadromous habitat are 

located upstream of Lake Cle Elum ((BOR 2005). 

A number of tributaries to the Upper Yakima River (e.g., Swauk, Wilson, Naneum, Big, 

Little, Taneum, Manastash, Tucker, Cooke, Caribou, Coleman, and Reecer creeks and the 

Teanaway River) are likely to have historically supported steelhead, but impassable 

dams, dry reaches below dams and unscreened and inadequately screened diversions have 

eliminated steelhead from many of these tributaries. Diversion structures at Tucker, 

Naneum, Manastash, Cooke, and Caribou creeks were built without passage facilities. In 

many cases (e.g., Manastash, Taneum and Naneum creeks), the forested watersheds 

above the agricultural zone support very good habitat. Low flows and unstable channel 

conditions, including the construction of recreational dams during the summer migration 

season, also inhibit movement of steelhead in the Teanaway River. 

Roza Dam is a potential bottleneck for outmigrating smolts. When runoff is low, the 

design of the Roza spillway gates hinders downstream passage for fish that miss the 
 p. 115 

bypass, as the only available passage is a narrow slot underneath the gates. Under these 

conditions, significant concentrations of smolts have been observed in the pool above the 

dam. Delays can result in immediate mortality, residualization, or delaying arrival in the 

lower Yakima River until periods when low flow, high temperature, and increased 

predator activity reduce survival.31 BOR has recently been “tucking” a spillway gate at 

Roza Dam to allow surface spill when river flow permits and is evaluating options for 

modify the spillway gates so that surface spill can take place at lower river flow. 

Historically Roza Dam was also a seasonal barrier to migrating adults moving upstream. 

Every year between 1939 and 1958 when winter power diversions were first begun, the 

Roza Dam forebay was kept at minimum elevation for significant periods between midOctober and mid-March. The fish ladder was operational only at full pool, while the 

spillway was and is impassable at all pool levels. Based on the University of 

Washington’s DART database, between 1999 and 2009, 20% of the steelhead passing 

Roza was counted between November 1 and March 15. These data, collected since power 

diversions and associated winter ladder operations were initiated, suggest that a 

significant proportion of the steelhead bound for the Upper Yakima prior to 1958 may 

have been delayed or prevented from reaching their destination due to the seasonal ladder 

closures. 

The original Roza Dam fish ladder only operated at full pool levels. A new ladder was 

installed at Roza Dam in 1989 that allows passage at minimum pool and full pool levels, 

but there is no passage at levels between these extremes, which occur while the pool, is 

being drained or filled (a period of days a few times a year). There is also the possibility 

of reduced passage at Easton Dam in dry years when BOR guidelines call for closing the 

dam’s fish ladder in the spring to prevent spring Chinook from spawning in sections of 

the Upper Yakima that will not have sufficient winter flows to protect the redds. Closure 

of the Easton Dam fish ladder has not occurred since 1996. 

Although major water diversions are screened, numerous unscreened diversions exist on 

tributaries. These are being addressed in conjunction with efforts to remove passage 

barriers and improve riparian conditions in the lower reaches of tributaries in the 

Ellensburg area. 

Altered Streamflows 

Unnaturally low flows in the Upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers when reservoirs are 

being filled may inhibit steelhead migration and spawning. An emphasis on reservoir 

refill in water-short years may also result in low winter and spring streamflows that affect 

the extent and quality of juvenile rearing habitat. More data are needed on the impact of 

reservoir fill timing and associated low flows on adult and juvenile migrations and 

juvenile steelhead rearing environments. 

 

31 While empirical data on the constraints to juvenile passage at Roza are primarily available for 

hatchery Chinook smolts, the same conditions are expected to be encountered by outmigrating 

steelhead. 
 p. 116 

There are large releases of water into the Upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers during the 

summer irrigation season. As discussed in Section 3.5.1.3, this may both reduce growth 

and survival of young-of-the-year steelhead and promote residency for older juveniles. 

Due to the flip-flop regimes, significant portions of streambed along the Upper Yakima 

and Cle Elum rivers are dewatered within a week in early September, with likely adverse 

effects on benthic macroinvertebrates and juvenile native and anadromous fish (Arango 

2001; James et al. 1999; Pearsons et al. 1996). Pearsons et al. (1996) surveyed juvenile 

salmonid (including steelhead) use of side channel habitat in the Cle Elum and Upper 

Yakima rivers, and determined that 3 of the 21 monitored side channels and sloughs were 

totally dewatered and another was disconnected from the main channel after flip-flop. 

The authors concluded from this indirect evidence that nearly all juvenile salmonids they 

found in these side channels before flip-flop were likely killed because of rapid 

dewatering (83% flow reduction in two weeks). Monitoring is needed to understand what 

happens when these conditions occur. 

Irrigation diversions have dewatered the lower reaches of many tributaries (e.g., Swauk, 

Teanaway, Taneum, Manastash and Big creeks), creating flow and temperature 

conditions that reduce juvenile rearing capacity. Efforts to secure instream flows in these 

reaches are ongoing. Other tributaries (e.g., the Reecer and Wilson creek systems) have 

flows that have been significantly increased in summer due to their use for irrigation 

water conveyance. 

Simplification of Natural Waterways Used for Conveyance 

In the Wilson/Naneum and Currier/Reecer creek systems in the Kittitas Valley, tributaries 

and side channels have been highly modified to facilitate use as part of irrigation 

distribution systems. This has resulted in simplification of channel structure due to ‘ditch’ 

cleaning, diking, and removal of vegetation. These areas are also typically subject to 

passage barriers by numerous diversions and to degraded water quality. Habitat that was 

once suitable for rearing and, in some cases, for spawning has often been rendered 

inaccessible and/or inhospitable. The Kittitas County Conservation District, Yakama 

Nation, Kittitas Conservation Trust, and others are working to open up many of these 

areas. 

Reduced Water Quality 

Although water quality in the Upper Yakima Basin is generally much better than in the 

lower basin, irrigation effluents and flow regulation have adversely affected some areas 

(Joy 2002; Joy and Patterson 1997). The Upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers, as well as 

tributaries to the Yakima River in the Kittitas Valley (e.g., Cherry, Cooke, Wilson, 

Taneum, and Manastash creeks), are 303(d)-listed for numerous water quality 

problems.32 Seasonal decreases in natural flow, along with added irrigation effluents 

expose regulated reaches to high late-summer ambient temperatures, suspended 

sediments, agricultural pollutants, and other adverse water quality constituents, including 

 

32 For more information on 303-d listings see the Department of Ecology’s State Water Quality 

Assessments at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html
 p. 117 

fecal coliform bacteria, low dissolved oxygen, and elevated nutrients. These issues are 

most pronounced in the Wilson Creek system. 

Forestry Impacts 

Past forest practices and road networks have affected many parts of the Upper Yakima; 

ongoing efforts to manage and improve road systems will be needed. Because of its 

south-facing aspect and its steep, confined tributaries, the Teanaway watershed is 

especially prone to increases in peak flow resulting from changes in watershed condition 

associated with forest road networks and timber harvest activities. Recovery planners 

consider the Teanaway River to be the highest priority in the basin for identifying and 

reducing impacts from forest practices. 

Grazing Impacts 

Past and current grazing practices have negatively affected riparian conditions in many of 

the mid-elevation tributaries to the Upper Yakima River. Cooperative efforts to work 

with livestock managers to address remaining impacts are ongoing. 

Streamside Recreation 

The Upper Yakima Population Area contains a number of popular streamside recreation 

areas. Recreational mining, establishment of dispersed campsites, and off-road vehicle 

use have increased sedimentation and reduced riparian and floodplain function on various 

streams, streamside habitats, and species within the basin. These conditions have 

contributed to the reduced abundance and productivity of listed fish species. 

Impacts from Increased Development 

Kittitas County and cities within the county, such as Ellensburg, Cle Elum, Ronald, 

Roslyn, and others, are experiencing rapid population growth and associated 

development. In many areas, forest and agricultural lands are being converted to 

residential development. Development immediately adjacent to the mainstem river and to 

tributaries can result in reduction or elimination of riparian zones and increase flood 

hazard. Adjacent to the city of Ellensburg, agricultural lands (many with shallow 

groundwater) are being converted to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 

Conversion of agricultural lands to other uses will be accompanied by fragmentation of 

ownership and land use. The probability of conflict between new land owners/land uses 

and floodplain/stream channel functions (which sustain fish habitat and conveyance of 

water and sediment) is high. 

3.4 Out-of-Basin Threats and Limiting Factors 

Conditions in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the Pacific Ocean significantly affect 

the productivity, abundance, and life history diversity of Yakima Basin steelhead. In its 

All-H analysis, NOAA Fisheries is estimating the survival rates for the Middle Columbia 

Steelhead DPS from the mainstem Columbia to the ocean and back. There are currently 

no estimates of the effect of out of basin factors on the other VSP metrics for Yakima 

steelhead populations. The BPA, the Corps of Engineers, the BOR, NOAA Fisheries, 
 p. 118 

WDFW, Tribes, and others are implementing actions to improve survival of anadromous 

fish in the Columbia and the ocean. Current and proposed actions are being assessed as 

part of development of a new Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power 

System. 

This plan focuses on conditions within the Yakima Basin, but understanding how inbasin actions interact with these out-of-basin factors is crucial to understanding the 

potential effectiveness of our in-basin actions. This requires monitoring out-of-basin 

survival rates for Yakima Basin steelhead populations (see Chapter 7). 

While this plan does not address out-of-basin impacts on Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead in detail, a brief overview of significant issues is given below. Areas where 

impacts on Yakima Basin steelhead may be different from impacts on Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead as a whole are highlighted. 

3.4.1 Out-of-Basin Effects on the Lower Yakima Basin 

Conditions immediately beyond the mouth of the Yakima River influence conditions for 

steelhead in the lowest part of the Yakima River. The mainstem Columbia now provides 

excellent habitats for exotic species such as smallmouth bass and catfish, which migrate 

into the lower Yakima and may increase in-basin predation risk. The diverse habitat of 

the Yakima River delta, which once included an extensive forested riparian zone and 

numerous side channels, has been degraded and partially submerged by McNary Pool, an 

adjacent portion of the Columbia River upstream of McNary Dam. Changes to the 

Columbia River hydrograph may also affect the shared groundwater/surface water system 

of the Yakima River downstream of Wanawish Dam, where temperature extremes 

currently limit salmonid survival and diversity. These potential out-of-basin impacts on 

the Lower Yakima need to be studied to determine if they are negatively affecting listed 

species, and if so, how their effects can be reduced. 

3.4.2 Columbia River Dams 

Steelhead migrating to and from the Yakima Basin pass four Columbia River 

hydroelectric dams: Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary. These dams are 

maintained for primarily hydroelectric production, navigation, and irrigation. They affect 

survival rates, migratory patterns, and timing of Yakima steelhead populations. Access 

and passage through these dams results in the direct mortality of both adults and juveniles 

at each dam. These dams have also significantly changed the nature of fish habitat in the 

Columbia above Bonneville Dam, replacing former rapids, pools, and riffles with wide, 

deep, slow-moving reservoir habitat. These impoundments affect the temperatures and 

travel times faced by migrating fish and result in increased exposure to predation. 

Extensive efforts are being made to improve the survival of anadromous fish through the 

Columbia River hydrosystem. The future of these actions is being negotiated as part of 

development of the revised Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power 

System. 
 p. 119 

3.4.3 Columbia River Estuary 

The Columbia River estuary is a key habitat where juvenile and adult fish make the 

physiological transition from fresh to saltwater and vice versa. Pearcy et al. (1992) found 

that environmental conditions encountered by juveniles in the ocean, which includes the 

estuary and the river plume, are important predictors of the success of a brood year and 

the overall adult return rates. 

The Columbia River estuary has been extensively modified. Estuary habitat has been lost 

due to dredging of a shipping lane, diking and the sedimentation and active filling of side 

channels (Weitkamp 1994). Dredge spoils have been used to create artificial islands in 

the estuary, which fish eating birds (e.g., Caspian terns, Double-crested Cormorants and 

gulls) use as nesting, resting, and foraging grounds. Upriver dams have created reservoirs 

that act as settling ponds, reducing the delivery of sediment and organic matter to the 

estuary (Sherwood et al. 1990). The cumulative effects of urbanization, industrialization, 

agricultural practices, and dams have degraded water quality in the estuary. 

Prior to flow regulation, spring freshets created an immense freshwater plume at the 

mouth of the Columbia during the time that smolts were entering the ocean. Conditions 

within the plume may protect juvenile salmon making the transition to the ocean. The 

freshwater-saltwater margins of the plume provide key feeding areas. Reduction in the 

spring flows from the Columbia River has greatly reduced the size of the plume and its 

influence on nearshore marine conditions (Sherwood et al. 1990) and is believed to 

reduce survival conditions for emigrating juvenile salmonids (Pearcy 1992). 

3.4.4 Ocean Conditions 

Listed steelhead from the Yakima Basin spend a significant portion of their lives and 

accumulate most of their body mass in the marine environment. About half the mortality 

to salmonids occurs in the ocean (Bradford 1995). Conditions in the ocean affecting 

survival are subject to short-and long-term variation and are a source of significant 

variation in salmon returns to freshwater (Beamish and Bouillon 1993). Specific 

understanding of the marine ecosystem inhabited by Columbia Basin salmon and 

steelhead is limited. However, it is clear that short- and long-term cycles drive marine 

productivity and salmon survival. These cycles are the result of forces acting across the 

Pacific Ocean that affect currents, temperature, upwelling, and nutrients in coastal areas 

inhabited by Yakima Basin steelhead. Short- and long-term changes in marine 

productivity cascade through the food chain and affect salmonid abundance. Annual 

fluctuations in ocean survival make the potentially positive effects of freshwater 

restoration actions difficult to detect. At the same time, the negative effects of habitat 

degradation may be masked by improving marine conditions, leading to deeper 

reductions when the ocean subsequently shifts to a regime of poorer conditions (Lawson 

1993).33 The need to evaluate smolt-to-adult and adult-to-smolt ratios to separate out the 

influences of in- and out-of-basin conditions is highlighted in section 7.2.2. The effects of 

 

33 Much of the background information on lower river, estuary, and ocean effects is taken from 

the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (2005). 
 p. 120 

ocean conditions on Yakima Basin steelhead will be incorporated into NOAA Fisheries’ 

all-H analysis for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS as a whole. We are not 

aware of any aspects of ocean survival that are distinct for Yakima steelhead stocks when 

compared to Middle Columbia River Steelhead as a whole. 

3.4.5 Out-of-Basin Harvest 

Harvest in the Columbia River, estuary, and ocean fisheries has historically been a major 

limiting factor for anadromous fish in the Yakima Basin. Current commercial, 

recreational and subsistence fisheries are managed to minimize impacts on listed stocks, 

but some level of incidental mortality in mixed-stock fisheries is known to occur. Better 

estimating the impacts of fisheries in the Columbia will help us understand the degree to 

which harvest affects in-basin returns. 

3.4.6 Predation 

The altered environments of the mainstem Columbia and its estuary support a variety of 

both native and non-native predators. Changed river conditions have increased predation 

by native northern pikeminnow, while introduced species like walleye and bass also prey 

on migrating smolts. Avian predators such as Caspian terns, Double-crested Cormorants 

and gulls also have significant impacts (NMFS 2000). The creation of artificial islands in 

the Columbia River estuary from dredge spoils attracts opportunistic fish-eating birds, 

which feed on juvenile salmonids migrating from the Columbia River to marine habitats 

(Antolos et al. 2005). In the Columbia River estuary, avian predators are estimated to 

have consumed 18% (range, 11-30%) of smolts (all species) reaching the estuary in 1998 

(Collis et al. 2000b). Relocation of nesting terns from Rice Island to East Sand Island has 

resulted in a reduction of the percentage composition of salmonids in their diet (Collis et 

al. 2002). 

Yakima steelhead populations are exposed to out-of-basin avian predation that other 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead major population groups bypass because of the 

Yakima River’s location. Bird populations on islands in the Columbia near the mouth of 

the Yakima are known to consume steelhead migrating out of the Yakima River. In 2005, 

an estimated 1% (22) of PIT tags from outmigrating Yakima River steelhead were 

subsequently recovered on the Crescent Island Caspian tern colony. In 2004, the figure 

was 2% (A. Evans, Real Time Research Inc., communication 2006). In 2005, only 0.1% 

(3 PIT tags) of PIT-tagged Yakima River steelhead were recovered on the Badger Island 

pelican colony (located just downstream from the mouth of the Yakima with >1057 adult 

birds present). PIT tag recoveries from the Foundation Island colony of double-crested 

cormorants, situated 8 km upstream of Crescent and Badger islands indicated an overall 

steelhead predation rate about 1/5 as great as for the tern colony, though this is changing 

as tern numbers drop and cormorant numbers increase (Collis and Roby 2006). These 

rates do not account for ingested PIT tags deposited off the colonies or for mortality of 

tagged fish (at least 50% for Yakima steelhead) between release sites and the Yakima 

River mouth. 

Pinnipeds, including harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus), and Steller’s sea lions (Eumetopia jubatus) are the primary marine 
 p. 121 

mammals preying on steelhead originating from the Yakima Basin (Spence et al. 1996). 

Pacific striped dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) and killer whale (Orcinus orca) 

may also prey on adult steelhead. Seal and sea lion predation is primarily in saltwater and 

estuarine environments, although they are known to travel well into freshwater terrain in 

pursuit of migrating fish. While in recent years, significant numbers of sea lions have 

entered the Columbia River below Bonneville during the spring, they are not generally 

present during the July-August migration window for Yakima steelhead. All of these 

predators are opportunists, searching out locations where juveniles and adults are most 

vulnerable. Although marine mammals and salmon coexisted long before man interfered 

ecologically, human alterations and management practices throughout the species’ ranges 

have resulted in a reduction in salmon and steelhead abundance to the point that increased 

or targeted predation can have more significant effects on population viability. 

3.4.7 Competition with Non-Native Species 

A potentially important source of exploitative competition occurring outside the basin 

may be between the exotic American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and juvenile steelhead. 

Palmisano et al. (1993) concluded that increased numbers of shad likely compete with 

juvenile salmon and steelhead, resulting in reduced abundance and production of salmon 

and steelhead. It is also hypothesized that the large numbers of shad in the Columbia 

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 Columbia River. Research is needed to 

assess the direct and indirect effects of American shad on the abundance and survival of 

Yakima Basin steelhead.
 p. 122 

4 Recovery Goals and Criteria 

4.1 Recovery Goals 4.3 Recovery Strategies 

4.2 Recovery Objectives & Criteria 

Recovering listed species requires reducing or eliminating threats to the long-term 

persistence of populations, maintaining widely distributed populations across the 

diversity of habitats in their native ranges, and preserving genetic diversity and lifehistory characteristics. According to current guidance from NOAA Fisheries, 

demonstrating recovery of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead will require showing 

that populations, MPGs and the DPS, have met certain measurable and objective criteria 

based on the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) framework (ICTRT 2004) and the 

threats criteria identified in the listing.34 This chapter presents measurable goals, 

objectives, and criteria based on the four VSP parameters of abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity and then describes general strategies for achieving these 

criteria. Specific actions that implement the general strategies are described in Chapter 5. 

4.1 Recovery Goals 

The overall goal of this plan is to ensure long-term persistence of viable populations of 

naturally produced steelhead distributed across their native range in the Yakima Basin. A 

“viable” population is defined as an independent population that has negligible risk of 

extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation, and 

genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe. This recovery plan is build around 

three separate but linked sets of thresholds for assessing progress towards recovery: a 

delisting threshold, a short-term recovery threshold, and a long-term recovery threshold. 

4.1.1 Delisting Threshold 

The delisting threshold is based on the recovery scenarios identified by the ICTRT 

(2007a; 2007b) with minor modifications based on discussions between local recovery 

planners and the ICTRT. When these criteria and similar criteria for other MPGs within 

the Middle Columbia DPS are met, a proposal to delist the DPS is considered appropriate 

by the ICTRT. According to the ICTRT (2007b, p. 8), an MPG meeting the following 

five criteria would be at low risk: 

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 

 

34 See the Federal Register, Volume 71, p. 834. 
 p. 123 

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 that were present historically within the MPG 

should be represented in populations meeting viability requirements. 

5) Populations not meeting viability standards should meet or exceed the 

maintenance standard35 with (a) sufficient productivity so the overall MPG 

productivity does not fall below replacement (i.e., these areas should not serve as 

significant population sinks) and (b) sufficient spatial structure and diversity 

demonstrated by achieving such maintenance standards. 

Choices made by the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board in applying the 

ICTRT standards include presuming that 1) the Naches would achieve at least the Viable 

standard (meeting the ICTRT requirement for one of the large populations to be classed 

as Viable), 2) the Satus population is the most likely candidate for Highly Viable status, 

and that 3) the Toppenish and Upper Yakima populations would meet or exceed the 

maintenance standard for remaining populations. Other combinations that also meet 

ICTRT guidelines are possible, and if during implementation these seem more 

appropriate to pursue, the delisting strategy should be revised accordingly. 

The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board also split the Satus Population into 

the Satus Creek and Mainstem blocks, as described in section 2.2. The Satus Creek block 

is attributed the number of spawners the ICTRT would have identified for a population 

based just on the habitat available in the Satus Creek watershed itself; planners believe 

that achieving “high viability” status for this block, using the criteria for a basic 

population, is likely. The “mainstem block” represents steelhead identified by the ICTRT 

as being potentially produced in the lower Yakima River portion of the Satus Population 

Area (from the Satus Creek confluence to the Columbia River). Given the uncertainties 

about both historic and future potential for significant amounts of spawning in this 

portion of the basin, the Board chose to treat that portion of the Satus population as a 

block of spawners that can be produced in the lower mainstem Yakima and its tributaries 

or in the portion of the mainstem Yakima upstream of Satus Creek and below the Naches 

River. If mainstem spawning in these reaches is not found to be viable, additional fish 

produced beyond the abundance thresholds in one or more of the other population areas 

can make up for the “mainstem block.” 

 

35 The ICTRT calls for a “maintained” population to have an abundance/productivity 

combination above the 25% extinction risk on their viability curves and a spatial 

structure/diversity risk rating as per Figure 4.1, with the qualification that the minimum 

abundance threshold for a basic population should be 250 spawners and the minimum for 

intermediate through very large populations should be at least 500 spawners (ICTRT 

2007b, p. 79). 
 p. 124 

4.1.2 Short-term Recovery Threshold 

The short-term recovery threshold calls for recovering all four steelhead populations in 

the Yakima Basin to the ICTRT’s Viable status (a 5% or less risk of extinction over a 100 

year period). This threshold differs from the delisting threshold in that all populations 

must exceed maintained status and be classified as viable, and no population is singled 

out for Highly Viable status. This threshold was the one originally developed by the 

Yakima Subbasin Planning Board prior to development of the final ICTRT 

recommendations. It was retained in order to emphasize the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board’s commitment to achieving viability across all four populations 

in order to minimize long-term extinction risks. The Board recognizes the delisting 

threshold as an appropriate point at which to consider delisting, but holds that continuing 

on beyond delisting to achieve the short-term recovery goal is both important and feasible 

in the 15-30 years needed to implement actions from this plan and see a population-level 

response by steelhead. 

4.1.3 Delisting & Short-term Recovery Threshold Differences 

The matrix presented in Figure 4.1 helps clarify the difference between the delisting and 

short-term recovery thresholds. The figure is adapted from the ICTRT’s stock status 

reports (ICTRT In press); a full description of the ICTRT approach to determining 

Viability can be found in ICTRT (2007b). 

Figure 4.1: VSP parameter risk ratings for Yakima steelhead populations 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

Very Low Low Moderate High 

Abundance/Productivity Ris

k

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6-25%) M M 

M 

Toppenish 

Satus 

 

High 

(>25%) Naches Upper 

Yakima 

HV = Highly Viable; V = Viable; M = Maintained; Shaded cells do not meet viability criteria 
 p. 125 

The short-term recovery threshold calls for moving all four of the Yakima Basin 

populations to a 5% viability level. Looking at the figure, this would require moving 

them from the lower right portion of the diagram to one of the boxes marked with a V in 

the second row. The ICTRT’s viability criteria for the Yakima Basin Major Population 

Group (MPG) calls for two of the populations (including one of the large populations) to 

move to Viable status or better, with one of the Viable populations then moving on to 

Highly Viable status. The remaining two populations must reach or exceed Maintained 

status. The most likely scenario addressing these criteria was described in Section 4.1.1. 

4.1.4 Long-term Recovery Threshold 

Achieving the delisting and short-term recovery goals described above are only the first 

steps towards increasing the abundance and productivity of Yakima Basin steelhead 

populations to levels that allow for harvest for recreational, commercial, and ceremonial 

purposes in keeping with the Vision 2020 statement in Section 1.2. The specific longterm recovery targets identified in this plan are far from definitive determinations of what 

may be possible. They do serve to remind us that while the short-term goals of recovering 

steelhead to the point that they no longer require the protective measures of the 

Endangered Species Act is an immediate priority, the long-term recovery vision of the 

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board will require building on that initial 

success and continuing recovery efforts long after delisting is achieved. No time frame is 

set for achieving long-term recovery. 

4.1.5 Relationship of Recovery Thresholds to NOAA Delisting 

Decisions 

NOAA Fisheries’ decision whether or not to delist Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

should be guided by the Board and ICTRT recovery thresholds, but is not required to be 

strictly determined by them. NOAA has the discretion to determine when it considers the 

MPG sufficiently recovered to be labeled as Viable. NOAA Fisheries also has the ability 

to proceed with delisting even if neither threshold is met, based on the determination that 

substantial progress towards recovery is being made. Because steelhead populations 

within the Yakima Basin make up only a portion of the total Middle Columbia River 

DPS, it is also possible that Yakima Basin steelhead meet their recovery criteria but are 

not delisted, based on concerns over the status of other steelhead MPGs in the DPS. 

4.2 Recovery Objectives and Criteria 

This section describes recovery objectives and criteria developed in accordance with 

NOAA Fisheries guidance (NMFS 2004) and the ICTRT Yakima Stock Status 

Assessments described in Chapter 2 (ICTRT In press). The purpose of these objectives 

and criteria is to provide concrete measures of progress towards meeting the recovery 

goals. These objectives and criteria are based on quantitative and qualitative 

measurements of abundance, productivity, and spatial structure/diversity on a population 

basis. Criteria for the delisting and short-term recovery thresholds are drawn directly 

from the ICTRT’s Stock Status Assessments, with the delisting threshold based on the 

most likely application of the maintenance standard to one large population (Upper 
 p. 126 

Yakima) and one other population (Toppenish), and the short-term recovery threshold 

based on achieving Viability for each of the four populations. Productivity and diversity 

criteria for the long-term recovery threshold are the same as for the short-term threshold. 

Long-term recovery threshold abundance and spatial structure criteria are based on 

restoring full access to historically accessible stream reaches throughout the basin that 

that can be restored consistent with the Board’s commitment to sustaining local customs 

and economies. 

4.2.1 Abundance 

The abundance objective is to maintain the number of steelhead within each population in 

the Yakima Basin at levels consistent with viability. The abundance criteria call for 

maintaining the 10-year geometric mean for spawner abundance at levels equal to or 

exceeding the values given in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1: Minimum abundance criteria for recovery thresholds 

Population Delisting Threshold Short-Term Recovery Long-term Recovery

Satus: 

Satus Watershed 

 Mainstem Block36 500 

500 

500 

500 2,000 

Toppenish 250 500 1,500 

Naches 1,500 1,500 5,400 

Upper Yakima 500 1,500 7,700 

Total for MPG 3,250 4,500 16,600 

The long-term recovery targets presented here were calculated by averaging and rounding 

the results of the 2005 subbasin planning EDT restoration threshold for steelhead and an 

extrapolation to spawner abundance from the ICTRT total weighted and temperature 

limited habitat area for the Yakima Basin (discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.1) times an 

average of 10 spawners per 10,000 m2

 of high-quality habitat (a rate currently seen in 

good habitat in the Yakima Basin) as shown in Table 4.2. 

 

36 As noted in Section 4.1.1, the “mainstem block” represents spawners attributed to the Satus 

population by the ICTRT that local recovery planners call for producing either in the portion of 

the mainstem Yakima below the Naches River, or if mainstem spawning in these reaches is not 

found to be viable, as additional fish produced beyond the abundance thresholds in any of the 

population areas. 
 p. 127 

Table 4.2: Sources for long-term recovery abundance targets 

Population EDT Restoration 

Scenario ICTRT Expansion Average of EDT & ICTRT

Satus 2,733 1,280 2,007

Toppenish 1,784 1,171 1,478

Naches 4,911 5,849 5,380

Upper Yakima 6,533 8,795 7,664

Total 15,961 17,095 16,528

 Note that these numbers do not take into account interactions with resident rainbow 

Although the total abundance target for the long-term recovery threshold is 

approximately an order of magnitude greater than recent 10-year average abundance, it is 

still only one third of the estimated historic abundance levels discussed in Section 2.4.1. 

Both methods assume that the anadromous form of O. mykiss dominates the entire Upper 

Yakima population area. Reviewing this assumption is identified as a key research need 

in Chapter 7. These long-term abundance targets should not be interpreted as definitive 

goals. They are meant to encourage discussion and ongoing research about the potential 

size of fully recovered steelhead populations in the Yakima Basin. 

4.2.2 Productivity 

The productivity goal is to increase the number of reproductive offspring per spawner 

within each population to levels that, together with increased abundance, result in low 

risk of extinction. All thresholds call for the Yakima major population group to maintain 

a long-term average spawner:spawner ratio greater than or equal to 1.0, indicating stable 

or increasing long-term population size. Productivity criteria are based on intrinsic 

productivities calculated using the ICTRT’s methods37 in order to assess the ability of 

populations to rebound when reduced to below average abundances. Criteria for 

minimum 10-yr geometric means for intrinsic productivity at the size threshold for each 

population and threshold are indicated in Table 4.3. Criteria are based on the ICTRT 

Viability Curves (ICTRT 2007b). 

 

37 See explanation of ICTRT intrinsic productivity calculations in Section 2.4.2.3. 
 p. 128 

Table 4.3: Spawners and spawner:spawner ratio 

Population Delisting 

Threshold 

Short-Term 

Recovery Long-term 

Recovery 

Satus: 

Satus Watershed 

 Mainstem Block

2.00 (High Viable) 

1.56 (Viable) 

1.56 (Viable) 

1.56 (Viable) 

1.2 

1.2 

Toppenish 1.20 (Maintained +) 1.56 (Viable) 1.2 

Naches 1.26 (Viable) 1.26 (Viable) 1.2 

Upper Yakima 1.20 (Maintained +) 1.26 (Viable) 1.2 

4.2.3 Spatial Structure 

The spatial structure goal is to restore the distribution of steelhead across a broad range of 

habitats in historically occupied areas in order to maintain resilience and life history 

diversity. Distribution of steelhead spawning across the ICTRT designated spawning 

areas for each population is used to assess spatial distribution. Distribution is assessed 

based on the ICTRT’s definition of occupancy: 

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 

(i.e., the most recent generation) and have been observed for at least half 

of the most recent three brood cycles (approximately 15 years for 

steelhead and Chinook). A Minor Spawning Area (MiSA) is regarded as 

occupied when it has two or more redds present over the previously 

defined time periods. A MSA is regarded as occupied when it has two or 

more redds within BOTH the upper and lower half of the weighted 

spawning area within that MSA over the previously defined time periods. 

(ICTRT 2007b, p. 50). 

Satus Population 

Naturally produced steelhead should occupy both major spawning areas in the Satus 

watershed (Satus and Dry Creek MSAs) and the Mule-Dry minor spawning areas. 

Consistent spawning must occur in both major spawning areas. 

Toppenish Population 

Naturally produced steelhead spawning should occupy both of the major spawning areas 

in the Toppenish watershed (upper Toppenish and Simcoe MSAs). Consistent spawning 

must occur in both major spawning areas. 

Naches Population 

Naturally produced steelhead should occupy at least seven of the eight major spawning 

areas for the delisting and short-term recovery thresholds. For the long-term recovery 

threshold all eight will be occupied. Consistent spawning must occur within the Naches 
 p. 129 

mainstem and Ahtanum, and Rattlesnake creeks to maintain distribution across habitat 

types and life histories. 

Upper Yakima Population 

Naturally produced steelhead should occupy at least 10 of the 14 major spawning areas 

for the delisting and short-term recovery thresholds. For the long-term recovery threshold 

12 of 14 MSAs should be occupied. Spawning should consistently occur within at least 

the Yakima mainstem; Umtanum, Swauk, Manastash, and Taneum creeks; and the 

Teanaway River (West and North Teanaway MSAa and Lower Teanaway minor 

spawning area). While this threshold does not specifically require passage at Cle Elum, 

Kachess, and/or Keechelus dams, it recognizes that providing passage can play an 

important role in meeting these criteria. Table 4.4 summarizes the options for meeting the 

spatial structure criteria in the Upper Yakima. 

Table 4.4: Possible combinations of spawning areas for the Upper Yakima 

Required MSAs Plus at least three of these: Recovery not required 

Umtanum 

Swauk 

North Teanaway 

West Teanaway 

Taneum 

Manastash 

Upper Mainstem 

Cle Elum 

Naneum 

Reecer MSA 

Caribou MSA 

Middle Mainstem 

Wenas 

Roza/Burbank 

4.2.4 Diversity 

The diversity goal for all thresholds is to maintain and enhance both phenotypic 

(morphology, behavior, and life-history traits) and genotypic diversity while limiting 

introgression of non-local genes. This will be accomplished by continuing to carefully 

manage and/or minimize factors that alter the distribution of traits such as timing of 

spawning and upstream and downstream migrations, age structure, size, fecundity, 

morphology, behavior, and genetic characteristics. 

Population-specific criteria based on measurable traits, including body length, run timing, 

age structure, sex ratio, and genetic composition have not been developed at this time. As 

noted in Chapter 2, data is available on these traits for the MPG as a whole, but only the 

Upper Yakima population can be characterized in any detail at this time (based on 

samples at Roza Dam). Developing methods to identify fish by population at Prosser 

Dam fish ladders will play an important role in developing the information base needed 

to develop population specific diversity criteria. Additional information on the research 

needed to develop detailed population-specific diversity criteria is given in Chapter 7. 

The hatchery stray rate into the basin should be maintained at less than 5% of the total 

spawner abundance in the MPG (based on Prosser counts). Monitoring of genetic 

composition to detect the presence of non-indigenous genetic markers should be 

established. 
 p. 130 

4.3 Recovery Strategies 

This section describes the geographic priorities and action strategies that will need to be 

applied to successfully meet the recovery goals, objectives, and thresholds described 

above. It provides an overview and framework for the more detailed discussion of 

specific recovery actions in Chapter 5. The action strategies were chosen to serve as a 

linkage between the specific action descriptions in this plan and the more general 

summary in the draft NOAA Fisheries recovery plan for the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS. These strategies are specific to the Yakima Basin; additional strategies to 

address factors affecting Yakima steelhead in the Columbia River and the ocean will be 

addressed in the NOAA Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Recovery strategies for the Yakima Basin are: 

4.3.1 Habitat Strategies 

1) Protect existing functional habitats 

2) Restore unimpeded upstream and downstream fish passage (includes screening 

diversions) 

3) Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

4) Restore channel structure and complexity 

5) Restore riparian condition and future LWD recruitment 

6) Improve flow conditions 

7) Improve water quality 

8) Improve upland watershed conditions 

9) Enhance upstream nutrient supplies 

4.3.2 Predation Strategies 

1) Reconfigure infrastructure to reduce predation 

2) Evaluate and modify predator management options 

4.3.3 Harvest Strategies 

1) Maintain in-basin fishing regulations that protect steelhead, including regulations 

of other fisheries aimed at eliminating by-catch of steelhead and reducing 

negative impacts of introduced species 

4.3.4 Hatchery Strategies 

1) Use small-scale supplementation to accelerate recovery 

2) Promote repeat spawning of kelts 
 p. 131 

All of the actions in Chapter 5 are classified according to the action strategies they 

implement and the limiting factors they address. 

4.3.5 Recovery Strategies Outside of the Yakima Basin 

Recovery actions in the mainstem Columbia, estuary, and ocean are identified and 

implemented through a complex framework of federal and state programs and policies 

over which Yakima Basin stakeholders have little control. The choice of which out-ofbasin recovery actions to implement and the rate that they are completed will 

significantly affect the survival of Yakima steelhead during their upstream, downstream, 

and oceanic migrations. This plan focuses on recovery strategies within the Yakima 

Basin, but assumes that significant improvements will also be made out-side of the basin. 

Out-of-basin strategies and actions are to be addressed in detail as part of NOAA’s 

Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

4.3.6 Recovery Strategies Affecting All Yakima Populations 

All four Yakima populations will benefit significantly from efforts to improve conditions 

for upstream adult and downstream smolt migrations in the mainstem Yakima River. This 

will require: 

1) Altering irrigation delivery and storage operations in the Yakima Basin to 

improve flows and temperatures in migration periods (Habitat Strategy 6) and 

utilize managed high flows to maintain floodplain habitat 

2) Improving channel and floodplain conditions and reducing predation through the 

shared migratory reach (Habitat Strategies 3, 4 & 5 and Predation Strategy 1) 

All four Yakima populations also benefit from the kelt-reconditioning program (Hatchery 

Strategy 2), protective fisheries regulations (Harvest Strategy 1), and ongoing efforts to 

protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1). The Upper Yakima and Naches 

populations would also benefit from the conservation-oriented supplementation programs 

under consideration (Hatchery Strategy 1). 

4.3.7 Role of Areas Above Storage Dams in Steelhead Recovery 

When the five major Yakima Basin storage dams were constructed early in the 20th 

century, steelhead access to streams above the dams was blocked. The BOR has assessed 

the amount of anadromous fish habitat potentially available if passage facilities are built 

as 13.8 miles above Keechelus Dam, 2.4 miles above Kachess Dam, 29.4 miles above 

Cle Elum Dam, 6.0 miles above Bumping Lake Dam, and 36.8 miles above Tieton Dam 

((BOR 2005). There is some uncertainty over the degree of productivity and past use of 

these areas by steelhead (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board 2005, p. 2-

335), but this may be offset by the prospect that these colder waters could become more 

important refugia for steelhead if climate change leads to decrease flows and increased 

water temperatures at lower elevations. Even limited use of these areas would increase 

the viability of the populations through improvements in spatial structure and life history 
 p. 132 

diversity. If Chinook, sockeye, or coho also recolonize these habitats, the resulting 

marine-derived nutrients would benefit steelhead. 

The costs of providing passage at the storage dams are substantial when compared solely 

to their potential benefit to steelhead. It is the contention of the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board that 1) recovery of steelhead to levels of viability sufficient to 

warrant delisting under the ESA may be feasible without restoration of access to habitat 

above the storage dams, but that 2) access at some or all of the storage dams would 

greatly facilitate the process of steelhead recovery. Accordingly, our recovery criteria for 

steelhead do not require establishment of spawning populations above the passage dams, 

but do recognize that passage at the storage dams can help in reaching steelhead recovery 

goals. Fish passage at some or all of the storage dams is a key component for both bull 

trout recovery and re-establishment of sockeye salmon in the Yakima Basin, and offers 

significant benefits to non-listed Chinook and coho. When the benefits for all salmonid 

species are considered, passage at the storage dams becomes a much higher priority than 

it would be for steelhead on their own. Construction of Lake Cle Elum and Bumping 

Lake passage facilities are identified as specific actions in Chapter 5. Passage at all five 

storage dams should continue to be assessed based on the full range of benefits it would 

provide. 

4.3.8 Toppenish Population Recovery Strategies 

Geographic Focus 

Recovery efforts should focus equally on both MSAs and their shared migration corridor. 

No specific actions are identified for the Mill Creek minor spawning area, but it should 

benefit from the general watershed-wide and lower Toppenish Creek actions. 

Key Strategies 

Achieving recovery goals for the Toppenish Population will require: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1) 

2) Significant efforts to improve passage, flows, and riparian conditions in 

Toppenish Creek and its tributaries (Habitat Strategies 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8) 

3) Restoration of floodplain function in lower Toppenish Creek (Habitat Strategies 3 

& 4) 

4) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River as detailed in 

Section 4.3.6 

4.3.9 Satus Population Recovery Strategies 

Geographic Focus 

Within the Satus Creek watershed itself, recovery efforts should focus equally on both 

MSAs and their shared migration corridor. No specific actions are identified for the 

Mule-Dry minor spawning area, but it should benefit from the general watershed-wide 
 p. 133 

and lower Satus Creek actions. Within the mainstem Yakima portion of the ICTRT Satus 

Population Area, recovery efforts should focus on improving habitat and survival for 

upstream and downstream migration by all populations. Specific efforts to restore 

spawning aggregations in the lower mainstem and its tributaries should only occur if 

there is evidence that successful life history strategies based in the lower river and its 

tributaries currently exist or can be re-established. 

Recovery actions in tributary drainages to the lower Yakima River are not identified in 

this plan. Portions of Snipes, Spring, and Corral creeks and Amon Wasteway38 may have 

potential to produce steelhead (Romey and Cramer 2001), and some level of use by 

salmon and O. mykiss is known to occur (Monk 2001). These waterways were identified 

as parts of minor spawning areas in the ICTRT intrinsic potential analysis. However, as 

discussed in Chapter 2, flows in these waterways are dominated by return flows from 

irrigation systems. Evidence that they would not have sustained significant year-round 

flows prior to the establishment of irrigation is presented by Smith et al. (2006). The 

Kennewick Irrigation District provided the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery 

Board with aerial photographs of Amon Wasteway from 1948 and 1955 that show a dry 

channel prior to irrigation development in the surrounding area (letter sent 12/26/07). 

This plan does not require these areas to be managed for steelhead in order to meet 

recovery objectives; and local recovery planners have indicated to the ICTRT that these 

areas should not be included as part of modeled historic habitat (See Appendix A). 

Management of these waterways for fish habitat values has been limited. The irrigation 

districts manage these waterways as part of their drainage infrastructure and are 

concerned about potential regulatory burdens. WDFW notes that maintenance of the 

drainage networks need not prevent the protection and management of these waterways 

as fish-bearing waters. If these interests can be reconciled in a mutually acceptable 

manner, maintaining and enhancing fish habitat in the lower ends of these waterways 

should be encouraged as part of improving migratory habitat in the lower river. 

Amon Wasteway is currently the focus of significant conservation efforts by the Tapteal 

Greenway Association. If habitat conditions that sustain steelhead production can be 

maintained and mutually acceptable agreements regarding future management reached by 

the Kennewick Irrigation District, WDFW, and other key stakeholders, management of 

this area as steelhead spawning habitat may be possible. However maintenance of 

steelhead spawning in this area is not a prerequisite for recovery and delisting of Yakima 

Basin steelhead. 

Key Strategies 

Achieving recovery goals for the Satus Population will require: 

 

38 Spring, Corral, and Snipes creeks and Amon Wasteway are referred to by the names used on 

the USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The first three are referred to as drainageways by local 

irrigation districts, while Amon Wasteway is often referred to as Amon Creek. The use of these 

names in this document is in no way meant to indicate any conclusions regarding ongoing 

disputes about the legal status of these waterways. 
 p. 134 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1) 

2) Continuing ongoing efforts by the Yakama Nation to improve watershed and 

riparian conditions within the Satus drainage ((Habitat Strategies 5, 7 & 8) 

3) Restoring floodplain function and channel complexity in lower Satus Creek 

(Habitat Strategies 3 & 4) 

4) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River as detailed Section 

4.3.6 

4.3.10 Naches Population Recovery Strategies 

Geographic Focus 

The recovery threshold presented in this plan requires steelhead occupancy in seven of 

the eight major spawning areas. Currently there is at least some level of use in all eight 

MSAs, though steelhead spawning in the Tieton MSA is only confirmed from Oak Creek 

and the portion of the mainstem Naches associated with this MSA. Re-establishment of 

steelhead spawning in the Tieton River would make a valuable contribution to long-term 

recovery, but is not required by the de-listing threshold described in this plan. Efforts to 

increase steelhead use of the lower Tieton will only become feasible if fall high flows 

associated with flip-flop can be addressed; restoring use of the Tieton and its tributaries 

above Tieton Dam would require providing both upstream and downstream fish passage 

at the dam (see discussion of storage dams in Section 4.3.1). 

The location of the Ahtanum and Cowiche MSAs between the Satus and Toppenish 

populations and the remainder of the Naches population make them important 

components of the spatial diversity of the population and the Yakima MPG as a whole. 

The ICTRT has identified two minor spawning areas, Wide Hollow and Moxie, in the 

Naches population area. The Wide Hollow spawning area may have the ability to support 

limited steelhead spawning, but irrigation conveyance, return flows, and surrounding 

urban development hinder spawning activity. Establishment of steelhead in Wide Hollow 

is not a required part of recovery thresholds presented in this plan. The Moxee spawning 

area identified by the ICTRT is not considered to have had sufficient flows to support 

steelhead spawning, as noted in Section 2.3.3. The recovery thresholds presented in this 

plan do not require the establishment of steelhead in the Moxie area. Managing the lower 

reaches of Wide Hollow Creek and Moxee Drain to provide rearing habitat for fish 

moving to and from the mainstem Yakima, however, would be beneficial to Naches 

steelhead recovery. 

The Naches River upstream from the Tieton confluence is the only mainstem reach in the 

basin with flows that are currently in a nearly normative state. Increasing the availability 

and quality of habitat in this portion of the basin will help offset the loss or alteration of 

mainstem habitats in other portions of the basin. 

EDT model results indicate that conditions in the Naches River for the 17.5 miles below 

the Tieton confluence have a steelhead mortality rate—compared to the predevelopment 

estimate—of more than five times that for the 27.1 miles of the Naches upstream from 
 p. 135 

the confluence. Most of the modeled impact is due to daily maximum river temperatures 

during the summer period before the flow spike associated with flip-flop. According to 

BOR flow data for water years 1995-1999, average regulated flow in the lower Naches 

was significantly lower than modeled average unregulated flow in July and the first half 

of August. Improving conditions in this reach will benefit all upstream MSAs. The 

purchase of the Wapatox water right by BOR (Sec. 3.3.5.7) is a significant step towards 

improving flows in this reach. 

The 47-mile section of the mainstem Yakima included by the ICTRT in the Naches 

Population is a critical part of migratory and rearing habitat for both Naches and Upper 

Yakima steelhead. The degree to which it currently supports spawning that results in 

successful production of smolts is unknown. If successful life histories based on 

spawning in this area exist or can be established, the reach will be a candidate for 

meeting the “mainstem spawner” abundance objective identified in Section 4.1.1. The 

extent and viability of spawning in this mainstem reach is identified as a key knowledge 

gap. 

Key Strategies 

Achieving recovery goals for the Naches Population will require: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1) 

2) Making significant efforts to protect and improve passage, flows, and instream 

and riparian conditions in tributaries (Ahtanum, Bumping, Cowiche, Rattlesnake, 

Nile and Little Naches watersheds) (Habitat Strategies 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8) 

3) Addressing the effects on steelhead of reservoir operations and irrigation 

withdrawals that create winter/spring/early summer low flows and late 

summer/fall high flows in the Tieton, lower Bumping and lower Naches River 

(Habitat Strategy 6) 

4) Improve floodplain function and habitat conditions in the mainstem Naches River 

5) Improving migration conditions in the mainstem Yakima River as detailed in 

Section 4.3.6 

4.3.11 Upper Yakima Population Recovery Strategies 

Recovery planners recognize that the Upper Yakima River steelhead population has the 

highest risk of extinction of the four populations in the MPG and will likely require more 

time and effort to recover than the Satus, Toppenish, and Naches populations. Just 

achieving “maintained” status in accordance with ICTRT maintenance guidelines will 

require a significant commitment to recovery actions in the Upper Yakima. 

Geographic Focus 

The Upper Yakima has the largest, most complex and diverse spatial structure of the four 

population areas, with 14 major and 2 minor spawning areas spread across a wide range 
 p. 136 

of ecological settings. It is also the population with the most limited current distribution 

relative to the estimated historic distribution. 

Lower Upper Yakima Tributaries 

The ICTRT’s Wenas Creek MSA is not required in the recovery thresholds identified in 

this plan. If passage and appropriate migratory conditions in lower Wenas Creek could be 

assured, the upper watershed could potentially support a significant amount of steelhead 

spawning. The significant challenges associated with restoring passage and migratory 

conditions mean that it is not considered a short-term priority in this plan. If conditions 

change such that restoring Wenas Creek becomes feasible (e.g., major changes to 

irrigation systems and Wenas Dam), or if it is clear that production from the higher 

priority areas identified in this plan will not be sufficient to meet recovery objectives, 

restoration of steelhead spawning in Wenas Creek should be given higher priority. Efforts 

to maintain the lowest reaches of Wenas Creek as off-channel habitat for fish in the 

mainstem Yakima should be continued. The Selah Creek portion of the ICTRT’s Wenas 

Creek MSA is not considered by local recovery planners to have ever maintained the 

streamflow needed to support steelhead and is not considered a recovery priority. 

The Umtanum Creek portion of the Umtanum MSA is a mandatory element of the 

recovery threshold. Umtanum Creek itself is the only tributary with near-natural flow and 

habitat conditions that supports steelhead in the lower portion of the Upper Yakima 

population (it is managed as part of WDFW’s LT Murray Wildlife Area). Potential 

contributions of Umtanum Creek to overall abundance and productivity of the Upper 

Yakima population as a whole are minor, but its role in improving gene flow between 

steelhead populations and as an island of relatively intact habitat in the Upper Yakima 

make it an important component of the spatial structure and diversity of the Upper 

Yakima population. While no specific actions are proposed for Umtanum Creek (the last 

significant passage barrier was removed in 2005-6), maintaining current management and 

protections is a high priority. While Lmuma Creek (also included in the ICTRT’s 

Umtanum MSA) has the potential to support limited steelhead spawning, priority should 

be on restoring conditions in the lower end for use as an off-channel refuge by steelhead 

in the mainstem Yakima. Roza and Burbank creeks were also identified as potential 

habitat by the ICTRT, but have intermittent flows and limited access because of alluvial 

fans at their mouths. Neither is required as part of this recovery threshold. Work by the 

Department of Defense and other landowners aimed at improving watershed conditions 

in these areas should continue based on the benefits to downstream areas. 

Ellensburg Area Tributaries 

The Reecer and Caribou MSAs both contain complex networks of small creeks, including 

Dry, Reecer, and Currier (Reecer MSA) and Cherry, Cooke, Coleman, Park, and others 

(Caribou MSA). These creeks have been managed for a century as part of a complex 

network of irrigation ditches and drains. The lower ends of these tributaries have high 

value as off-channel rearing habitat for the adjoining reach of the mainstem Yakima and 

are being restored to serve as such through YTHAP restoration efforts. These creeks have 

only limited spawning potential due to their low gradients and highly altered 

hydrographs. 
 p. 137 

The Naneum MSA includes the Naneum and Wilson creek systems. The upper Naneum 

Creek watershed includes significant amounts of potential habitat and is thought to have 

sustained steelhead spawning prior to development of the irrigation infrastructure that 

now blocks passage into the upper watershed. Several possible routes exist for opening 

up passage through the interconnected network of streams and irrigation ditches east of 

Ellensburg. Identifying the most effective route and prioritizing barrier removal and 

habitat actions through this route is a significant but feasible challenge. Ongoing efforts 

to restore passage in Wilson Creek upstream to the city of Ellensburg are opening access 

to valuable rearing habitat; however, the high cost and logistical challenges of opening 

Wilson Creek through the city make working further up on Wilson Creek a low priority. 

Other Upper Yakima Area Tributaries 

The Swauk Creek, North Teanaway and West Teanaway MSAs and the Lower Teanaway 

minor spawning area are the current tributary strongholds for steelhead production in the 

Upper Yakima (the Middle Fork Teanaway is a portion of the West Teanaway MSA). 

Maintaining these spawning areas is required to meet the Upper Yakima recovery 

threshold. Taneum Creek has high quality habitat that is currently partially accessible. 

Projects to assure unimpeded fish passage are underway. Manastash Creek is currently 

inaccessible to steelhead due to passage barriers at irrigation dams; cooperative efforts to 

remove these barriers and improve instream flows are underway. Both of these MSAs are 

anticipated to be consistent producers of the anadromous form of O. mykiss and are 

required components of this recovery scenario. 

Mainstem Spawning Areas 

The Middle Mainstem MSA between the Teanaway and Cle Elum rivers is currently 

accessible. The Upper Mainstem MSA includes the accessible reaches of the mainstem 

Yakima River upstream from the Cle Elum River, tributaries such as Big Creek, and up 

to 15 miles of currently blocked habitat above Kachess and Keechelus dams. The Cle 

Elum MSA is split into the accessible section below Cle Elum Dam and up to 30 miles of 

blocked habitat above the dam. All are candidates for recovery. 

Key Strategies 

The complex interactions between habitat conditions and anadromous and resident life 

histories of O. mykiss in the Upper Yakima will require ongoing monitoring and research 

aimed at understanding what conditions promote anadromy, and specifically, whether 

residency is more a reflection of favorable local habitat or unfavorable migration 

conditions. Research outcomes will guide restoration in addition to the obvious needs for 

improved passage. For example, if flow manipulation has a disproportionate effect on 

early juveniles, moderating its effects may shift the current balance toward anadromy. 

Actions that are expected to benefit the Upper Yakima steelhead population include: 

1) Continuing efforts to protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1) 

2) Providing unimpeded passage for steelhead in key tributaries (Manastash, 

Taneum and if feasible, Naneum and Cle Elum) (Habitat Strategy 2) 
 p. 138 

3) Improving outmigration conditions at Roza Dam (Habitat Strategies 2 & 6) 

4) Addressing the effects of reservoir and irrigation system operations that create 

winter/spring/fall low flows and summer high flows in the lower Cle Elum and 

mainstem Yakima rivers (Habitat Strategy 6) 

5) Protecting and enhancing floodplain conditions along the mainstem Yakima 

(Habitat Strategy 3) 

6) Improving flows and instream and riparian conditions in tributaries and side 

channels (Habitat Strategy 4, 5, 6 & 9) 

7) Improving migration conditions in the lower mainstem Yakima River as detailed 

in Section 4.3.6 
 p. 139 

5 Recovery Actions 

5.1 Identifying & Describing Recovery Actions 5.4 Overall Cost of Recovery 

5.2 Timeframe for Implementing Actions 5.5 Recovery Action Descriptions 

5.3 Necessity/Sufficiency of Proposed Actions 

5.1 Identifying and Describing Recovery Actions 

This chapter of the recovery plan recommends specific recovery actions that will 

contribute directly to restoring steelhead in the Yakima Basin to viable levels. Research 

and monitoring actions are described in Chapter 7, and outreach and education actions are 

described in Chapter 8. Both of these sets of actions do not directly alleviate threats to 

steelhead viability, but are essential to improving our ability to design and implement 

actions that do. Implementation of the recovery actions identified in this chapter should 

restore steelhead populations to viable levels. These actions will also benefit other fish 

species and some wildlife and lessen the chance for additional listings in the Yakima 

Basin. 

Some of the actions identified in this plan were developed in other forums or processes 

(e.g., the Yakima Subbasin Plan and the HB 2514 Watershed Planning process) and are 

incorporated with little or no modification. Specific restoration actions that have been 

completed and are not ongoing in nature are not listed here; an inventory of past 

restoration actions was included in the Yakima Subbasin Plan (Yakima Subbasin Fish 

and Wildlife Planning Board 2005); and the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery 

Board anticipates maintaining a continually updated database of completed recovery 

actions. Intensive fish restoration work has occurred in the Yakima Basin for over three 

decades and continuing, refining, and expanding these existing efforts will be a key 

component of steelhead recovery in the Yakima Basin. Recovery will also require a 

significant commitment to new actions. Both new and ongoing actions are detailed in this 

plan. The following NOAA Fisheries recovery planning guidelines were applied when 

selecting and describing recovery actions (NMFS 2004): 

• Recovery actions should be discrete and action-oriented. 

• Whenever possible, recovery actions should be site-specific, as per ESA Section 

4(f)(1)(B)(i). 

• Recovery actions should be feasible and fundable. 

• The plan should include both near-term (completed in less than 15 years) and 

long-term (taking longer than 15 years) actions. 

• Recovery actions should be described with sensitivity and discretion. 

Actions identified in this plan are classified into six groups, Basinwide, Lower Mainstem, 

Naches, Status, Toppenish, and Upper Yakima. Basinwide actions are those that can be 

applied throughout the basin. Most are programmatic in nature, though a few key 
 p. 140 

basinwide actions involve specific proposals for river and hatchery operations. Lower 

Mainstem actions are site-specific actions in the shared migratory corridor from the 

mouth of the Yakima upstream to the confluence of the Naches. Actions below the 

Toppenish Creek confluence are noted as benefiting all population areas, while those 

above are noted as benefiting the Naches and Upper Yakima populations. 

All other actions are population-specific; where actions occur in and/or specifically 

benefit individual Major Spawning Areas (MSAs), these areas are indicated in the action 

description. Note that while MSAs are often named after a single creek, they typically 

include a complex of nearby creeks. For example, the Caribou Creek MSA also includes 

Coleman, Parke, Cooke, Cherry, and other creeks (see figure 2.5 for clarification). 

As noted in Chapter 4, for local planning purposes we have broken the ICTRT’s Satus 

population area into two components. The Satus Creek actions listed here are specific to 

the Satus Creek Watershed, while actions in the lower mainstem Yakima (technically part 

of the ICTRT’s Satus population) are listed separately due to their broad benefits to all 

populations. Similarly, while the ICTRT Naches population area includes the Yakima 

mainstem from the mouth of Toppenish Creek upstream to the Naches confluence, we 

have included actions in this area under the mainstem actions category. 

Additional information provided for each recovery action includes: 

• Key partners 

• Focal area 

• Strategies implemented by the action 

• Likelihood of implementation 

• Time to implement 

• Time to realize benefits 

• Cost estimates 

Key partners are entities likely to play a significant role in implementing the action. 

Focal area is the location of the action itself. 

For strategies implemented by the action, see Chapter 4. 

Likelihood of implementation was scored in one of three categories. Only actions in the 

first two categories were retained: 

• High (action is technically feasible, support is likely and there is little or no 

opposition) 

• Moderate (action is technically feasible, there is some support, and opposition 

could likely be resolved) 

• Low (action involves substantial technical issues and/or has little apparent or 

likely support or would likely encounter opposition) 
 p. 141 

Time to implement indicates the time required to implement the action on the ground. 

Categories were: 

• Ongoing (action is in place and needs to be continued at roughly current levels) 

• Expand ongoing effort (action is in place but needs to be expanded) 

• 0-3 years required to implement 

• 4-6 years 

• 6-10 years 

• Greater than 10 years 

Time to realize benefits indicates the time needed following implementation for benefits 

of the action to be fully realized. This time ranges from instantaneous (e.g., improved 

passage is available the day after a dam is removed) to decades long (e.g., for plantings to 

generate new woody debris). 

Cost estimates given in this plan are preliminary estimates based on the best information 

on hand. The accuracy of estimates varies greatly from action to action, and the estimates 

should not be taken as definitive. Each estimate represents the total cost of implementing 

the action, but does not include either the value of resulting benefits or opportunity costs 

incurred as a result of the action. The cost proportions indicate the percentage of the 

project costs attributed to benefiting fish in general and steelhead in particular. These are 

general estimates meant to indicate if a project would be done specifically to benefit 

steelhead (e.g., 100% fish, 100% steelhead), benefit steelhead and other fish species (e.g., 

100% fish, 50% steelhead), or benefit fish indirectly (e.g., water conservation efforts that 

directly benefit irrigators in addition to their fish benefits). 

Each action description is meant to give an overview of the proposed action and its key 

components. As part of the development of a recovery implementation schedule, action 

descriptions will be refined and expanded, and more detailed descriptions of specific 

components of the actions will be developed. This implementation schedule will be 

maintained in a tiered structure, with general strategies identified in this plan at Tier I 

(e.g., “Restore unimpeded fish passage”) and the actions described in this plan at Tier II 

(e.g., “Restore passage in lower Taneum Creek”). Tier III will include detailed 

descriptions of specific projects that implement the Tier II actions (e.g., “Install rock-weir 

fishway at the Bruton Diversion”). All of the actions described in this plan have been 

compiled into a simple database that will be regularly updated in response. See Chapter 6 

for more information about how this will be integrated into the recovery implementation 

process. 

5.2 Timeframe for Implementing of Actions 

Actions in this recovery plan are intended to be implemented in the next 15 years. 

Recovery of the species themselves may take considerably longer (up to several decades) 

because of delayed environmental response (e.g., the time required for a planted riparian 

zone to reach maturity and full function) and subsequent population response (e.g., the 
 p. 142 

time required for a population to incorporate restored portions of its range into its life 

history). Actions are assigned to one of three time frames: 

1) Actions classified as Ongoing are generally currently being undertaken by 

existing entities that have a history successfully implementing similar actions. In 

most cases ongoing actions will need to be continuously implemented in the 

future. 

2) Short-term Actions are one-time or unique actions that can be implemented within 

the next six years. 

3) Long-term Actions generally require additional technical study, policy review, 

and public comment prior to implementation. Implementation of these actions 

should begin within the 15-year time frame and continue thereafter. This requires 

that studies, policy review, and public involvement begin early in the 

implementation process. Specific timeframes for implementation of these longterm actions will be developed during the implementation scheduling process 

described in Chapter 6. 

5.3 Necessity and Sufficiency of Proposed Actions 

Given 1) natural variability in climate and ocean conditions, 2) uncertainty about the 

implementation and survival benefits of recovery actions in the ocean, estuary and 

mainstem Columbia, and 3) uncertainties about the rates and types of biological 

responses to within-basin recovery actions described in this plan, it is impossible to 

predict exactly which subset of the recovery actions described in the plan will be required 

to meet each of the separate goals of delisting, short-term, and long-term recovery. 

Implementing some or all of the actions presented here should significantly improve the 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of steelhead in the Yakima Basin. 

Recovery planners anticipate that the full suite of actions presented here, if combined 

with expected improvements outside of the Yakima Basin, will be more than sufficient to 

meet de-listing and short term recovery goals, but that additional actions may need to 

reach long-term broad sense recovery goals. 

The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is working with recovery 

stakeholders to refine the actions presented in this plan and developing a detailed 

Implementation Schedule that will be regularly updated to indicate the status of actions 

and identify priorities for future action based on their biological benefit and socioeconomic feasibility. More detail on this process is given in Chapter 6. 

Chapter 7 describes the monitoring and research efforts needed to track progress towards 

recovery goals and help us understand which recovery actions will be required to meet 

those goals. Evaluating the effectiveness of implemented recovery actions will require a 

rigorous and quantitative approach to adaptive management as priority actions are being 

implemented. Actual implementation efforts will have to be adjusted over time based on 

monitoring results. Detailed recommendations on implementing a strong adaptive 

management process will be included in the Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) 

supplement to the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan that is currently being developed by 

the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board. Local recovery planners encourage 
 p. 143 

interested parties to participate in the development of the RME supplement and the 

ongoing adaptive management and implementation scheduling process. 

This plan does not include a quantitative effort to analyze the sufficiency of the recovery 

actions recommended in this plan. At this time we do not have the level of detailed 

information needed to make quantitative predictions about the benefits of specific actions 

and the exact suite of actions that will be required to meet recovery goals. The Yakima 

Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board and its partners will develop some of this detail as 

part of a regularly updated implementation schedule that identifies and prioritizes specific 

steps needed to implement the recovery actions in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

This process will focus on identifying specific habitat goals and tracking progress 

towards meeting them. 

As part of development of NOAA Fisheries’ Middle Columbia DPS Recovery Plan, the 

broad recovery scenario developed using the EDT model as part of the 2005 Yakima 

Subbasin Plan is being integrated into an all-H model that predicts steelhead response to 

recovery actions across the basin, the Columbia River, and the ocean. This EDT recovery 

scenario is described in Appendix B. More information about the integrated modeling 

effort will be available in the NOAA Fisheries’ Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

5.4 Overall Cost of Recovery 

The cost identified for each action in this plan is a preliminary estimate of the cost of 

implementing the actions and was developed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries’ 

guidelines for recovery plans. Costs are all in current dollars; they have not been adjusted 

for inflation or discounted to account for opportunity costs. Because these costs are 

preliminary and the specific set of actions that will be required to meet de-listing goals is 

not yet known, the sum of the costs presented here should not be presumed to be the cost 

of achieving de-listing. No attempt has been made to quantify either opportunity costs or 

economic benefits associated with proposed actions. While some actions described here 

will be implemented specifically to benefit steelhead and will be paid for by funds 

devoted to that purpose, many others will be implemented to achieve a wide range of 

benefits and will be paid for using an accordingly wide range of funding sources (e.g., 

floodplain enhancement projects that will improve habitat but also reduce infrastructure 

maintenance costs, improve flood protection for developable lands, and meet open space 

and recreation needs). Other actions (e.g., improving on-farm irrigation efficiency) will 

only occur when justified by direct benefits to the implementer, with benefits to fish as an 

incidental benefit. Section 5.1 described our attempt to address this complexity by 

assigning cost proportions, but to truly understand the economic impacts of specific 

actions requires a level of cost-benefit analysis not included in this plan. 

5.5 Recovery Action Descriptions 

This section provides detail on the 94 separate actions identified in this planning process. 

The action descriptions are given in a standardized format generated by the actions 

database maintained by the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board. This 

database will continue to be developed and will be linked with the implementation 
 p. 144 

schedules that will guide on-the-ground implementation and prioritization of recovery 

actions. Actions are presented in six groups: 1) Basinwide actions (16 total), which apply 

equally to all population areas, 2) Lower Mainstem Actions (9 total), which occur in the 

mainstem Yakima in areas shared by multiple populations (from the Columbia River to 

Roza Dam), and then 3) Naches (31 total), Satus (8 total), Toppenish (10 total) and Upper 

Yakima population area-specific actions (21 total), in that order. The sequence of actions 

does not indicate any priority; prioritization of actions will be specified in the 

implementation schedules under development. The references listed under limiting 

factors are the numbers of the related limiting factors in Tables 3.1 through 3.6. 
p. 145

Modify reservoir operations to improve out-migration flows

Focal Area: Mainstem Yakima and Naches Rivers

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Operational change; no specific cost identified.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Sufficient spring outmigration flows are essential for steelhead survival. Low spring flows 

increase smolt travel times and exposure to high temperatures and predators in the mainstem 

Yakima. In spring, BOR reservoir operations balance the need to refill storage with flood control. 

Flood control rule curves call for maintaining reservoirs at less than full levels in the early spring 

to provide capacity capture rapid runoff that would otherwise cause flooding. Later in spring, 

outflows are minimized to ensure refilling of reservoirs. This reduction in flows typically coincides 

with the smolt out-migration period. BOR has committed to studying alteration of rule curves 

themselves and is already altering operations to fill reservoirs sooner and spill in spring; other 

options include making releases during the outmigration period based on runoff predicitions, 

rather than spilling after reservoirs fill, and managing pulse flows. Evaluating the effects of 

changes in reservoir operations on water supply, flood hazard, and ecological functions should 

be facilitated by the work underway through the Storage Study. The potential of these changes 

to return the river to a more normative hydrograph without significantly impacting water supplies 

should be evaluated. Changes in spring/early summer reservoir operations may increase 

frequency of short-term overbank flooding, but would decrease the extent of long duration high 

water events, decreasing flood hazard, and increasing channel stability. Increased cottonwood 

regeneration and reductions in aquatic plant densities in the lower river are other potential 

benefits.

Basinwide Action #1

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW1,2,3

Bureau of Reclamation All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions

Improve flow conditions

Improve flow conditions
p. 146

Adequately screen all water diversions

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: $300,000/year for 15 years based on current efforts.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

In the 1980s and 1990s, WDFW and the BOR updated fish screens on the larger diversions in 

the basin. These screens need ongoing maintenance and upgrading. Smaller diversions are 

being screened via the WDFW screen shop and the YTAHP program. Many smaller surface 

water and pump diversions need screening throughout the basin. Programs for these actions 

are in place, but limited by funding. Existing screens need to be operated and updated in a 

manner that ensures that they meet current criteria. Where fish are present in canals, fish 

salvage operations should continue. Entrainment in unscreened diversions is an issue for kelts 

as well as juveniles.

Basinwide Action #2

Total Cost: $4,500,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,250,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW3

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Irrigation Districts

Individual irrigators

Conservation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Bonneville Power Administration

All Spawning Areas

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 147

Increase on-farm irrigation efficiency

Focal Area: Irrigated lands throughout the basin

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Work on 30% of 474,000 irrigated acres at a cost of $3,500/acre.

Fisheries: 25% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Increases in on-farm irrigation efficiency can reduce the amount of water diverted from the river 

and reduce return flows and associated water quality issues. Benefits often also include 

increased agricultural productivity and reduced labor needs. Significant improvements have 

been made in recent decades by individual irrigators and NRCS, conservation districts, WSU 

extension and other programs. These efforts should be continued and expanded. Programs 

should ensure that reductions in on-farm water use can be tracked and utilized in a manner that 

directly contributes to instream flows at key locations and times (see actions that identify priority 

areas for flow improvement).

Basinwide Action #3

Total Cost: $497,700,000 Steelhead Cost: $62,212,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW1,2

Irrigation Districts

Department of Ecology

Bureau of Reclamation

Individual irrigators

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Conservation Districts

All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality

Increase irrigation water delivery efficiency

Focal Area: Irrigation systems throughout the basin

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Specific costs for high priority systems listed under specific actions.

Fisheries: 30% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Many of the irrigation systems in the basin could be upgraded. Where older systems have been 

converted to pressurized systems (e.g. the Yakima-Tieton) water consumption has been 

reduced, crop production has become more efficient, and susceptibility to drought has 

decreased. Even with increased irrigation assessments to maintain new systems, total cost of 

irrigation water has been reduced via reduced power demand and on-farm pumping. Delivery 

efficiency should be broadly promoted throughout the basin to reduce overall water demand and 

increase flexibility in reservoir operations. Power conservation programs, such as BPA's, should 

be used to support system improvements. Fisheries benefits are greatest where low flows are 

limiting during irrigation season; specific actions that address these areas are listed separately.

Basinwide Action #4

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW1,2

Bureau of Reclamation

Irrigation Districts

Department of Ecology

Bureau of Reclamation

Washington Department of Agriculture

All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions
p. 148

Utilize Trust Water Rights Program to improve instream flows

Focal Area: Basinwide as opportunities arise

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: $200,000/year plus 1 FTE & expenses at $75,000/year for 15 years.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Department of Ecology, BOR, Washington Water Trust, Washington Rivers Conservancy, 

Columbia Basin Water Transactions Program, and others have developed programs to lease 

and purchase water rights for instream use. Use of these programs could be significantly 

enhanced through education and outreach. This action is associated with the need for better 

water rights enforcement to ensure that once water is put into trust, it remains in-stream and is 

not diverted by down stream users. Benefits will be greatest in specific tributary locations; these 

are identified as separate actions in this plan.

Basinwide Action #5

Total Cost: $4,125,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,546,875

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW1,2

Department of Ecology Water Trust Program

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Bureau of Reclamation

Water Trust & Conservancies

All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions

Continue kelt reconditioning

Focal Area: Prosser Hatchery Facility

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Existing program cost of $446,000/year (1/3 of BPA# 200306200 & 2/3 of 

BPA #200001700 as Yakima basin portion plus $50,000/yr YKFP 

contributions) for 15 years.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Yakima kelt reconditioning program directly increases the abundance of spawning adult 

steelhead with a relatively low risk of altering population characteristics. The kelt reconditioning 

program could play a role in reintroduction of populations to newly re-opened suitable habitats 

and in directed efforts to increase the numbers of spawning adults in specific steelhead 

populations in the subbasin. Monitoring of kelt reproductive success and genetic impacts should 

be expanded to ensure the kelt program is successful contributing to meeting recovery goals.

Basinwide Action #6

Total Cost: $6,690,000 Steelhead Cost: $6,690,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW3,8

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project

All Spawning Areas

Promote repeat spawning of kelts
p. 149

Use artificial production techniques to restore steelhead to 

underutilized habitats

Focal Area: Targeted spawning areas in Naches 

and Upper Yakima Populations

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 6-10 years

Cost Derivation: $500,000 startup costs plus $200,000/year for 15 years based on 

use/expansion of existing facilities.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Small-scale targeted supplementation that is designed to enhance steelhead VSP parameters 

may play an important role in accelerating recovery of the Upper Yakima and Naches 

populations. Focal areas would be watersheds with good habitat conditions where steelhead are 

not present or severely reduced due to historic passage barriers that have been or are being 

removed. Leading candidates include Cowiche, Manashtash, and Taneum watersheds. If 

passage into Naneum Creek and above Cle Elum and/or Bumping Dam is secured, these areas 

would also be strong candidates. Metrics should be developed to evaluate desired 

recolonization rates and population characteristics and the range of cultural actions that would 

be appropriate if these rates or populations characteristics are not met. The rate of colonization, 

productivity, life-history form (anadromous versus resident), and genetic structure of new 

populations should be closely monitored. The Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Program is currently 

developing a Master Plan that will assess supplementation options.

Basinwide Action #7

Total Cost: $3,500,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW8

National Marine Fisheries Service

Yakama Nation

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project

All Naches

All Upper Yakima

Use small-scale supplementation

Continue coho, sockeye and summer Chinook reintroduction 

efforts

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 6-10 years

Cost Derivation: Costs not directly attributable to steelhead recovery.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project is currently working to reintroduce coho to the subbasin 

and is evaluating the possibility of reintroducing sockeye and summer Chinook. These efforts 

have the potential to benefit steelhead by increasing the flow of ocean-derived nutrients into 

rearing areas in the Yakima Basin. Possibilities for competetive interactions also exist and 

should continue to be monitored by YKFP.

Basinwide Action #8

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW9

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project All Spawning Areas

Enhance upstream nutrient supplies
p. 150

Maintain a local policy and informational entity for steelhead 

recovery

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: $200,000/year over 15 years for steelhead portion.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Yakima Basin Fish & Widllife Recovery Board was established in 2006 to act as the 

regional recovery organization for the Yakima Basin under the State of Washington's salmon 

recovery framework. The Board plays an important role in 1) updating the local and federal 

steelhead recovery plans, 2) coordinating recovery actions both in the basin and with other 

recovery entities in the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS, 3) tracking and reporting on the status of 

recovery efforts, and 4) building local and regional support for recovery efforts.

Basinwide Action #9

Total Cost: $3,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,000,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board All Spawning Areas

Promote land and resource use decisions that protect and 

enhance fisheries resource values

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Costs not directly attributable to steelhead recovery.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Existing regulations and management programs that govern natural resource use need to be 

implemented in a manner that protects steelhead habitat and the upland and watershed 

functions that sustain it. These actions need to be coordinated with efforts to protect open 

space, wildlife habitat, and working landscapes; reduce flood damage; and support 

development that enhances the quality of life of local communities and meets the needs of 

private landowners. This plan identifies a number of specific non-regulatory protection actions 

that should be coordinated with ongoing work to build an effective and balanced system of land 

use management and zoning.

Basinwide Action #10

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

All

Natural Resource Management Agencies

Local governments

All Spawning Areas

Protect existing functional habitat
p. 151

Restore beaver populations

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Policy aspect not costed; Relocation & habitat management priced at 

$150,000/year for 15 years.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Beaver played an important role in the pre-European hydrology of the Yakima Basin. Beaver 

dams and associated meadows can provide complex habitat and increase floodplain storage 

and the volume and quality of stream baseflows. Where beaver presence is compatible with 

land uses, it should be encouraged, via reductions in trapping and development of food sources 

(e.g. riparian plantings). Beaver dams that are potential nusiances can be managed to reduce 

flood risks or beavers can be relocated to more appropriate locations.

Basinwide Action #11

Total Cost: $2,250,000 Steelhead Cost: $843,750

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW10

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Local governments

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

All Spawning Areas

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity

Improve recruitment of cottonwoods

Focal Area: Floodplain reaches of the mainstem 

Yakima and Naches Rivers

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 6-10 years

Cost Derivation: Undetermined.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Natural black cottonwood germination generally requires overbank flow in late spring when 

seeds are dispersing and then a gradual reduction in flows as seedlings establish. This 

requirement is often at odds with current river operations. The regulated hydrograph could be 

altered in some years to increase the cottonwood regeneration rate in some reaches; identifying 

how to do so will require additional analysis. Many floodplain reaches have been heavily grazed 

and cottonwood regeneration has occurred in places where grazing pressure is relaxed, even 

under current flow regimes. This highlights the value of ongoing efforts to improve grazing 

management in riparian areas and floodplains. In the short term, planting programs for 

cottonwood, especially in the Wapato Reach, would benefit salmonids and the ecosystem as a 

whole.

Basinwide Action #12

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW2

Bureau of Reclamation

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Private landowners and lessees

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Conservation Districts

Local governments

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

All Spawning Areas

Restore riparian condition/future LWD
p. 152

Address forest health issues

Focal Area: Forested areas throughout Yakima 

Basin

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 6-10 years

Cost Derivation: Costs not directly attributable to steelhead recovery.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The condition of forest stands directly affects watershed processes, and current increases in 

disease, pest and fire damage all threaten steelhead habitat. The U.S. Forest Service, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (which manages forests on the Yakama Reservation) and the 

Washington Department of Natural Resources all have programs to address forest health 

issues, but the need for treatment greatly exceeds the resources available to perform these 

tasks. Local interests such as the Yakima Basin Fish & Widllife Recovery Board, the Joint Board 

of Irrigators, Chambers of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and federal agencies such as NOAA 

Fisheries, the BOR and BPA should make federal, state and local decision makers aware of the 

central role that healthy forests play in fish and wildlife conservation, cultural and recreational 

activities, management of the public and private water supplies and the health of the entire 

subbasin economy.

Basinwide Action #13

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW4

US Forest Service

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Private landowners

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Agency

All Spawning Areas

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve upland watershed conditions

Maintain and enforce in-basin fisheries regulations that 

protect steelhead

Focal Area: Basinwide

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Policy action & use of existing enforcement capacity; no new cost charged to 

recovery.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

There is no directed recreational steelhead fishing allowed in the basin, and other fisheries are 

regulated to minimize impacts on steelhead. WDFW and the Yakama Nation should maintain 

protective regulations and ensure that they are adequately enforced.

Basinwide Action #14

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW6,7

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakama Nation

All Spawning Areas

Maintain protective fishing regulations
p. 153

Evaluate and implement nutrient enhancement in steelhead 

streams

Focal Area: Selected tributary subwatersheds

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $0.50 (0.35/ft plus 0.15/ft program overhead based on NOAA fisheries 

estimates) per foot per year for 5 five mile reaches for 15 years.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Historically, higher salmon runs transported significantly more oceanic-derived nutrients to 

Yakima Basin headwaters. There is interest in launching pilot nutrient enhancement projects in 

selected tributaries using salmon carcasses and/or carcass analogues. Potential sites include 

Taneum Creek and the Little Naches River, where carcass placement would occur following 

large woody debris enhancement (to facilitate retention of carcasses in headwaters). Nutrient 

enhancement should be coordinated with monitoring of steelhead response.

Basinwide Action #15

Total Cost: $198,000 Steelhead Cost: $148,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

BW9

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project All Naches

All Upper Yakima

Enhance upstream nutrient supplies

Explore fisheries management options that reduce predation

Focal Area: mainstem Yakima River

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Policy decisions without specific cost to implement.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Management of existing recreational fisheries for species that prey on steelhead could be 

implemented in a manner that reduces predation on steelhead, particularly during the 

outmigration of smolts. Changing recreational fishing rules for bass and catfish in the lower river 

to reduce number and/or change age structures so as to reduce predation on salmonids and 

establishing a pikeminnow bounty program have been identified as possible actions. Any efforts 

to adjust fisheries to reduce predation should be coordinated with ongoing monitoring designed 

to evaluate the impacts of these adjustments.

Basinwide Action #16

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM9

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife All Spawning Areas

Maintain protective fishing regulations
p. 154

Increase flows in Chandler bypass reach to improve juvenile 

out-migration conditions

Focal Area: Yakima mainstem below Prosser Dam

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: No cost to implement, but lost revenue due to reduced power sales (amount 

not specified at this time).

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Flows diverted to run the Chandler power plant reduce flows in the Yakima River from Prosser 

Dam to the powerplant return 12 miles downstream. During the spring, BOR currently reduces 

generation at the Chandler plant whenever flows would otherwise drop below the 1000 cfs 

subordination target during the spring. Increasing this minimum flow level when steelhead 

smolts are moving through the lower Yakima would improve passage conditions for smolts at 

Chandler Dam and in the bypass reach downstream. It would also reduce the proportion of 

juvenile entrainment in the Chandler powerhouse diversion and thereby reduce mortality rates in 

the Chandler canal and at the Chandler outfall. BOR has not committed to this action at this 

time; implementation would be facilitated by proposed changes to the KID irrigation system.

Lower Mainstem Action #1

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM1

Bureau of Reclamation All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions

Improve flows below Parker through irrigation system 

improvements

Focal Area: Irrigation Districts in lower Yakima Valley

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Roza ID, $40 million; Benton ID, $16 million; SVID, $50 million; KID, $35 

million; WIP, $150 million; all very preliminary figures.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Sunnyside Irrigation District is nearing completion of a canal improvement project that will 

result in the dedication of about 20,000 acre/ft of water to instream use. The Wapato Irrigation 

Project is working with YRBWEP to move diversions for the Satus diversion from Wapato Dam 

to a new pump station near Granger, which would leave the water to be diverted instream for an 

additional 25 miles. The Kennewick Irrigation District is working with YRBWEP on several 

proposals to move some or all of their diversions downstream, potentially as far as the Columbia 

mainstem, and the Benton Irrigation District has also proposed moving diversions downstream. 

These proposal (and similar future proposals) would result in significant improvements in 

mainstem flows during the irrigation season while also resulting in improved water delivery for 

irrigators.

Lower Mainstem Action #2

Total Cost: $291,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $72,750,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM2,4,5

Bureau of Reclamation

Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions
p. 155

Reconfigure infrastructure to improve smolt survival rates

Focal Area: Chandler outfall, Wanawish/Horn 

Rapids Dam, WIP and SVID bypasses

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: BOR cost estimate for outfall structure & a grade control in the river below 

the Chandler outfall.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The current configuration of the Chandler juvenile bypass outfall and the condition of fish as 

they exit the bypass result in high concentrations of avian and aquatic predators and high 

predation rates at that site. Migrating smolts may also be subject to physiological stress and 

mortality in the bypass system. A more diffuse outfall, improved instream passage routes, bird 

deterrents and/or provision of additional cover or safe recovery areas for juveniles that transit 

the bypass would improve survival. Other potential bypass reaches and predation hotspots that 

should be assessed include Wanawish (Horn Rapids) Dam and the WIP and SVID screen 

bypass outfalls.

Lower Mainstem Action #3

Total Cost: $500,000 Steelhead Cost: $250,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM6,14,15,16

Bureau of Reclamation

Irrigation Districts

All Spawning Areas

Change structures to reduce predation

Improve hydrograph through artificial storage and/or 

Columbia River water transfer

Focal Area: Lower basin (Parker and below)

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Cost as proposed is up to $6.5 billion; cost not attributed to steelhead 

recovery at this time.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Yakima Basin Storage Study is assessing proposals to increase water storage capacity 

through construction of the Black Rock and/or Wymer reservoirs and the possible transfer of 

water from the Columbia Basin to Yakima Basin irrigation use. As proposed, Black Rock 

Reservoir would eliminate the most severe effects of the flip-flop flow regime, improve flow and 

temperature in the Wapato reach, and potentially further delay the onset of lethal temperature 

regimes. There is still considerable uncertainty about the technical and economic feasibility of 

the Black Rock project; these questions should be resolved in the EIS to be released by the 

BOR in 2008. Any efforts to use water from outside the basin will need to ensure that imported 

water does not negatively affect homing of salmon and steelhead.

Lower Mainstem Action #5

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM1,2

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Ecology

All Spawning Areas

Improve flow conditions
p. 156

Restore mainstem and side channel habitats in the Union 

Gap reach

Focal Area: Mainstem near City of Yakima

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on preliminary estimate by Yakima County.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Union Gap reach of the Yakima River between Naches River and Wapato Dam is 

considered to have very high restoration potential. It is one of the only mainstem reaches that is 

not currently limited by severely altered flow and temperature regimes. YRBWEP has purchased 

large areas of floodplain habitat to the east of the river. The majority of this area is currently 

isolated by levees and passage barriers. Yakima County Flood Control Zone District is 

proposing to set back the levees in this reach to significantly increase the size of the active 

floodplain, including on the YRBWEP properties. WSDOT has constructed a new bridge at SR 

24 which is much longer than the old bridge to allow the levee setback to proceed. Floodplain 

restoration work is being coordinated with Central Pre-mix's gravel mining operation.

Lower Mainstem Action #6

Total Cost: $13,500,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,375,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM8,9,10,11

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yakima County

Bureau of Reclamation

Yakima Basin Side Channels Project

All Naches

All Upper Yakima

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 157

Protect and restore mainstem and floodplain habitats below 

Sunnyside Dam

Focal Area: Floodplain reaches below Parker

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: 500 acres floodplain restoration (dike setback/reveg) at $10,000/acre, 

CREP/easement costs for 636 acres (5% of 1000' x 105 miles) at $3000/ac.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Lower river conditions play a major role in migration timing for adults and survival of outmigrating smolts. Protecting and restorating mainstem and off-channel habitats (especially those 

that provide thermal refugia) is critical for these life stages. The best opportunities for restoration 

lie in the Wapato Reach (especially between the Toppenish/Satus confluences);additional 

opportunities exist in the very lower river at the Barker Ranch and adjacent to the City of West 

Richland. Work may include protecting habitat through acquisition, easements or cooperative 

agreements (including the CREP program), and activities like riparian plantings, reactivation of 

side channels, and winter irrigation to saturate floodplains. Cost estimates for acquisition of land 

and easements are generic estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will 

be based on voluntary agreements negotiated with landowners.

Lower Mainstem Action #7

Total Cost: $6,908,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,590,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM1,3,7,8,9,11

,14,15,16

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yakima County

Bureau of Reclamation

Yakima Basin Side Channels Project

Land Conservancies

Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project

All Spawning Areas

Protect existing functional habitat

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity

Restore riparian condition/future LWD
p. 158

Reduce adult attraction to Sulphur Creek & Roza Wasteways

Focal Area: Sulfur Drain (by Sunnyside)

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: $400,000 cost for barrier estimated by SVID; reducing flows costed in other 

actions. No cost available for Roza action.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Sulphur Creek Wasteway (RM 61.0) receives return flows from the Roza and Sunnyside 

irrigation districts, and has attracted steelhead and salmon that can be stranded in the drain 

system when irrigation delivery ceases. To avoid this, fish are trapped and removed from the 

drain each fall. Even if stranding does not occur, passage delays associated with false attraction 

expose fish to predators and harassment by humans, and exposure to warm water can lessen 

their reproductive success. Measures to prevent or minimize such attraction are likely to 

increase steelhead spawning success. The Roza-Sunnyside Joint Board of Control is currently 

pursuing installation of a fish barrier in Sulfur Creek Wasteway 3/4 of a mile above the Yakima 

River [note: the fish barrier was completed in 2008 whiloe this plan was under review]. Reducing 

or eliminating return flows through the drain through improved irrigation system management is 

also a key part of long-term resolution of this issue (see Basinwide Action #3 and Lower 

Mainstem Action #2). Roza Wasteway near the City of Yakima is also known to have attract 

adult salmonids; Reclamation is currently looking at methods to improve the effectiveness of the 

barrier at the mouth of the wasteway.

Lower Mainstem Action #8

Total Cost: $400,000 Steelhead Cost: $200,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control

Irrigation Districts

All Spawning Areas

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Improve quality of irrigation return flows

Focal Area: Irrigation drains entering the lower 

Yakima River

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Costs of Clean Water Act programs not attributed to specifically to steelhead 

recovery.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

In the last decade, the quality of return flows in the lower Yakima River has improved 

dramatically, with an ~90% decrease in turbidity due to improved irrigation management and 

implemention of the sediment TMDL for the lower Yakima River. The improved water quality is 

believed to be contributing to the rapid expansion of water star grass in the lower river. Work to 

continue water quality improvements should continue and should be accompanied by ongoing 

research to understand and respond to the ecological changes it is causing.

Lower Mainstem Action #9

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

LM4,5

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control

Department of Ecology

Irrigation Districts

Individual irrigators

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

All Spawning Areas

Improve water quality
p. 159

Improve Wapatox Canal conveyance efficiency

Focal Area: Wapatox by-pass reach of the lower 

Naches

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on preliminary discussions with BOR.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

BOR acquired the Wapatox power plant and diversion in 2002 in order to use the associated 

300-450 cfs water right to augment instream flows in 7.4 miles of the lower Naches River. The 

Wapatox diversion also supplies 50 cfs of water to irrigators so the diversion remains active. 

The conveyance system was designed for 400 cfs and needs a minimum of approximately 130 

cfs to provide sufficient head to run the system. This has reduced the amount of water BOR has 

been able to put to instream use. Improving the efficiency of the conveyance system would 

allow irrigators access to their full water rights while allowing all of the BOR's water right to be 

left instream. Consolidating the Wapatox and Naches-Selah diversions has been proposed, 

which would address this issue, increase instream flows between the Naches-Selah and 

Wapatox diversions, and reduce constraints on Bumping Reservoir operations.

Naches Action #1

Total Cost: $3,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

American

Bumping

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Improve flow conditions
p. 160

Improve water use efficiency and habitat in South Naches 

Irrigation District

Focal Area: Lower mainstem Naches

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $1,000,000 estimate in Daily Journal of Commerce article 

(www.djc.com/news/en/11170266.html).

Fisheries: 33% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The South Naches Irrigation District is currently examining means of improving efficiency of the 

irrigation system and habitat quality in the South Naches Channel. The South Naches Channel 

is composed of a mixture of natural and artificial channels that parallels the lower Naches for 

four miles and is used to conveys irrigation water. If appropriate habitat conditions and 

screening can be assured, the channel can provide increased steelhead rearing habitat. Water 

savings from efficiency improvements could be allocated to improve instream flows in the South 

Naches Channel and/or mainstem Naches.

Naches Action #2

Total Cost: $1,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $165,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

American

Bumping

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Improve flow conditions
p. 161

Improve water use efficiency in lower Naches irrrigation 

districts

Focal Area: Lower mainstem Naches River

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $13 million City of Yakima system improvements; $5 million to move Fruitvale 

diversion to Nelson Dam;$5 million for other Districts.

Fisheries: 33% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Irrigation system improvements that would increase instream flows have been proposed for the 

Naches-Selah Irrigation District, Naches Cowiche Canal Company, City of Yakima General 

Irrigation District (Nelson Dam), Fruitvale (City of Yakima), New Schanno Company, Fruitvale 

Schanno Company, Yakima Valley Canal Company (Congden Ditch), and Old Union Irrigation 

Company. These diversions reduce summer flows in steelhead rearing habitat between the 

diversion points and return flow locations. Increasing conveyance and on-farm efficiencies in 

these systems and using a portion of the water savings to increase instream flows will improve 

conditions for the Naches steelhead populations.

Naches Action #3

Total Cost: $23,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,795,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

American

Bumping

Cowiche

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Improve flow conditions
p. 162

Modify flip-flop flow regime

Focal Area: Tieton and Lower Naches Rivers

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Not estimated at this time; reservoir operation alternatives would have no 

direct cost, while major structural improvements would have high costs.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The majority of the streams within the Naches watershed have a relatively unregulated flow 

regime that is nearer to natural conditions than the rest of the basin. However, flows in the 

Tieton and the Naches below the confluence with the Tieton are driven by Rimrock Reservoir 

operations. The flip-flop regime results in low flows in the Tieton through most of the irrigation 

season and then high (essentially bankfull) flows in the fall. Modifications to the flip-flop flow 

regime that improve habitat, flow, and temperature conditions for steelhead and other salmonid 

species in the Tieton and Lower Naches subbasin would have broad benefits for the Naches 

steelhead population. The negative effects of flip-flop could be addressed through alteration of 

reservoir operations, conservation, additional storage, or a combination of these and other 

measures. The Bureau of Reclamation, in collaboration with other subbasin resource managers 

and stakeholders, should determine if and how flip-flop can be modified to achieve these goals, 

make the necessary changes, and monitor habitat and fish population response.

Naches Action #4

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N2,3,4

Bureau of Reclamation American

Bumping

Cowiche

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Improve flow conditions
p. 163

Restore lower Naches River floodplain

Focal Area: Lower Naches from Powerhouse Bridge 

area to confluence

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 1.2 mile dike removed & reconfigured at $5,000,000/mile.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

A cooperative project between the City of Yakima, Yakima County and WSDOT is seeking to 

restore floodplain functions in conjunction with planned capital projects for water conservation, 

elimination of irrigation diversions, reconstruction of Power House Road, and actions to protect 

US 12 from erosion. Wetland habitats with relatively cool water sources are found at several 

places along the river: across from Naches Wonderland, within and downstream of Eschbach 

Park, and the Buckskin Slough in the lower Naches. All of these areas could support increased 

rearing for salmonids and should be the focus of restoration activities. Proposals are described 

in the Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Management Plan.

Naches Action #5

Total Cost: $6,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,11

Lower Naches River Partnership Group

Yakima County

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

American

Bumping

Cowiche

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Restore floodplain connectivity/function
p. 164

Improve sediment transport in lower Naches River

Focal Area: Lower mainstem Naches

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Diversion at Gleed (Naches Union) at $300,000, Naches-Cowiche diversion 

at $5,000,000, City of Yakima diversion at $100,00

Fisheries: 33% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Confinement of the lower Naches has reduced sediment transport efficiency, causing 

aggradation upstream and channel incision or avulsion downstream. Where these facilities are 

located in the lower end of the alluvial valleys, such as near Eschbach Park/Yakima Water 

Treatment Plant, and at Rambler’s Park/Cowiche (Nelson) Dam, their effects further reduce the 

amount of rearing habitat (i.e., side channels fed by groundwater return), which should be 

available in these locations. Improving sediment transport by modification of dam structure and 

levee reconfiguration will improve habitat availability over the long term. The Upper Yakima 

Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan contains more detail regarding proposed 

reworking of Naches-Cowiche, Yakima Water Treatment Plant and Gleed (Naches Union) 

diversion dams to facilitate sediment movement (efforts will also benefit fish passage at the 

Naches-Cowiche diversion).

Naches Action #6

Total Cost: $5,400,000 Steelhead Cost: $891,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N12

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

Yakima County

US Army Corps of Engineers

American

Bumping

Cowiche

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Tieton

Upper Naches

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 165

Protect habitats in Naches River mainstem above Tieton 

confluence

Focal Area: Nile and Oak Flats areas

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Nile area side channels (60 acres @ $3,500/ac) & Oak Flats in progress 

($600,000).

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Above the confluence with the Tieton, the Naches River is the least regulated of all Yakima 

Basin large rivers. Protecting functional habitat in the mainstem Naches and its floodplain above 

the Tieton confluence should be a priority and may involve a combination of acquisitions, 

conservation easements, and cooperative agreements. Priority areas include Oak Flats and the 

Nile area. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic estimates based on 

possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary agreements negotiated 

with landowners.

Naches Action #7

Total Cost: $816,000 Steelhead Cost: $204,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N10,14

Private landowners

Land Conservancies

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima County

American

Bumping

Middle Naches

Rattlesnake

Upper Naches

Protect existing functional habitat

Maintain, upgrade or abandon forest roads

Focal Area: Forested areas throughout population 

area

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 25 miles /year at $10,000/mile for fifteen years.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Programs to address watershed impacts of forest roads exist for US Forest Service and WDNR 

lands, but are currently limited by funding/staffing and need to be expanded. The Forests and 

Fish Law applies on private lands. The Cowiche Creek and Little Naches watersheds should be 

a priority for development and implementation of Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plans 

under the Forests and Fish agreement. On Forest Service lands, a public scoping process, 

analysis, and a NEPA decision must be completed before a road can removed from the system.

Naches Action #8

Total Cost: $3,750,000 Steelhead Cost: $937,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N14,15

Private landowners

Washington Department of Natural Resources

US Forest Service

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

All Naches

Cowiche

Upper Naches

Improve water quality

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 166

Provide passage at Bumping Lake Dam

Focal Area: Upper Bumping River watershed

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: BOR has estimated costs of between $8.7 & $31 million; cost given here is 

for new spillway & fish ladder options.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 25%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Bumping Lake is a natural glacial lake that supported a run of sockeye salmon. When a dam 

was constructed to raise the lake to store irrigation water, fish passage was not provided. 

Providing upstream and downstream fish passage at Bumping Lake would open up 6.6 miles of 

high quality habitat for steelhead. The BOR Fish Passage Study gives a detailed description 

(BOR 2005).

Naches Action #9

Total Cost: $15,600,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,900,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N6

Bureau of Reclamation Bumping

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Improve habitat in Lower Bumping

Focal Area: Lower Bumping River

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on USFS Naches Ranger District estimates.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Redesign of the Bumping Road by the Federal Highways Administration is currently under way. 

The current design calls for road relocation and expansion to improve safety and reduce travel 

time. Habitat improvement work has been proposed as part of this road project, and would 

include: 1) strategically placing about 350 LWD pieces as engineered log jams and small 

clumps into wood deficient stream reaches (1, 3-4, 6) and along rip rap locations; and 2) 

Improving riparian conditions and streambank stability at 20-30 dispersed and developed 

camping areas (about 30 acres) in the Bumping River drainage through motor vehicle barriers, 

soil decompaction, road obliteration, campsite closures, replanting native vegetation, interpretive 

signing, and public education.

Naches Action #10

Total Cost: $370,000 Steelhead Cost: $185,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

US Forest Service

Washington State Department of Transportation

Yakima County

Bumping

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 167

Restore side channels and floodplain of Little Naches River

Focal Area: Little Naches mainstem

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Preliminary costs estimates by USFS & YN staff.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

After floods in the 1970s and 1980s, the main road accessing the Little Naches drainage was 

reconstructed as a levee and and over 6,000 tons of large wood debris were removed from the 

channel. Over time, this has led to aggradation and degredation of the main channel and 

isolation of the main channel from side channel and wetland habitats. Restoration of the Little 

Naches floodplain and reconfiguration of the road/levee system is a major undertaking and will 

require significant funding and technical support from the US Forest Service and/or the Federal 

Highway Administration via Kittitas County road department.

Naches Action #11

Total Cost: $950,000 Steelhead Cost: $356,250

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

US Forest Service

Kittitas County

Yakama Nation

Upper Naches

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Place large woody debris in Little Naches

Focal Area: Lower mainstem Little Naches

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: 10 engineered log jams at $25,000 each.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Lower reaches of the Little Naches lack large woody debris (LWD), in part due to large-scale 

wood removal efforts following flooding in the 1970s. This has contributed to downcutting of the 

stream channel, isolation or dewatering of off-channel habitats, channel instability and habitat 

simplification. LWD installation projects have been implemented in this watershed with the intent 

of improving fish habitat and reducing threats to developed campgrounds. Additional projects 

should be focus on improving fish habitat.

Naches Action #12

Total Cost: $250,000 Steelhead Cost: $125,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

US Forest Service

Yakama Nation

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Upper Naches

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 168

Reduce dispersed recreation impacts in key tributaries

Focal Area: Little Naches, American & Bumping 

rivers; Oak Creek

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $80,000/year for 4 months of 5 person crew & $50,000/year for equipment & 

supplies for 15 years.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Impacts of recreational activities including dispersed camping and off-road vehicle (ORV) use 

can be significant in sensitive riparian areas. Over the last five years, the US Forest Service and 

partners have implemented successful programs to reduce these impacts. Coordinated 

education, enforcement, and on-the-ground restoration and protection efforts should be 

maintained and/or expanded in areas with high recreational use. The Little Naches will continue 

to be a focal area due to the high use by ORVs and the expected growth of this activity. These 

tasks will require additional funding for the US Forest Service and private forest landowners. 

ORV groups and the US Forest Service have developed a good working relationship, and the 

opportunity to partner with these organizations is high.

Naches Action #13

Total Cost: $1,950,000 Steelhead Cost: $731,250

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N20,21

Private landowners

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

US Forest Service

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Upper Naches

Rattlesnake

Middle Naches

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve water quality

Improve upland watershed conditions

Protect habitats in Little Naches River

Focal Area: Private timberland in Little Naches 

drainage

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 960 acres at $2,000/acre.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The upper Little Naches passes through a checkerboard of US Forest Service and private 

timber company land. Ensuring long term protection of the fisheries habitat on private lands can 

be done through purchases, easements and cooperative agreements; acquisition of the 960 

areas along the Little Naches could be integrated into significantly larger landscape-scale 

protection efforts in the Little Naches watershed. Land is currently protected through the Plum 

Creek Habitat Conservation Plan. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and easements are 

generic estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on 

voluntary agreements negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #14

Total Cost: $1,920,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,080,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N10,14

Private landowners

Forest managers and partners

Land Conservancies

US Forest Service

Upper Naches

Protect existing functional habitat
p. 169

Improve Nile Creek flows through improved irrigation 

management

Focal Area: Lower Nile Creek

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $500/acre water conservation costs x 160 acres plus $120,000 infrastructure 

costs.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Flows in lower Nile Creek are currently limited by irrigation water withdrawals. Improvements to 

irrigation infrastructure and potential transfer, lease or acquisition of water rights would increase 

summer and fall stream flows. Cost estimates for water conservation are generic estimates 

based on possible amounts; any actual amounts will be based on voluntary agreements 

negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #15

Total Cost: $200,000 Steelhead Cost: $50,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Yakima County

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

North Yakima Conservation District

Middle Naches

Improve flow conditions

Improve channel conditions at the mouth of Nile Creek

Focal Area: Lower 1/4 mile of Nile Creek

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on existing designs.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The box culvert across Nile Creek 1/4 mile above the Naches constricts the channel, resulting in 

sediment deposition and subsurface flows. The installation of a new bridge and channel 

reconstruction work would dramatically improve passage at this partial barrier. The current 

culvert is scheduled to be replaced in 2008; the new bridge will have a larger span that allows 

for improved sediment transport.

Naches Action #16

Total Cost: $400,000 Steelhead Cost: $200,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N7

Yakima County

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Middle Naches

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 170

Increase instream flows in lower Rattlesnake Creek

Focal Area: Lower Rattlesnake Creek

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Based on cost of $500/acre foot conservation or acquisition for 500 acre feet 

total.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Irrigation diversions from Rattlesnake Creek can dewater the lower creek, where steelhead 

spawning has been documented. Improving irrigation and conveyance efficiencies, switching 

water users to shallow groundwater wells, leasing water rights and ensuring diversions are 

limited to legal rights can all be used to reduce diversions. Cost estimates for water 

conservation are generic estimates based on possible amounts; any actual amounts will be 

based on voluntary agreements negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #17

Total Cost: $250,000 Steelhead Cost: $125,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Department of Ecology

North Yakima Conservation District

Individual irrigators

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Rattlesnake

Improve flow conditions

Improve sediment transport at Rattlesnake Creek/Naches 

confluence

Focal Area: Confluence of Rattlesnake Creek and 

Naches River

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Excavation of 2,500 yds @ $10/yd; non-fish proportion is flood control.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The unstable alluvial fan at the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek creates a pasage barrier in low-flow 

years. The configuration of the irrigation diversion, the Nile Road bridge, and levees on 

Rattlesnake Creek and the Naches River combine to reduce sediment transport. Improvement 

or reduction in the impact of the diversion upstream of the bridge and improvements to 

floodplain connectivity would improve sediment transport out of the Rattlesnake, improving 

habitat quality in both systems.

Naches Action #18

Total Cost: $25,000 Steelhead Cost: $6,250

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N12

Washington State Department of Transportation

Yakima County

Rattlesnake

Restore floodplain connectivity/function
p. 171

Restore lower Cowiche Creek floodplain

Focal Area: Lower Cowiche Creek and confluence 

with Naches River

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Acquisition of 32 acres of floodplain (350 ft x 3/4 mile) at $7,000/acre & 

movement of 30,000 cubic yard of dike materials at $10/yard.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The lower end of Cowiche Creek has been confined by dikes and has been checked up in order 

to convey Naches River irrigation water (a potential source of false attraction). This action 

involves seperating delivery of Naches River water from Cowiche Creek, removing the checkstructure and associated high-maintenance fish ladder, pulling back and/or removing the levees 

and improving riparian habitats. Associated infrastructure changes for the City of Yakima 

(Fruitvale) irrigation diversion are included under Naches Action #3. Cost estimates for 

acquisition of land and easements are generic estimates based on possible amounts; any actual 

acquisitions will be based on voluntary agreements negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #19

Total Cost: $524,000 Steelhead Cost: $294,750

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,11

Lower Naches River Partnership Group

Yakima County

Washington State Department of Transportation

Irrigation Districts

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Cowiche

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Restore floodplain connectivity/function
p. 172

Protect Cowiche Creek watershed from increasing 

development pressure

Focal Area: Cowiche Creek watershed

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Purchase of 360 acres of riparian corridor easement at $600/acre & 6 

sections (3840 acres) at $800/ac (mix of easement & acquisition).

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Large parcels of private timber and rangelands in the upper Cowiche Creek watershed and 

smaller parcels lower in the watershed are all subject to increased development pressure. A mix 

of conservation easements, land purchases and cooperative agreements should be pursued to 

ensure that fish habitat and associated uplands are not negatively impacted. The area should 

be maintained in very low density zoning and regulation of road standards and wildland/urban 

interface standards for fire protection. This action overlaps with ongoing open space/wildlife 

habitat protection efforts. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic 

estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary 

agreements negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #20

Total Cost: $3,288,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,644,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima (City) Habitat Improvement Project

Yakima County

North Yakima Conservation District

Private landowners

Land Conservancies

Cowiche

Protect existing functional habitat

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 173

Reduce irrigation diversions from Cowiche Creek

Focal Area: South Fork and Mainstem Cowiche 

Creek

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Phase I currently being proposed by the Cowiche Water Users Association (7 

cfs for $350,000). Phase II still to be defined.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Irrigation diversions significantly reduce summer and falls flows in the lower 12 miles of the 

Cowiche Creek system. Irrigation system improvements that increase water use efficiencies, 

cooperative agreements with irrigators, and leases and purchase of water rights can all be used 

to reduce diversions. Much of the land irrigated from Cowiche Creek could potentially be served 

by the Yakima Tieton Irrigation District, and the possibility for agreements that provide irrigators 

with Yakima-Tieton water in exchange for leaving surface flows in Cowiche Creek should 

continue to be pursued.

Naches Action #21

Total Cost: $350,000 Steelhead Cost: $350,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Individual irrigators

North Yakima Conservation District

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Irrigation Districts

Water Trust & Conservancies

Bureau of Reclamation

Cowiche

Improve flow conditions
p. 174

Improve riparian, floodplain, and temperature conditions in 

Cowiche Creek

Focal Area: Mainstem and South Fork of Cowiche 

Creek; possibly Reynolds Creek

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Riparian plantings along 10 miles at $15,000/mile, 3 miles of 

channel/floodplain restoration at $200,000/mile, instream LWD at $500 per 

installed piece at 50/mile for 5 miles & 6 miles fence at $10,000/mile.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

This action involves riparian planting, livestock fencing, grazing system improvements, 

channel/floodplain reconstruction, and large woody debris placement along numerous sites 

along Cowiche Creek. The middle reach will involve working with a number of smaller 

landowners, while the upper and canyon reaches are a mix of WDFW, Cowiche Canyon 

Conservancy, and large private lands that are suitable for large-scale restoration projects. 

Implementation of these actions should improve natural floodplain function, reduce flooding, and 

increase base flows, and water quality. The North Fork Cowiche historically comprised only a 

small proportion of the available habitat in the watershed and is not proposed for full restoration 

due to limited opportunities and high costs.

Naches Action #22

Total Cost: $935,000 Steelhead Cost: $935,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N14,18,19

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

North Yakima Conservation District

Private landowners and lessees

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Cowiche

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Restore Oak Creek habitat

Focal Area: Lower Oak Creek

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Revegetate 100 ft buffer each side of the creek for 3.5 miles for $30,000 & 

weed control of 3.5 miles for $2,500/mile for 3 years.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Oak Creek is the only portion of the Tieton system that has been confirmed as supporting 

steelhead spawning. The entire watershed is owned by WDFW, US Forest Service and The 

Nature Conservancy. Much of the lower watershed (especially the riparian zone) has burned in 

recent wildfires and would benefit from replanting and weed control. Possibilities to improve 

instream and floodplain habitat and address road impacts should also be evaluated.

Naches Action #23

Total Cost: $56,250 Steelhead Cost: $42,188

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N14,17

US Forest Service

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Tieton

Restore channel structure/complexity

Restore riparian condition/future LWD
p. 175

Protect instream flow improvements in Ahtanum Creek

Focal Area: Mainstem Ahtanum Creek

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: 1 FTE & expenses at $75,000/year.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Recent improvements in both summer and winter instream flows in Ahtanum Creek are due to 

agreements between the Yakama Nation, the Wapato Irrigation Project and Ahtanum Irrigation 

District. A network of wading discharge measurement transects and gauging stations are key to 

maintaining these agreements. Both the agreements and the supporting monitoring efforts 

should be continued.

Naches Action #24

Total Cost: $1,125,000 Steelhead Cost: $843,750

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Ahtanum Irrigation District

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Ahtanum

Improve flow conditions

Develop off-channel storage in Ahtanum Creek

Focal Area: Ahtanum, Bachelor and Hatton Creeks

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Cost as identified in preliminary feasibility study.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The proposed Pine Hollow Reservoir would increasing the amount of water avaialble to meet 

and increase instream flows and meet irrigators' water needs. Associated irrigation system and 

habitat improvements would further increase benefits to steelhead by allowing full access to 

Bachelor and possibly Hatton Creeks. Implementation of the Pine Hollow project would require 

significant restructuring of complex water rights, including cooperation with the Yakama Nation, 

BIA/WIP, the Ahtanum Irrigation District, and private diverters. Funding for the project is not yet 

secured and environmental analyses have not been completed.

Naches Action #25

Total Cost: $45,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $11,250,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

Ahtanum Irrigation District

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Department of Ecology

Ahtanum

Improve flow conditions
p. 176

Minimize irrigation conveyance loss in Ahtanum Creek

Focal Area: WIP Ahtanum Main Canal

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 2005 engineer's estimate was $116,305/mile for 5 miles. Multiplied by 1.2 for 

cost inflation since 2005.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Areas of high seepage loss from the Wapato Irrigation Project's Ahtanum Main Canal have been 

identified and substantially increase the amount of water that has to be diverted to supply users 

near the end of the canal. Lining these sections of the canal would help in limiting diversions 

and increase instream flow.

Naches Action #26

Total Cost: $697,830 Steelhead Cost: $392,529

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project Ahtanum

Improve flow conditions

Ahtanum Creek floodplain and side channel restoration

Focal Area: Ahtanum Creek and side channels

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on $90,000 cost of completed Herke side channel x 150% cost 

adjustment for 5 projects.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

There are several opportunities to reconnect side channels and enhance floodplain function in 

the Ahtanum Creek system, including the 7-mile spring creek through the airport, smaller 

channels upstream of major diversions, and, if agreements with irrigators can be developed 

(see Action #22), the Bachelor/Hatton system. Where there are opportunities to reconnect side 

channels, especially upstream from major diversions, both fish habitat and flood conveyance 

can be improved. Habitat restoration in lower Ahtanum will also benefit steelhead from other 

MSAs by providing rearing habitat adjacent to the Yakima River.

Naches Action #27

Total Cost: $675,000 Steelhead Cost: $379,688

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N10,11

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Yakima County

North Yakima Conservation District

Ahtanum

Restore floodplain connectivity/function
p. 177

Protect Ahtanum Creek riparian areas to lessen development 

impacts

Focal Area: Lower Ahtanum Creek

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 450 deeded riparian acres on south side at $8,000/acre; easements on 300 ft 

buffer for 50% of 10 miles (~180 acres) on northside at $8,000/acre.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The lower part of Ahtanum Creek is affected by urbanization in Union Gap, Yakima, and nearby 

unincorporated areas, while the middle section is experiencing increased residential 

development. Residential/retirement/recreational development is also increasing in the upper 

watershed. Current opportunities to protect riparian areas and key floodplain parcels in lower 

Ahtanum Creek will disappear over time. Tools include land purchases and leases, conservation 

agreements, and cooperative agreements with landowners (e.g., incorporating protections into 

development plans). Development within Urban Growth Areas should be carefully planned to 

protect floodplains, riparian and instream resources, and private properties in this especially 

flood-prone watershed. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic 

estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary 

agreements negotiated with landowners.

Naches Action #28

Total Cost: $5,040,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,890,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakima County

Yakama Nation

Yakima (City) Habitat Improvement Project

Land Conservancies

Ahtanum

Protect existing functional habitat

Reduce livestock impacts on Ahtanum Creek riparian areas

Focal Area: Ahtanum Creek and tributaries

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on 20% of $250,000/year cost of Yakama Nation restoration crew; 

$20,000/year in riparian fencing materials; 5 stock water wells at $60,000 

each; annual lease on 640 acres on reservation at $85/acre/yr for 15 years; 7 

miles fencing at $10,000/mile; & 2 miles of riparian plantings at $15,000/mile 

on Northside.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Improving the condition of Ahtanum Creek's riparian areas will help realize the maximum benefit 

from instream flow improvements. The Yakama Reservation Watersheds Program has been 

active on the south side of the creek, while the North Yakima Conservation District has worked 

extensively with landowners on the North side in its successful efforts to address screening and 

passage barriers. The Ahtanum Watershed Restoration EIS includes several specific actions.

Naches Action #29

Total Cost: $2,216,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,246,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N18,19

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

North Yakima Conservation District

Ahtanum

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 178

Improve winter flows below storage dams

Focal Area: Tieton, Bumping and Naches rivers 

below Rimrock and Bumping Lakes

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Operational change; no specific cost identified.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Late fall/winter flows below Rimrock and Bumping reservoirs are maintained at low levels 

relative to the unregulated hydrograph, with occassional large releases made for flood control 

purposes. Effects on the Bumping River are minimal in most years, but the Tieton is significantly 

affected. Adjusting reservoir operations to increase winter base flows will improve overwintering 

habitat. The Bureau increased winter flow in the Tieton in 2008 (to a base of ~100-125 cfs vs 

earlier targets as low as 30cfs); this commitment should be continued.

Naches Action #30

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N1

Bureau of Reclamation Tieton

Bumping

Improve flow conditions

Restore side channels and floodplain of Upper Naches River

Focal Area: Naches River between Tieton 

confluence and Little Naches

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Preliminary cost estimates by US Forest Service staff.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Several historic off channel habitats could be enhanced by increasing water flow into them for 

longer seasonal periods of the year. These off channel habitats are important rearing and refuge 

areas for juvenile salmonids. Engineered log jams or other instream hydrologic structures could 

regulate flows into these low gradient side channels.

Naches Action #31

Total Cost: $200,000 Steelhead Cost: $100,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N9,10,11

US Forest Service

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Private landowners

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 179

Reconnect Satus Creek floodplain

Focal Area: Mainstem of Satus Creek (lower 8 miles 

and along Highway 97)

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Construction of 50 check structure at $20,000 per structure; purchase of 

320 acres floodplain at $4000/acre & $215/yr restoration/maintenance cost; 

& lease of 5000 acres (Satus Wildlife Area, Mule-Dry Confluence, Hwy 97 

corridor) at $50/ac/yr lease plus $30/yr maintenance for 15 yrs. Estimate 

does not include WSDOT cost such as bridge replacement.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Lower Satus Creek is entrenched and partly confined by dikes. It may not be possible to elevate 

the creek to the its original floodplain in this reach, but allowing it to meander at its present level, 

and introducing appropriate roughness features will restore some of the original channel 

complexity and floodplain functions. Impacts from US 97 farther uspstream are being addressed 

through a cooperative consultation process between the Yakama Nation and the WSDOT. 

Examples include the planned replacement of the US 97 crossing of Logy Creek near its 

confluence with Satus Creek (RM 23.7), which needs to include floodplain restoration at the 

previous crossing alignment as well as careful design of the replacement and reactivating the 

floodplain in the reach immediately downstream from the “High Bridge” (RM 32.4). US 97 also 

restricts the movement of bedload from tributary streams into Satus Creek at several crossings 

including Kusshi, Shinando, and a host of unnamed tributaries, contributing to incision of Satus 

Creek. There are also several large levees that could be removed to promote better 

stream/floodplain connectivity. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic 

estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary 

agreements negotiated with landowners.

Satus Action #1

Total Cost: $9,312,000 Steelhead Cost: $5,238,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S3,4,5

Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project

Washington State Department of Transportation

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Dry

Satus

Restore floodplain connectivity/function
p. 180

Continue improving management of cattle and improve 

management of feral horses

Focal Area: Entire Satus Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 20% of restoration crew cost of $250,000/yr plus materials to build & repair 

range, riparian, & meadow fencing at $10,000/yr plus lease of critical grazing 

units at $25,000/yr; all for 15 years & 10 stock water well installations at 

$60,000 each.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Recent and ongoing improvements in the management of cattle grazing have reduced grazing 

impacts in the Satus Creek watershed. Impacts from wild horses are ongoing, and the Yakama 

Nation is developing a wild horse management plan for the Satus and Toppenish Creek 

watersheds which will focus on limiting riparian zone damage.

Satus Action #2

Total Cost: $1,875,000 Steelhead Cost: $937,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S9,10

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project Dry

Satus

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve upland watershed conditions

Reroute North Drain to address return flow issues in lower 

Satus Creek

Focal Area: Lower mainstem of Satus Creek

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Cost of $3,000,000 based on estimates by US Army Corps of Engineers & 

Yakama Nation.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Between 5 and 40 cfs of irrigation return flows from the Wapato Irrigation Project enter lower 

Satus Creek via the North Drain. Rerouting the North Drain into wetlands on the Satus Wildlife 

Area would reduce the quantity and increase the quality of return flows into Satus Creek. Initial 

plans have been developed in cooperation with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Satus Action #3

Total Cost: $3,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,125,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S1

Bonneville Power Administration

Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project

US Fish & Wildlife Service

US Army Corps of Engineers

USDA

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Dry

Satus

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality
p. 181

Improve Satus East and West Laterals to address return flow 

issues

Focal Area: Lower mainstem of Satus Creek

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $3,380,000 based on 2001 conservation plan (1998 costs).

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Satus East and West Laterals empty into Satus Creek. Piping the Satus Area of the Wapato 

Irrigation Project will allow for better management of return flows to Satus Creek. This is one 

component of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program's conservation plan for the 

Wapato Irrigation District. The Secretary of Interior has approved the infrastructure portion of the 

WIP Priority Water Conservation Measures Plan and a 1990 authorization of $18 million is 

allocated to the project, but may need to be supplemented. Implementing the Conservation 

Measures Plan will also improve instream flow and water quality in the Yakima River (see Lower 

Mainstem Action #10).

Satus Action #4

Total Cost: $3,380,000 Steelhead Cost: $845,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S1

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Bureau of Reclamation

Dry

Satus

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality

Remove BIA Satus Diversion Dam

Focal Area: Lower mainstem of Satus Creek

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Preliminary engineering estimated at $90,000 & construction at $250,000.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Satus Diversion Dam is no longer in use. Its rudimetary fish ladder is prone to tampering by 

recreationists. Removing the existing concrete diversion dam and diversion canal headworks 

would improve stream channel habitat, eliminate a partial steelhead passage barrier and restore 

this reach of the creek to a more natural and productive condition.

Satus Action #5

Total Cost: $340,000 Steelhead Cost: $340,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S2

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project Dry

Satus

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 182

Restore passage in Shinando Creek at Highway 97 crossing

Focal Area: Shinando Creek

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: The project presents challenges (hence the high cost estimate) but pipe 

boring techniques are improving, which may decrease cost below estimate.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Fish access to the Shinando drainage is blocked by an impassable structure under Highway 97 

that is under deep fill. Preliminary engineering indicates that it may be feasible to restore 

passage without removal of the fill.

Satus Action #6

Total Cost: $1,500,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S6

Washington State Department of Transportation

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Satus

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Improve, relocate, or close forest roads

Focal Area: Entire Satus Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 5 miles/yr of road reconstruction, upgrade, or abandonment at $10,000/mi x 

15 yrs.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Overall, forest roads have been built and maintained to a lower standard on the Yakama 

Reservation than on, for example, US Forest Service land. There is a need to continue and 

expand road closures, relocations and drainage improvements to reduce sediment and peak 

flows deliveries to creeks. The Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project and other tribal 

programs have assessed these needs and will coordinate a road improvement program with 

BIA, which manages reservation forestlands.

Satus Action #7

Total Cost: $750,000 Steelhead Cost: $375,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S7,8

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Agency

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Dry

Satus

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 183

Restore headwater meadows

Focal Area: Entire Satus Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 10% of $250,000/yr cost for restoration crew plus $15,000/yr construction 

costs (most work will be hand work, but several locations will require 

machinery). Fencing is covered under Action #12. $200,000 is included for 

possible land purchases.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Steelhead productivity in the Satus Creek watershed is hampered by rapid runoff and minimal 

summer streamflow. Some of this problem can be traced to headwater meadows that are 

dissected by gullies and no longer store runoff efficiently. The Yakama Reservation Watersheds 

Project has been refining headwater meadow restoration techniques and will coordinate further 

restoration efforts.

Satus Action #8

Total Cost: $800,000 Steelhead Cost: $600,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

S11

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Agency

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Dry

Satus

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality
p. 184

Rehabilitate alluvial fan and downstream floodplain of 

Toppenish Creek

Focal Area: Lower mainstem of Toppenish Creek

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: On the alluvial fan, open 14 swale crossings at $150,000 each & 

breach/remove 0.5 miles of dike at 60,000 yards/mi & $10/yd. For the 

downstream floodplain, 10 miles of side channel reconnection & grade 

control at $150,000/mi, 20 miles of revegetation at $15,000/mi across 2 

channels. Seepage study based on 0.5 FTE x $75,000 x 2 yr & $50,000 

materials. Maintain 2,000 acreat $35/ac/yr for 15 years.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Yakama Nation plans to restore floodplain functions on the Toppenish Creek alluvial fan 

and along lower Toppenish Creek. This action builds on 1) BIA-funded rehabilitation of the lower 

canyon/upper fan reach of Toppenish Creek, 2) the acquisition and rehabilitation of riparian 

lands on lower Toppenish Creek funded by BPA and other entities, and 3) instream flow 

improvements mandated by the Yakama Nation below a BIA diversion. Funding for the 

Toppenish Creek Corridor Enhancement Plan is being pursued via YRBWEP and the 

continuation of existing funded restoration programs. This action should include studies of 

seepage loss in the alluvial fan reach of the creek to determine if agricultural drains or deep well 

pumping are contributing to the loss of instream flows and, if so, identify possible mitigation 

efforts.

Toppenish Action #1

Total Cost: $5,675,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,837,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

T5,7,9,10,11

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Bureau of Reclamation

Simcoe

Toppenish

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Elevate Marion Drain to restore Toppenish Creek flows and 

water quality

Focal Area: Lower mainstem of Toppenish Creek

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Yakama Nation Engineering preliminary estimate.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Marion Drain runs parallel to Toppenish Creek for 18 miles, and is deeper than Toppenish 

Creek for most of its length. It intercepts groundwater that would otherwise reach Toppenish 

Creek. The drain is deeper than needed for agricultural drainage. Constructing grade controls to 

raise the water surface in the drain could improve water quantity and quality throughout a 25-

mile reach of Toppenish Creek without reducing the drain's ability to meet agricultural needs.

Toppenish Action #2

Total Cost: $2,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,125,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

T3,7

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Bureau of Reclamation

Simcoe

Toppenish

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Improve flow conditions
p. 185

Replace undersized crossing culvert in Toppenish Creek

Focal Area: Mainstem of Toppenish Creek above 

Simcoe Creek

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Engineering for $40,000. Project construction estimates begin at $150,000 & 

could be significantly higher.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

In February 2006, Yakama Nation personnel found a farm crossing of Toppenish Creek just 

upstream from the Simcoe Creek confluence that appears to impede adult steelhead passage at 

moderately high streamflow of several hundred cfs. This structure should be removed or 

replaced to provide unimpeded fish passage; purchasing 139 acres (appraised at $660k) would 

make the crossing unnecessary and protect nearly a mile of Toppenish and Simcoe creeks.

Toppenish Action #3

Total Cost: $230,000 Steelhead Cost: $230,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

T12

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Private landowners

Toppenish

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Complete passage and screening projects in Simcoe Creek

Focal Area: Lower Simcoe Creek

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Based on a cost of $20,000/cfs for previous screens in area.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

There are three remaining unscreened irrigation diversions on Simcoe Creek (South Fork, 

Hubbard and Smartlowit), with a total capacity of 15 cfs. Screening is complicated by the 

dynamic nature of the stream channel. A proposal to supply the Hubbard Diversion from the 

existing screened Hoptowit Diversion could not be implemented. Other options should be 

explored to lessen this cost.

Toppenish Action #4

Total Cost: $300,000 Steelhead Cost: $300,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

T6,12

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Individual irrigators

Simcoe

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 186

Further reduce diversions by improved water management.

Focal Area: Lower Simcoe and Toppenish creeks

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Cost based on 1 FTE staff at 75,000/yr for 15 years & 10 stock water wells at 

$50,000 each.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Efforts should be made to increase water use efficiencies, reducing diversions, and increasing 

instream flow. This could include additional wells to provide stock water during the low-flow 

period, replacing inefficient surface water delivery. A number of stock water wells are already in 

operation, which has allowed the Yakama Nation to limit diversions and increase instream flow. 

Cost includes staff time to monitor flow, calibrate gauges, work with irrigators to implement 

criteria, and improve water management for fisheries benefits.

Toppenish Action #5

Total Cost: $1,625,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,218,750

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

T12,18

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project Simcoe

Toppenish

Improve flow conditions

Remove irrigation spills and returns from Toppenish and 

Simcoe creeks

Focal Area: Lower Toppenish and Simcoe creeks

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Yakama Nation Engineering preliminary estimate.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Wapato Irrigation Project (BIA) routes operational spills and sediment-laden return flows 

down Toppenish and Simcoe creeks to supply other areas of the project. Studies have been 

initiated by the Yakama Nation on the feasibility of separating these irrigation flows from the 

creek system. Elimination of return flow should be combined with efforts to restore groundwater 

seepage, currently intercepted by Marion Drain, back into Toppenish Creek (see Action #2).

Toppenish Action #6

Total Cost: $3,750,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,109,375

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N3,4,5

BIA/Wapato Irrigation Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Bureau of Reclamation

Toppenish

Simcoe

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality
p. 187

Continue leases, purchase, and management of riparian 

areas

Focal Area: Lower Toppenish and Simcoe creeks

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Cost based on current program cost of $1,000,000/year for 15 years.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Current efforts to protect riparian and floodplain lands via acquisition of land, easements, and 

Tribal trust leases need to continue in order to protect and restore lower Toppenish and Simcoe 

creek adult migration and holding areas and juvenile fall, winter, and spring rearing areas. Cost 

estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic estimates based on possible 

amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary agreements negotiated with 

landowners.

Toppenish Action #7

Total Cost: $15,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $5,625,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N8

Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Bureau of Reclamation

Toppenish

Simcoe

Protect existing functional habitat

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve, relocate, or close forest roads

Focal Area: Entire Toppenish Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 5 miles/year of road reconstruction, upgrade, or abandonment at $10,000/mi 

for 15 yrs.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Overall, forest roads have been built and maintained to a lower standard on the Yakama 

Reservation than on, for example, US Forest Service land. There is a need to continue and 

expand road closures, relocations, and drainage improvements to reduce sediment and peak 

flows deliveries to creeks. The Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project and other tribal 

programs have assessed these needs and will coordinate a road improvement program with 

BIA, which manages reservation forestlands.

Toppenish Action #8

Total Cost: $750,000 Steelhead Cost: $375,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N13,14

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Agency

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Simcoe

Toppenish

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 188

Continue improving management of cattle and improve 

management of feral horses

Focal Area: Entire Toppenish Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 20% of restoration crew cost of $250,000/yr plus materials to build & repair 

range, riparian, & meadow fencing at $10,000/year; all for 15 years & 5 stock 

water well installations at $60,000 each.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Recent and ongoing improvements in the management of cattle grazing have reduced impacts 

in the Toppenish Creek watershed. Impacts from wild horses are ongoing and the Yakama 

Nation is developing a wild horse management plan for the Satus and Toppenish Creek 

watersheds, which will focus on limiting riparian zone damage.

Toppenish Action #9

Total Cost: $1,200,000 Steelhead Cost: $600,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N15,16

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project Simcoe

Toppenish

Restore riparian condition/future LWD

Improve upland watershed conditions

Restore headwater meadows

Focal Area: Entire Toppenish Creek Watershed

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 10% of $250,000/yr cost for restoration crew plus $15,000/yr construction 

costs (most work will be hand work, but several locations will require 

machinery). Fencing is covered under Action #9. $200,000 is included for 

possible land purchases.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Steelhead productivity in the Toppenish Creek watershed is limited in large part by summer 

streamflow. Some of this problem can be traced to headwater meadows that are dissected by 

gullies and no longer store runoff efficiently. The Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project has 

been refining headwater meadow restoration techniques and will coordinate further restoration 

efforts.

Toppenish Action #10

Total Cost: $800,000 Steelhead Cost: $600,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

N17

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Agency

Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project

Satus

Toppenish

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality
p. 189

Redesign Roza Dam facilities to improve downstream smolt 

passage

Focal Area: Roza Dam

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Price noted at BOR presentation at Yakima Basin Science & Management 

Conference in 2006.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Roza Dam's spill gates currently hinder smolt outmigration unless "tucked" periodically to allow 

surface spill. When no surface spill occurs at Roza Dam, downstream migrating fish must either 

navigate through the fish screen bypass located in slackwater with poor attraction flows or 

sound deep to pass through a small slot near the bottom of the dam structure. The passage 

obstacle at Roza is thought to increase overall travel time for migrants, prolong exposure to 

predation in the dam pool, and physically harm passing fish. Proposed modifications would 

allow some surface spill to be maintained under all conditions. BOR has completed a 

preliminary design and is scheduled to begin construction in 2009. Gate modifications that allow 

for surface spill at lower flows should not be used to justify maintenance of insufficient instream 

flows below Roza (see Upper Yakima Action #2).

Upper Yakima Action #1

Total Cost: $4,500,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,250,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U9

Bureau of Reclamation All Upper Yakima

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Improve instream flows below Roza Dam

Focal Area: Mainstem Yakima River from below 

Roza to Yakima

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Cost of lost power under different scenarios are currently being calculated by 

BPA. Initial estimates for cost of tucking gates whenever flows during the 

spring allow are ~$160,000/yr.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Water diversions used for power generation decrease flows in the Yakima River between Roza 

Dam and the powerplant outfall 15 miles downstream. Many fish biologists in the basin have 

recommended provisions of higher outmigration flows below Roza Dam to reduce downstream 

travel times and increase smolt survival. This requires developing biologically based instream 

flow targets for this reach for the smolt outmigration (April 1 to May 31st) and then reducing or 

eliminating power diversions at Roza when needed to meet recommended flows. The Bureau of 

Reclamation has not yet agreed to this action, and its implementation may have funding 

consequences for Reclamation and the Roza Irrigation District. The possibility of making up for 

this loss of revenue through a contract with BPA should be explored in conjunction with this 

action.

Upper Yakima Action #2

Total Cost: $2,400,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,200,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U3

Bureau of Reclamation

Irrigation Districts

All Upper Yakima

Improve flow conditions
p. 190

Modify flip-flop flow regime

Focal Area:

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Not estimated at this time; reservoir operation alternatives would have no 

direct cost, while major structural improvements would have high costs.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The flip-flop flow regime results in high flows in the mainstem Yakima throughout most of the 

summer as Lake Cle Elum serves as the primary source for lower valley irrigation, and then a 

significant reduction in flows in the fall as BOR shifts to Rimrock Reservoir. The flip-flop regime 

was devised in response to a court order to protect spring chinook redds in the upper Yakima 

and Cle Elum rivers, but it is hypothesized to be significantly reducing rearing capacity for 

juvenile salmonids. Modifications to the flip-flop flow regime that improve habitat, flow, and 

temperature conditions for steelhead and other salmonid species in the regulated reaches of the 

subbasin would have broad benefits. The negative effects of flip-flop could be addressed 

through alteration of reservoir operations, conservation, additional storage, or a combination of 

these, and other measures. The Bureau of Reclamation, in collaboration with other subbasin 

resource managers and stakeholders, should determine if and how flip-flop can be modified to 

achieve these goals, make the necessary changes, and monitor habitat and fish population 

response.

Upper Yakima Action #3

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U1,6

Bureau of Reclamation All Upper Yakima

Improve flow conditions
p. 191

Improve instream flows in Swauk Creek and Teanaway 

watersheds

Focal Area: Teanaway River, Swauk Creek and 

tributaries

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Costs depend on options pursued & could be made part of development 

conditions; projected cost based on acquisition of 1000 acre feet of water at 

$500/af.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 100%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The Teanaway River and its forks and Swauk Creek and its tributaries have summer/fall stream 

flows that are significantly reduced by irrigations withdrawals. Improving instream flows through 

improved water management, off-stream storage, and water acquisitions and transfers will 

improve rearing habitats. The Teanaway has been the focus of water conservation projects by 

YRBWEP, Ecology, and Kittitas County Conservation District; WDFW, the Yakama Nation, and 

the Kittitas Conservation Trust have been active in Swauk Creek.

Upper Yakima Action #4

Total Cost: $500,000 Steelhead Cost: $500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U4,5

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Ecology

Individual irrigators

Kittitas County Conservation District

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Water Trust & Conservancies

Bonneville Power Administration

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Swauk

North Teanaway

West Teanaway

Improve flow conditions
p. 192

Provide passage and instream flows in lower Manastash 

Creek

Focal Area: Lower 3 miles of Manastash Creek

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: $5,000,000 estimate by Kiititas County Conserrvation District.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Manastash Creek has numerous small water diversions across the large alluvial fan in the lower 

reaches which block fish passage and can dewater the creek. Resolution of flow and passage 

issues in this watershed is high priority for the basin as a whole due to the quantity of suitable 

but unoccupied habitat in Manastash Creek and its location in the lower portion of the Upper 

Yakima. Work is currently underway by a local working group led by the Kittitas County 

Conservation District with support from the Department of Ecology and BPA.

Upper Yakima Action #5

Total Cost: $5,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,812,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U4,5

Kittitas County Conservation District

Individual irrigators

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Yakama Nation

Water Trust & Conservancies

Manastash

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Improve flow conditions

Provide unimpeded fish passage in Taneum Creek

Focal Area: Lower 3 miles of Taneum Creek

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Preliminary design estimates.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Taneum Creek has several medium-sized diversions in the lower portions of the creek that 

partially block fish passage. Concrete fishways were installed in the 1980s but rarely provide full 

adult passage and do not allow juvenile passage. Above those diversions, flows and habitat 

conditions are good to excellent. Recent improved flow conditions in Taneum Creek have 

resulted in steelhead use of the most accessible portions of the creek. The Kittitas Conservation 

Trust is taking the lead on efforts to install low-maintenance fish passage structures.

Upper Yakima Action #6

Total Cost: $600,000 Steelhead Cost: $450,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U9

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Individual irrigators

Taneum

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 193

Provide fish passage into Upper Naneum Creek

Focal Area: Lower and middle reaches of Naneum 

Creek

Time to Implement: > 10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 25 structures at $200,000 each.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

The upper portions of Naneum Creek are presumed to have been historic spawning and rearing 

habitat for steelhead. There are multiple stream courses that connect the middle reaches of 

Naneum to the Yakima River, and coordinated planning will be required to identify the most 

effective route to restore. This will require the involvement of YTAHPs, the Kittitas County 

Conservation District, Kittitas County, the City of Ellensburg, Cascade Canal Company, Kittitas 

Reclamation District, Ellensburg Water Company, and private irrigators. Work will involve 

removing passage barriers, screening diversions, and improving instream flows.

Upper Yakima Action #7

Total Cost: $5,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,750,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U9

City governments

Individual irrigators

Kittitas County Conservation District

Kittitas County

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Irrigation Districts

Bureau of Reclamation

Naneum

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Provide passage at Cle Elum Dam

Focal Area: Cle Elum Dam

Time to Implement: 6-10 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 2008 cost estimate of $96,000,000 by Bureau of Reclamation.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 20%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Lake Cle Elum is a natural glacial lake that supported a run of sockeye salmon. When a dam 

was constructed to raise the lake to store irrigation water, fish passage was not provided. 

Providing upstream and downstream fish passage at Cle Elum Dam would open up 30 miles of 

high quality habitat for steelhead. The BOR Fish Passage Study gives a detailed description 

(BOR 2005). Actions and evaluation at Cle Elum Dam should precede actions at Keechelus and 

Kachess dams.

Upper Yakima Action #8

Total Cost: $96,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $19,200,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U8

Bureau of Reclamation Cle Elum

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 194

Continue providing access to the Yakima River above Easton 

Dam in all years

Focal Area: Easton Dam

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Operational action without a specific cost.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

In projected low-flow years, BOR operating plans allow for closing the Easton fish ladder in the 

spring to block chinook from spawning in areas that may be subsequently dewatered. This 

would also block steelhead from the upper 12 miles of the Yakima River and its tributaries 

during spawning season. Closure of the Easton ladder has not occurred since 1996 due to the 

successful use of the "little flip-flop" flow regime and improvements to the Kachess outlet works, 

and closure of the ladder is not anticipated in the future (prior to 1996, closures occurred during 

the latter part of expected steelhead spawning time windows). Continuing to provide year-round 

access to and adequate flows in the Yakima River above Easton Dam will enable steelhead to 

successfully spawn and rear in this highly complex and productive reach of the Yakima River.

Upper Yakima Action #9

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U9

Bureau of Reclamation Upper Yakima

Restore unimpeded fish passage

Replace County Road culverts on Jack and Indian Creeks

Focal Area: Lower sections of Jack and Indian 

Creeks

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Based on preliminary project budgets.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

While the Teanaway system is generally accessible to steelhead, there are passage-limiting 

culverts where the North Fork Teanaway Road crosses Jack Creek and Indian Creek. These 

culverts block access to about 8.8 miles of upstream habitat. A project to replace them with fishfriendly structures is being developed by the Kittitas County Conservation District and partners.

Upper Yakima Action #10

Total Cost: $750,000 Steelhead Cost: $375,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U20

Kittitas County Conservation District

Kittitas County

US Forest Service

Kittitas Conservation Trust

North Teanaway

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 195

Restore passage, separate irrigation conveyance, and screen 

diversions in Ellensburg-area tributaries

Focal Area: Dry, Reecer, and Wilson creeks and 

associated tributaries

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: 30 structures at $200,000 each.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The complicated network of tributaries in the Ellensburg area has been highly modified as part 

of the development of irrigation systems, roads, and other infrastructure. The Yakima Tributary 

Habitat and Access Program is removing passage barriers, screening irrigation diversions, and 

seperating irrigation water conveyence from natural streams. The lower reaches of these 

streams are expected to provide a dramatic increase in available rearing habitat in the Kittitas 

Valley that would offset the reduction in rearing habitat due to confinement of the mainstem. 

Monitoring should be conducted to confirm value of this habitat for rearing fish. Cost-effective 

implementation of this action will require careful analysis of options and prioritization of actions; 

current plans are to focus on resotration of selected creeks up to the Cascade Ditch crossings. 

Work should be coordinated with riparian restoration under Upper Yakima Action #15.

Upper Yakima Action #11

Total Cost: $6,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $2,250,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U6,13

Kittitas County Conservation District

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Yakama Nation

Irrigation Districts

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Water Trust & Conservancies

Reecer

Naneum

Caribou

Restore unimpeded fish passage
p. 196

Reduce confinement of Upper Yakima River

Focal Area: Floodplain of the Yakima River

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Estimated at 1,000 acres at $10,000/acre.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Rearing habitat in the mainstem of the Upper Yakima River is limited by the combination of high 

flows and confined channels. Efforts to reduce confinement through levee setbacks and other 

infrastructure changes will both reduce the effect of the altered flow regime in the upper Yakima 

and increase effective habitat area. Proposed locations include the I-90 ponds at mile 101, the 

BOR's Schaake levee pullback near Ellensburg, the Selah-area (gravel pits and Taylor ditch) 

and sites associated the I-90 upgrades above Easton. There is the possibility of actions in other 

locations through setback of abandoned railroad levees and flood control levees on public lands.

Upper Yakima Action #12

Total Cost: $10,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $3,750,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U10,14,24

US Army Corps of Engineers

Gravel mine operators

Kittitas County

Washington State Department of Transportation

Yakama Nation

Yakima County

Bureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Reclamation

All Upper Yakima

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 197

Protect & restore floodplain, riparian and in-channel habitats 

in Upper Yakima, Kittitas and Easton/Cle Elum Reaches

Focal Area: Upper Yakima River and tributaries

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 2,000 acres at $8,000/acre.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

There are several ongoing efforts to protect fisheries habitat in key Upper Yakima reaches 

through acquisition of land and conservation easements. These include the Yakama Nation's 

side channels project, the Cascade Conservation Partnership and Mountain-to-Sound 

Greenway Programs, and YRBWEP's acquisition efforts. Habitat restoration should be 

integrated with these acquisition programs. Much of this work has been guided by the Reaches 

Study conducted by Stanford and Snyder, which identified key alluvial floodplain reaches. Cost 

estimates for acquisition of land and easements are generic estimates based on possible 

amounts; any actual acquisitions will be based on voluntary agreements negotiated with 

landowners.

Upper Yakima Action #13

Total Cost: $16,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $8,000,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U12,13,14,19,

21

Land Conservancies

Private landowners

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Yakima Basin Side Channels Project

Caribou

Cle Elum

Manastash

Middle Mainstem Yakima

Naneum

North Teanaway

Reecer

Swauk

Taneum

Upper Mainstem Yakima

Upper Yakima

West Teanaway

Protect existing functional habitat
p. 198

Restore instream and floodplain habitat complexity in Swauk 

and Taneum creeks and Teanaway and lower Cle Elum rivers

Focal Area: Key tributraies to the Upper Yakima

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: 5 miles on Swauk, 17 on Teanaway, 10 on Taneum, 8 on Cle Elum for 40 

miles total; 50% treatment = 20 mi x $100,000/mile treatment co.st

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Efforts to improve channel/floodplain connectivity and riparian habitat will improve habitat 

conditions in key tributares in the Upper Yakima. Activities may include placing large woody 

debris and engineered log jams, bank reshaping, channel reconstruction, and other instream 

habitat work and addressing confinment created by road beds (including US 97 on Swauk 

Creek). Any passage barriers in these creeks and fish-bearing portions of tributaries to these 

creeks should also be addressed. Specific areas in Swauk Creek and its tributaries have been 

inventoried as being in need of restoration; work is currently underway on the lower Cle Elum 

and under development for Taneum Creek.

Upper Yakima Action #14

Total Cost: $2,000,000 Steelhead Cost: $1,500,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U10,12,13,24

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Cascade Land Conservancy

Kittitas County

Yakama Nation

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Kittitas County Conservation District

Bureau of Reclamation

Washington State Department of Transportation

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Cle Elum

Taneum

West Teanaway

North Teanaway

Swauk

Restore floodplain connectivity/function

Restore channel structure/complexity
p. 199

Restore tributary riparian areas

Focal Area: Tributary riparian areas

Time to Implement: Ongoing

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 13 creeks at 3 miles/creek totals 39 miles; fencing & planting of 50% at 

$20,000/mile.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Due to regulation and artificial confinement of the upper Yakima, the best available locations for 

rearing fish in normative flow and temperature conditions are in the lower ends of tributaries. 

Restoring riparian conditions will improve rearing conditions. Lower Reecer, Currier, Whiskey, 

Mercer, Wilson, Naneum, Coleman, Cherry, Manashtash, Taneum, Swauk, and Lmumma 

Creeks and the Teanaway River are all candidates; some work has been completed. This action 

should be integrated with the passage restoration efforts identified in other actions.

Upper Yakima Action #15

Total Cost: $390,000 Steelhead Cost: $195,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U13,14,19,21

Kittitas County Conservation District

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Yakama Nation

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

Caribou

Manastash

Middle Mainstem Yakima

Naneum

North Teanaway

Reecer

Swauk

Taneum

Upper Mainstem Yakima

West Teanaway

Restore riparian condition/future LWD
p. 200

Build conservation easements and other habitat protections 

into development plans

Focal Area: Floodplain and riparian areas 

throughout population area

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: Cost for personnel to coordinate action at 2 FTE x $75,000/FTE/yr for 15 

years; other costs subsumed into cost of new developments.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Current and expected rapid population growth in Kittitas County has the potential to impact 

currently functioning habitat and reduce restoration options. Areas where development pressure 

and steelhead habitat overlap include the Teanaway River, Big and Swauk creek watersheds, 

the Ellensburg urban growth area and floodplain locations along the mainstem Yakima. Assuring 

that habitat values of riparian and floodplain habitat on private lands are protected and that 

development does not impair upland watershed processes are high priorities. This will require 

community-led efforts to 1) utilize the planning processes required by the Growth Management 

Act, 2) work with developers to promote incorporation of greenbelts and open space that protect 

fish habitat and reduce flood damages, and 3) develop innovative approaches that integrate 

habitat protections with ongoing efforts to protect open space, recreational values, livable 

communities, and working landscapes while protecting private property rights. The recent 

Suncadia development provides one example of extensive environmental mitigation being 

incorporated into a successful development proposal.

Upper Yakima Action #16

Total Cost: $2,250,000 Steelhead Cost: $562,500

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U16,17

Cascade Land Conservancy

City governments

Kittitas Conservation Trust

Kittitas County

All Upper Yakima

Protect existing functional habitat
p. 201

Protect Teanaway watershed from negative impacts of 

development

Focal Area: Teanaway River watershed

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 10-25 years

Cost Derivation: $1,004,740 currently allocated to KCT easement proposals; also easements 

on 365 acres (~600' over 50% of 10 miles at $10,000/acre).

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

The Teanaway watershed is currently subject to intense recreational/residential/retirement 

development pressure as large forestland holdings are sold off. Assuring that habitat values of 

riparian and floodplain habitat on private lands are protected and that development does not 

impair upland watershed processes are high priorities; land acquisitions, conservation 

easements, and cooperative agreements with developers will be key tools in ensuring these 

protections. This action will need to be integrated with ongoing efforts to protect open space, 

recreational values, and working landscapes. Cost estimates for acquisition of land and 

easements are generic estimates based on possible amounts; any actual acquisitions will be 

based on voluntary agreements negotiated with landowners.

Upper Yakima Action #17

Total Cost: $4,654,740 Steelhead Cost: $1,745,528

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U16,17

Land Conservancies

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Kittitas Conservation Trust

US Forest Service

Bureau of Reclamation

North Teanaway

West Teanaway

Protect existing functional habitat

Relocate forest roads and campsites and revegetate 

clearcuts in the Teanaway River watershed

Focal Area: Forestlands in the Teanaway watershed

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: 30 miles of road work at $5,000/mile; 500 acres of plantings at $300/acre.

Fisheries: 50% Steelhead: 50%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Because of its south-facing aspect and steep, confined nature of the tributaries, the Teanaway 

is especially prone to increases in peak flow resulting from changes in watershed condition. 

Actions that improve forest practices, such as addressing the impacts of roads located next to 

salmon-bearing streams and revegetating clear cuts south-facing slopes, will help protect and 

improve watershed function. Efforts to relocate and reduce soil compaction at dispersed 

campsites will also improve watershed function. Due to the critical nature of all salmonid 

populations that inhabit the Teanaway, this watershed has the highest priority for identifying and 

reducing impacts from forest practices in the subbasin.

Upper Yakima Action #18

Total Cost: $300,000 Steelhead Cost: $75,000

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U21,22,23

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Private landowners

US Forest Service

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group or other volunteer groups

North Teanaway

West Teanaway

Improve upland watershed conditions
p. 202

Coordinate water quality improvements in Reecer, Wilson, 

Naneum, Cherry, Coleman, and Dry creeks

Focal Area: Ellensburg-area watersheds

Time to Implement: Expand ongoing 

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Costs of Clean Water Act programs not attributed to steelhead recovery.

Fisheries: Steelhead:

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Water quality in Ellensburg-area tributaries is degraded by agricultural activities, urban 

stormwater, and forestry activities in the upper watersheds. Agricultural practices are improving, 

but more work is needed on stormwater and reduction of peak flows from forestry activities. A 

sediment TMDL is being developed for the Upper Yakima; implementation is currently limited by 

funding.

Upper Yakima Action #19

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U17

Individual irrigators

Kittitas County Conservation District

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Department of Ecology

City governments

Irrigation Districts

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Caribou

Naneum

Reecer

Improve water quality

Restore tributary headwater meadows

Focal Area: Headwaters of key Upper Yakima 

tributaries

Time to Implement: 4-6 years

Time to Benefit: 3-10 years

Cost Derivation: Cost for restoration crew time & equiment at 30,000/yr for 15 yrs.

Fisheries: 75% Steelhead: 75%

Implementation Likelihood: High

Protecting and restoring the function of wet meadows in the upper watersheds of Swauk, 

Taneum, and Manashtash creeks and Cle Elum River and its tributaries (e.g. Thorp and French 

Cabin creeks) will help maintain and improve the quantity and quality of instream flows in 

downstream steelhead habitat. For the Cle Elum watershed, this only becomes relevant pending 

completion of Upper Yakima Action #8: Provide passage at Cle Elum Dam.

Upper Yakima Action #20

Total Cost: $450,000 Steelhead Cost: $253,125

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U26

US Forest Service

Improve flow conditions

Improve water quality
p. 203

Provide adequate late fall/winter flows below storage dams

Focal Area: Upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers

Time to Implement: 0-3 years

Time to Benefit: 0-3 years

Cost Derivation: Operational change; no specific cost identified.

Fisheries: 100% Steelhead: 25%

Implementation Likelihood: Moderate

Late fall/winter flows below Kachees, Keechelus and Cle Elum reservoirs are maintained at 

relatively low levels by releases from the storage dams as natural reservoir inflows are used to 

refill storage capacity. Releases may also vary substantially based on flood control operations 

and efforts to assure adequate storage in dry years. The primary fisheries emphasis in this area 

is on maintaining appropriate spawning and incubation flows for spring Chinook. Consideration 

should also be given to ensuring productive spawning and rearing conditions for juvenile 

steelhead.

Upper Yakima Action #21

Total Cost: Steelhead Cost:

Key Partners: Affected MSAs:

Strategies: Limiting Factors:

U2

Bureau of Reclamation Cle Elum

Upper Yakima

Improve flow conditions
 p. 204 

6 Plan Implementation 

6.1 Approach to Implementation 6.4 Adaptive Management 

6.2 Funding Strategies 6.5 Removing Roadblocks to Implementation 

6.3 Implementation Scheduling 6.6 Links to Larger Recovery Efforts 

This plan is a beginning, not an end. It identifies proposed recovery actions, lays out a 

framework for assessing progress towards recovery goals, and identifies issues that will 

need to be assessed during recovery efforts. Implementing the plan and achieving 

recovery goals will require sustained long-term efforts by a wide range of stakeholders. 

Coordinating these efforts and ensuring that limited funding is used effectively will 

require ongoing collaboration within the basin and between in-basin stakeholders and 

state, tribal, and federal entities. This chapter gives an overview of what will be required 

to achieve this coordination. 

6.1 Approach to Implementation 

6.1.1 Voluntary and Non-Regulatory Nature of Plan 

As noted in section 1.2.3, both the NOAA Fisheries’ Recovery Plan for the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead DPS and the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan are not 

regulatory documents. Both promote cooperative and voluntary approaches to 

undertaking recovery actions. For this voluntary approach to work, recovery plan 

implementation will need to be supported by broad outreach, targeted technical and 

logistic support to landowners and project proponents, and funding and incentive 

programs that support recovery actions. 

This plan does not make specific recommendations to change existing regulatory 

programs, but does recognize that how regulatory programs are implemented will affect 

the progress of steelhead recovery. Elected officials, agency staff, stakeholder groups, 

and voters should consider the recovery needs of steelhead as these programs are 

established, revised, and implemented. 

Effectively designed and well-implemented regulatory programs that strike an 

appropriate balance between habitat protection and other legitimate land use goals will be 

a critical component of salmon recovery. Specific regulatory programs that intersect with 

steelhead recovery include local land use management such as the Growth Management, 

Shorelines, and Critical Areas Ordinance programs of local governments; the 

establishment and enforcement of fisheries regulations by WDFW; the implementation of 

the ESA by NOAA Fisheries (including issuance of Section 7 Biological Opinions and 

Section 10 take permits); development and implementation of Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs) in accordance with the Clean Water Act; and the issuance of instream 

work permits by WDFW, WDOE, the Yakama Nation and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Our hope is that the information and proposed actions in this plan can inform 

ongoing public dialogues about implementation of these regulatory programs. 
 p. 205 

6.1.2 Coordination of Existing Recovery Programs 

Salmon recovery is not a new pursuit in the Yakima Basin. Fish screening efforts began 

in the early 20th century, and intensive recovery efforts have been ongoing since the 

1980s. The steelhead recovery actions proposed in this plan are a natural extension of this 

work and should build upon existing programs, relationships, and funding sources 

whenever possible. Developing collaborative partnerships among existing organizations 

should take precedence over the creation of new organizations and programs unless there 

is a clear need for a new structure. 

The Yakama Nation and the WDFW have played a central role in salmon recovery work 

in the Yakima Basin. Much of the funding has come from the BPA with oversight from 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which was established by the Northwest 

Power Act of 1980. BPA is currently working with basin stakeholders to target its 

funding in a manner that meets power planning act requirements and contributes to 

mitigating the impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System on ESA-listed 

species. This is occurring as part of the negotiation of an ESA-mandated Biological 

Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System; a draft Biological Opinion was 

released in October 2007. 

Another significant source of funding for recovery actions is the federal Pacific Coast 

Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF). Washington has used its allocation of PCSRF funding 

along with state funding to support salmon recovery efforts overseen by the Washington 

Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB). To date, over $8.7 million has been committed 

to salmon recovery projects in the Yakima Basin via Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

(SRFB) programs; this funding has leveraged another $5.5 million in locally secured 

match from diverse sources. 

The BOR has also been a key supporter of salmon recovery efforts in the Basin (see 

Section 6.1.4 for more detail). Federal, state, tribal, and private land managers have 

incorporated salmon recovery needs into their land management activities and plans (see 

Section 6.1.5). Local governments, irrigation districts, the South-Central Washington RC 

& D, and conservation districts have all become active proponents of salmon recovery 

projects and have built the organizational capacity needed to plan, fund, and implement 

these projects. 

Most of the recovery actions outlined in this plan can be implemented through these 

programs. This will require ongoing efforts to coordinate diverse programs and identify 

joint priorities to ensure that recovery efforts build on existing capacities and are 

implemented efficiently. 

6.1.3 Coordination with Bureau of Reclamation Yakima Project 

For the last 20 years, BOR has been improving fish passage and installing protective 

facilities in the Yakima Basin. They maintain a project list and inventory of pending and 

proposed projects that conserve fish resources and are actively balancing fish 

requirements and water production needs in Yakima Project operations. 
 p. 206 

Congress established the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) in 

1994. YRBWEP has funded a wide range of salmon recovery actions, including major 

irrigation system improvements, purchase of water rights for transfer to instream flow, 

cooperative projects with smaller irrigators, and purchase and management of floodplain 

habitat in key river reaches. BOR also works closely with the System Operations 

Advisory Committee (SOAC), which consists of representatives of WDFW, the Yakama 

Nation, the USFWS, and the Yakima Basin Joint Board and was created by the Yakima 

Basin watermaster in 1981. SOAC provides recommendations to BOR on how fish needs 

are incorporated into Yakima Project operations. 

BOR is working closely with WDFW and the Yakama Nation to assess the possibility of 

re-establishing fish passage at the five storage dams (see section 4.3.3) through the 

Storage Dam Passage Feasibility Study scheduled for completion in 2008. The Yakima 

Basin Storage Study is a major effort by BOR to identify and assess options for 

increasing water storage capacity in the Yakima Basin to better meet the long-term water 

supply needs of agriculture, municipal users, and anadromous fish. The draft EIS for the 

storage study is also due in 2008.39 Models and other planning documents that BOR is 

developing as part of the storage study have great potential for informing broader 

discussions of recovery needs. 

In a meeting on February 28, 2005 and in a subsequent letter, BOR staff identified 

existing projects that could contribute to a salmon recovery plan. As with all federal 

agencies interviewed, they identified limited budgets and resources as a concern in 

assisting with salmon recovery planning efforts. 

BOR submitted extensive comments on the October 2005 version of the Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan and drafts of this steelhead extract. The Yakima Basin 

Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board will work with BOR to continue these discussions. 

Several key actions identified in this plan involve BOR and will only move forward to 

the degree that BOR supports them. The Board hopes that this plan will be a useful 

document for BOR as it continues its efforts to protect and enhance Yakima Basin 

steelhead. 

6.1.4 Coordination with Land Management Agencies 

The USFS, the Bureau of Land Management, the USFWS, and the Washington 

Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife all manage lands in the Yakima 

Basin. Their management activities are governed by a range of laws, plans, and 

agreements, including some that specifically address management needs of listed fish 

species (e.g., Biological Opinions, Habitat Conservation Plans, and the Forests and Fish 

Act). In addition to general land management decisions, these agencies have many 

opportunities to undertake specific recovery projects, but rates of implementation are 

constrained by staffing and budget limitations. These agencies will be key participants in 

 

39 The BOR’s study is coupled with work by the Washington State Department of Ecology to 

assess non-storage options for improving basin water supplies. 
 p. 207 

ongoing efforts to prioritize, coordinate, fund, and implement recovery actions identified 

in this plan. 

6.1.5 Coordination with Other Planning Efforts 

Section 1.4.1 discussed the relationship between this plan and the Yakima Subbasin Plan 

and the Yakima Basin Watershed Plan. Other planning efforts that will inform and guide 

actions called for in this plan include: 

• Flood Hazard Management Plans developed by local counties 

• Statewide Steelhead Management Plan currently under development by the 

WDFW 

• Steelhead Master Plan being developed by the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, 

Comprehensive Irrigation District Management Plans developed by local 

irrigation districts 

• Land management plans developed by the USFS, the BLM, and the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources 

• Capital facilities improvement plans developed by local, state, tribal, and federal 

governments to guide work on highway systems, water systems, and other critical 

infrastructure that influences steelhead habitat 

It is our intent that this recovery plan and the ongoing collaborative network on which it 

is built can help make it easier for these diverse groups of planners to understand and 

incorporate steelhead recovery needs into these plans. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife 

Recovery Board is committed to working with all of these partners. 

6.1.6 Coordination with Local Land Use Planning 

While this plan does not make any specific proposals regarding land use planning or 

associated regulations, local jurisdictions are encouraged to review local subdivision 

ordinances to see if they encourage creative approaches that balance habitat protection 

with site planning (possible examples include density bonuses, transfers of development 

rights, binding site plans, and tax incentives). Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to 

use the information in this recovery plan as they review their Critical Areas and 

Shorelines and Flood Hazard Management ordinances to see if they address habitat 

protection in a consistent and logical manner that avoids redundancy, uses the best 

available science, and works with adjacent jurisdictions to assure that ordinances do not 

conflict across the landscape. Cities and counties are also encouraged to seek funding to 

monitor adherence to development permit conditions and how effectively they met their 

intended goals. 

6.1.7 Role of Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 

Early in the recovery planning process, planners realized that existing structures, while 

adequate for supporting the initial development of subbasin and recovery plans (via the 
 p. 208 

Yakima Subbasin Fish & Wildlife Planning Board) and allocating SRFB funding through 

the Lead Entity structure (via the Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board), were not 

capable of coordinating long-term recovery efforts. In response, the two organizations 

merged to form the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board (YBFWRB) in April 

of 2006. Since then, the YBFWRB has hired a director and staff, secured funding from 

WDFW and the SRFB, established offices, acted as the Lead Entity for SRFB programs 

in the Yakima Basin, and coordinated the recovery plan revision process and 

development of this steelhead extract. The YBFWRB anticipates a key role coordinating 

and supporting recovery actions and associated research, monitoring, and evaluation 

efforts (See Chapter 7). The YBFWRB is also planning a strong outreach program that 

builds community knowledge of and support for salmon recovery actions (See Chapter 

8). 

6.2 Funding 

6.2.1 Total Time and Cost of Recovery 

Initial cost estimates for implementing all of the actions identified in this plan over 15 

years total $1,168.3 million, with $269.3 million of that cost attributed to steelhead 

recovery. The remaining portion of the total cost is attributed to other sources based on 

anticipated benefits to agricultural producers (e.g. irrigation system improvements), flood 

control, open space, other fish and wildlife species, etc, according to the percentages 

identified in the action descriptions. Funding steelhead recovery actions will require 

working with other interests and entities to ensure that full funding can be secured for 

actions whose benefits to society extend beyond steelhead recovery. 

This is a simple and very preliminary estimate of actual implementation costs for actions. 

It is not a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed actions and does not include indirect costs 

such as opportunity and compliance costs associated with recovery efforts. It should not 

be taken as the total cost of recovery, as achieving delisting goals may require only 

implementing some of the actions included in this plan, while long-term recovery may 

require additional actions not included in the plan. 

This estimate does not include specific costs for steelhead-related monitoring, which will 

be an essential component of recovery efforts. An initial placeholder of $300,000/yr for 

15 years for steelhead-specific monitoring equals $4.5 million; cost estimates will be 

refined as a more detailed monitoring plan is developed (see discussion in Chapter 7). 

6.2.2 Funding Sources 

Significant funding is already available for salmon recovery in the Yakima Basin via the 

BPA Fish and Wildlife Program, SRFB programs, the Department of Ecology Columbia 

River Initiative, USDA programs like EQIP and CREP, and others. The Board will work 

with existing programs and partners to help ensure that funding is targeted to ensure real 

progress towards recovery. A broadly supported implementation schedule for recovery 

actions will be a key element in guiding how funding is applied (see Section 6.3). 
 p. 209 

Where existing funding sources are insufficient or cannot be applied to key recovery 

actions, the YBFWRB will work with partners to help secure new funding sources for 

recovery actions. Sources may include local, state, and federal appropriations, special 

improvement districts, grants from foundations, support from private businesses, and 

private donations. Many of the proposed actions have multiple benefits that extend far 

beyond salmon recovery. Funding for these may involve complex packages of funding 

from multiple sources, each of which focuses on specific sets of benefits, any one of 

which may or may not include salmon recovery. 

Different funding sources have different goals, mandates, and application and contracting 

procedures. Increasing knowledge of different funding sources and their requirements, 

and streamlining application and contracting procedures would significantly reduce the 

transaction costs associated with recovery projects. The Board anticipates working with 

grantors and implementing organizations to increase efficiencies. 

6.3 Implementation Scheduling 

The YBFWRB has committed to maintaining an implementation schedule that identifies 

priority recovery actions and sets a schedule for implementing them. The Board will 

develop this schedule and update it at least annually in coordination with potential project 

sponsors, partners, and affected stakeholders. The implementation schedule does not 

create any formal obligations or commitments; it is will serve as a guide to recovery 

priorities and an informal record of commitments made in other forums. 

The implementation schedule should serve as a menu from which project proponents can 

chose projects to implement. These choices should be guided by the following 

considerations: 

• The degree to which projects address a priority limiting factor for steelhead 

• The technical feasibility of implementing a project 

• The level of certainty regarding project outcomes and the long-term response to 

them by steelhead populations 

• The strength of the commitment of the parties involved in a project to implement 

and maintain it 

• The cost-effectiveness of a proposed action 

• The presence of a “champion” organization or individual with the interest and 

ability needed to develop and implement the action 

• The presence or absence of general community support for a project 

• The availability of funding that can be used for that specific project 

• The presence of temporary windows of opportunity for completion of a project 

Evaluating the effectiveness of implemented recovery actions and identifying future 

priorities will require a rigorous and quantitative approach to adaptive management as 
 p. 210 

priority actions are being implemented. The implementation schedule will have to be 

adjusted over time based on monitoring results, as noted below under Adaptive 

Management in Section 6.4. Detailed recommendations on implementing a strong 

adaptive management process will be included in the RME supplement to the Yakima 

Steelhead Recovery Plan currently being developed by the YBFWRB. We encourage 

interested parties to participate in the development of the supplement and the ongoing 

maintenance of the implementation schedule. 

The implementation schedule should become a widely used resource that informs project 

selection. In some contexts (e.g., SRFB project selection) it may become a driving force. 

However, given the diversity of project partners, funding sources, and the mandates and 

goals behind recovery actions, actions that are designated recovery priorities will 

continue to be funded by a wide range of programs that may be informed or guided by 

the implementation schedule, but are not specifically directed by it. 

6.4 Adaptive Management 

A key to effective implementation of this plan will be the use of a rigorous adaptive 

management framework that identifies and addresses key uncertainties through 

monitoring and research. This will include: 

6.4.1 Tracking Implementation 

The Board will work together with partners implementing recovery actions to track 

project completion, document their outcomes, and evaluate whether they are carried out 

as planned. Project summaries that describe what project sponsors accomplished, 

document project outcomes and lessons learned, and include maps and project photos 

will be assembled and maintained in a publicly accessible format. The YBFWRB will use 

this information to develop regular reports on the status of plan implementation. 

6.4.2 Monitoring Habitat and Population Trends 

To assess the effectiveness of recovery efforts and sustain the support of the public and 

key decision makers, we must be able to track progress towards recovery goals. This 

requires reliable empirical estimates of population status that can be compared to the 

recovery criteria identified in this plan. The Yakima Basin currently has an ability to 

monitor anadromous fish runs that has few equals in the region, thanks largely to the fish 

research infrastructure established by the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. However, 

effectively tracking the full range of VSP parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity) for each individual population will mean adjusting and 

supplementing our monitoring programs. Chapter 7 describes current efforts to identify 

and implement the required steelhead population monitoring. 

6.4.3 Designing Recovery Actions to Test Key Assumptions 

Adaptive management is a powerful concept that is often misrepresented as simply 

regularly monitoring and reassessing progress. Effective adaptive management requires 

the application of the principles of experimental design to management actions so that 
 p. 211 

they test basic hypotheses that improve our understanding of key uncertainties and help 

us better understand ecosystem responses to our actions. Chapter 7 describes the role of 

adaptive management in plan implementation and the key uncertainties identified during 

this planning process. 

6.4.4 Revising the Recovery Plan 

This plan should be a living document that is revised to reflect improved understanding 

of key uncertainties, account for progress towards recovery, and refine assessments of 

future recovery needs. Annual reports by the YBFWRB will describe progress in plan 

implementation. Plan revisions will be considered at least every five years in conjunction 

with the five-year status reviews to be conducted by NOAA Fisheries. 

6.5 Removing Roadblocks to Implementation 

Once actions have been identified and chosen as priorities, the actual work of 

implementation begins. This is often a complex process that consumes significant 

amounts of time and funding. Efforts that increase the efficiency of project 

implementation and remove known roadblocks will play an important role in speeding up 

the rate of recovery. Possible areas to focus are described below. 

6.5.1 Permit Streamlining 

It is ironic that those implementing fish habitat improvement projects often see state, 

federal, and local regulations as impediments, even though these regulations are designed 

to protect habitat and listed species. Streamlining permitting processes for recovery 

actions would greatly reduce the transaction costs associated with implementing recovery 

actions and increase the rate at which recovery actions are implemented. Recent efforts 

by the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office to work with NOAA Fisheries, the Corps of 

Engineers, and the USFWS to incorporate SRFB-approved actions identified in NOAA 

Fisheries-accepted recovery plans into programmatic permits are an excellent first step. 

6.5.2 Providing ESA Assurances 

In many cases, potentially valuable projects are not implemented out of participants’ 

fears that they may create future liabilities under the ESA (e.g., refusing to improve fish 

passage on a creek based on fears that the presence of listed fish in previously blocked 

areas would create a new regulatory burden). This could be addressed through 

mechanisms and agreements that support good-faith recovery efforts based on the best 

scientific information available and limit or absolve any future liabilities that the projects 

might create. Legally binding mechanisms to discharge responsibility for impacts to 

steelhead populations based upon the performance of recovery actions could significantly 

increase voluntary participation in recovery planning. There are some existing programs 

to accomplish this under the ESA (Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe-harbor agreements, 

etc.), while other programs may need to be developed to meet specific needs. 
 p. 212 

6.5.3 Building Technical Capacity 

Complex recovery actions require a range of expertise unavailable in local communities 

and small organizations. Resources can be shared to build the capacity to get these 

actions on the ground. Examples of new and existing technical capacity that could be 

shared among multiple recovery partners include engineering, geographic information 

systems, land transaction (especially regarding structuring, valuation, monitoring, and 

enforcement of conservation easements), and fund raising for large projects. 

6.5.4 Supporting Network of Recovery Practitioners 

Most groups implementing recovery actions are either small organizations or small units 

within large organizations with other areas of focus. Successful recovery actions will be 

built on effective communication between diverse groups and individuals. It will require 

networks that help people sustain a global understanding of recovery efforts while 

maintaining focus on their individual components. Networks of recovery practitioners 

and stakeholders (be they formal or informal) will be an important way of building 

capacity, sharing lessons, and sustaining mutual support and momentum. 

6.6 Maintaining Links to Larger Recovery Efforts 

While this plan focuses on steelhead recovery needs within the Yakima Basin, achieving 

steelhead recovery goals will also require coordination with actions taken outside of the 

basin. This will require recovery planners and other local stakeholders to engage in 

several state and regional processes, as discussed below: 

6.6.1 Washington State Salmon Recovery Strategy 

The State of Washington’s Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) recognizes the 

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board as one of six regional recovery 

organizations in the state. The Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan that this extract 

is based on has been accepted as a regional salmon recovery plan in accordance with the 

Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 77-85). The GSRO and the SRFB are committed to using 

regional salmon recovery organizations as a key element in the statewide salmon 

recovery process, and the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is committed to 

working with the state in this capacity. The Board is also under contract with WDFW to 

serve as the Lead Entity for the Yakima Basin. Based on these two commitments, the 

Board coordinates applications for SRFB funding of projects in the Yakima Basin and 

intensive local reviews of proposals to the SRFB. The Board is committed to making this 

plan an integral part of the Yakima Basin SRFB proposal review process. The Board will 

also work with GSRO on regional sections of the biennial State of the Salmon report 

produced by GSRO as required by state law. The legislature has designated regional 

recovery organizations as members of the Washington Forum on Monitoring Salmon 

Recovery and Watershed Health, which seeks to coordinate salmon recovery monitoring 

efforts throughout the state. 
 p. 213 

6.6.2 Middle Columbia DPS-wide Coordination 

The Yakima Basin’s steelhead make up only one of the four Major Population Groups 

that together comprise the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. The geographic area 

of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS encompasses a large part of north-central 

Oregon and south-central Washington. Under the ESA, delisting decisions are made at 

the level of the DPS as a whole. This means that steelhead in the Yakima Basin may meet 

recovery goals, but not be delisted due to conditions elsewhere in the DPS. Communities 

throughout the DPS must undertake targeted recovery actions to successfully meet 

recovery goals and delist the DPS. This process will be facilitated by ongoing 

communication and coordination among these communities. An initial step is being made 

as part of the development of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan by NOAA 

Fisheries, in which local planning groups from Oregon and Washington are meeting 

regularly to discuss how plans developed for individual MPGs will be ‘rolled up’ into a 

DPS-wide plan to be issued by NOAA. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery 

Board anticipates that the need to share information and resources and coordinate key 

recovery actions across the entire DPS will continue during recovery plan 

implementation. The Board is committed to continuing to engage in discussions at the 

DPS level. 

6.6.3 Integration with Columbia River, Estuary and Ocean 

Recovery Efforts 

Conditions and management actions in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the ocean 

inevitably affect the fate of steelhead in the Yakima Basin. The rate of progress towards 

recovery will be determined, in part, by decisions made in these areas. Although this plan 

focuses on actions within the Yakima Basin, it recognizes that in-basin stakeholders will 

also need to engage in decision making outside of the basin to ensure that in-basin actions 

are coordinated with out-of-basin actions. Some stakeholders in the Basin (e.g., WDFW, 

the Yakama Nation, and the BOR) are directly involved in key out-of-basin management 

decisions; others have the opportunity to participate via established public participation 

processes and associations with other decision makers. The Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board anticipates participating in efforts to coordinate overall Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead DPS recovery efforts. The Board will also foster discussions 

about the best way for in-basin stakeholders to ensure that progress outside of the basin 

continues to complement the concerted efforts underway within the basin. 
 p. 214 

7 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 

7.1 Steelhead Population Trends 7.5 Critical Ecological Dynamics 

7.2 Key Factors Affecting Survival 7.6 Impact of Long-term Trends 

7.3 Habitat Trends and Threats Criteria 7.7 Coordinating Research & Monitoring 

7.4 Recovery Action Effectiveness 7.8 Out-of-Basin RME Needs 

Steelhead recovery occurs in a complex setting. There are numerous uncertainties about 

the status of steelhead populations, trends in habitat conditions, and the response of 

steelhead to recovery actions. Ongoing research, monitoring, and evaluation will be an 

essential element of recovery efforts. Research and monitoring must be targeted to 

address critical uncertainties, many of which were identified earlier in this plan and are 

described more fully in this chapter. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 

is tasked with developing a research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) plan for 

steelhead recovery efforts. It will be working closely with in-basin partners, WDFW, the 

Yakama Nation, and NOAA Fisheries to identify key actions and coordinate their 

implementation. This chapter gives an overview of topics that will be addressed in more 

detail in the proposed RME plan. 

Chapter 6 addressed monitoring of implementation of recovery actions. Monitoring longterm trends for the basin’s four steelhead populations will be essential for assessing 

progress towards the recovery criteria identified in Chapter 4. Understanding long-term 

trends in habitat conditions and other factors affecting survival will allow objective 

assessments of progress towards addressing the threats criteria NOAA Fisheries is 

developing as part of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan. Both types of 

information will be required to assess prospects for de-listing Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS. 

Monitoring and research also improve our understanding of how recovery actions affect 

steelhead populations. Evaluating how recovery actions affect habitat conditions and how 

steelhead respond to those changed conditions will guide the choice and design of 

subsequent recovery actions. Work focusing on the ecological and climatic dynamics of 

steelhead habitat—both in and outside of the Yakima Basin—will also be critical. 

To implement this recovery plan, we will need an adaptive management framework that 

addresses the key uncertainties identified here through management experiments. This 

will require: 

• Careful coordination between those implementing recovery actions on the ground 

and the research community 

• Identification of key uncertainties and hypotheses about their links to steelhead 

recovery 

• Development of system models that guide discussion about factors affecting 

steelhead recovery 
 p. 215 

• Incorporation of experimental design concepts into management actions 

This adaptive management framework will be developed in more detail in the upcoming 

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. 

7.1 Understanding Steelhead Population Trends 

The ESA calls for status reviews for listed species every five years. Ongoing monitoring 

of steelhead populations will be required to allow objective comparisons between current 

status and trends of key VSP parameters and the recovery criteria identified in Chapter 4. 

This work should be closely coordinated among NOAA Fisheries, the Interior Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team, WDFW, the Yakama Nation, and the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board. 

Research and monitoring efforts should also evaluate the appropriateness of the recovery 

criteria identified in Chapter 4 so that the criteria can be adjusted as needed. Two areas 

where research and monitoring efforts will directly inform the revision of recovery goals 

are: 

• Evaluating the current and potential role of mainstem spawning in recovery 

scenarios and using that information to determine how to produce the “mainstem 

spawners” block identified under the Satus population in Chapter 4 

• Understanding the dynamics underlying the balance between resident and 

anadromous life histories in the Upper Yakima and Naches populations to 

determine realistic long-term population goals for both steelhead and rainbow 

trout 

This section gives a brief overview of current and proposed monitoring and research that 

focuses on understanding steelhead population VSP parameters. 

7.1.1 Abundance and Productivity 

The existing ability to track MPG-level abundance trends via ladder counts at Prosser is 

excellent and needs to be maintained. Our current ability to track abundance at the 

population level is variable, with the strongest estimates from Roza Dam counts for the 

Upper Yakima and the weakest from the Naches basin, which has no dam counts and 

redd counting conditions that make it difficult to estimate spawner abundance. Two 

proposals are currently being developed to allow improved tracking of abundance by 

population. The first relies on using genetic sampling of the adult and/or juvenile 

migrations at Prosser and using genetic signatures to attribute fish to specific population 

areas. Feasibility studies are currently under way by WDFW’s genetics lab in Olympia. 

The second calls for radio tracking to apportion steelhead passing Prosser to their 

eventual destination and would repeat and update the 15-year old study referenced in this 

plan (Hockersmith et al. 1995). The two efforts would be complementary since the radio 

tracking would help develop pre-spawning mortality rate estimates and help assess 

effectiveness of genetic population attribution. Both proposals will be developed in more 

detail in the upcoming RME plan. 
 p. 216 

7.1.2 Spatial Structure 

Existing Monitoring of Spatial Structure 

Our current knowledge of spatial structure is based on redd counts and radio-tracking 

data. The BPA-funded Yakama Nation Watersheds Project conducts extensive 

monitoring in the Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum creek watersheds. The redd surveys 

conducted by this program are the primary basis for understanding steelhead spatial 

structure in these watersheds and should be continued. 

Redd surveys have been conducted in the Naches basin since 2004. The USFS Naches 

Ranger District and WDFW have led these efforts with support from other agencies. This 

has significantly expanded our knowledge of spawner distribution in the area, although 

high and turbid flows during the spawning season limit the utility of redd counts for 

estimating spawner abundance. 

Our most current knowledge of spatial structure in the Upper Yakima population area 

comes from radio tracking conducted by BOR and YKFP in 2002 through 2005. This 

work provided a detailed picture of spawner distribution during this time period; it did 

not address the portion of the Upper Yakima population that spawns below Roza Dam. 

This work ended in 2005. 

Improve Tracking of Upper Yakima and Naches Distributions 

Effectively tracking long-term trends in spawner distributions in the Upper Yakima and 

Naches populations will require a combination of methods, including targeted redd 

counts in areas and years when conditions are favorable, periodic radio tracking from 

Prosser and/or Roza, and the use of new tagging and detection technologies—such as 

inserting PIT or acoustic tags in adults at Prosser and using detector arrays to track 

movements into tributaries, and using sonar-based detection systems, and installing 

automated counting facilities at key passage structures. Specific proposals and budgets 

will be developed as part of the RME plan. 

Role of Mainstem Spawning 

Our understanding of past, current, and potential future steelhead spawning in mainstem 

reaches is limited. The mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers and their complex of sidechannels are generally presumed to have supported significant numbers of steelhead 

spawners prior to the population declines of the last 150 years. Changes in hydrology and 

significant reductions in the extent and function of floodplains are presumed to have 

significantly reduced the extent and success of mainstem spawning, especially 

downstream of Union Gap, but hard data are lacking. Redd surveys are generally not 

feasible in mainstem reaches because flows are often high during the spawning season. 

Two major radio-tracking efforts in the basin found relatively high rates of mainstem 

spawning (Hockersmith et al. 1995; Karp et al. 2003; Karp et al. 2005). Additional radio 

tracking is likely to be the most effective way to increase our understanding of the current 

extent of mainstem spawning and the microhabitats used by mainstem spawners. Further 

work is needed to determine the key factors that affect reproductive success of mainstem 

spawners. This will be a critical part of evaluating where mainstem spawning should be 
 p. 217 

encouraged or discouraged in the course of recovery. As noted in Chapter 4, current 

uncertainties about the feasibility and success of mainstem spawning below Union Gap 

led recovery planners to identify a block of spawners from the Satus population that 

could either be produced from the mainstem Yakima or mitigated for by increased 

production elsewhere in the basin. Research that informs which of these alternatives to 

choose will help guide recovery efforts. 

Rates of Reestablishment of Steelhead in Previously Blocked Areas 

Significant efforts are being made to restore passage to parts of the basin that have been 

blocked by dams and other barriers. Passage barriers have been recently removed from 

Cowiche and Big creeks. Passage barrier removal is underway in Manastash and Taneum 

creeks and is proposed for Naneum Creek and the Cle Elum and Bumping rivers. 

Understanding the recolonization process is critical to 1) ensuring that significant 

investments in passage provide anticipated benefits, and 2) evaluating the possible need 

for short-term supplementation to re-establish populations in previously blocked areas. 

7.1.3 Diversity 

Currently, our understanding of the extent and role of phenotypic and genetic diversity in 

Yakima Basin steelhead populations is limited. Our understanding of population specific 

phenological and life history traits will be greatly improved by the anticipated ability to 

identify upstream migrants by population at Prosser. 

Phenotypic Diversity 

Fish measured at adult traps associated with fish ladders at Prosser and Roza dams are the 

best source of data on spawner lengths, weights, condition, and other phenotypic traits. 

Smolt lengths, weights, and condition can all be assessed at smolt traps (Prosser and Roza 

dams and tributary screw traps). Improving existing smolt and parr sampling and 

establishing new trapping locations should be considered. Data on phenological traits 

should be reviewed for correlation with run timing, genetic differences, and between and 

within population spatial distribution. 

Genetic Diversity 

The genetic sampling proposed to improve tracking abundance by population will also 

provide ample data for analyses of genetic diversity within and among the four 

populations. Radio-tracking data of genetically profiled individuals and/or spawning 

ground genetic samples can be used to assess inter-population stray rates and identify 

genotypic variations in habitat use. 

Hatchery Genetic Inputs 

Hatchery steelhead are not currently released in the Yakima Basin, and strays from others 

areas have comprised less than 5% of the total run on average, but the risk of long-term 

genetic impacts from interbreeding with hatchery stocks remains. We must continue 

current efforts to: 
 p. 218 

• Identify and track the hatchery component of steelhead runs, both at Prosser, and 

where possible, on the spawning grounds 

• Assess genetic introgression from hatchery steelhead and rainbow trout in the 

Upper Yakima and Naches populations 

Understanding and Monitoring Life History Diversity 

As described in Chapter 2, our current understanding of steelhead life history diversity in 

the Yakima Basin is limited. Monitoring and research that improves our understanding of 

life history diversity within and among populations will allow recovery planners to build 

more explicit recovery criteria for the diversity component of the VSP framework. 

Genetic sampling and PIT tagging can be used to build population specific estimates of 

run timing. Combining scale samples with this information can be used to determine age 

structures by population. 

Understanding juvenile migration patterns between emergence and smoltification will be 

more challenging but essential. Key questions include: 

• Comparing the frequency and relative survival benefits of different juvenile 

migration patterns (e.g., smoltification upstream vs. downstream movement of 

pre-smolts in late fall and winter) 

• Distinguishing the role of mainstem and floodplain rearing habitat and the 

impacts on life history patterns from the loss of these rearing habitats in many 

parts of the basin (e.g., simplified channels throughout the basin, the Wapato 

Reach and, potentially, the floodplain reaches below Horn Rapids). 

7.2 Understanding Key Factors Affecting Survival 

In recent years our ability to track anadromous fish survival through multiple life-stages 

has improved dramatically. This makes it possible to determine the effects of specific 

habitat conditions on specific life stages. Currently PIT tags inserted at Yakama Nation 

smolt traps run in Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum creeks are the primary source of data 

on survival rates for smolt and adult life stages. Expanding the use and monitoring of PIT 

tags and other developing tagging technologies will help us make significant strides in 

understanding factors affecting survival rates and how those can be addressed via 

targeted recovery actions. 

7.2.1 Role of Life-Cycle Models 

Life-cycle models help us quantify how habitat conditions and other variables affect fish 

populations. Currently the most developed model in the Yakima Basin is the EDT model 

used in subbasin planning (See Appendix B). These models should be used to identify 

and evaluate working hypotheses about the effects of specific environmental conditions 

on survival and abundance of steelhead. Model results can then be used to help set 

restoration priorities and design management experiments that empirically test model 

assumptions. 
 p. 219 

7.2.2 Separating In and Out-of-Basin Survival Rates 

To understand the interplay between in-basin and out-of-basin effects in determining the 

viability of Yakima steelhead populations requires tracking trends in out-of-basin 

survival rates. The smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR) reflects all agents of mortality 

affecting the life cycle of salmon and steelhead from migrating smolts through returning 

adults. There needs to be a way of counting smolts leaving the Yakima Basin each year 

and then the number of adults returning to the basin from that year’s outmigration. The 

expanding network of PIT-tag detectors within and outside the Yakima Basin now 

enables us to count PIT-tagged outmigrants and returns. Currently we can estimate SARs 

for the Satus and Toppenish populations and the Ahtanum component of the Naches 

population. PIT tagging Upper Yakima and Naches steelhead would help us develop 

SARs more representative of the Yakima steelhead MPG. 

7.2.3 Impacts of Mainstem Conditions on Smolt Survival 

A key uncertainty that needs to be addressed is the relationship between flows, habitat 

conditions, and outmigration timing and survival. Steelhead data are limited, but work is 

being done based on more extensive PIT tag data and other monitoring of spring 

Chinook. Developing a more detailed understanding specific to steelhead will inform 

efforts to improve flow conditions during the spring outmigration and manage habitat in a 

manner that enhances outmigrant survival. This work should also focus on how refugia 

associated with in-stream diversity and side channel/floodplain habitats in the lower 

mainstem contribute to smolt survival. Survival rates through bypass systems associated 

with major irrigation diversions (Chandler, SVID, and WIP) should also be studied in 

order to identify if changes can be made to associated infrastructure that would improve 

passage conditions. 

7.2.4 Impacts of High Delivery Flows on Juvenile Rearing 

A key uncertainty identified in this plan is the effect on steelhead growth and survival of 

high summer delivery flows in general and the flip-flop flow regime in particular. 

Research and monitoring that improves our understanding of these impacts and tracks 

responses to any changes in delivery flow regimes implemented as part of recovery 

efforts will be critical. A review of past work on this topic and specific proposals for 

future research will be included in the RME plan under development. 

7.2.5 Factors Affecting Upmigrating Adults 

Factors that affect adult spawner survival and condition between passage at McNary and 

spawning are poorly understood. As detailed in Section 2.5.1.1, current flow and 

temperature conditions preclude migration into the basin from July until September. PIT 

tag detections and water temperature data suggest that steelhead hold in McNary pool. 

Understanding how this change in run-timing and holding habitat affects eventual 

survival and reproductive success will help guide recovery efforts. No actions 

recommended in this recovery plan are anticipated to significantly reduce average 

Columbia mainstem summer temperatures during that time period, although changes in 
 p. 220 

flow regime may lengthen the period of cooler temperatures in the lower Yakima River. 

Additional research and monitoring would help determine if targeted efforts to improve 

specific habitats and create relatively small-scale temperature refugia would improve 

spawner survival and condition. In addition, as noted in Section 2.5.1, recent data 

indicates that a portion of steelhead returning to the Yakima continue significant 

distances up the Columbia before returning downstream and entering the Yakima. 

Additional monitoring and research is needed to understanding the rates, causes, and 

implications of these upstream movements. 

7.2.6 Resident/Anadromous Interactions 

Understanding the interplay between resident and anadromous life histories of O. mykiss 

in the Upper Yakima and Naches populations will help ensure that appropriate goals are 

set for these populations and that recovery actions are effectively targeted to increase the 

abundance of steelhead. Research on this topic is currently ongoing and has received new 

impetus as a result of the listing, formulation of this recovery plan, and work on the 

Steelhead Master Plan by YKFP. Elements that need additional study include the: 

• Genetic differences (if any) between individuals that exhibit anadromy and those 

that exhibit residency, including examination of subpopulation structure and 

genetic diversity of the population as a whole 

• Effects of habitat conditions and competitive interactions on growth and condition 

of juvenile O. mykiss, and the impact of those patterns on subsequent 

smoltification or maturation as resident fish 

• Population response to newly re-opened habitat from the standpoint of genetic 

processes and life history diversity 

• Role of resident O. mykiss in determining the viability of the anadromous form 

7.3 Understanding Habitat Trends and Threats Criteria 

To address the delisting criteria, NOAA Fisheries is developing—as part of the Middle 

Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan—new and existing monitoring and research to assess 

regarding habitat status and trends, which will need to be integrated into individual 

recovery plans. An inventory of existing efforts and specific proposals designed to fill 

gaps will be incorporated into the RME plan under development by the Yakima Basin 

Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board. 

7.4 Evaluating Recovery Action Effectiveness 

Effectiveness monitoring is needed to understand the nature and rate of response of 

habitat conditions and steelhead populations to specific recovery actions. Effectiveness of 

recovery actions will be monitored using a variety of approaches, including the BeforeAfter-Control-Impact (BACI) design with stratified random sampling described in the 

Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy (ISP 2000; Washington State Monitoring 

Oversight Committee 2002), the Intensively Monitored Watershed Program promoted by 
 p. 221 

NOAA Fisheries and the Washington Monitoring Forum, and the SRFB Statewide 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program developed by Tetra Tech Inc. Supplementation actions 

will continue to be monitored according to the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

(YKFP). Not all recovery actions recommended in this plan need to be monitored for 

effectiveness, but a sufficient number of replicates of each type of action should be 

assessed. This work will need to engage ecologists, fish biologists, geologists, 

hydrologists, and other experts familiar with the region. 

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). Targeted monitoring and research will help resolve remaining 

uncertainties about the effects of recovery strategies on population VSP parameters. This 

work should focus on the linkages between physical and biological processes so 

managers can predict changes in survival and productivity in response to selected 

recovery actions. It will need to address the interactions between multiple recovery 

actions and their broader ecological context. Work should integrate system models and 

their underlying hypotheses whenever possible. 

Specific topics to be addressed include the: 

• Impacts of large woody debris on steelhead rearing, spawning, and incubation 

conditions 

• Long-term effectiveness of the kelt reconditioning program 

• Response to reopening suitable habitat 

• Response to improvements in channel, floodplain, and riparian conditions 

7.5 Understanding Critical Ecological Dynamics 

Steelhead exist within a complex ecological setting, and their fate is affected by 

competition with other species, predation, nutrient cycling, the presence of contaminants 

and vegetation dynamics. Understanding these diverse factors will improve recovery 

efforts. 

7.5.1 In-Basin Predation 

Predation is one of the main factors driving juvenile survival. Research and monitoring is 

needed to track trends in predator populations, understand their impacts on steelhead, and 

develop appropriate management techniques to reduce predation. 

Predation by bass and pikeminnow on outmigrating smolts is a concern, although it is 

believed to have a smaller effect on steelhead than other species because most steelhead 

smolts have left the lower Yakima River before smallmouth bass and northern 

pikeminnow become active. Monitoring to develop better estimates of piscine predation 

in the lower river should continue. 
 p. 222 

Avian predation is known to be significant, with known concentrations of terns and gulls 

in the lower Yakima River, mergansers throughout the basin, and increasing numbers of 

white pelicans and cormorants visiting the basin. Research and monitoring that improves 

understanding of trends in species presence, their impacts on steelhead, and how these 

impacts can be managed are vital. This should include efforts to understand the 

interactions between habitat conditions and predation and the impacts of specific 

infrastructure (e.g., irrigation diversion dams) that may facilitate predation. Detection of 

excreted PIT tags at sites where predatory birds congregate has helped in estimating 

consumption of salmonids in the Yakima and Columbia rivers. The Yakima/Klickitat 

Fisheries Project is currently tracking avian predation (Siegel and Fast 2006); this work 

should be continued and expanded. 

7.5.2 Interspecies Effects 

The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Species Interaction Study is a long-standing effort 

to understand how fish culture activities (hatchery supplementation of Chinook and coho 

stocks) affect other species, including steelhead (McMichael et al. 1999; McMichael et 

al. 1997; Pearsons and Hopley 1999; Pearsons et al. 1996). This project has increased our 

understanding of the ecological dynamics that affect both resident and anadromous O. 

mykiss in the basin and should be continued and expanded. 

Two other sets of questions about interspecies interactions with management implications 

are: 

• How increased interspecific competition in juvenile rearing areas may affect the 

balance between anadromy and residency for O. mykiss

• How the presence of exotic species affects steelhead recovery efforts, and how 

those species with significant impacts can be eradicated or controlled 

7.5.3 Changes in Nutrient Transport 

Anadromous fish bring oceanic nutrients inland when they die and decompose in 

headwaters and transport nutrients accumulated in growing juveniles from the headwaters 

to the ocean. Pre-1850 returns of salmon and steelhead are estimated to have ranged from 

10 to 100 times current runs. The reduction in anadromous fish runs caused significant 

changes in these nutrient cycles. Effectively managing steelhead requires understanding 

how these changes affect growth and survival under current conditions, and what can be 

done to address nutrient limitations (e.g., adding carcasses and analogs). Restoring side 

channels and natural obstructions, such as woody debris may help retain carcasses in 

headwaters. 

7.5.4 Expansion of Aquatic Vegetation 

The lower Yakima mainstem has seen a significant increase in the presence of aquatic 

vegetation in the last decade. The expansion of water star grass in the lower 100 miles of 

the river is the most dramatic example. Once a relatively rare native plant, the star grass 

has expanded to cover much of the riverbed with thick mats of vegetation. This is 
 p. 223 

generally presumed to have been a response to the significant reduction in turbidity in the 

lower river over the last decade associated with improved quality of irrigation return 

flows. Effects on steelhead smolts and returning adults are unknown; the most likely 

impact is reduced habitat quality in the later part of the smolt outmigration and the early 

part of the adult immigration due the reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations 

associated with star grass respiration. The South Yakima Conservation District’s 

Eutrophication Study (Marie Zurowski, personal communication, 2007) has found that 

the relationship between vegetative growth and nutrient concentrations is complex. 

Understanding the factors that drive the spread of aquatic vegetation (increased light 

penetration and high nutrient concentrations) and those that limit it (scouring in flood 

events, high turbidity) will help managers respond. The Benton Conservation Districts 

conducting pilot work on control of water star grass. 

7.5.5 Impacts of Pesticides and other Toxins 

Agricultural lands in the Yakima Basin support a diversity of crops and more than 180 

different pesticides are applied yearly in the basin (Rinella et al. 1999). Some widely used 

pesticide classes are known to interfere with the normal function of the nervous system in 

salmon and other fish, including the organophosphates (Beauvais et al. 2000; Brewer et 

al. 2001; Moore and Waring 2001; Morgan and Kiceniuk 1990; Scholz et al. 2000), the 

carbamates (Little et al. 1990; Waring and Moore 1997), the pyrethroids (Little et al. 

1993; Moore and Waring 2001), and the triazines (Moore and Waring 1998; Saglio and 

Trijasse 1998). Many pesticides are known to interfere with the behavior or physiology of 

salmonids at concentrations well below lethal levels and within the range of exposure 

conditions that have been observed in the Yakima River and its tributaries (Cuffney et al. 

1997; Ebbert and Embrey 2002; Joy and Patterson 1997; Morace et al. 1999; Rinella et 

al. 1999). Sublethal exposures to these chemicals may impair the neurochemistry, 

neurophysiology, or behavior of exposed salmonids. Recent research has also focused 

attention on the potential impacts of other contaminants on salmonids, including 

estrogens and other hormones. The effects of all of these contaminates on steelhead 

population VSP parameters in the Yakima Basin remain unknown, but the potential 

effects are significant and merit careful attention. 

7.6 Understanding Impact of Long-Term Trends 

Yakima Basin steelhead recovery will not happen under static conditions; rather their 

survival will occur within a dynamic human and climatic context. Understanding future 

trends in these areas is important. 

7.6.1 Global Warming Impacts 

There is broad consensus that worldwide climate is warming. Projections global warming 

impacts on the Pacific Northwest generally agree that there will be less snowpack 

accumulation and increased summer temperatures. Changes in precipitation are less 

certain with some models calling for increases and others for decreases. Research efforts 

are currently underway to understand how this will affect salmonid habitat in the Inland 

Columbia Basin (Beamish 1995; ISP 2002; 2002; 1989) and the Yakima Basin (Climate 
 p. 224 

Impacts Group 2009; Mastin 2008). Research will be vital to assuring that recovery 

efforts create real and sustained long-term improvement in habitat conditions. 

7.6.2 Future Growth Impacts 

In the last 150 years the landscapes and lifeways of the Yakima Basin have been 

transformed repeatedly, and such transformations will inevitably continue. Almost all 

projections for the Yakima Basin call for continued population growth. It is critical that 

proponents of steelhead recovery in the Yakima Basin anticipate how population growth 

and accompanying lifestyle decisions can be guided to protect fish habitats, local 

economies, and human quality of life. 

7.7 Coordinating Research and Monitoring Efforts 

The Yakima Basin is home to a wide range of long-term monitoring and research efforts, 

and the technical capacity within the basin and among out-of-basin partners actively 

engaged in the basin is impressive. Monitoring and research associated with steelhead 

recovery should be built upon these established resources. Extensive coordination will be 

required to ensure that existing resources are used effectively and that new resources are 

brought to bear in a targeted fashion that minimizes costs. The Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board is currently working with partners in the basin to develop a 

working group focused on steelhead monitoring and research needs. Initial meetings have 

focused on understanding how data from current monitoring illuminates steelhead 

population trends and how gaps in current efforts can be filled to better track key VSP 

parameters. The hope is that this working group will coordinate and research and 

monitoring related to steelhead recovery plan efforts. 

Currently, the YKFP is the dominant fish management monitoring and research 

organization for the Yakima Basin. The co-managers, Yakama Nation, and WDFW, 

develop monitoring and evaluation objectives and tasks through a joint process. The 

YKFP monitoring and evaluation program is organized into four categories: Natural 

Production, Harvest, Genetics, and Ecological Interactions. The co-managers’ 

Science/Technical Advisory Committee employs the services of a work committee of 

scientists, the Monitoring Implementation Planning Team, to develop a Monitoring and 

Evaluation Plan (Fast and Sampson 2004). Although the YKFP’s greatest monitoring 

emphasis has been on the targets of current YKFP supplementation efforts (spring 

Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho), the program also provides valuable information on 

steelhead. Steelhead out-migration is enumerated at Prosser Dam, steelhead have been a 

subject of YKFP species interactions studies, an EDT model has been developed for 

Yakima Basin steelhead, and a YKFP steelhead master plan is under development. YKFP 

also works with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission on the Yakima 

subbasin kelt reconditioning study and with the BOR on recent steelhead radio-tagging 

work in the upper Yakima River. Research and monitoring related to steelhead recovery 

should build upon the capacities of the YKFP program. 
 p. 225 

7.7.1 Integration with Regional Monitoring Programs 

In the last five years, numerous regional monitoring initiatives have been developed, 

including the: 

• Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership 

• Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP; 

administered by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority) 

• Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) led by the 

NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

• Washington Monitoring Forum (previously the Governor’s Monitoring Forum) 

Specific guidance documents that have been developed to guide monitoring related to 

recovery efforts include: 

• Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery: Decision Framework and 

Monitoring Guidance developed by the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center (NMFS 2007) 

• The Washington comprehensive monitoring strategy for watershed health and 

salmon recovery (ISP 2000; Washington State Monitoring Oversight Committee 

2002) 

• Governor’s Forum On Monitoring, Recommendations to the Salmon Recovery 

Regions (GSRO and NMFS 2005) 

Research and monitoring activities in the Yakima Basin will draw on the strategies, 

indicators, and protocols developed in these programs and documents in order to assure 

the use of valid sampling and statistical designs and consistent protocols and data 

management systems. 

7.7.2 Out-of-Basin Research Needs 

Long-term efforts to increase the survival of Yakima Basin steelhead will benefit from 

the broad range of monitoring and research already focused on the mainstem Columbia, 

its estuary, and the ocean. The efforts to better track out-of-basin survival for Yakima 

steelhead described in Section 7.1.4 will help connect the general work done out-of-basin 

with the specific impacts on Yakima Basin populations. Monitoring efforts in the basin 

should be coordinated with efforts outside of the basin; for example fish tagged in-basin 

can also provide valuable information on Columbia River and ocean survival. Specific 

research and monitoring efforts that will benefit Yakima Basin steelhead include those 

that focus on: 

• Harvest rates of naturally produced steelhead and indirect mortalities associated 

with recreational and commercial fisheries in freshwater and ocean fisheries 

• Fisheries management techniques that improve access to harvestable stocks while 

reducing undesirable direct and indirect impacts to naturally produced steelhead 
 p. 226 

• Interactions between hatchery and naturally produced steelhead in the mainstem 

Columbia and ocean, including possible density-dependent competition 

• Hatchery programs’ effects on the incidence of disease and predation on naturally 

produced fish 

• Effects of upstream passage conditions in the Columbia River on the subsequent 

reproductive success of steelhead 

• Factors that affect the survival rate of juvenile steelhead through the Columbia 

River dams 

• Changes in predator prey relationships in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the 

ocean, and how they can be managed to increase survival rates for summer 

steelhead 

• Factors that drive the variability in ocean conditions 
 p. 227 

8 Public Education and Outreach 

8.1 Introduction 8.3 Proposed Outreach Actions 

8.2 Education & Outreach Goals & Principles 

8.1 Introduction 

A key principle of the Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board is that decisions 

regarding salmon recovery must occur within a transparent, inclusive, and collaborative 

process. This will require a strong public outreach program that informs and engages 

elected officials, federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, local interest groups, property 

owners, and the general public. Recovering steelhead in the Yakima Basin is by its very 

nature a long-term process that will require support and understanding from all of these 

parties. Without this support, recovery efforts will founder. 

Every individual within the Yakima Basin directly or indirectly affects habitat functions 

essential to the survival of salmon on a daily basis. The most fundamental example of this 

is our daily consumption of water. Yet most of the public is not familiar with the complex 

and varied life cycle and habitat needs of salmonids or of the consequences to habitat 

functions and salmon populations of the choices we make in the daily pursuit of 

legitimate activities. Salmon recovery will require nurturing a broad understanding of 

these causes and effects. 

Yakima Basin Environmental Education Project, WDFW, the Yakama Nation Fisheries 

and Wildlife, the USFS Respect the Rivers program, the Benton Conservation District 

Salmon in the Classroom program, and the Kittitas Environmental Education Network 

(KEEN) conduct salmon-recovery related outreach efforts in the basin. All of these 

efforts are to be lauded, but they will need to be supplemented with targeted outreach that 

focuses specifically on salmon recovery needs. The following factors will need to be 

addressed: 

• Population growth in the Yakima Basin exceeded 25% in the previous decade and 

is projected to grow 45% more by 2020. Outreach to new residents to explain 

salmon recovery efforts will be an ongoing need. 

• The information and education components of federal, state, and local programs 

have been drastically reduced over the past five years due to overall budget 

reductions. Rather than hiring full time personnel to develop and deliver public 

education, these functions are commonly added to existing staff’s responsibilities. 

• Agencies and personnel are largely “siloed,” meaning there is very little 

knowledge, much less communication, about public education and outreach 

activities across agencies. The partnering that does occur is essentially dependent 

on a small cadre of highly energetic people who go above and beyond their 

required job responsibilities. The silo effect also occurs within large agencies. 

This is partly the result of information and education being dramatically reduced, 
 p. 228 

leaving staff to focus on public comment, and participation activities specific to 

regulatory requirements. 

• Messaging tends to be narrow, focusing on the most critical issues facing an 

agency or group or meeting a specific regulatory requirement, e.g., a public 

comment period. 

• Scant evidence is available to suggest that the public is aware of specific salmon 

recovery projects, what they are achieving, and how these projects fit into the big 

picture. 

• Existing programs require local governments and state agencies to regulate land 

use on private and public property. Local experience shows that land use controls 

are not widely accepted unless there is broad public agreement with their intent, 

application, and result. Land use controls are only effective in their application if 

the property owners understand the purpose and support the limitations imposed 

on their range of land use activities. Outreach efforts can foster the dialogue and 

understanding required for existing programs to be implemented in an equitable 

and effective manner. 

8.2 Education and Outreach Goals and Principles 

Education and outreach efforts proposed in this plan should be characterized by: 

• Close coordination with existing programs and entities, including the Yakima 

Basin Environmental Education Project (YBEEP) Conservation Districts, school 

districts, the USFS, local non-profit organizations, the WDFW, and the 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

• Understanding that the future of the Yakima Basin be considered along with 

continued population and economic growth and that successful salmon recovery 

be a community-wide effort 

• Recognition that salmon recovery efforts depend on voluntary efforts built on 

transparent processes and outreach to property owners and other stakeholders 

8.3 Proposed Outreach Actions 

The following list of proposed outreach actions will serve as a starting point for the 

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board’s efforts to develop and coordinate a 

basinwide salmon recovery outreach strategy. 

8.3.1 Short-Term Recovery Board Outreach Actions 

Initial efforts by the Board will include: 

• Summarizing existing education programs and materials in the basin 

• Reformulating the education and public involvement committee developed during 

the Subbasin Planning Process in 2002-5 
 p. 229 

• Developing an education plan that targets specific audiences (school system, 

permit applicants, decision-makers, etc) 

• Maintaining access to, and transparency of, all Board processes and programs, 

including regular meetings, special workshops or hearings and products 

developed by the Board 

• Preparing and distributing newsletters and other regular updates on the Board’s 

activities 

• Developing a web page that provides the history of salmon recovery efforts in the 

basin, a calendar of board and committee meeting times, access to educational 

materials, access to planning and implementation documents, and access to 

current research 

• Developing tools, such as display boards and PowerPoint presentations that staff 

can use at a variety of public gatherings, including county fairs or stakeholder 

group meetings, to explain activities and opportunities 

• Working with county conservation districts, federal, tribal, and state resource 

agencies, water purveyors, school districts, and others to identify opportunities to 

leverage resources in a way that brings educational materials and learning 

opportunities directly to classrooms, landowners, recreationists, and other target 

audiences 

8.3.2 Stakeholder Group Presentations 

The subbasin planning board was very successful in scheduling and presenting 

information to stakeholder groups. In general, presentations were provided in PowerPoint 

format. By going directly to the meetings of stakeholders, two critical outcomes occurred. 

First, they reached a much broader audience; had a series of public meetings been held, 

perhaps a single representative of an organization would attend. At the organization’s 

own meeting, many more individuals were reached directly. Second, going to “their turf” 

significantly changes the social dynamics. Individuals and groups believe they are being 

given greater respect, and they are more comfortable asking questions and sharing 

perspectives within their “natural setting.” It is recommended that a round of stakeholder 

presentations be given each year. This can be done as part of a) releasing an annual 

report, b) soliciting review of or announcing the release of study or plan, or c) part of 

preparing and soliciting feedback on the annual work plan. 

8.3.3 Newsletter/Annual Report 

The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Board should develop a newsletter/annual report, 

either on its own or in conjunction with other organizations. The newsletter should 

describe Board activities and give an overview of salmon recovery efforts throughout the 

basin. The newsletter should be sent to a broad-based mailing list, be posted online, and 

be available in hard copy at select public locations. 
 p. 230 

8.3.4 Project Tours 

Even those who are actively engaged with salmon recovery issues often have only limited 

knowledge of on-the-ground projects. Project tours can help build this connection. A 

schedule of project tours should be developed and targeted at key audiences. Tours 

should provide both a general overview of recovery board efforts and project-specific 

information. “Virtual tours” based on photos taken in the field can be developed and 

made available on-line. 

8.3.5 Posters and Handouts 

Posters, brochures, and other handouts related to salmon recovery should be developed at 

made available in diverse public settings. 

8.3.6 Workshops and Conferences 

Workshops can cover a broad range of possible subject matter and can be developed to 

address the needs of specific groups. A conference held annually or every 18 months may 

also help link stakeholders, elected officials, and natural resource managers; possibilities 

for coordinating this with the annual Yakima Basin Science and Management conference 

should be investigated. 

8.3.7 Mailing to Shoreline Landowners 

One proposed outreach strategy is to send an informational letter or brochure to all 

shoreline property owners from each City Council or Board of County Commissioners. 

The letter or brochure would provide information on the biological, physical, and habitat 

values of the natural shoreline and the importance of those functions for water supply, 

water quality, shoreline stability, flood protection, and fish and wildlife habitat. The letter 

would inform owners that the natural condition of the shoreline is a State interest and the 

county/city have policy and codes required by the state legislature that regulate actions 

along the shoreline in order to protect those functions. It should include information on 

what property owners can do if they are losing shoreline to erosion and/or want to reestablish natural shoreline vegetation. It should note that the state and federal 

governments (including BPA) are spending millions of dollars per year in the Yakima 

Basin to recover a salmon fishery for the benefit of all basin interests and that this 

expenditure is wasted if actions by individual landowners result in the degradation of 

shorelines. 

8.3.8 Create “Stream Stewards” Positions 

This proposal calls for hiring a Stream Steward for each Watershed Resource Inventory 

Area (WRIA) or County within a basin that would be jointly funded by city, county, state 

and federal agencies. Possible roles of the steward would be to: 

• Provide biological and technical assistance to local governments for projects, 

planning processes and reviews that involve shoreline habitat issues. 
 p. 231 

• Assist shoreline property owners interested in preserving natural habitat 

conditions or that have shoreline issues (erosion or bank protection). 

• Act as a liaison between landowners, project proponents, and the local planning 

permitting/planning offices. 

• Serve as a liaison between landowners and the Lead Entity application process for 

Salmon Recovery Funding Board funding. 

• Be a resource for local non-profit organizations (e.g., greenways, land trusts). 

• Be a classroom resource for elementary school teachers building shoreline/fish 

issues into curriculum. 
 p. 232 

APPENDIX A: Local Review of ICTRT Habitat Model 

A.1 Overview of Review of ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Model 

This appendix summarizes the results of local reviews of the Interior Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team (ICTRT)’s Intrinsic Potential Analysis for Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead in the Yakima Basin. The ICTRT developed a GIS-based model of habitat 

potential for steelhead that was used to estimate the historically available extent and 

quality of steelhead spawning and early rearing habitat. For more information on the 

development of the model and its use in ICTRT viability assessments for steelhead 

populations, see ICTRT (2007b), especially Appendix C. 

As part of developing the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, local biologists reviewed the 

areas identified as potential habitat by the ICTRT’s GIS model. David Lind conducted 

the reviews for the Satus and Toppenish creek watersheds with the assistance of Tim 

Resseguie. Both are fish biologists with the Yakama Nation. Richard Visser (WDFW), 

David Lind (Yakama Nation), and Joel Freudenthal (Yakima County) conducted the 

Naches and Upper Yakima Area reviews. Alex Conley of the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board coordinated the review process. Extensive use was made of 

correspondence with other colleagues and existing documentation, including current fish 

distribution records and the Historic/Potential Steelhead Habitat analysis conducted as 

part of the Conservation Commission Limiting Factors Analysis for the Yakima Basin 

(Haring 2001). 

The model results provided by the ICTRT in November of 2006 identified a number of 

areas as potential steelhead habitat that the local review team did not consider to be or 

have been potential steelhead habitat. Several reasons were noted: 

1) In a number of cases, the model did not include the presence of known natural 

fish passage barriers. The local reviewers identified these and documentation was 

provided to the ICTRT; most have been incorporated into the most recent version 

of the ICTRT model. They are noted in the population-specific discussions below. 

2) The model consistently assigned habitat potential to streams in arid portions of the 

basin that the review team identified as not generating enough flow to support 

even limited use by steelhead. Correcting this would require refining the model’s 

approach to predicating flow in arid (under 16") rainfall regimes. Inclusion of 

streams with watersheds that do not have the precipitation and/or watershed area 

to generate any sustained base flows was primarily an issue in the Satus Creek 

watershed and the lowest elevations in the Upper Yakima and Naches 

Watersheds. In areas with over 16" annual precipitation, the model performed 

much better, and largely matched local surveys and expert opinion. The ICTRT is 

exploring using additional data sources and analyses to exclude streams with 

insufficient stream flow from the habitat model, but has not incorporated these 

into their model at the time of this writing. In the current drafts of the Yakima 
 p. 233 

MPG Stock Status reports the ICTRT does acknowledge this limitation to their 

model, and notes the areas excluded in the local review. 

3) In a few instances, drainages that would not have generated enough flow to 

support even limited use by steelhead prior to European settlement currently 

convey return flow from irrigation systems. Some of these areas may have 

potential to produce steelhead (Romey and Cramer 2001), and some level of use 

by salmon and O. mykiss is known to occur (Monk 2001) even though they would 

not have served as habitat prior to irrigation development. These areas should not 

be included in assessments of historic habitat, and were identified as “sustained 

by return flows” by local reviewers. In the current drafts of the Yakima MPG 

Stock Status reports the ICTRT does acknowledge this limitation to their model, 

and note the areas excluded in the local review. 

4) Local reviewers expressed concern that the identification of all of the lower 

Yakima mainstem as potential spawning and early rearing habitat risked biasing 

the estimate of available habitat. In response to these concerns and similar ones 

raised in other areas, the ICTRT developed an analysis based on channel 

morphology that specifically identifies mainstem areas with spawning potential. 

This analysis is based on analysis of the location of documented spawning in the 

Okanogan and Wenatchee rivers. The most recent versions of the ICTRT model 

incorporate this analysis; the areas it identifies as having spawning potential 

correspond better with local assessments. 

The model consistently extended small extents of lower quality habitat higher up small 

tributaries and into headwater reaches than locally derived maps of current distributions, 

but these differences do not make significant differences in overall population-level 

weighted habitat area, and were considered as feasibly within historic potential by local 

reviewers. 

The model also failed to include a few streams considered by the review team to be 

potential/historic habitat. In all of these cases the streams were either part of split 

channels connected to other streams at both upstream and downstream ends, or small 

spring fed creeks in floodplains. The ICTRT model routed flows down a single channel 

where channels diverged or did not recognize the streams as having sufficient watershed 

area to generate flow. The ICTRT has recognized these limitations to their model, but has 

not added these areas. These areas are limited in extent and are not identified as key areas 

for restoration, and their exclusion does not have any significant effects on the results of 

the ICTRT viability analysis. 

Overall, the current revised version of the ICTRT Intrinsic Potential Analysis’ 

identification of potential steelhead habitat is a credible broad-brush estimation of the 

historic and potential habitat accessible to steelhead in the Yakima Basin. The ICTRT 

analysis or the locally revised analysis should not be used to classify specific areas and 

their current habitat values and/or potential at a reach or project level. 
 p. 234 

Figure A.1: July 2007 ICTRT Intrinsic Potential model with local adjustments 

A.2 Satus Population Area 

Based on our initial review, the ICTRT model significantly overestimated potential 

steelhead habitat in the Satus Creek watershed. There were two main reasons: 1) several 

natural fish passage barriers not included in the model, and 2) the inclusion of numerous 

streams with no sustained base flows, only limited runoff in wet periods, and steep 

canyons with very little to no developed floodplain. There is also one reach that local 

biologists believe is of significantly higher quality than indicated by the model. 
 p. 235 

1) Area above Satus Falls inaccessible per David Lind, Yakama Nation Fisheries 

staff, 1/28/07) Incorporated into 7/07 ICTRT model as Barrier 

2) Area above Logy Creek Falls inaccessible per David Lind, Yakama Nation 

Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Incorporated into 7/07 ICTRT model as Barrier

3) Area of Dry Creek inaccessible due to Gradient Barriers in both forks above 

confluence; also lack of baseflow flow above canyons (per David Lind and Tim 

Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Incorporated into 7/07 

ICTRT model as Barrier

4) Several steep canyons without any sustained base flows, limited runoff even in 

wet periods, and little to no floodplain. In the few areas where floodplains exist in 

lower ends, ICTRT ratings were left intact to reflect possible historic potential, 

but are not deemed areas with any current potential (per David Lind and Tim 

Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Noted in updated text of 

ICTRT Satus Stock Status Report but not incorporated into GIS model; identified 

in red on Figure A.1.

5) Smaller areas without any sustained base flows and limited runoff even in wet 

periods (per David Lind and Tim Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 

1/28/07). Noted in updated text of ICTRT Satus Stock Status Report but not 

incorporated into GIS model; identified in red on Figure A.1.

6) Reach of mainstem Satus Creek considered high quality habitat for rearing 

(higher than adjoining areas given a higher rating) per David Lind, Yakama 

Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07. Not incorporated into ICTRT products at this 

time.

7) Adjustments to the designations of the mainstem Yakima based on the ICTRT 

analysis discussed in A.1, # 4 above. Revised analysis of lower mainstem 

incorporated into 7/07 ICTRT model

This local adjustments described here significantly reduce the amount of habitat available 

in the Satus Creek Population Area (see Table 2.2) but do not change the ICTRTdesignated size class for the population. 

A.3 Toppenish Creek Steelhead Population 

Generally, the model performed much better in Toppenish Creek, which has a less 

dendritic drainage structure and more precipitation than the Satus population area. There 

was some overestimation of habitat due to 1) inclusion of a few smaller tributaries local 

biologists did not identify as potential steelhead habitat due to flow limitations and 2) 

extension of habitat beyond known barriers. These were addressed as follows: 

1) White Deer Creek has habitat that supports resident rainbow trout, but the steep 

canyon reach near the mouth precludes use by steelhead (per David Lind and Tim 

Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Incorporated into 7/07 

ICTRT model as Barrier.
 p. 236 

2) Area inaccessible due to Agency Creek Falls (ID#4 in YN Barriers Shapefile) per 

David Lind and Tim Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). 

Incorporated into 7/07 ICTRT model as Barrier.

3) Area of steep canyons without any sustained base flows, limited runoff even in 

wet periods, and little to no floodplain (per David Lind and Tim Resseguie, 

Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Acknowledged in discussions with 

ICTRT but not incorporated into GIS model; identified in red on Figure A.1.

4) Tributary to South Fork of Toppenish Creek is inaccessible due to Gradient 

Barrier (per David Lind and Tim Resseguie, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 

1/28/07). Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated into GIS 

model; identified in red on Figure A.1.

5) Miscellaneous isolated habitat patches in areas not considered potential habitat 

(per David Lind, Yakama Nation Fisheries staff, 1/28/07). Acknowledged in 

discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated into GIS model; identified in red on 

Figure A.1.

6) There is also one habitat addition proposed here; the tail end of Wanity Slough 

enters into lower Toppenish Creek, and any fish using the slough are likely to be 

of Toppenish origin, even as geographically the Slough is mainly in the Naches 

population area. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated 

into GIS model; identified in green on Figure A.1.

The adjustments made by local reviewers have very little affect on the total area and 

spatial distribution of the Toppenish population, and have no effect on the ICTRT 

viability analysis results. 

A.4 Naches Population Area 

Generally, the model performed quite well in the Naches Population Area. Local 

reviewers identified 1) barriers that were added to the model, 2) three areas that the local 

review team as having insufficient flows to be identified as habitat, and 3) five areas 

where the local review team felt that habitat with potential for steelhead had not been 

included in the model. 

Local reviewers identified a number of natural barriers that had not been originally 

identified by the ICTRT. These were compiled from 1) WDFW’s natural barriers 

coverage (from Brian McTeague), 2) consultations with Jim Cummins, Eric Anderson 

(fish biologists with WDFW in Yakima), and Yuki Reiss (fish biologist for the Naches 

Ranger District of the Wenatchee National Forest). These are: 

1) Union Creek Falls (total passage barrier, on map). Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 

470 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

2) Steep Canyon/gradient barrier on Kettle Creek per Jim Cummins & Eric 

Anderson. Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 469 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 
 p. 237 

3) 50' falls on Deep Creek per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. Incorporated by 

ICTRT; Fall # 468 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

4) Falls/gradient barrier on Copper Creek per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. 

Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 466 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

5) Falls on NF Rattlesnake Ck per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. Incorporated by 

ICTRT; Fall # 467 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

6) Impassable falls in Hindoo Creek per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. 

Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 465 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

7) Falls on Oak Ck mapped by WDFW; confirmed by Jim Cummins & Eric 

Anderson. Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 237 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

8) S. Fork Tieton Falls (50') per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson & USFS staff. 

Partially incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 462 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

9) Bear Ck Falls (40') per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson & USFS staff. 

Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 261 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

10) SF Cowiche Ck barrier falls per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. Incorporated by 

ICTRT; Fall # 463 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

11) Reynolds Creek barrier falls per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. Incorporated by 

ICTRT; Fall # 464 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

12) Crow Creek barrier falls per Jim Cummins & Eric Anderson. Incorporated by 

ICTRT; Fall # 471 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

13) An isolated fragment in an Oak Creek Tributary was considered to be inaccessible 

to steelhead due to gradient and flow limitations in the canyon downstream. 

Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated into GIS model; 

identified in red on Figure A.1. 

The following areas were identified as having insufficient historic flows to be classified 

as steelhead habitat: 

1) The upper portion of the North Fork of Cowiche Creek is an arid watershed with 

only limited intermittent flow. At the townsite of Cowiche there are several large 

springs, and the local review team concurred with the TRT designation from that 

point downstream. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated 

into GIS model; identified in red on Figure A.1. 

2) The upper portion of the Wide Hollow Creek is an arid watershed with only 

limited intermittent flow. At 46th Street there are several large springs, and the 

local review team concurred with the TRT designation from that point 

downstream. There may be some increased potential above historic between this 

point and 96th St due to increased flows from irrigation return flows, but this does 

not apply above the forks. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not 

incorporated into GIS model; identified in red on Figure A.1. 
 p. 238 

3) Moxee Creek is an arid watershed with only limited intermittent flow (see 

discussion of arid creeks in the Upper Yakima section below); lower portions 

currently carry irrigation return flows. Acknowledged in ICTRT Upper Yakima 

Stock Status Assessment but not incorporated into GIS model; identified in red on 

Figure A.1. 

There are five additions to the ICTRT-identified historic habitat that were identified by 

local reviewers: 

1) Wanity Slough, which is the most prominent of the relic side channels of the 

Yakima River in the Wapato area. It is currently managed as an irrigation drain, 

but likely once served as steelhead habitat, and while a currently low priority for 

restoration, still has some potential. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but 

not incorporated into GIS model; identified in green on Figure A.1. 

2) Bachelor and Spring creeks in the Ahtanum Floodplain. These are historic side 

channels and/or spring fed creeks that were not identified as habitat by the model, 

but which would have historic/potential habitat value. Bachelor Creek is now 

managed as part of an irrigation delivery system and restoring flows to the 

Ahtanum Creek mainstem has been given much higher priority than work within 

Bachelor Creek. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated 

into GIS model; identified in green on Figure A.1. 

3) Initial ICTRT model ended at a partial barrier on Crow Creek; the actual upper 

extent of fish access is further upstream. Incorporated by ICTRT in the 7/07 

model version.

4) Initial ICTRT model ended at a partial barrier on the North Fork of Rattlesnake 

Creek; the actual upper extent of fish access is further upstream. Incorporated by 

ICTRT in the 7/07 model version. 

5) Quality habitat extends ~1.5 miles upstream of the upper end of modeled habitat 

in Upper Rattlesnake Creek. Not incorporated into ICTRT products at this time. 

The adjustments made by local reviewers have little affect on the total area and spatial 

distribution of the Naches population, and have no effect on the ICTRT viability analysis 

results. 

A.5 Upper Yakima Population Area 

In most of the Upper Yakima Population Area, model results were consistent with review 

team expectations, except where unidentified passage barriers exist. However in the 

lower elevations, the model consistently identified low rainfall areas that do not support 

sufficient flow as steelhead habitat. There is also one proposed addition to the model. 

The three barriers were incorporated into the model based on local review: 

1) Thorp Creek has a gradient barrier in lower end of creek as identified by BOR’s 

Yakima Storage Reservoir Fish Passage Study. Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 

453 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile.
 p. 239 

2) The Cooper River has an impassable fall at RM 0.6 (identified by BOR’s Yakima 

Storage Reservoir Fish Passage Study and Jeff Thomas, USFWS). Incorporated 

by ICTRT; Fall # 452 in ICTRT yrbbarr shapefile. 

3) Coleman Creek Falls (identified by Kittitas County Conservation District Stream 

Assessment data & photo). Incorporated by ICTRT; Fall # 472 in ICTRT yrbbarr 

shapefile.

The arid areas identified as not having sufficient flows to support steelhead fall into two 

classes: 

1) Selah, Lmuma, and Whipple Wasteway/Badger creeks all drain larger watersheds 

at low elevations on the east side of the Yakima Basin. Maps from the Eastern 

Washington Stormwater Manual40 show these streams within a climatic region 

where there are only about two and a half months of the year where precipitation 

exceeds potential evapotranspiration, and where in most years the excess is fully 

absorbed by the soils. The local review team was willing to consider the lower 

end of Lmuma Creek as having some habitat potential, as it is the wettest of these 

creeks, with a small portion of its watershed extending into a 16" precipitation 

zone that is expected to produce some runoff in a typical year. Noted in updated 

text of ICTRT Upper Yakima Stock Status Report but not incorporated into GIS 

model; identified in red on Figure A.1. 

2) Roza and two Lower Wenas Tributaries drain small arid watershed, do not have 

hydric soils or groundwater inputs and are often elevated on fans at their lower 

ends. The local review team felt these did not have the flow regime needed to 

support steelhead. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not incorporated 

into GIS model; identified in red on Figure A.1. 

Areas identified as historic/potential steelhead habitat by local reviewers, but not 

included in the ICTRT model include Wilson Creek splits off from Naneum Creek and 

was likely historic habitat, though extensive passage barriers in and below Ellensburg 

preclude current use by steelhead. Acknowledged in discussions with ICTRT but not 

incorporated into GIS model; identified in green on Figure A.1.

Comment Regarding the Caribou, Reecer and Naneum MSAs. Numerous streams drain 

the hills around Ellensburg, with some arising in the arid foothills, and others extending 

higher into the forested zone. While the review team and the model both identified these 

as potential habitat, the relative productivity of streams in this area will be highly 

variable, with some reaches providing high quality habitat and others being marginal at 

best. Many of these streams are interconnected and have been incorporated into the 

irrigations systems. Efforts to restore fish passage and habitat in these areas are currently 

underway, and are being guided by prioritization efforts that carefully consider the 

historic potential of each waterway, current conditions and trade-offs associated with the 

interconnectedness of the stream system. 

 

40 http://watershedpledge.org/biblio/0410076maps.html
 p. 240 

The adjustments made by local reviewers have very little affect on the total area and 

overall spatial distribution of the Upper Yakima population. They do significantly reduce 

the habitat area in a few MSAs and MiSAs, but have no effect on the overall ICTRT 

viability analysis results. 
 p. 241 

APPENDIX B: EDT Model Results for Yakima Steelhead 

B.1 Overview of EDT Estimates of Population Performance 

The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) was developed by Mobrand Biometrics 

(now part of Jones & Stokes) to help managers estimate the responses of anadromous fish 

populations to changes in habitat conditions (Lestelle et al. 1996; Lichatowich et al. 

1995; Mobrand Biometrics 1999; Mobrand et al. 1997). The EDT model has been used in 

the Yakima Basin since the mid-1990s and was a key element in the 2002-2004 Subbasin 

Planning Process. This section gives an overview of the most recent EDT results for the 

four Yakima Basin steelhead populations. More detail on the EDT model is available at 

the Mobrand website (http://www.mobrand.com/MBI/library.html). 

The EDT model quantifies the biological response to environmental conditions by 

estimating several components of population performance, including equilibrium 

abundance, productivity and life history diversity. It should be noted that these numbers 

reflect the average performance of a population over duration of years and are not 

specific to a single year or generation. Though numbers produced by the model reflect 

“average conditions”, the model does take environmental variability into consideration 

through space and time. 

The Beverton-Holt stock recruitment function is foundational to the EDT model. The 

EDT model generates a unique stock recruitment function for each life stage by stream 

reach, which are all integrated to calculate population abundance and productivity (Figure 

B.1). The point where the stock recruitment curve intersects the replacement line defines 

the population equilibrium abundance. Productivity represents the density independent 

growth rate of a population and is expressed as the number of recruits per spawner. 

Productivity also represents the resiliency of a population or ability to endure catastrophic 

events while sustaining viable numbers. Life history diversity represents the proportion of 

successful life history pathways offered to a population through space and time. The 

diversity index indicates the variety of life history pathways offered to a population and is 

a buffering mechanism against catastrophic events that might occur at a somewhat 

localized scale and affect a proportion of a population. These population performance 

parameters indicate the long-term viability and sustenance of the targeted population. 

To understand the kinds of information utilized and how it is applied, it is important to 

understand what the analysis aims to produce. Information is translated through the 

procedure to address two aspects of fish population performance: productivity and 

capacity. These two parameters define a theoretical stock-production (S-P) relationship, 

illustrated using a Beverton-Holt production function in Figure B.1. The S-P curve 

displayed here is an example of what a relationship might look like between the number 

of fish at the beginning of a life stage and those surviving to the end of the stage. 

Productivity is equivalent to the concept of intrinsic productivity discussed in McElhany 

et al. (2000) to describe viable salmon populations with respect to the Endangered 

Species Act. It is survival without density dependence effects, i.e., the approximate rate 

that would occur when competition for resources among the population is minimal. In 
 p. 242 

Figure B.1, it is the slope of the S-P curve at its origin. Productivity is a function of the 

quality of the environment.41 In contrast, environmental capacity limits how large a 

population can grow given finite space and food resources. Capacity is represented by the 

asymptote in Figure B.1 and controls the extent that density dependence is operative at 

different population levels. Capacity is a function of the quantity of key habitats and food 

resources available. Sets of rules are used by the EDT method to derive productivity, key 

habitat, and food parameter values from environmental information—these serve as 

inputs into the EDT model.42

Figure B.1: Example stock-production relationship 

No. starting life stage

No. ending life stage

Stock-Production Curve

Capacity

Productivity

The EDT model predicts that the abundance of steelhead in the Yakima Basin declined 

by 83% to 95% due to the change from historic to current environmental conditions 

(Table B.1). According to the model, the Naches, Toppenish, and Upper Yakima 

populations exhibit reductions in life history diversity from 89% to 93% since pre 

settlement era. A common theme in the reduction in the diversity index centers around 

major blockages to fish passage in and out of headwater tributaries associated with dam 

construction. In conjunction with this, major tributaries that historically supported healthy 

steelhead populations were subject to significant surface water withdrawals and 

associated dewatered reaches, unscreened diversions and impassable obstructions. These 

overwhelming burdens not only reduced life history diversity, but also substantially 

reduced habitat capacity (Table B.1). 

To some degree, the productivity values are indicative of the quality of available habitat 

offered to a population. Riparian corridors and flow regimes have remained relatively 

intact in the upper portions of Satus and Toppenish systems compared to the Naches and 

Upper Yakima portions of the basin. As a result, productivity values for Satus and 

Toppenish Creek steelhead are modestly higher than those of the Naches and Upper 

Yakima (Table B.1). 

 

41 Productivity measured across a full life cycle also incorporates sex ratio, fecundity, and fitness.

42 In EDT, food is both a component of environmental quality (thereby affecting productivity) 

and quantity (since food is assumed to affect both density-independent and –dependent 

mortality.) Regarding its role in affecting density-dependent mortality, the food parameter is used 

in conjunction with the key habitat parameter in estimating capacity.
 p. 243 

Table B.1 Current and historic performance generated by EDT 

Scenario Diversity 

index Productivity Capacity Abundance

Current without harvest 10% 2,287 1.6 849

Current with harvest 10% 2,287 1.6 849

Historic potential 91% 16,092 10.4 14,542

Current without harvest 38% 1,552 2.5 926

Current with harvest 38% 1,552 2.5 926

Historic potential 92% 10.3 6,382 5,761

Current without harvest 13% 2.3 876 497

Current with harvest 13% 2.3 876 497

Historic potential 94% 5,234 8.8 4,639

Current without harvest 6% 2,453 1.7 1,047

Current with harvest 6% 2,453 1.7 1,047

Historic potential 91% 23,355 10.6 21,152

Upper Yakima 

Steelhead

Population

Naches Steelhead

Satus Steelhead

Toppenish Steelhead

Ladder diagrams produced by the model evaluate the degree to which restoration43 and 

preservation of specific geographic areas will benefit a population. Geographic areas can 

be defined at a variety of scales from individual stream reaches up to an entire watershed, 

etc. For our purposes, geographic areas for streams other than the Yakima were primarily 

defined at the watershed and tributary scale depending on the size of the population. 

Upper and lower bounds of the Yakima mainstem geographic area were defined by a 

major tributaries or channel spanning structures such as diversion dams. Restoration and 

protection potential are generated for each geographic area and represent the potential 

increase or decrease in the population performance parameters. 

B.2 Restoration Potential and Limiting Factors by Populations 

Table B.2, Table B.3, Table B.4, and Table B.5 present the geographic areas where 

restoration actions would make the greatest contribution to increasing abundance, 

productivity and capacity. The tables include areas that together comprise 75% of the 

total restoration potential with respect to abundance. The numbers reflect the potential 

increases in each performance parameter and are expressed as potential gains relevant to 

the current performance of the population generated by the model. The combined ranking 

shows the significance of a specific geographic area for a population that is pertinent to 

restoring all three components of population performance. 

The strategic summary diagrams (Figure B.2, Figure B.3, Figure B.4, and Figure B.5) 

summarize the major physical and biological components limiting production of the 

target population within each specified geographic area. These limiting factors are known 

as the level 3 survival factors and are generated from a suite of level 2 attributes. Level 2 

attributes are defined by data inputs that characterize the physical and biological 

environment. A single level 2 attribute acts as the primary component upon the Level 3 

 

43 Restoration Potential as referenced in EDT ladder diagrams is a comparison of Historical 

condition minus Current condition. In many instances it is not feasible to realize the full 

restoration potential. 
 p. 244 

Survival Factor. All other related level 2 attributes act as modifiers upon the level 3, 

which ultimately defines productivity, abundance and diversity index (Lestelle et al. 

2004). In a nutshell, the level 3 correlates represent the biological response to the 

fluctuating environmental conditions through space and time. Negative impacts on 

survival are integrated across all life stages for each level 3 correlate. In a qualitative 

sense, the strategic summaries illustrate the severity of a level 3 attribute upon 

productivity. The large, medium and small dots in the diagram correspond to the three 

ranges of severity. 

B.2.1 Naches River Steelhead 

Table B.2 indicates the geographic areas with the greatest restoration potential for the 

Naches steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized potential gains in the 

performance parameters expressed as percentages increase with respect to current 

performance if one was to restore the geographic area back to pre settlement era 

conditions. Figure B.2 qualitatively illustrates the major level 3 correlates compounded 

across all life stages impacting survival in the specified geographic area. 

The Cowiche to Tieton reach is the geographic area that would increase the Naches 

steelhead population performance the most (+112.1% for abundance) if fully restored to 

historic conditions. Historically this was the largest floodplain in the Naches arm of the 

basin. Both currently and historically this geographic area is important for steelhead 

spawning and, summer and winter rearing. Due to the location of this geographic area in 

the basin, Naches steelhead spend one or more of their life stages within, stressing the 

importance of this geographic area. Unfortunately, because of extensive build out and 

placement of Highway 12 within this floodplain there is limited opportunity to fully 

realize its historic potential. 

The model indicates the diversity index could be twice that of current life history 

pathways if the Cowiche drainage was fully restored). There have been major passage 

issues near the mouth of Cowiche that have severely reduced the life history pathways, 

productivity and abundance of the Naches steelhead population. Other degradations have 

occurred in the Cowiche geographic area in the form of increased temperatures, flow, 

sediment loads and habitat simplification. 
 p. 245 

Table B.2 Restoration geographic areas for the Naches steelhead population 

Naches Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area 

Naches Cowiche to Tieton 1 124.5% 72.9% 23.7% 112.1% 

Cowiche Drainage 2 100.0% 37.1% 8.2% 57.8% 

Tieton below Tieton Dam 3 75.3% 35.0% 11.8% 61.0% 

Naches Nile to L Naches/Bumping 4 63.7% 36.4% 4.8% 52.2% 

Naches Tieton to Rattlesnake 5 73.1% 28.7% 5.5% 45.3% 

L. Naches above Salmon Falls 6 54.9% 28.8% 4.1% 43.5% 

Tieton drainage above Tieton Dam 7 41.2% 24.4% 24.5% 65.9% 

L. Naches mouth to Salmon Falls 8 65.1% 21.8% 6.3% 38.5% 

Rattlesnake Drainage 9 47.6% 28.4% 3.7% 42.6% 

Yakima Prosser Dam to Satus 10 55.3% 7.0% 17.3% 30.3% 

Naches mouth to Cowiche 12 13.7% 17.7% 4.1% 30.7% 

Sorted by the combined rank; geographic areas shown below represent 75% of the restoration potential with 

respect to abundance. 
 p. 246 

Figure B.2: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Naches population 

B.2.2 Satus Creek Steelhead 

Table B.3 indicates the geographic areas with the greatest restoration potential for the 

Satus steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized potential gains in the 

performance parameters expressed as percentages increase with respect to current 

performance if one was to restore the geographic area back to pre settlement era 

conditions. Figure B.3 qualitatively illustrates the major level 3 correlates compounded 

across all life stages impacting survival in the specified geographic area. 
 p. 247 

Table B.3: Restoration geographic areas for the Satus steelhead population 

Satus Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area 

Satus drainage above Dry Cr 1 30.6% 59.3% 30.2% 63.0%

Dry Cr Drainage 2 44.8% 21.7% 8.2% 21.2%

Satus mouth to Dry (and Mule Dry) 3 39.1% 14.8% 23.7% 34.4%

Yakima Prosser Dam to Satus 4 5.1% 11.5% 13.2% 21.1%

Sorted by the combined rank; geographic areas shown below represent 75% of the restoration potential with 

respect to abundance. 

Figure B.3: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Satus Creek population 

B.2.3 Toppenish Creek Steelhead 

Table B.4 indicates the geographic areas with the greatest restoration potential for the 

Toppenish steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized potential gains in 

the performance parameters expressed as percentages increase with respect to current 

performance if one was to restore the geographic area back to pre settlement era 

conditions. Figure B.4 qualitatively illustrates the major level 3 correlates compounded 

across all life stages impacting survival in the specified geographic area. 
 p. 248 

Table B.4: Restoration geographic areas for the Toppenish steelhead population 

Toppenish Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

Toppenish Unit II to Lateral Canal 1 147.1% 12.3% 34.6% 45.8% 

Toppenish above Lateral Canal 2 29.5% 14.0% 21.1% 32.5% 

Yakima Prosser Dam to Satus 3 14.6% 14.1% 17.9% 29.1% 

Simcoe drainage above Agency 3 97.1% 11.0% 16.8% 25.6% 

Topp. mouth to Unit II Diversion 4 96.1% 2.3% 21.5% 23.5% 

Sorted by the combined rank; geographic areas shown below represent 75% of the restoration potential with 

respect to abundance. 

Figure B.4: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Toppenish Creek population 
 p. 249 

B.2.4 Upper Yakima River Steelhead 

Table B.5 indicates the geographic areas with the greatest restoration potential for the 

Upper Yakima steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized potential 

gains in the performance parameters expressed as percentages increase with respect to 

current performance if one was to restore the geographic area back to pre settlement era 

conditions. Figure B.5 qualitatively illustrates the major level 3 correlates compounded 

across all life stages impacting survival in the specified geographic area. Before 

discussing the results it should be stated that there is disparity between the EDT predicted 

steelhead equilibrium abundance for the upper Yakima population and what has been 

observed for the past 10 years based on Roza Dam fish counts. The EDT model does not 

currently have the capability to segregate population performance parameters between the 

resident and anadromous life history forms of Oncorhynchus mykiss; and the upper 

Yakima population is largely comprised of resident rainbow trout. Revision of the model 

to address this issue is currently under discussion. 

The upper Yakima steelhead population incorporates the largest geographic area of any 

of the basin steelhead populations. Not surprisingly 10 of the 15 geographic areas define 

tributary type watersheds suggesting the historical importance of tributary contribution to 

the upper Yakima population. This is illustrated by the fact that top three geographic 

areas were all major tributaries–Manastash, Teanaway (below the forks) and the Wilson 

drainage (which comprises many small tributaries).
 p. 250 

Table B.5: Restoration geographic areas for the Upper Yakima steelhead population 

Upper Yakima Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

Manastash drainage 1 72.1% 68.1% 20.6% 86.2% 

Teanaway drainage below 

forks 2 47.7% 57.6% 17.5% 75.2% 

Wilson Drainage 3 188.3% 26.4% 19.8% 53.4% 

Yakima Manastash to Taneum 4 41.4% 34.8% 4.4% 40.7% 

Teanaway drainage above 

forks 5 113.8% 24.1% 8.8% 37.2% 

NF & SF Ahtanum drainages 5 69.4% 28.8% 2.9% 33.7% 

Taneum Drainage 6 38.7% 35.1% 3.8% 40.0% 

Yakima Wilson to Manastash 7 40.5% 31.6% 4.1% 37.6% 

Yakima Naches to Roza Dam 8 27.3% 30.5% 4.6% 37.5% 

Swauk Drainage 8 43.5% 24.4% 3.3% 30.5% 

Wenas Cr Drainage 9 54.7% 19.0% 7.0% 29.9% 

Cle Elum R above Dam 10 36.9% 14.1% 23.4% 43.8% 

Yakima Prosser Dam to Satus 12 47.1% 7.7% 17.6% 28.9% 

Yakima Ahtanum to Naches 13 16.2% 22.8% 5.6% 31.9% 

Ahtanum Upper WIP to forks 15 6.0% 25.6% 1.9% 29.7% 

Sorted by the combined rank; geographic areas shown below represent 75% of the restoration potential with 

respect to abundance. 
 p. 251 

Figure B.5: Major reach-level limiting factors for the Upper Yakima population 
 p. 252 

B.2.5 Integration of Restoration Priorities Across Populations 

Table B.2, Table B.3, Table B.4, and Table B.5 have presented the geographic areas with 

the greatest potential for restoring the components of performance for the defined 

populations. The geographic areas listed for each population also represent 75% of the 

restoration potential in terms of restoring the population’s abundance to near historic 

levels. When viewing these Geographic areas by population with the strategic summaries 

(Figure B.2, Figure B.3, Figure B.4, and Figure B.5), together they illustrate the “where” 

and “what” components of restoration specific to individual populations. However, if we 

want to take a coarsened scale view of the overall benefits for multiple species in terms of 

restoration, we must integrate overlapping geographic areas across species and 

populations. This allows identifying the geographic areas that provide the “biggest bang 

for your buck.” Geographic areas totaling 75% of the abundance restoration potential 

were considered priority areas for each population and were counted across populations 

of modeled species where overlap occurred. Results from this exercise are presented in. 

The model indicates restoration actions in the top 13 geographic areas would benefit 

nearly all anadromous species currently modeled in the basin. Further more, restoration 

actions within the top six geographic areas listed would improve performance of multiple 

populations and species. A word of caution, geographic areas in the table below represent 

areas of significance for a population that also overlap across multiple species and 

populations, there are other geographic areas not included in Table B.6 with significant 

restoration potential for individual species or populations. 
 p. 253 

Table B.6: Summation of individual geographic areas across steelhead populations 

Numbers under the species indicate the number of populations benefiting from restoration actions in the 

listed geographic area. Where only one steelhead population is shown as benefiting, geographic areas are 

ranked in descending order according to the additional number of populations of other species shown as 

benefiting in Appendix M of the Yakima Subbasin Plan. 

No. Geographic Area Steelhead 

1 Yakima Prosser Dam to Satus Cr 4 

2 Naches Cowiche Cr to Tieton R 1 

3 Naches Tieton R to Rattlesnake Cr 1 

4 Yakima Ahtanum Cr to Naches R 1 

5 Naches Nile Cr to Little Naches/Bumping Confl. 1 

6 Teanaway R below forks 1 

7 Yakima Naches R to Roza Dam 1 

8 Yakima Manastash Cr to Taneum Cr 1 

9 Yakima Wilson Cr to Manastash Cr 1 

10 Tieton drainage above Tieton Dam 1 

11 Tieton R below Tieton Dam 1 

12 Naches mouth to Cowiche Cr 1 

13 Cle Elum drainage above Cle Elum Dam 1 

14 Teanaway drainage above forks 1 

15 Little Naches R mouth to Salmon Falls 1 

16 Wilson Drainage 1 

17 Cowiche Drainage 1 

18 Rattlesnake Drainage 1 
 p. 254 

B.3 Preservation Potential for Individual Populations 

Table B.7, Table B.8, Table B.9, and Table B.10 present the geographical areas where 

degradation of current habitat conditions of individual populations would have the most 

negative affects on modeled population characteristics. These areas should be priorities 

areas for efforts to protect existing habitat conditions. Geographic areas listed comprise 

75% of the preservation potential with respect to abundance. The percentages should be 

interpreted as potential decreases in current performance of the designated population if 

the physical and biological environment was severely degraded. Thus, areas with high 

percentages should be considered priority areas for preservation. Also, the combined rank 

next to a geographic area considers losses endured by all performance parameters and is 

computed by the sum of individual ranks for each parameter. 

B.3.1 Naches Steelhead 

Table B.7 summarizes the high priority geographic areas for preservation potential as it 

applies to the Naches steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized 

potential losses in the performance parameters expressed as percentages decrease in the 

current performance of the population. Due to the quality of spawning/rearing habitat in 

the Little Naches above Salmon Falls and the Rattlesnake drainage, the model indicates 

these as the primary Geographic areas for preservation. 

Table B.7: Geographic preservation priorities for the Naches population 

Geographic areas are sorted by the combined preservation rank of performance parameters. 

Naches Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

L. Naches above Salmon Falls 1 -36.7% -29.9% -9.1% -74.8% 

Rattlesnake Drainage 1 -28.8% -33.0% -9.4% -85.2% 

Naches Nile to L Naches/Bumping 2 -30.0% -20.5% -8.5% -48.6% 

Naches Cowiche to Tieton 3 -25.1% -13.0% -14.0% -35.8% 

L. Naches mouth to Salmon Falls 4 -17.8% -14.0% -6.7% -32.5% 

B.3.2 Satus Steelhead 

Table B.8 summarizes the high priority geographic areas for preservation potential as it 

applies to the Satus Creek steelhead population. Table B.8 also shows the hypothesized 

potential losses in the performance parameters expressed as percentages decrease in the 

current performance of the population. The model indicates degradation within the 

physical and biological environment of the Satus Drainage above Dry Creek would result 

in the loss of 80% life history pathways and 100% abundance. This is a rather large 
 p. 255 

geographic area with a high proportion of Satus Creek steelhead spawning within, 

explaining the consequences of degradation of this reach. 

Table B.8: Geographic preservation priorities for the Satus Creek population 

Geographic areas are sorted by the combined preservation rank of performance parameters. 

Satus Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

Satus drainage above Dry Cr 1 -80.0% -77.2% -45.5% -100.0% 

Dry Cr Drainage 2 -14.7% -20.4% -17.2% -31.5% 

Satus mouth to Dry (plus Mule-Dry) 3 -29.0% -14.7% -18.8% -28.3% 

B.3.3 Toppenish Steelhead 

Table B.9 summarizes the high priority geographic areas for preservation potential as it 

applies to the Toppenish steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized 

potential losses in the performance parameters expressed as percentages decrease in the 

current performance of the population. The model indicates degradation within the 

physical and biological environment of Toppenish Creek above Lateral Canal would 

result in the loss of 88.6% life history pathways and 100% abundance. This is a rather 

large geographic area with a high proportion of Toppenish Creek steelhead spawning 

within, explaining the consequences of degradation of this reach. 

Table B.9: Geographic preservation priorities for the Toppenish population 

Geographic areas are sorted by the combined preservation rank of performance parameters. 

Toppenish Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

Toppenish above Lateral Canal 1 -88.6% -96.2% -47.9% -100.0% 

Simcoe drainage above Agency 2 -5.8% -0.7% -10.2% -10.7% 

B.3.4 Upper Yakima Steelhead 

Table B.10 summarizes the high priority geographic areas for preservation potential as it 

applies to the Upper Yakima steelhead population. The table also shows the hypothesized 

potential losses in the performance parameters expressed as percentages decrease in the 

current performance of the population. The top three preservation geographic areas 

incorporate the Yakima mainstem upstream of the Teanaway River to Easton Dam and 

the Cle Elum River downstream of the dam to the confluence to the Yakima River. These 
 p. 256 

three geographic areas rank high because of their vast size, the quality of habitat relative 

to other geographic areas and the extended period time steelhead reside in these three 

geographic areas (i.e., spawning through smoltification). 

Table B.10: Geographic preservation priorities for the Upper Yakima population 

Geographic areas are sorted by the combined preservation rank of performance parameters. 

Upper Yakima Steelhead Combined 

Rank 

Diversity 

Index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Geographic Area: 

Cle Elum R below Cle Elum 

Dam 

1 -18.6% -27.5% -0.2% -51.0% 

Yakima Teanaway to Cle Elum 

1 -32.1% -23.5% -2.6% -42.9% 

Yakima Cle Elum to Easton 

Dam 

2 -35.1% -22.9% -3.5% -42.0% 

Yakima Taneum to Teanaway 

3 -27.0% -15.4% -2.0% -25.9% 

Yakima Easton to Keechelus 

dams 

4 -15.0% -12.8% -1.5% -21.0% 

Yakima Manastash to Taneum 

5 -12.9% -9.8% -8.3% -21.8% 

Yakima Wilson to Manastash 

6 -11.1% -11.0% -4.1% -20.1% 

Yakima Roza Dam to Wilson Cr 

7 -5.4% -5.0% -5.6% -12.2% 

Teanaway drainage above forks 

8 -3.0% -4.5% -9.1% -14.8% 

B.4 Use of EDT to Model Restoration Scenarios 

Currently the best data available for making a quantitative assessment of the response of 

Yakima Basin steelhead populations to restoration activities comes from two restoration 

scenarios developed using the EDT model. The first was developed for the Yakima 

Subbasin Plan in 2004-5. The second is a more intensive restoration scenario developed 

by modeling restoring habitat to a level that provides 50% of Proper Functioning 

Condition in the EDT model.44 The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is 

working with NOAA Fisheries to integrate the results of these restoration scenario into an 

All-H Analyzer model that assess population responses to recovery actions in the 

mainstem Columbia, its estuary, and the Pacific Ocean. This work is detailed in Chapter 

8 of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan currently being developed by 

 

44 The 50% of PFC model for steelhead has been developed by the Columbia Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Authority and will be published as part of their 2008 proposals for amendments to the 

NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. 
 p. 257 

NOAA Fisheries. The Board is also investigating the possibility of conducting additional 

analysis using update EDT data and more detailed modeling of specific recovery actions. 

For the restoration scenario developed for the Yakima Subbasin Plan, the Aquatic 

Technical Committee developed a restoration scenario that characterized how habitat 

variables would respond to fish habitat restoration efforts, and then used the EDT model 

to estimate how anadromous fish populations would respond. For those attributes that 

could be characterized in the EDT model, and were considered major limiting factors to 

productivity, the technical committee estimated how much they thought a given attribute 

could be improved over the next 30 years (roughly the time for riparian vegetation to 

mature if planted) given the current conditions in the subbasin, and an unlimited budget, 

and using existing protection or restoration techniques such as riparian zone planting, 

purchase of water rights, levee relocation, etc. For example, in the Upper Yakima it was 

not thought likely that a massive relocation of Interstate 90 was going to occur, so 

confinement (a major limiting factor in the upper Yakima) was rated to remain nearly the 

same, while in the Union Gap reach, it could conceivably improve by over 40% without 

relocating the freeway or the Cities of Yakima or Union Gap. In a few cases, such as 

reaches located in Urban Growth Areas or other rapidly developing areas with still good 

habitat, some slight decreases in habitat quality were also entered into the model. Specific 

assumptions made in developing the restoration scenario include: 

1) Anadromous fish passage is made available at Bumping and Cle Elum dams, but 

not Tieton, Keechelus or Kachess dams; 

2) Full passage is restored at all other existing passage barriers; 

3) Based on the Aquatic Technical Committee’s assessment of what was likely to be 

feasible, the model run reflects only a 10 to 15% improvement in flow conditions 

in the lower Naches (i.e., below the confluence with the Tieton) and lower 

Yakima (below Wapato Dam), which would still leave them at only an estimated 

20 to 30% of unregulated averages. 

4) Improvements did not cascade. In the real world, improvements in one attribute 

could be expected to have secondary effects on other attributes, or “cascade” 

through the ecosystem. Within the model, changes were made to the selected 

attributes only, and other attributes were held constant for the model run. This 

means that the Restoration reference condition is very conservative in regards to 

estimated productivity, abundance and diversity. 

5) The model was based on existing defined populations; new spawning reaches in 

newly opened habitat, or entirely new populations were not defined for the 

restoration scenario. 

The process of developing the restoration scenario and the specific adjustments to habitat 

parameters are described in detail in Appendix O of the Yakima Subbasin Plan (2005). In 

early 2008, the Subbasin plan scenario was adjusted to ensure that baseline and restored 

out of basin conditions were constant (this required lowering the ocean survival rates in 

the restoration scenario so that they matched those in the baseline scenario). Anticipated 

improvements in Columbia River habitat, hatchery and harvest conditions and variability 
 p. 258 

in ocean conditions will be captured in the AHA modeling process currently being 

conducted by NOAA Fisheries. A second adjustment was made to redraw population area 

boundaries to match those used in this plan; this primarily affected the Naches 

population, which incorporates tributary and mainstem areas that were modeled 

separately in 2005. The 2005 EDT-based estimates of resulting population parameters are 

shown in Table B.11; Table B.12 shows the 2008 adjusted version. Compared to other 

modeled salmon species, steelhead respond well to restoration. All existing populations 

are modeled to improve substantially, and population levels are well above minimum 

thresholds for viability. The current abundance estimates in Table B.11 differs slightly 

from the current levels in Table B.1 due to the use of slightly different population 

delineations; both tables will be updated based on a new model run based on the ICTRT 

population delineations that is under development. The updated model run results will be 

incorporated into this document once available, but significant change in the modeled 

response of steelhead populations to the restoration scenario is not expected. 

Table B.11: EDT Subbasin restoration summary as developed in 2005 

Population Scenario Diversity 

index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Satus Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 37% 2.4 1,516 894 

Current with harvest 37% 2.4 1,516 894 

Restored Conditions 49% 5.2 3,379 2,733 

Toppenish 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 13% 2.5 866 513 

Current with harvest 13% 2.5 866 513 

Restored Conditions 37% 4.9 2,238 1,784 

Naches 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 11% 1.6 2,348 920 

Current with harvest 11% 1.6 2,348 920 

Reference Conditions 60% 2.9 7,563 4,911 

Upper Yakima 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 6% 1.9 3,177 1,479 

Current with harvest 6% 1.9 3,177 1,479 

Restored Conditions 33% 2.9 9,931 6,553 
 p. 259 

Table B.12: EDT 2005 Subbasin restoration summary as adjusted in 2008 

Population Scenario Diversity 

index Productivity Capacity Abundance 

Satus Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 37% 2.4 1,472 861 

Current with harvest 37% 2.4 1,472 861 

Restored Conditions 44% 2.6 1,551 961 

Toppenish 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 12% 2.4 860 505 

Current with harvest 12% 2.4 860 505 

Restored Conditions 20% 2.6 978 609 

Naches 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 27% 2.6 3,192 1,977 

Current with harvest 27% 2.6 3,192 1,977 

Reference Conditions 33% 3.0 3,710 2,472 

Upper Yakima 

Steelhead 

Current without 

harvest 15% 2.6 1,809 1,114 

Current with harvest 15% 2.6 1,809 1,114 

Restored Conditions 27% 2.6 3,131 1,947 
 p. 260 

APPENDIX C: RECOVERY PROGRAMS OVERVIEW 

C.1 Introduction 

Fisheries restoration efforts in the Yakima Basin have a long history. Numerous federal, 

state and local programs have been established over the last 25 years. As noted in Chapter 

6, this plan emphasizes implementing recovery actions through established programs and 

partnerships wherever possible. This appendix gives a brief overview of some of the most 

relevant programs. For more information, see the Yakima Subbasin Plan. 

C.2 NPCC/BPA Programs 

The federal Northwest Power Act of 1982 created the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council and tasked it with overseeing a fish and wildlife program that is funded by BPA 

and mitigates for the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System. The 

Council/BPA program has been the primary source of funding for fish restoration efforts 

in the Yakima Basin over the last 25 years, and is likely to continue to be so into the 

future. Table C.1 lists projects in the Yakima Basin that are currently funded by BPA. 
 p. 261 

Table C.1: BPA-funded programs in the Yakima Basin 

Project # Project Title Sponsor Current FY07 

to 09 

198812025 YKFP Management, Data, Habitat Yakama Nation $454,000* 

199200900 Yakima Phase II/Huntsville Screen Operation & Maintenance WDFW $484,500 

199206200 Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Yakama Nation $2,275,000 

199405900 Yakima Basin Environmental Education Program Eco-Northwest $100,000* 

199503300 O&M Yakima Basin Fish Screens BOR $273,600 

199506325 Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project - Monitoring And Evaluation Yakama Nation & 

WDFW 

$12,300,753 

199506425 YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical WDFW $540,000 

199603501 Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project Yakama Nation $1,016,457* 

199701325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Operations and 

Maintenance 

Yakama Nation $7,999,998 

199705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels Yakama Nation $1,500,000 

200201400 Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation WDFW $634,255 

200202501 Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program South Central 

Washington RC&D $365,178 

Capital Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program South Central 

Washington RC&D

$2165178 

Capital Manastash Creek Passage & Screening 

Kittitas County 

Conservation 

District 

$2327432 

200600400 Wenas Wildlife Area O&M WDFW $868,720 

200702000 Manastash Instream Flow Enhancement Kittitas County 

Conservation 

Di t i t

$892,998 

200711200 Teanaway Watershed Protection & Enhancement Kittitas 

Conservation Trust 

$1,020,000 

200711300 Cowiche Restoration and Protection Project WDFW $300,000 

200719400 Oak Flats Acquisition and Habitat Enhancement WDFW $550,000 

 Totals 36,068,069 

*FY 2007 funding commitment only 

BPA is currently making commitments to additional funding for tributary habitat 

improvements as part of negotiating an ESA Biological Opinion for the Columbia River 

Power system, and it is likely that at least some of this funding will be used in the 

Yakima Basin to improve steelhead habitat. 
 p. 262 

Selected BPA-funded projects with strong ties to steelhead recovery are described below. 

C.2.1 The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

The Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is a joint project of the Yakama Nation 

Fisheries Program and WDFW that is funded via four separate contracts with BPA. It is 

the largest fish management program in the basin. Its goals are to: 

• Enhance existing stocks of anadromous fish in the Yakima and Klickitat river 

basins while maintaining genetic resources and minimizing negative ecological 

interactions with wild populations. 

• Reintroduce stocks formerly present in the basins. 

• Apply knowledge gained about hatchery supplementation throughout the 

Columbia River Basin. 

The YKFP program runs supplementation hatchery programs for spring and fall Chinook 

and coho salmon. Opportunities to reintroduce extirpated summer Chinook and sockeye 

runs are being evaluated. The YKFP program also undertakes extensive research and 

monitoring to understand factors affecting target populations, and to evaluate the effects 

of supplementation activities on other components of the ecosystem. The program 

maintains 15 different fish production and research facilities in the basin and employees 

approximately eighty people, including managers, scientists, technicians, fish culturists, 

laborers and office support personnel. It also supports efforts to improve, restore, and 

protect fish habitat in the basin, and to influence policies related to fish management in 

the Yakima Basin. The YKFP program is the primary source and steward of fish related 

data in the basin, and maintains the EDT model used to evaluate the historic, current and 

potential future conditions of fish habitat within the Yakima Subbasin. 

YKFP activities focused on steelhead include the kelt reconditioning program at the 

Prosser hatchery, research into the genetics of Yakima Basin steelhead, and monitoring of 

steelhead adults, juveniles and smolts. The fish counting facilities at Roza and Prosser 

dams are operated by YKFP. The YKFP program is currently developing a steelhead 

master plan; this process will be coordinated with ongoing recovery planning and 

implementation, and will identify possible supplementation actions. 

C.2.2 Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program 

The listing of Middle Columbia River Steelhead focused the attention of both landowners 

and regulatory agencies on the numerous unscreened irrigation diversions and passage 

barriers in Yakima and Kittitas counties. In response, local organizations, including the 

South Central RC & D, the Kittitas County and North Yakima Conservation Districts, 

WDFW, the Yakima Nation and others, partnered to apply for BPA funding for the 

Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program (YTAHP). This program has funded 

assessments of tributary passage, screening and habitat conditions, and subsequent onthe-ground projects to screen irrigation diversions, remove fish passage barriers and 

improve riparian habitat conditions. From 2002 to 2008, YTAHP and its partners 

screened 87 cfs of irrigation water, removed 21 passage barriers to access over 45 miles 
 p. 263 

of habitat, trusted 4.5 cfs of water to instream use, planted 4.95 miles of stream bank, and 

used YTHAP funded staff and resources to leverage over $7.6 million in total project 

funding. 

C.2.3 Yakima Side Channels Program 

This project has funded acquisition and restoration of side channel and floodplain habitats 

in alluvial reaches of the Yakima and Naches rivers. 

C.2.4 Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project 

This project focuses on restoration of anadromous fish bearing streams on the Yakima 

Reservation. It has funded habitat protection and enhancement in Satus Creek, flow 

improvements, obstruction removal, and screening in Toppenish Creek, and flow 

restoration and riparian/floodplain protection on Ahtanum Creek. Redd surveys, smolt 

trapping and other monitoring are conducted in all three areas. This project has been the 

main source of funding for restoration actions for the Satus and Toppenish steelhead 

populations. 

C.2.5 Manastash Creek Passage/Screening/Flow Projects 

These two projects focus on removing passage barriers and improving instream flows in 

the lower section of Manastash Creek, which has been inaccessible to steelhead for more 

than a century. Restoring access to Manastash Creek is a high priority action for the 

Upper Yakima steelhead population. 

C.2.6 Teanaway Watershed Protection and Enhancement 

This project focuses on protecting and restoring the floodplains and riparian areas of the 

Teanaway River, which is one of the main areas currently used by steelhead in the Upper 

Yakima population area. 

C.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Programs 

C.3.1 System Operations 

The Yakima Field Office (YFO) Manager, in consultation with numerous entities, 

determines how the BOR’s Yakima Project storage reservoirs and diversions are 

operated. In 1980, the Quackenbush decision required Reclamation to incorporate fish 

concerns into its management of the Yakima Project. The System Operations Advisory 

Committee (SOAC) was formed by the Yakima Field Office Manager in response to the 

supplemental instructions entitled ‘Supplementary Instructions to the Water Master’ 

November 28, 1980, in the case of Kittitas Reclamation District, et al. vs. the Sunnyside 

Valley Irrigation District, et al. SOAC is comprised of fish biologists representing the 

USFWS, the Yakama Nation, WDFW, and water users represented by the Yakima Basin 

Joint Board. SOAC and others provide input to the YFO Manager on operations of the 

Yakima Project for fish and wildlife purposes. The group worked with Reclamation to 
 p. 264 

develop the flip-flop concept. Phase 2 of the Yakima enhancement legislation (see below) 

in 1994 directed SOAC to develop a report on biologically based flow needs for fish in 

the basin. The completed report lists recommendations for studies, models, etc. that may 

in turn result in biological flow recommendations. 

C.3.2 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 

Public Law 103-434, Title XII, Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 

(YRBWEP) was authorized by Congress in 1994. It is a multi-faceted program intended 

to promote water conservation, improve the reliability of the water supply for irrigation 

and protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife resources of the Yakima River 

Basin. The legislation authorizes Reclamation to work with partners to plan and 

implement water conservation measures throughout the Yakima River Basin, and to 

acquire land and water from willing sellers or lessors to improve instream flow 

conditions. For conservation projects, two-thirds of the conserved water is dedicated to 

improving instream flows. Key partners include the WDOE, the Yakama Nation, BPA, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and irrigation districts. The Conservation 

Advisory Group (CAG) provides recommendations to the YFO Manager regarding the 

structure and implementation of the Basin Conservation Program. Funding for YRBWEP 

is dependant on Congressional appropriations. Examples of projects completed via 

YRBWEP include: 

1) Purchase of the Wapatox Power Plant, which allows 260,000 acre-feet of water 

previous diverted out of the lower Naches River for power production to be left 

instream in an 8-mile long stretch of critical habitat 

2) Work with irrigators, BPA and the Yakama Nation to increase instream flows in 

the Teanaway River by designing and installing two pumping plants and pipelines 

that increase irrigation efficiencies and divert water three miles below the original 

diversions 

3) Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District’s construction of three reregulation reservoirs 

and numerous check structures. Close to 100 cfs of conserved water will be used 

to enhance instream flows in the Wapato reach, the most severely dewatered 

mainstem reach in the subbasin 

4) Purchase of floodplain habitat on Taneum Creek and the Yakima River near 

Ellensburg 

5) Purchase of lands in the Gap-to-Gap reach in the Yakima area. Approximately 

600 acres of land purchased are now in various stages of being converted from 

agricultural or grazing lands to native grass stands 

Current YRBWEP priorities include: 

1) Continued cooperative work with numerous entities to set back levees and restore 

natural floodplain habitat and function in the Gap to Gap reach and other key sites 
 p. 265 

2) Efforts with the Yakama Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to improve the 

efficiency of the Wapato Irrigation Project and restore the Toppenish Creek 

floodplain 

3) Proposal to move the point of diversion for the Benton Irrigation District 

downstream. This would result in an additional 58 cfs remaining in the river for a 

72 mile reach 

4) Proposal to add a diversion at Kiona for the Kennewick Irrigation District. This 

would reduce the amount of water diverted at Chandler and leave additional water 

in the reach from Chandler to Kiona 

5) Phase II irrigation efficiency improvements by the Sunnyside Irrigation District, 

such as piping laterals 

6) Future conservation projects with other irrigation districts such as Naches-Selah 

and Roza, and others 

C.3.3 Yakima River Basin Water Storage Options Feasibility Study 

The BOR and the state Department of Ecology are conducting a joint study of the 

feasibility of augmenting water supplies in the Yakima River Basin through construction 

of additional storage reservoirs, including the possibility of using of Columbia River 

water in the Yakima Basin. The goals of the proposals reviewed in the study are to: 1) 

improve flow conditions for anadromous fish, 2) provide a more reliable water supply for 

existing irrigators, and 3) provide additional water supply for future municipal demands. 

The study will be completed in 2008, and will detail the feasibility and costs and benefits 

of the: 

1) Black Rock Reservoir proposal, which involves pumping water from the 

Columbia River into the proposed Black Rock Reservoir for subsequent use on 

the Roza and Sunnyside Irrigation Districts 

2) Wymer Reservoir proposal, which involves a smaller reservoir which would be 

filled by pumping from the Yakima River during higher flow periods and by the 

winter release of Cle Elum Reservoir irrigation water. 

3) Wymer proposal, as above, plus a pipeline that would pump water from the 

Columbia River to the Roza and Sunnyside Irrigation Districts. 

Models and analyses developed as part of the storage study will increase our 

understanding of the relationship between flows, habitat characteristics such as sediment 

transport, water temperature and floodplain complexity, and fish production. These 

products will inform several key recovery actions identified in this plan. 

The WDOE is conducting a parallel study of non-storage alternatives for increasing water 

availability, including: 1) enhanced water conservation, 2) market-based reallocation of 

water resources, and 3) groundwater storage. 
 p. 266 

C.3.4 Storage Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study 

The BOR is working with the Yakama Nation, WDFW, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries and 

others to determine the feasibility of providing fish passage at the five Yakima Project 

storage dams (Tieton, Bumping, Kachess, Keechelus, and Cle Elum dams). Four of the 

five reservoirs were originally natural lakes and historically supported sockeye salmon 

and other anadromous and resident fish. When the dams were built to enlarge (or in the 

case of Tieton Dam, create) the lakes in the early 20th century, no fish passage facilities 

were provided. Providing fish passage at these dams has the potential to increase the 

distribution and abundance of steelhead, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon, allow for 

reintroduce of sockeye salmon to the basin, and reconnect isolated populations of bull 

trout. Reclamation began detailed studies to evaluate the feasibility of providing passage 

at the dams in 2004. Current feasibility-grade investigations are focusing on the 

engineering, operational, and biological parameters needed to provide fish passage at Cle 

Elum and Bumping Lake dams. Evaluation of passage opportunities at the other three 

dams will follow. The feasibility report on Cle Elum and Bumping Lake dams is 

scheduled for completion in 2008. 

C.4 US Forest Service Restoration Programs 

The Cle Elum and Naches Ranger Districts of the Wenatchee National Forest encompass 

significant portions of the Upper Yakima and Naches population areas. Since 2002, both 

Districts have implemented the Respect the River education and restoration program, 

with each District expending at least $10-50,000 per year on education and on-the-ground 

restoration of recreation-impacted stream reaches. Cost-share partners in these projects 

include RCO, USFWS, Plum Creek, RIDGE, Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement 

Group, Conservation Northwest, and the Forest Service’s Challenge Cost Share Program 

and Rural Development Act Title II funds. The USFS has also been actively removing 

known fish-passage barriers, improving riparian grazing management on Forest Service 

allotments, and reducing risk of landscape-scale fire. 

C.5 Washington State Fish Recovery Programs 

C.5.1 Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups 

Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group is one of 14 Regional Fisheries 

Enhancement Groups (RFEGs) in Washington State. The RFEG program was created by 

the state legislature in 1990 to involve local communities, citizen volunteers, and 

landowners in the salmon enhancement. Since that time, the groups have become 

important partners in the state's salmon recovery efforts. The groups receive base funding 

from a surcharge on sport and commercial fishing license fees, through an account 

administered by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. 

The Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group’s region covers south central 

Washington and includes all of the Yakima Basin. MCFEG is a non-profit organization 

dedicated restoring self-sustaining salmonid populations through habitat preservation, 
 p. 267 

restoration and education projects, which assist landowners and promote community 

partnerships. A volunteer board of directors runs the group. Mid-Columbia Fisheries 

Enhancement Group supplements their base funding with grants, volunteer efforts, and 

community donations to promote, support, and sponsor fish habitat restoration and 

enhancement projects and watershed education programs. 

C.5.2 Salmon Recovery Funding Board Programs 

After the listing of Columbia River and Puget Sound stocks under the Endangered 

Species Act, the governor and legislature of Washington State passed the Salmon 

Recovery Act of 1998. This created the statewide Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

(SRFB) and tasked it with funding habitat improvement projects with state appropriations 

and Washington’s portion of the federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

administered by NOAA Fisheries. Washington’s Recreation and Conservation Office 

administers the SRFB and its funding programs. The Salmon Recovery Act also called 

for creation of Lead Entities, which are local organizations that work at a watershed scale 

to prioritize and propose projects for SRFB funding. Lead Entities operate with technical 

and financial support from WDFW. The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 

is under contract with WDFW to act as the Lead Entity for the Yakima Basin. From 1999 

to 2006, the Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board, which was administered by 

the city of Selah, served as the Lead Entity. 

Each year, the Lead Entity solicits SRFB proposals from potential project sponsors in the 

basin, convenes technical and citizen’s committees to review and prioritize the proposals, 

and submits a list of recommended projects to the SRFB. Priorities are guided by the 

Yakima Watershed Salmon Recovery Strategy, and, since 2006, the Yakima Subbasin 

Salmon Recovery Plan. Between 1999 and 2007, the SRFB has provided a total of $8.5 

million for 44 fish habitat projects in the Yakima Basin. These include acquisitions of 

key fish habitat, projects to improve fish passage at road crossings and irrigation 

diversions, and projects that improve riparian and floodplain function. More information 

is available on the Board’s webpage. 

C.5.3 Regional Salmon Recovery Organizations 

As part of Washington’s Strategy for Salmon Recovery, the State has encouraged the 

formation of local boards that are recognized by the state as “regional salmon recovery 

organizations.” The state has contracted with these boards to develop regional salmon 

recovery plans that form the basin for federal Endangered Species Act recovery plans for 

salmonids in Washington. The state has provided technical and logistical support via the 

Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. The Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning 

Board (YSPB) was created in 2002, in response to requests from the Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council and the Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. It 

drafted the Yakima Subbasin Plan under contract with BPA, and developed the initial 

2005 draft of this plan with funding from the State of Washington, as described in 

Chapter 1. In April 2006, this Board and the Yakima Lead Entity were merged to form 

the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, which was recognized as the regional 

salmon recovery organization for the Yakima Basin and took on responsibility for 
 p. 268 

completion of the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan. It is under contract with the 

state to complete the plan and coordinate its implementation in the Yakima Basin, as 

described in Chapter 6. 

C.5.4 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Restoration Program 

The Washington State Department of Ecology is facilitating development of a watershed 

restoration program for the Ahtanum Creek watershed. The objectives of the program are 

to: 

• Develop water management strategies to improve water availability for 

agricultural and other out-of-stream uses in the Ahtanum Creek Watershed and 

provide a net benefit to the watershed aquatic ecosystem (such as fish, wildlife, 

plants, and habitat). 

• Develop land use protection and restoration strategies to preserve and enhance 

Ahtanum Creek floodplain and habitat value, as well as the stability and longevity 

of the agricultural land uses and economy within the Ahtanum Creek Watershed. 

A major action that is being considered in the Restoration Program is the Pine Hollow 

Reservoir, which would improve both irrigation water supplies and instream flows. The 

program is also developing a comprehensive list of fish habitat enhancement activities for 

the watershed. The program is described in detail in it Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). 

C.6 Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Programs 

In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, every two years the state must 

identify its polluted water bodies and the type of pollution contaminating them and 

submit this list to EPA. In 2000, the state listed over 50 sections of streams and rivers in 

the Yakima Subbasin as impaired. The WDOE has initiated or completed Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans for the Granger Drain (sediment), the Teanaway 

River (temperature), the Lower Yakima River (sediment), the Upper Yakima River 

(sediment), Wilson Creek (sediment), and Naches (temperature). With cooperation from 

irrigation districts, agricultural organizations, other state and federal agencies and local 

governments, implementation of these TMDL plans has resulted in dramatic decreases in 

pollutant loading in both the upper and lower Yakima River. WDOE also funds water 

quality projects through its 319 and Centennial Water Quality grants program. 

C.8 Yakima Basin Joint Board 

The Yakima Basin Joint Board of Control is a group of irrigation districts that works 

together to address common technical, legal, and policy issues. They are represented on 

SOAC by a fish biologist. The majority of projects the Joint Board funds are research or 

monitoring oriented. Past work includes assessments of fish use and habitat conditions 

within irrigation-district managed facilities, development of a water temperature model 

for the lower Yakima, and analysis of the population status of species that may be 

affected by management actions. Most major projects that improve water quality and 
 p. 269 

irrigation efficiencies are undertaken by each individual irrigation entity, groups of 

irrigators, or through YRBWEP. The Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control is a 

separate organization that administers the water quality program in the lower valley in 

association with South Yakima Conservation District; the Kittitas County Water 

Purveyors coordinates water quality and irrigation system improvements in the Upper 

Yakima. 

C.9 Local Government Land Use Regulations 

C.9.1 Growth Management Act 

The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A) was passed in 1990. Several of its 

provisions pertain to fish habitat: 

• A Comprehensive Plan is the official land use policy for a local government 

• Regulatory ordinances to implement the plan are required, and must and be 

consistent with the plan policy 

• For public health and safety, the protection of ground and surface waters from 

pollution is require. 

• Local governments must first identify (i.e., map) and then protect with regulations 

“natural resource lands” (agricultural and mineral resources lands), and “Critical 

Resources Areas,” of which there are five (frequently flooded areas, geologically 

hazardous areas, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife 

habitat conservation areas) 

• Regulations protecting Critical Resources must be based upon “best available 

science” 

Not all counties and cities within the state are required to prepare and implement 

comprehensive plans under GMA. But all counties and cities, whether planning under 

GMA or not, are required to identify Critical Resource Areas and protect them by 

regulation. Critical Resource Area Ordinances are applied only through a development 

review process initiated by a submitted application to undertake a regulated action, or 

through an enforcement/compliance action related to a project action that has not been 

reviewed and authorized (permitted) by the local jurisdiction. 

C.9.2 Shoreline Management Act 

The state Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires cities and counties with lands on 

“state waters” to adopt a Shorelines Management Plan and implementing regulations. 

Typical plans prepared prior to the most recent edition of the State Shorelines Guidelines 

included three or four general land use designations (e.g., Rural, Urban, Industrial), and 

an implementing ordinance intended to regulate development consistent with the 

protection of shoreline resources and public access to the shoreline. Local SMA permit 

actions can be appealed to the State Shorelines Board, which can deny or modify a local 

permit action. Under the state rules, certain categories of development are exempt from 
 p. 270 

shorelines review. The boundary of SMA jurisdiction is generally extends 200’ upland of 

the ordinary high water line but can extend further upland to include the 100 year 

floodplain and riverine wetlands. Public notice for shoreline actions is required. 
 p. 271 

APPENDIX D: Stakeholder and Public Meetings 

During the initial development of this plan, and extensive series of meeting was held to 

gather public input (see Section 1.3.2 and D.1 below). The October 2005 draft of the 

Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan was made available via the Yakima Basin Fish 

& Wildlife Recovery Board’s website and was put out for formal public review by 

NOAA Fisheries in the spring 2006 (See Section 1.1.3). Formal comments were received 

from American Rivers, the Yakima Basin Joint Board of Control, and the BOR. Meetings 

held following the Board’s assumption of responsibility for the plan are listed in Section 

D.2. This final review draft will be made available via the Board’s website and at public 

locations throughout the Basin. Additional meetings held after release of this review draft 

will be listed in section D.3 in the final version of this plan. 

D.1 Stakeholder Meetings Held in 2005 

The Yakima Subbasin Fish & Wildlife Planning Board and partners met with the 

following organizations during development of the initial draft of the Yakima Subbasin 

Salmon Recovery Plan in 2005: 

Naches Ranger District, Wenatchee National Forest, USFS February 23, 2005

Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima February 28, 2005

Cle-Elum Ranger District, Wenatchee National Forest, USFS March 8, 2005

North Yakima Conservation District March 9, 2005 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife March 16, 2005 

Kittitas County Conservation District March 18, 2005 

Kittitas County Water Purveyors March 18, 2005 

City of Yakima Water Systems March 23, 2005 

City of Yakima Maintenance March 23, 2005 

City of Yakima Planning March 23, 2005

Washington Department of Ecology March 25, 2005 

Yakima Basin Joint Board Of Control March 25, 2005 

Kittitas Irrigation District ` March 25, 2005

Roza Irrigation District March 25, 2005

Sunnyside Irrigation District March 25, 2005

Richland Irrigation District March 25, 2005

Cascade Irrigation District March 25, 2005

Benton County Conservation District March 28, 2005
 p. 272 

South Yakima Conservation District March 28, 2005

Barker Ranch March 28, 2005 

Yakima County Public Works Maintenance March 31, 2005

City of Richland April 4, 2005

Ahtanum Irrigation District April 4, 2005

Washington Department Of Transportation April 4, 2005 

Yakima County Planning April 6, 2005

South Central Washington Resource Conservation & Development April 6, 2005

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Project April 6, 2005

Yakima Audubon April 12, 2005

Washington State Cattlemen’s Association April 18, 2005

City of Ellensburg Public Works Department April 19, 2005

Washington Department of Natural Resources April 22, 2005

Washington Farm Bureau April 25, 2005 

D.2 Stakeholder Meetings Held April 2006 to January 2008 

Responsibility for completion of this plan transferred to the Yakima Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Recovery Board in April 2006. Regular updates on the planning process were 

held at the regular public meetings of the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery 

Board’s Board of Directors. Additional stakeholder meeting that were held to update 

interested parties on the planning process following this transfer include: 

Selah Kiwanis November 28, 2006

Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group January 18, 2007

Yakima Aquatic Science & Management Conference June 14, 2007 

South Central WA Resource, Conservation & Development September 6, 2007

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Policy Group September 19, 2007 

Benton County Conservation District October 10, 2007 

Yakima Basin Joint Board of Control Nov. 14 & 30, 2007 

Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima May 22, 2008 

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife May 23, 2008 
 p. 273 

In April though June of 2008, the Board received informal comments on the March 24, 

2008 review draft. A summary of comments and responses is available on the Board’s 

website (www.ybfwrb.org); changes made to the plan in response to these comments are 

included in this draft. 

D.3 Plan Outreach During 2008 NOAA Comment Period 

During the September 23rd to December 23rd formal comment period on the NOAA 

Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery 

Board conducted the following outreach activities: 

General Outreach: 

Press release to local papers on release day (resulted in Yakima Herald Article) 

Information on plan and comment period posted on Board website 

Federal Register notice on Sept. 24th by NOAA 

Email about comment period to Board email contacts (last week of Sept & mid-Nov) 

Presentations: 

Yakima Basin Joint Board (major irrigators) 

Yakima Audubon 

Yakima Flyfishing Club 

Cowiche Canyon Conservancy 

Federal Caucus (federal agencies involved in Columbia salmon issues) 

Federal legislative staffers (via NOAA conference call) 

Yakima Basin Water Resources Agency Board 

NOAA Public meeting Nov 19th 

Yakima Basin Water Resources Agency Water Resource Advisory Board (Dec 1st) 

South Yakima Conservation District 

Kittitas Cattle Growers 

Informational materials and offer to present if requested provided to: 

Conservation Districts (North Yakima, Kittitas, South Yakima & Benton) 
 p. 274 

Kittitas Field & Stream Club 

Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group 

State legislators (via email on release date of NOAA plan) 

Tapteal Greenway Association 

Benton Conservation District 

Phone Discussions 

Bureau of Reclamation staff 

US Forest Service staff 

Native Fish Society 

American Rivers 
 p. 275 

REFERENCES 

Antolos, M., and coauthors. 2005. Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the 

Mid-Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:466-

480. 

Arango, C. 2001. The effect of a sudden flow reduction on aquatic insects of the upper 

Yakima River Washington, USA. Masters thesis. Central Washington University, 

Ellensburg, WA. 

Beamish, R. J. 1995. Climate change and northern fish populations. Canadian Special 

Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 121:739. 

Beamish, R. J., and D. R. Bouillon. 1993. Pacific salmon production trends in relation to 

climate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1002-1016. 

Beauvais, S. L., S. B. Jones, S. K. Brewer, and E. E. Little. 2000. Physiological measures 

of neurotoxicity of diazinon and malathion to larval rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) and their correlation with behavioral measures. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 19:1875-1880. 

Bjornn, T. C., and D. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 

83-138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management 

on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication, no. 19, Bethesda, MA. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2002. Interim comprehensive basin operating plan 

for the Yakima Project, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2005. Reclamation--managing water in the West: 

Storage dam fish passage study, Yakima Project, Washington, Phase I 

Assessment Report. Pacific Northwest Region, Technical Series No. PN-YDFP001, Boise, ID. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. 

Preliminary design report for the Yakima/ Klickitat production project, March 

1990, DOE/BP-00245, Portland, OR. 

Bradford, M. J. 1995. Comparative analysis of Pacific salmon survival rates. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1327-1338. 

Branstetter, R., and coauthors. 2005. Kelt reconditioning: A research project to enhance 

iteroparity in Columbia Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Annual Report to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Project 200001700, DOE/BP-00020183-1, 

Portland, OR. 

Bretz, J. H. 1969. The Lake Missoula floods and the channeled scabland. Journal of 

Geology 77:505-543. 
 p. 276 

Brewer, S. K., and coauthors. 2001. Behavioral dysfunctions correlate to altered 

physiology in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to cholinesteraseinhibiting chemicals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 

40(1):70-76. 

Busby, P. J., and coauthors. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, and National Marine Fisheries 

Service Southwest Region Protected Species Management Division, Long Beach, 

CA, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-27. 

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: 

Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate. University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Collis, K., S. Adamany, D. D. Roby, D. P. Craig, and D. E. Lyons. 2000a. Avian 

predation on juvenile salmonids in the Lower Columbia River, 1998 Annual 

Report to the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland, OR. 

Collis, K., D. Roby, D. P. Craig, B. A. Ryan, and R. D. Ledgerwood. 2000b. Colonial 

waterbird predation on juvenile salmonids tagged with passive integrated 

transponders in the Columbia River Estuary: Vulnerability of different of species, 

stocks, and rearing types. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

131(3):537-550. 

Collis, K., and D. D. Roby. 2006. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian 

predation on salmonid smolts in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River: Draft 2005 

season summary. Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland, OR. 

Collis, K., and coauthors. 2002. Colony size and diet composition of piscivorous 

waterbirds on the Lower Columbia River: Implications for losses of juvenile 

salmonids to avian predation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

131(3):537-550. 

Cooney, T., and D. Holzer. 2006. Appendix C: Interior Columbia Basin stream type 

Chinook salmon and steelhead populations: Habitat intrinsic potential analysis. 

Pages C1-21 in ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team), editor. 

Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs 

(Technical review draft 2007). US Department of Commerce, NOAA Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Craig, J., and R. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the 

Columbia River. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 49:129-216. 
 p. 277 

Cramer, S. P., D. B. Lister, P. A. Monk, B. J. Pype, and K. L. Witty. 2003. A review of 

abundance trends, hatchery and wild fish interactions, and habitat features for the 

Middle Columbia Steelhead ESU. Prepared for Mid Columbia Stakeholders, S.P. 

Cramer & Associates, Sandy, OR. 

Cramer, S. P., D. B. Lister, P. A. Monk, and K. L. Witty. 2004. Viability of the Middle 

Columbia Steelhead ESU. Prepared for Yakima Basin Joint Board, S.P. Cramer & 

Associates, Sandy, OR. 

Cuffney, T. F., M. R. Meador, S. D. Porter, and M. E. Gurtz. 1997. Distribution of fish, 

benthic invertebrate, and algal communities in relation to physical and chemical 

conditions, Yakima River Basin. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Water Investigations Report 96-4280, Raleigh, NC. 

Davidson, F. A. 1953. Historical notes on development of Yakima River Basin. Yakama 

Indian Nation, Mimeo report, Toppenish, WA. 

Dolloff, C. A. 1993. Predation by river otters (Lutra Canadensis) on juvenile coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in 

southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:312-

315. 

Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on 

fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and 

nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178:183-196. 

Ebbert, J. C., and S. S. Embrey. 2002. Pesticides in surface water of the Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 1999–2000: Their occurrence and an assessment of factors 

affecting concentrations and loads. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 01–4211. 

Eitemiller, D. J., C. P. Arango, K.L. Clark, and M. L. Uebelacker. 2002. The effects of 

anthropogenic alterations to lateral connectivity on seven select alluvial 

floodplans within the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Department of 

Geography and Land Studies, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA. 

Fast, D. E., and L. Berg. 2001. Yakima subbasin summary. Northwest Power Planning 

Council, Portland, OR. 

Fast, D. E., J. D. Hubble, M. S. Kohn, and D. B. Watson. 1991. Yakima River spring 

Chinook enhancement study. Bonneville Power Administration, Final Report: 

Project No. 82-16, DOE/BP-39461-9, Portland, OR. 

Foott, S. J. 1992. Disease survey of the Trinity River salmonid smolt populations, 1991 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California-Nevada Fish Health Center, 

Anderson, CA. 

FPC (Fish Passage Center) and Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee. 2006. 

Comparative survival study of PIT-tagged spring/summer Chinook and summer 

steelhead, 2006 Annual Report, Portland, OR. 
 p. 278 

Fritts, A. T. N. P. 2004. Smallmouth bass predation on hatchery and wild salmonids in 

the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

(133):880-895. 

Fritts, A. T. N. P. 2006. Effects of predation by nonnative smallmouth bass on native 

salmonid prey: The role of predator and prey size. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society (135):853-860. 

Fryer, J. L., and J. E. Sanders. 1981. Bacterial kidney disease of salmonid fish. Annual 

Review of Microbiology 35:273-298. 

Gray, G., and D. Rondorf. 1986. Predation on juvenile salmonids in Columbia Basin 

reservoirs. Pages 178-185 in G. Hall, and M. V. D. Avyle, editors. Reservoir 

fisheries management strategies for the 80’s. Southern Division American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

GSRO (Governor's Salmon Recovery Office) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 2005. Recommendations to the Salmon Recovery Regions. Washington 

Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia. 

Haring, D. 2001. Habitat limiting factors, Yakima River watershed WRIAs 37-39, Final 

Report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia. 

Henjum, M. G., and coauthors. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, 

fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and 

Washington. The Wildlife Technical Review 94(2). 

Hockersmith, E., J. Vella, L. Stuehrenberg, R. N. Iwamoto, and G. Swan. 1995. Yakima 

River radio-telemetry study: Steelhead, 1989-93, U. S. Department of Energy, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Project Number 89-089, Contract Number DEAI79439BP00276. Supercedes report DE95014444; PBD: 1 Jan 1995. 

Hoffman, G. L., and O. N. Bauer. 1971. Fish parasitology in water reservoirs: A review. 

Pages 495-511 in G. E. Hall, editor. Reservoir fisheries and limnology. American 

Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C. 

Howell, P. K., and coauthors. 1985. Stock assessment of Columbia River anadromous 

salmonids, volume II: Steelhead stock summaries stock transfer guidelines; 

information needs, Final Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract 

DE-AI79-84BP12737, Project 83-335, Portland, OR. 

Hubble, J., T. Newsome, and J. Woodward. 2004. Yakima coho master plan, 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. Yakama Indian Nation, in cooperation with 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Toppenish, WA. 

Hunter, J. 1959. Survival and production of pink and chum salmon in a coastal stream. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 16:835-886. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent populations of 

Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed Evolutionarily Significant Units within 

the Interior Columbia River Domain. U.S. Department of Commence, NOAA 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 
 p. 279 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2004a. Delisting criteria summary 

of approach and preliminary results. U.S. Department of Commence, NOAA 

Fisheries, Portland, OR. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2004b. Preliminary guidelines for 

population-level abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity 

supporting viable salmonid populations: An update. U.S. Department of 

Commence, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Science Center, Portland, OR. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2005a. Interior Columbia Basin 

TRT: Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. 

U.S. Department of Commence, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Science Center, 

Portland, OR. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2005b. Interior Columbia Basin 

TRT: Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs, 

update. U.S. Department of Commence, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Science 

Center, Portland, OR. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2005c. Updated population 

delineation in the interior Columbia Basin. U.S. Department of Commence, 

NOAA Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2007a. Scenarios for MPG and 

ESU viability consistent with TRT viability criteria. U.S. Department of 

Commence, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2007b. Viability criteria for 

application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. Technical review draft. 

U.S. Department of Commence, NOAA Fisheries, Portland, OR. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). In press. Yakima Basin stock 

status assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Northwest 

Science Center, Portland, OR. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Group). 1996. Return to the river: Restoration of salmonid 

fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem--development of an alternative 

conceptual foundation and review and synthesis of science underlying the 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning 

Council, Portland, OR. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Group). 2000. Return to the river 2000: Restoration of 

salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Northwest Power Planning 

Council, NPPC 2000-12, Portland, OR. 

ISP (Independent Science Panel). 2000. Recommendations for monitoring salmon 

recovery in Washington State. Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, ISP Report 

2000-2, Olympia, WA. 
 p. 280 

ISP (Independent Science Panel). 2002. Responses of salmon and trout to habitat 

changes. Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, ISP Technical Memorandum 

2002-2, Olympia, WA. 

James, B. B., T. N. Pearsons, and G. A. McMichael. 1999. Spring Chinook salmon 

interactions indices and residual/precocial monitoring in the upper Yakima Basin, 

1998 Annual Report, U. S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, DOE/BP-64878-4, Portland, OR. 

Jamieson, B., and J. H. Braatne. 2001. Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems and Regulated 

Flows in Kootenai and Yakima Subbasins: Impacts of Flow Regulation on 

Riparian Cottonwood Forests of the Yakima River. 2000-2001 Technical Report, 

Project No. 200006800. BPA Report DOE/BP-00000005-3. 

Jobling, M. 1981. Temperature tolerance and the final preferendum- rapid methods for 

the assessment of optimum growth temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 

19(4):439-455. 

Johnson, A., D. Norton, and W. Yake. 1986. Occurrence and significance of DDT 

compounds and other contaminants in fish, water, and sediment from the Yakima 

River Basin. Washington Department of Ecology, Publication No. 86-5, Olympia. 

Joy, J. 2002. Suspended sediment and organochlorine pesticide total maximum daily load 

evaluation. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Publication No. 02-30-012, Olympia. 

Joy, J., and B. Patterson. 1997. A suspended sediment and DDT Total Maximum Daily 

Load evaluation report for the Yakima River. Washington State Department of 

Ecology Environmental Assessment Program, Publication #97-321, Olympia. 

Karp, C., W. Larrick, M. Johnston, and T. Dick. 2003. Summary of upper Yakima River 

steelhead movement, winter 2002/2003. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Karp, C., W. Larrick, M. Johnston, and T. Dick. 2005. Steelhead movements in the upper 

Yakima Basin, winter 2003/2004. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation Technical Service Center, Technical Memorandum 8290-05-01, 

Denver, CO. 

Karp, C., W. Larrick, M. Johnston, and T. Dick. 2009. Steelhead Movements in the 

Upper Yakima River Basin, Fall 2002 – Spring 2006. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Technical 

Memorandum No. 3290-07-05, Denver, Colorado. 

Kinnison, H. B., and J. E. Sceva. 1963. Effects of hydraulic and geologic factors on 

streamflow of the Yakima River Basin, Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Series, Washington, D.C. 

Kreeger, K. E., and W. J. McNeil. 1993. Summary and estimation of the historic runsizes of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia and Yakima rivers. Yakima River 

Basin Coalition, Yakima, WA. 
 p. 281 

Lawson, P. W. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the 

restoration of salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18(8):6-10. 

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, and J. E. Williams. 1997. 

Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. Pages 1,057-496 in T. M. 

Quigley, and S. Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in 

the Interior Columbia Basin, volume III. General Technical Report PNW-GTR405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Lestelle, L. C., L. E. Mobrand, J. A. Lichatowich, and T. S.Vogel. 1996. Ecosystem 

Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT): Applied ecosystem analysis- a primer, Report to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 199404600, BPA DOE/BP-33243-

2, Portland, OR. 

Lestelle, L. C., L. E. Mobrand, and W. E. McConnaha. 2004. Information structure of 

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and habitat rating rules for Chinook 

salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. Mobrand Biometrics, Vashon Island, 

WA. 

Li, H., C. Schreck, C. Bond, and E. Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish 

assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. Pages 193-202 in W. Matthews, and 

D. Heins, editors. Community and evolutionary ecology of North American 

stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

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. 

Lichatowich, J. A. 1999. Salmon without rivers. Island Press, New York. 

Little, E. E., R. D. Archeski, B. A. Flerov, and V. I. Kozlovskaya. 1990. Behavioral 

indicators of sublethal toxicity in rainbow trout. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 19(3). 

Little, E. E., F. J. Dwyer, J. F. Fairchild, A. J. DeLonay, and J. L. Zajicek. 1993. Survival 

and behavioral response of bluegill during continuous and pulsed exposures to the 

pyrethroid insecticide ES-fenvalerate. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

12:871-878. 

Loxterman, J. A., and S. Young. 2003. Geographic population genetic structure of 

steelhead in the Yakima River Basin. Pages 6-24 in C. Busack et al., editor. 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies; Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries 

Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 2001-2 Annual Report. Project No. 

199506325, BPA Report DOE/BP-00004666-1. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, OR. 
 p. 282 

Martin, S. W., T. N. Pearsons, and S. A. Leider. 1994. Rainbow trout distribution and 

population abundance variation in the upper Yakima River Basin. Pages 70-104 in

T. N. Pearsons, and coeditors, editors. Yakima River Species Interactions Studies 

Annual Report 1993. DOE/BP-99852-2. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Mastin, M. C. 2008. Effects of potential future warming on runoff in the Yakima River 

Basin, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 

2008-5124. 

McElhany, P., M. Ruckelshaus, M. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA 

Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle, WA. 

McGinn, N. A., editor. 2002. Fisheries in a changing climate: Symposium 32 

proceedings. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

McIntosh, B. A., and coauthors. 1994. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river 

basins of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 68:36-53. 

McMichael, G. A., T. N. Pearsons, and S. A. Leider. 1999. Behavioral interactions 

among hatchery-reared steelhead smolts and wild Oncorhynchus mykiss in natural 

streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(4):948-956. 

McMichael, G. A., C. S. Sharpe, and T. N. Pearsons. 1997. Effects of residual hatcheryreared steelhead on growth of wild rainbow trout and spring Chinook salmon. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126(2):230-239. 

Mobrand Biometrics. 1999. Phase 1 completion report: EDT analysis of the Yakima and 

Klickitat rivers. Mobrand Biometrics, Report prepared for the Yakama Indian 

Nation, Vashon Island, WA. 

Mobrand, L. E., J. A. Lichatowich, L. C. Lestelle, and T. S. Vogel. 1997. An approach to 

describing ecosystem performance through the eyes of a salmon. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2964-2973. 

Monk, P. 2001. Fish surveys in the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control irrigation 

drain network: Summary of Major Findings for 2001. Roza-Sunnyside Board of 

Joint Control, Sunnyside, WA. 

Moore, A., and C. P. Waring. 1998. Mechanistic effects of a triazine pesticide on 

reproductive endocrine function in mature male Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) 

parr. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 62(1):41-50. 

Moore, A., and C. P. Waring. 2001. The effects of a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide on 

some aspects of reproduction in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquatic 

Toxicology 52(1):1-12. 
 p. 283 

Morace, J. L., G. J. Fuhrer, and J. F. Rinella. 1999. Surface-water-quality assessment of 

the Yakima River Basin in Washington: Overview of major findings, 1987-91. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resource 

Investigations Report 98-4113, Portland, OR. 

Morgan, M. J., and J. W. Kiceniuk. 1990. Effect of fenitrothion on the foraging behavior 

of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:489-495. 

Muir, M. J. 2003. Evaluation of restoration projects and channel changes in the Little 

Naches basin, with a comparison to the American River basin. Master's thesis. 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

National Resource Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific 

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the 

crossroads: Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. 

Fisheries 16(2):4-21. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Factors contributing to the decline of 

West Coast steelhead. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Protected 

Resources Division, Portland, OR. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Predation on salmonids relative to the 

federal Columbia River power system. White Paper. U. S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Interim endangered and threatened 

species recovery planning guidance. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Draft guidelines for limiting factors 

and threats assessment. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Portland, OR. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Adaptive management for ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead recovery: Decision framework and monitoring guidance. U. 

S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Portland, OR. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Recovery Plan, Portland, OR. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Northwest Region. 2006. Supplement to the 

draft Yakima subbasin salmon recovery plan. U. S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA, Portland, OR. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1986. Appendix D: Compilation of 

information on salmon and steelhead losses in the Columbia River basin. 1987 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning 

Council, Portland, OR. 
 p. 284 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 2004. Lower Middle Mainstem including 

Rock Creek subbasin plan. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific 

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife). 2005. Oregon native fish status report, 

volume II, Salem, OR. 

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of 

the Associations of American Geographers 77:118-125. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, editor. 1989. Global warming: A Northwest 

perspective. Proceedings of the Northwest Power Planning Council conference on 

global warming, Portland, OR. 

Palmisano, J. F., R. H. Ellis, and V. W. Kaczynski. 1993. The impact of environmental 

and management factors on Washington’s wild anadromous salmon and trout. 

Washington Forest Protection Association and Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, Olympia. 

Patten, B. 1962. Cottid predation upon salmon fry in a Washington stream. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 91:427-429. 

Patten, B. 1971a. Increased predation by the torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) on coho 

salmon fry (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during moonlight nights. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28:1352-1354. 

Patten, B. 1971b. Predation by sculpins on fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) fry of hatchery origin. U. S. Department of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Pearcy, W. 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Pearsons, T. N., and coauthors. 2004. Yakima River species interactions studies, 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Report 7 of 7, 

2003-2004 Annual Report, Project No. 199506325. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Report DOE/BP-00013756-7, Portland, OR. 

Pearsons, T. N., and C. W. Hopley. 1999. A practical approach for assessing ecological 

risks associated with fish stocking programs. Fisheries 24(9):16-23. 

Pearsons, T. N., and coauthors. 1993. Yakima River species interaction studies. Annual 

report for FY 1992. Bonneville Power Administration, Project Number 1989-10, 

DOE/BP-01483-3, Portland, OR. 

Pearsons, T. N., and coauthors. 1998. Yakima River species interactions studies. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Progress report 1995-1997, Project No. 

199506402, DOE/BP-64878-6, Portland, OR. 
 p. 285 

Pearsons, T. N., S. R. Phelps, S. W. Martin, E. L. Bartrand, and G. A. McMichael. 2007. 

Gene flow between resident and anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Yakima 

Basin: Ecological and genetic evidence. Pages 56-64 in K. Schroeder, and J. D. 

Hall, editors. Redband trout: Resilience and challenge in a changing landscape. 

Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pearsons, T. N., and coauthors. 1996. Yakima River species interactions studies. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Annual Report FY 1994, Project No. 

198910500, DOE/BP-99852-3, Portland, OR. 

Pearsons, T. N., and J. Thomas. 2003. Pathogen screening of naturally produced Yakima 

River spring Chinook smolts, Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and 

Evaluation, Annual Report 2001. Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 

1995-06424, DOE/BP-00004666-8, Portland, OR. 

Peven, C. M., R. R. Whitney, and K. R. Williams. 1994. Age and length of steelhead 

smolts from the mid-Columbia River basin, Washington. N. Amer. J. Fish. 

Management 14:77-86. 

Phelps, S. R., B. M. Baker, and C. A. Busack. 2000. Genetic relationships and stock 

structure of Yakima River Basin and Klickitat River Basin steelhead populations. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Unpublished report, Olympia. 

Poff, N. L., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and 

predictability for lotic community structure: A regional analysis of streamflow 

patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46:1805-1817. 

Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and J. D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner 

(Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western 

Oregon: the influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 44:1603-1613. 

Rhodes, J. D., D. McCullough, and F. A. Espinosa Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process 

for evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning 

and rearing habitat in ESA consultations. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission, Technical Report 94-4, Portland, OR. 

Rieman, B. E., R. E. Gresswell, M. K. Young, and C. H. Luce. 2003. Introduction to the 

effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems in the Western USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management 178:1-3. 

Rinella, J. F., and coauthors. 1999. Surface water-quality assessment of the Yakima River 

Basin, Washington: Distribution of pesticides and other organic compounds in 

water, sediment, and aquatic biota, 1987-91. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 2354-B, Denver, CO. 

Rinella, J. F., S. W. McKenzie, and G. J. Fuhrer. 1992. Surface water-quality assessment 

of the Yakima River Basin, Washington: Analysis of available water-quality data 

through 1985 water year. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 91-453, Portland, OR. 
 p. 286 

Ringer, G., and T. McCoy. 1998. Satus Creek watershed analysis. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, OR. 

Romey, B., and S. Cramer. 2001. Aquatic habitat survey of irrigation drainage networks: 

Lower Yakima River Basin. Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control and U. S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, WA. 

Saglio, P., and S. Trijasse. 1998. Behavioral responses to atrazine and diuron in goldfish. 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:484-491. 

Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel. 2004. Report for the meeting of the Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service held December 

2004, Santa Cruz, CA. 

Scholz, N. L., and coauthors. 2000. Diazinon disrupts antipredator and homing behaviors 

in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 57(9):1911-1918. 

Scott, J. B., and W. T. Gill. 2006. Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington 

State’s anadromous populations and programs. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia. 

Sherwood, C., D.A. Jay, R.B. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C. A. Simenstad. 1990. 

Historical changes in the Columbia River estuary. Progressive Oceanography 

(25):299-352. 

Siegel, J., and D. E. Fast. 2006. Monitoring and evaluation of avian predation on juvenile 

salmonids on the Yakima River, Washington. Annual Report 2005, Appendix I in 

Yakima/Klickitat Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199506325). 2005-2006 

Annual Report to Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP 00022449-1, 

Portland, OR. 

Small, M. P., J. L. Loxterman, and S. F. Young. 2006. Microsatellite DNA study of 

population genetic structure among Yakima Basin steelhead. Pages 82-113 in C. 

Busack, and coeditors, editors. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic 

Studies: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 2005-

2006 Annual Report. Bonneville Power Adminstration, Portland, OR. 

Smith, D., G. Johnson, and T. Williams. 2006. Natural streamflow estimates for 

watersheds in the lower Yakima River. S.P. Cramer & Associates, Sandy, OR. 

Snyder, E. B., and J. A. Stanford. 2001. Review and synthesis of river ecological studies 

in the Yakima River, Washington with emphasis on flow and salmon habitat 

interactions. University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station, Polson, 

MT. 

Spence, B., G. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem 

approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corp., TR-4501-96-6057, Corvallis, OR. 
 p. 287 

Stanford, J. A., and coauthors. 2002. The Reaches Project: Ecological and geomorphic 

studies supporting normative flows in the Yakima River basin, Washington. 

University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station, Poulson. 

Stanford, J. A., and coauthors. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated 

rivers. Regulated Rivers 12:391-413. 

Stephenson, A. E., and D. E. Fast. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation of avian predation on 

juvenile salmonids on the Yakima River, Washington. Bonneville Power 

Administration, 2004 Annual Report, Portland, OR. 

Thrower, F. P. H., J. J.; Joyce, J. E. 2004. Genetic architecture of growth and early life 

history transitions in anadromous and derived freshwater populations of steelhead. 

Journal of Fish Biology (65):286-307. 

Tuck, R. L. 1995. The impacts of irrigation development on anadromous fish in the 

Yakima Basin, Washington. Master's thesis. Central Washington Univeristy, 

Ellensburg, WA. 

Waring, C. P., and A. Moore. 1997. Sublethal effects of a carbamate pesticide on 

pheromonal mediated endocrine function in mature male Atlantic salmon (Salmo 

salar L.) parr. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 17(1-6). 

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western 

Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and 

steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 

Washington State Monitoring Oversight Committee. 2002. The Washington 

comprehensive monitoring strategy for watershed health and salmon recovery, 

volume 2. Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia, WA. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. An outline for salmon 

recovery plans, Olympia, WA. 

Weitkamp, L. A. 1994. A review of the effects of dams on the Columbia River estuarine 

environment, with special reference to salmonids. NOAA Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division, Bonneville Power 

Administration Report, Seattle, WA. 

West Coast Steelhead Biological Review Team. 1999. Updated status review of Upper 

Willamette and Middle Columbia River ESUs of steelhead. NOAA Fisheries, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

predecisional ESA document, Seattle, WA. 

Wissmar, R. C., and coauthors. 1994. A history of resource use and disturbance in 

riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s-1990s). Northwest 

Science 68:1-35. 
 p. 288 

Yakima Indian Nation, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Washington Department 

of Fisheries. 1990. Yakima/Klickitat production project preliminary design report 

appendix A: Refined project goals and harvest management plan. Bonneville 

Power Administration, BPA Project No. 198904300, Report DOE/BP-00245-2, 

Portland, OR. 

Yakima River Floodplain Mining Impact Study Team. 2004. Yakima River Floodplain 

Mining Impact Study, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources 

Open File Report 2004-8. 

Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board. 2005. Yakima subbasin plan. 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Portland, OR.