Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

Recovery Plan for the 

Rock Creek Population 

of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Distinct Population Segment 

October 2009 

Prepared by 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northwest Region 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

i

DISCLAIMER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement 

that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of 

appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans 

are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and 

the completion of recovery actions. 

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

disagreement arose between a management unit plan and the species level, distinct 

population segment (DPS) plan, NMFS worked with the relevant parties to resolve the 

differences and in a few cases, identified in the DPS plan, decided not to incorporate the 

disputed material into the DPS plan. 

ESA recovery plans provide important context for NMFS’s determinations pursuant to 

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

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

action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. The procedures for the section 7 consultation process are described in 50 

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

recovery plan. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

ii

Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ vii 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... viii 

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

1.1 Purpose of Plan ................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.1 ESA Requirements ................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2 Coordination with Others ....................................................................................... 3

1.2 Context of Plan Development ........................................................................................... 5

1.2.1 Technical Recovery Teams .................................................................................... 5

1.2.2 Planning Forums .................................................................................................... 5

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use this Plan ................................................................................ 7

2. Biological Background ................................................................................................ 9 

2.1 Physical Setting ................................................................................................................ 9

2.1.1 Topography .......................................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 12

2.1.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 16

2.2 Life History Characteristics ............................................................................................ 18

2.3 Major Spawning Area ..................................................................................................... 21

2.4 Salmonid Biological Structure ........................................................................................ 22

2.4.1 Distinct Population Segments .............................................................................. 23

2.4.2 Major Population Groups ..................................................................................... 23

2.4.3 Independent Populations ...................................................................................... 24

2.5 Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations and MPGs ...................................................... 24

3. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria .................................................................... 27 

3.1 Recovery Goals ............................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria ........................................................................................... 28

3.2.1 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria ......................................................................... 29

3.2.2 Application of Biological Viability Criteria to Rock Creek Population .............. 30

3.3 Threats Criteria ............................................................................................................... 31

4. Current Status Assessment ....................................................................................... 36 

4.1 Abundance and Productivity........................................................................................... 36

4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity ....................................................................................... 36

4.3 Overall Risk Rating ........................................................................................................ 37

5. Limiting Factors and Threats ................................................................................... 38 

5.1 Freshwater Habitat .......................................................................................................... 38

5.2 Hatchery Effects ............................................................................................................. 43

5.3 Tributary Harvest ............................................................................................................ 43

5.4 Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors and Threats .............................................................. 45

5.4.1 Harvest ................................................................................................................. 45
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

iii

5.4.2 Columbia River Hydropower Operations ............................................................ 46

5.4.3 Ocean Conditions ................................................................................................. 47

5.4.4 Climate Change.................................................................................................... 47

5.4.5 Other Large-Scale Threats ................................................................................... 48

6. Recovery Strategy and Actions ................................................................................. 49 

6.1 Strategies and Actions .................................................................................................... 49

6.1.1 Gather Information on VSP Parameters .............................................................. 49

6.1.2 Protect and Conserve Existing Good Quality Habitat ......................................... 50

6.1.3 Restore and Enhance Habitat and Gather Information ........................................ 50

6.1.4 Review and Reduce Effects of Harvest ............................................................... 51

6.1.5 Research Effects of Hatchery Fish (If Any) ........................................................ 52

6.1.6 Address Out-of-subbasin Limiting Factors .......................................................... 52

6.2 Summary of Recovery Strategy ...................................................................................... 52

7. Implementation and Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 57 

7.1 Implementation ............................................................................................................... 57

7.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................... 58

8. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management ................................................ 63 

8.1 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................... 63

8.2 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support Adaptive Management ... 66

8.2.1 Implementation and Compliance Monitoring ...................................................... 67

8.2.2 Status and Trend Monitoring ............................................................................... 67

8.2.3 Effectiveness Monitoring ..................................................................................... 68

8.3 Research and Critical Uncertainties ................................................................................ 68

8.3.1 Out-of-Subbasin Uncertainties ............................................................................ 68

8.3.2 In-Subbasin Uncertainties .................................................................................... 69

8.4 Existing Monitoring and Research ................................................................................. 70

8.5 Additional Needs ............................................................................................................ 70

8.6 Data Management ........................................................................................................... 70

8.7 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs ............................................................... 71

8.8 Coordination ................................................................................................................... 71

8.9 Evaluation Schedule ....................................................................................................... 72

9. References .................................................................................................................... 73 

Appendix I. Eastern Tributaries in the Washington Gorge Management Unit .... 79 

Appendix II. Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed .......................................... 92 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

i

Figures 

Figure ES-1 Rock Creek Subbasin. .................................................................................. ix 

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

Figure ES-3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population 

Groups. ........................................................................................................ xiii 

Figure 1-1 Rock Creek Subbasin ..................................................................................... 1 

Figure 1-2 NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS ............ 7 

Figure 2-1 Geology and Stream Location of Rock Creek Subbasin ................................ 9 

Figure 2-2 Land Use in the Rock Creek Subbasin. ........................................................ 11 

Figure 2-3 Stream flow, water temperature, and air temperature at the Washington 

Department of Ecology gage near the mouth of the Rock Creek. ................ 14 

Figure 2-4 Discharge Hydrograph from Historical USGS flow gage near mouth of Rock 

Creek. ............................................................................................................ 15 

Figure 2-5 Monthly Exceedance Flows for Historical USGS Flow Gage near Mouth of 

Rock Creek. .................................................................................................. 15 

Figure 2-6 Daily maximum water temperature at four stations in Rock Creek ............. 17 

Figure 2-7 Rock Creek subbasin major streams and steelhead distribution. ................. 21 

Figure 2-8 Rock Creek summer steelhead population boundary and major and minor 

spawning areas. ............................................................................................. 22 

Figure 2-9 Hierarchical levels of salmonid species structure as defined by the TRTs for 

ESU/DPS recovery planning. ....................................................................... 24 

Figure 2-10 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Independent Populations and Major 

Population Groups ........................................................................................ 25 

Figure 4-1 Integrated Risk Rating for the Rock Creek Steelhead Population. .............. 37 

Figure 8-1 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework. ................................................ 65 

Figure ApI-1 NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS ...... 80 

Figure ApI-2 NMFS Populations and Major Population Groups for the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead DPS .................................................................... 82 

Tables 

Table ES-1 Recovery Strategy and Actions for the Rock Creek Population of Middle 

Columbia Steelhead. ................................................................................... xxv 

Table 2-1 Rock Creek Summer Steelhead Basin Statistics ........................................... 26 

Table 4-1 Rock Creek Summer Steelhead Population Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Risk Rating Summary. .................................................................................. 37 

Table 6-1 Recovery Strategy and Actions for the Rock Creek Population of Middle 

Columbia Steelhead. ..................................................................................... 53 

Table 7-1 Costs Associated with Proposed Reach-Specific Actions for Rock Creek 

Provided by Yakama Nation Fisheries. ........................................................ 59 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

i

Recovery Planning Glossary 

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

refers to the number of adult fish returning to spawn.

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

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

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

can become feedback on design and implementation of future actions. 

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

water, and return to freshwater to spawn. 

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

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

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

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

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

salmonids) have evolved in common. 

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

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

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

values. 

compliance monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether a specific performance 

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

 

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

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

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

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

can be proposed for removal from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. 

These criteria are a NMFS determination and may include both technical and policy 

considerations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

variation within a population. Variations could include anadromy vs. lifelong residence in 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

ii

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

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

spawning behavior, physiology, molecular genetic characteristics, etc. 

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

portion of its range. 

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

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

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

vegetation? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

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

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

ICTRT considers extirpated steelhead populations to be those that are entirely cut off 

from anadromy, such as the Crooked River population. Functionally extirpated 

populations are those of which there are so few remaining numbers that there are not 

enough fish or habitat in suitable condition to support a fully functional population. 

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

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

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

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

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

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

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

habitat in suitable condition to support a fully functional population. 

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

and rivers where groundwater and surface water mix. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

iii

implementation monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether an activity was 

performed and/or completed as planned. 

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

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

altered by exchanges of individuals with other populations. 

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

variable. 

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

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

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

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

rearing of anadromous salmonid species under historical conditions inferred from stream 

characteristics including channel size, gradient, and valley width.

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

at levels of abundance below carrying capacity. 

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

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

shortly after spawning). 

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

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

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

resistance to flooding. 

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

in the present day. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mandates and recovery needs. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

iv

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

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

ESU/DPS recovery. 

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

geographically and genetically cohesive. The MPG is a level of organization between 

demographically independent populations and the ESU or DPS. 

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

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

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

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

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

location is a metric for population abundance. 

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

features. 

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

origin. 

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

sac and transformation to smolt before migration seaward. 

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

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

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

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

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

numbers. The terms “population growth rate” and “population productivity” are 

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

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

smolts per spawner. 

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

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

Recovery domains may contain one or more listed ESUs. 

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

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

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

of recovery goals (see glossary entry above). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

v

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

that describes how the plan addresses ESA requirements for recovery plans. The 

supplement also proposes ESA delisting criteria for the ESUs addressed by the plan, 

since a determination of these criteria is a NMFS decision. 

recovery scenarios: Alternative combinations of target status for the populations in an 

ESU that would be generally consistent with TRT recommendations for ESU viability. 

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

for the species’ recovery program. 

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

fertilized and deposited. 

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

of water and the adjacent upland. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

occupy an area. 

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

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

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

products related to recovery planning. TRTs are complemented by planning forums 

unique to specific states, tribes, or regions, which use TRT and other technical products 

to identify recovery actions. 

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

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

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

fish harvest, hatchery influences, volcanoes) that cause or contribute to limiting factors. 

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

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

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

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These criteria are used as technical input 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

vi

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

biological delisting criteria. 

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

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

frame. 

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

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

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

describe characteristics of salmonid populations that are useful in evaluating population 

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

populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units (McElhany et al. 2000). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

A/P abundance/productivity

BACI Before-After-Control-Impact

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CAO Critical Areas Ordinance

CCRP Continuous Conservation Reserve 

Program

CEO County Environmental Ordinance

cfs cubic feet per second 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CRITFC Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish 

Commission

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSMEP Collaborative Systemwide 

Monitoring and Evaluation Project

CSP Conservation Security Program

CUPs Conditional Use Permits

CZO County Zoning Ordinance

DPS Distinct Population Segment

Ecology Department of Ecology

EDT Ecosystem Diagnostic and 

Treatment

EIS environmental impact statement

EKCD Eastern Klickitat Conservation 

District

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power 

System

FEIS final environmental impact 

statement

FPO Floodplain Management Ordinance

FREP Forestry Riparian Easement 

Program

FY fiscal year

GMA Growth Management Act

GRP Grassland Reserve Program

HFRP Healthy Forest Reserve Program

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team

MaSA Major Spawning Area

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MiSA Minor Spawning Area 

MPG Major Population Group

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

WDFW Wahington State Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

WRIA Water Resources Inventory 

Area

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries

NPCC Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery 

Fund

PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic 

Monitoring Partnership

RCW Rock Creek Watershed 

QAR Quantitative Analytical Report 

RM River-mile

SDPs Substantial Development Permits

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SMP Shorelines Master Plan

SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board

SS/D Spatial structure/diversity

SSB Substitute Senate Bill

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TRT Technical Recovery Team

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VARs Variances

VSP Viable Salmonid Population

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WCC Washington Conservation 

Commission 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of 

Natural Resources

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive 

Program

W/LC TRT Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team 

WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program

WY Water Years

YN Yakama Nation
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

viii

Executive Summary

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to develop recovery plans for species listed under the Act. The purpose 

of recovery plans is to identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered 

species to the point that they are again self-sustaining elements of their ecosystems and 

no longer need the protections of the ESA. 

This plan focuses on the conservation and survival of Middle Columbia River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Rock Creek subbasin. Rock Creek drains an area of 223.2 

sq. miles (578.1 sq. km) in southeastern Washington State. It joins the Columbia River at 

RM 230, approximately 12 miles upstream of John Day Dam (Figure ES-1). This is one 

of several recovery plans developed for independent populations of the Middle Columbia 

River steelhead distinct population segment (DPS), which was listed as threatened under 

the ESA on March 25, 1999 and reconfirmed on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Similar 

plans have been prepared for Middle Columbia steelhead populations in the White 

Salmon River, Klickitat River, and Yakima River, as well as in areas of southeast 

Washington and the State of Oregon. These separate plans are part of a DPS-level plan 

that integrates recovery actions across the DPS. 

Purpose of Plan

A recovery plan is a guidance document, not regulatory. This plan provides a roadmap 

for restoring the Rock Creek steelhead population and its habitats to a level that supports 

recovery of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS and allows the population to 

become a viable component of its ecosystem. 

The plan describes the current status of the Rock Creek population and proposes a 

strategy for its conservation and recovery. The recovery strategy builds on past and 

current recovery efforts. A key component of the strategy is collaborative development of 

a research, monitoring, and evaluation plan to further characterize population and habitat 

characteristics. Finally, the plan provides guidelines for implementation and an adaptive 

management framework for making appropriate adjustments as new information becomes 

available. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

ix

Figure ES-1. Rock Creek Subbasin. 

Context of Plan Development

The plan is the product of a process initiated by NMFS; it incorporates information from 

the Yakama Nation (YN), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 

Klickitat County, the Washington State Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, other 

Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and the public. 

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

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

Northwest Region designated five geographically based “recovery domains” (Figure ES2). The range of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is located in the Middle 

Columbia sub-domain of the Interior Columbia domain. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

x

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

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

and species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The 

charge of each Technical Recovery Team (TRT) was to define ESU/DPS structures, 

develop recommendations on biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its 

component populations, provide scientific support to local and regional recovery 

planning efforts, and provide scientific evaluations of proposed recovery plans. The 

Interior Columbia TRT (ICTRT) includes biologists from NMFS, states, tribes, and 

academic institutions. 

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

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

criteria based on mitigation of the factors for decline, in determining whether a species 

has recovered sufficiently to be downlisted or delisted. These principles are described in a 

NMFS technical memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). 

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

productivity (growth rate), spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally 

self-sustaining, with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year time period. Each 

TRT made recommendations using the VSP framework, based on data availability, the 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xi

unique biological characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, and the 

members’ collective experience and expertise. Although NMFS has encouraged the TRTs 

to develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors 

limiting recovery, all the TRTs are working from a common scientific foundation. 

Viability criteria are an important part of recovery goals, as described later in this 

summary. 

The Rock Creek Plan reflects direction for Rock Creek steelhead adopted into the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program 

subbasin plan (NPCC 2004). The subbasin plan was produced through a collaborative 

process involving the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and 

NPCC. In addition, the plan reflects technical data drawn from the following sources: 

• Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 31 Watershed Assessment (Aspect 

and WPN 2004) and WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment (Glass 2009) 

• The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) viability criteria and 

current status assessment for the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS (ICTRT 

2007a, 2007b, and 2009) 

Biological Background

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

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

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

and morphological characteristics have evolved over generations, creating runs highly 

adapted to diverse environments. It is this variation that gives the species as a whole the 

resilience to persist over time. 

Historically, a salmon ESU or steelhead DPS typically contained multiple populations 

connected by some small degree of genetic exchange that resulted from some spawners 

“straying” into neighboring streams. Thus, the overall biological structure of the 

ESU/DPS is hierarchical; spawners in the same area of the same stream will share more 

characteristics than those in the next stream over. Fish whose natal streams are separated 

by hundreds of miles will have less genetic similarity. 

Definition of Evolutionarily Significant Units/Distinct Population Segments 

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

isolated from other conspecific units and represents an important component of the 

evolutionary legacy of the species” (Waples 1991). A “population segment” is considered 

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

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

physical, behavioral, or genetic characteristics; or if it occupies an unusual or unique 

ecological setting; or if its loss would represent a significant gap in the species’ range (71 

FR 834). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xii

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

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

watersheds and river basins. 

Major Population Groups 

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

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

These "major groupings" of populations (MPGs) are isolated from one another over a 

longer time scale than that defining the individual populations, but retain some degree of 

connectivity greater than that between ESUs/DPSs. 

Independent Populations 

McElhany et al. (2000) defined an independent population as follows: 

“...a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or 

portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does not 

interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same 

place at a different season.” 

The Rock Creek population is one of 17 extant independent populations that make up the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS, and one of the five extant populations (Klickitat 

River, Fifteenmile Creek, Rock Creek, Deschutes River Eastside, and Deschutes River 

Westside) and two extirpated populations (White Salmon River and Deschutes Crooked 

River) that make up the major population group (MPG) of the Cascades Eastern Slope 

Tributaries (Figure ES-3). Steelhead in this MPG occupy diverse habitats, generally 

those draining the eastern slopes of the Cascades and the Columbia Plateau. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xiii

Figure ES-3 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Populations and Major Population Groups. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xiv

Physical Setting

Rock Creek begins in the Simcoe Mountains, which form the subbasin’s northern border 

and the southern edge of the Yakama Indian Reservation. Major tributaries to Rock 

Creek include Badger Gulch, Harrison Creek, Luna Gulch, Quartz Creek and Squaw 

Creek. Lake Umatilla, the reservoir behind John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 

inundates the lower mile of Rock Creek. 

The drainage has a high basalt plateau and deeply incised canyons that reflect its 

underlying basalt geology. Headwater streams cross a relatively flat basalt plateau that is 

primarily forested and above known anadromous use, and then drop into steep-walled 

canyons where gradients increase to 2 to 4 percent or more. Flows in the subbasin’s 

canyon and alluvial reaches are considered flashy, rising and falling rapidly in response 

to precipitation and snowmelt. Snowmelt runoff from higher elevations appears to help 

sustain flows into early spring. Numerous springs also exist in the subbasin, most of 

which are located in the headwaters (Brown 1979). No flow regulation occurs in the 

drainage, although small amounts are diverted for stock watering. 

Lands in the Rock Creek subbasin remain generally undeveloped, with nearly 47 percent 

rangeland, 26 percent forestland, and 4 percent dry land agriculture. Forests cover the 

upper elevations, and the middle and lower watershed supports range and agricultural 

uses. No irrigated land was estimated to exist as of 2001 (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004). Developed land accounts for less than one percent of the subbasin area (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Rock Creek Steelhead Population 

Steelhead in Rock Creek are considered indigenous. Rock Creek is a natural production 

area, with no hatcheries located in the subbasin, although it is possible that some strays 

from outside hatchery sources enter Rock Creek. The stock is considered distinct from 

other mid-Columbia stocks based on geographic isolation of the spawning population 

(ICTRT 2003). 

Limited information exists on steelhead abundance in the Rock Creek drainage; however, 

some observations suggest that a significant number of steelhead may utilize the Rock 

Creek watershed in good water and ocean condition years. Surveys conducted by the 

Yakama Nation in lower Rock Creek in 2002, 2003 and 2004 show as many as 35 to 45 

steelhead redds per mile in the lower five miles, and extensive distribution of redds 

throughout the watershed. Steelhead spawner surveys conducted in 2008 found 2 to 3 

redds per mile (Glass 2009). More surveys are needed to determine steelhead abundance 

in the drainage. Efforts are underway to model the abundance and capacity within the 

watershed (J. Spencer, pers. comm. 2006). 

Historically, steelhead likely utilized virtually all of the major streams and tributaries of 

Rock Creek for some part of their life history. Spawning distribution probably included 

all accessible portions of the Rock Creek watershed. As now, the highest spawning 

densities likely occurred in the more complex, braided reaches of the lower mainstem of 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xv

Rock Creek, and in third- and fourth-order tributaries with moderate (1-4 percent) 

gradients (NPCC 2004). The headwaters of the mainstem and Box Canyon are generally 

above known anadromous fish use (NPCC 2004); however, live steelhead, redds and O. 

mykiss fry have been observed up to the falls in Box Canyon. 

All steelhead in the Columbia River Basin upstream of The Dalles Dam, including the 

Rock Creek population, are classified as summer-run fish (Chapman et al. 1994; ICTRT 

2009); however, Yakama Nation biologists suspect that a portion of the steelhead 

population in Rock Creek consists of winter-run fish. 

Recovery Goals and Criteria 

The primary goal of ESA recovery plans is for the species to reach the point that it no 

longer needs the protection of the Act – i.e. to be delisted. Delisting criteria are applied at 

the DPS level, and are based on determinations of the viability of the independent 

populations that make up the DPS. Criteria for delisting the Middle Columbia steelhead 

DPS are described in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan, to 

which this plan is an appendix. The primary goal of this plan is for the Rock Creek 

steelhead population to be restored to moderate risk, also called “maintained,” status and 

thus to support recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. 

Two kinds of criteria enter into a delisting decision: population or demographic 

parameters (the biological viability criteria) and “threats” criteria related to the five 

listing factors detailed in the ESA (see Section 1.1). The threats criteria define the 

conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or 

mitigated. Together these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required under 

section 4(f)(1)(B). Both kinds of criteria are discussed in Chapter 3. 

Biological Criteria 

The ICTRT developed biologically based viability criteria for ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Interior Columbia domain. The ICTRT based its approach to recovery 

on guidance from the NMFS Technical Memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and 

the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). This 

memorandum provides general direction for setting viability objectives at the ESU/DPS 

and component population levels. 

A viable salmonid population is defined as an independent population that has negligible 

(less than 5 percent) risk of extinction over a 100-year period (McElhany et al. 2000). 

The ICTRT criterion for a viable ESU/DPS is that all extant MPGs and any extirpated 

MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS should be at low risk. The ICTRT 

provided additional criteria for determining MPG viability (Section 3.2.1). The risk levels 

of the populations within the DPS collectively determine MPG viability and, in turn, the 

likely persistence of the DPS. However, it may not be necessary for all of the populations 

to attain the lowest risk level. There may be more than one way for a DPS to meet the 

viability criteria. The ICTRT called alternative combinations of population risk status that 

would meet the MPG and DPS-level criteria “recovery scenarios.” 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xvi

According to the ICTRT’s recovery scenario for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries 

MPG, the Rock Creek steelhead population should reach “moderate” risk status in order 

to support overall DPS viability. Moderate risk is defined as between 25 and 5 percent 

risk of extinction over a 100-year time period. 

The ICTRT classified the Rock Creek steelhead population as a “Basic” sized population, 

based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007b) and provided viability criteria for a 

Basic population, as follows (ICTRT 2007b): 

Abundance 

For a Basic population, viable status, i.e. a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over a 100-

year timeframe, would require a mean minimum abundance threshold of 500 naturally 

produced spawners. Maintained status or moderate (6 to 25 percent) risk would also 

require a mean minimum abundance of 500 naturally produced spawners because 

populations with fewer than 500 individuals are at higher risk for inbreeding depression 

and a variety of other genetic concerns (ICTRT 2007b). 

Productivity 

Productivity rates at relatively low numbers of spawners should, on average, be 

sufficiently greater than 1.0 to allow the population to rapidly return to abundance target 

levels. For a maintained/moderate risk Basic population at 500 naturally produced 

spawners, productivity should be at about 1.3. For the population to reach viable status 

(the 5 percent risk level), productivity should be >1.56. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

In general, the ICTRT defined two goals, or biological or ecological objectives, that 

spatial structure and diversity criteria should achieve (ICTRT 2007b): 

• Natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes should be maintained. 

• Natural patterns of variation should be maintained. 

Threats Criteria and Approach 

Section 3.2.2 of the Plan describes the listing factors and listing/threats criteria that must 

also be addressed to de-list the DPS. These listing factors are the features that were 

evaluated under section 4(a)(1) when the initial determination was made to list the 

species for protection under the ESA. 

At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS will use the listing factors/threats criteria to 

review the status of the section 4(a)(1) listing factors and determine if the affected DPS is 

recovered to the point that it no longer requires protections of the ESA. NMFS expects 

that if the proposed actions described in this and other Middle Columbia River steelhead 

recovery plans are implemented, they will make substantial progress toward meeting the 

listing factor/threats criteria. These criteria are identified in Section 3.3 and address the 

five listing factors that were evaluated under section 4(a)(1): 1) the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) over-utilization for 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xvii

commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 5) other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence. 

Current Status Assessment 

Chapter 4 summarizes the ICTRT’s viability assessment results for Rock Creek’s Middle 

Columbia River steelhead population. The ICTRT identified the Rock Creek steelhead 

population as a summer run within the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. It 

classified the population as a “basic” population based on historical habitat potential 

(ICTRT 2007b). 

• Abundance/Productivity: The ICTRT determined that, at present, no direct 

estimates of abundance and productivity are available for Rock Creek steelhead. 

There have been no systematic redd surveys in this population area; however, the 

general presence of steelhead has been documented. Because of the lack of direct 

information on current or indirect assessments of abundance and productivity, the 

ICTRT assigned the Rock Creek steelhead population High risk. 

• Spatial Structure and Diversity: The ICTRT gave the Rock Creek population a 

combined integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating of Moderate risk. Based 

on the ICTRT historical potential analysis, the team found that the Rock Creek 

population has a relatively simple population structure, containing a single major 

spawning area (MaSA). It determined that although observations indicate that 

steelhead spawning may occur across much of the historical range, the relatively 

simple population structure results in a moderate risk rating for complexity. It 

noted that there have likely been minor reductions in life history diversity and 

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

above low for this parameter. 

• Overall Risk Rating: The ICTRT concluded that the Rock Creek steelhead 

population does not currently meet viability criteria because the 

abundance/productivity parameter is assigned a High risk rating and the overall 

spatial structure/diversity parameter, Moderate risk. The lack of direct estimates 

of abundance and productivity for this population was a factor in assigning a high 

risk rating (ICTRT 2009). 

Limiting Factors and Threats 

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. Analysis of limiting factors and threats across the entire species’ life cycle forms 

the basis for designing recovery strategies and actions. NMFS defines limiting factors as 

the biological and physical conditions limiting DPS and population status (e.g. elevated 

water temperature), and defines threats as those human activities or naturally induced 

actions that cause the limiting factors (e.g. removal of riparian vegetation for agricultural 

or residential purposes, which causes loss of shade and, consequently, elevated water 

temperature). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xviii

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are typically legitimate human 

activities that may at times have unintended negative consequences on fish populations—

and that can also be managed in a way that minimizes or eliminates the negative impacts. 

For steelhead and other salmonids, survival to reproduce depends on a complex, 

interacting system of environmental conditions, with different conditions needed for each 

life stage. Optimal water temperature, for example, varies (within limits) for adult 

migration vs. egg incubation or juvenile rearing. In addition, the particular factors 

limiting production may vary across different sections of the tributary drainage used by a 

particular population. Data on a full range of potential limiting factors is rarely available 

at the reach level. 

The list of potential limiting factors for the Rock Creek steelhead population, as for the 

other populations that make up the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS, is based on a 

substantial body of research on salmonids, local field data and field observations, and the 

considered opinions of regional experts. These are implicitly hypothetical statements to 

be tested, made with the expectation that by taking action in the face of some degree of 

scientific uncertainty, monitoring the results, continuing to conduct research to further 

characterize the factors limiting the population, and adapting our management actions in 

response, the state of our knowledge will improve and so will the survival of these fish, 

although not necessarily in a directly parallel process. 

Freshwater Habitat 

Habitat factors (e.g. temperature) may limit steelhead production in the Rock Creek 

watershed and, to some extent past and/or current land use practices may constitute 

threats that stress naturally occurring conditions. For example, anthropogenic changes in 

the subbasin may have reduced stream shade in some reaches and thereby increased the 

intensity of low summer flows and high summer water temperatures that likely occur 

naturally in some parts of the watershed because of aspect, low precipitation and high 

width-to-depth ratios. 

The factors potentially limiting freshwater steelhead productivity within the Rock Creek 

watershed include degraded channel structure and complexity (lack of key habitat 

quantity and habitat diversity), riparian function and condition, and floodplain function 

and channel migration processes; low summer flows, high summer water temperatures, 

increased fine sediment, altered food web, predation, and competition with exotic species 

such as smallmouth bass. Section 5 provides more detail on limiting factors. 

• Hydrograph: Seasonally low to intermittent and/or subsurface stream flows are 

potentially a primary factor that limits steelhead production in the Rock Creek. 

The hydrograph in the Rock Creek system is naturally flashy, with high intensity, 

short duration flow. Currently, low to nonexistent flows in the mainstem and 

many tributaries during late summer, fall and early winter might limit juvenile 

steelhead production and mobility. In 2008, sufficient pool volume was available 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xix

to support an estimated population of 38,300 to 95,700 age-0 steelhead (Glass 

2009). 

• Stream temperature: Seasonally high water temperature is potentially a primary 

factor limiting steelhead production in the Rock Creek watershed (Glass 2009). 

Average daily summer water temperatures in the lower Rock Creek subbasin 

sometimes rise above 63.5°F (17.5°C), and in some reaches rise above 73.4°F 

(23.9°C) (Aspect Consulting 2005), a level considered potentially lethal for 

steelhead and other salmonids (Glass 2009). One headwater reach of Rock Creek 

is listed on the Washington State Department of Ecology’s 2008 water quality 

assessment (303(d) list as impaired, Category 5 (Washington Department of 

Ecology 2008). 

• Riparian function and condition: Rock Creek’s rocky substrate and steep 

topography inhibit riparian forest stand development along many reaches. 

However, current riparian condition and function in some sections of Rock Creek 

have been disturbed due to wildfires, recent major flood events, past and current 

grazing, historical timber practices, road construction, and/or other land uses. 

Despite these influences, the amount of vegetation in the valley bottom has been 

increasing steadily since 1938, presumably due to fire suppression (Aspect 

Consulting 2005). 

• Channel structure and complexity: Findings from a reconnaissance survey of 

portions of Rock Creek indicate that the creek’s general channel characteristics 

may be similar to those noted in a 1860s survey (e.g., broad rocky reaches), with 

the exception that the lowermost reach may be somewhat wider today than 

historically (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). In-channel and riparian habitats 

in some stream reaches may be degraded because of disturbance from grazing, 

historic timber harvest, road construction, and other anthropogenic changes, and 

from major flood events. Inundation of the one-mile reach above Rock Creek’s 

mouth by the pool behind John Day Dam (Columbia River) has altered key 

habitat quantity and complexity. 

• Floodplain function and channel migration processes: The effects from several 

threats locally influence channel migration processes and morphology. Bridges 

on the Bickleton Highway (scheduled for replacement) and Old Highway 8 

locally constrain flow and channel migration processes. The stream channel in 

lower Rock Creek is highly dynamic and moves across the valley bottom with 

regularity, often switching channels during flood flows (Aspect Consulting 2005). 

One of the more dynamic sections of the stream channel is upstream of the Old 

Highway 8 Bridge, where the channel changed courses many times over the 

period of photo record, and has distinctly different courses in 1938, 1969, 1996, 

and 2002 (Aspect Consulting 2005). This section of the creek also is one of the 

least densely vegetated along the mainstem of Rock Creek (Aspect Consulting 

2005), reflecting the dynamic nature of the channel. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xx

• Sediment routing: Sediment loads (the percentage of fines in spawning gravel, 

embeddedness and turbidity) in the Rock Creek subbasin may have increased over 

historical conditions; however, recent data indicates that the percent fines in 

spawning gravels is within a range that is unlikely to significantly affect survival 

of eggs and alevins in redds (Glass 2009). 

• Competition for food sources: Changes in the hydrologic regime and riparian 

conditions could potentially affect the food web. No data are available regarding 

food sources in Rock Creek. 

• Predation and competition: The building of the John Day Dam and subsequent 

inundation of the bottom mile of Rock Creek introduced exotic piscivorous fish 

such as smallmouth bass and channel catfish to the lower mile and reservoir and 

made it possible for these fish to travel up Rock Creek. Exotic piscivorous 

species have been observed in Rock Creek up to approximately one mile above 

the Old Hwy. 8 bridge (RM 3.5-4) (G. Morris, pers. comm. 2006). However, no 

exotic fish were observed upstream of the inundated area of the creek during 

snorkel surveys conducted in 2008 (Glass 2009). 

Harvest 

Without more data on Rock Creek steelhead abundance, and without targeted tagging of 

Rock Creek fish, the percentage of Rock Creek steelhead that are harvested in the 

Columbia River cannot be specifically calculated. However, it may be inferred that Rock 

Creek steelhead are subject to the same relatively low overall harvest rate estimated for 

other Middle Columbia steelhead. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2008) 

estimates that in 2002, tributary fisheries in the Rock Creek area affected about 

1 percent of the adult steelhead and less than 1 percent of the juvenile steelhead. 

Mainstem non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries have an estimated impact of 

1.6 percent of the A-run Middle Columbia steelhead (NMFS 2008a), and mainstem treaty 

fisheries have an estimate 6.64 percent impact (NMFS 2008a) for an overall estimated 

harvest impact of less than 10.24 percent. 

Hatcheries 

Steelhead are not stocked in Rock Creek, and very few fin-clipped steelhead have been 

seen in the subbasin. Hatchery strays of upriver origin may enter and spawn in Rock 

Creek, but the effects of out-of-subbasin hatchery programs on the Rock Creek steelhead 

population are unknown. Nevertheless straying, especially by non-indigenous hatchery 

steelhead, remains a concern. 

Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors and Threats 

Out-of-subbasin factors are discussed briefly in Section 5.3 and provide information on 

the influences from harvest, the Columbia River hydrosystem, and ocean conditions. The 

2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b) details the influences from the 

Columbia River hydrosystem on Middle Columbia steelhead populations. The Columbia 

River Estuary Module http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxi

Recovery -Plans/upload/Estuary-Module.pdf discusses factors that limit viability of Rock 

Creek steelhead in the Columbia River Estuary. 

Recovery Strategy and Actions 

In Chapter 6, a recovery strategy is described to address the significant data gaps and 

uncertainties regarding the status of the Rock Creek steelhead population and to address 

the potential limiting factors based on the existing, best available science. In addition, 

Appendix II details the many efforts already underway to improve and protect watershed 

conditions in the Rock Creek subbasin—efforts that will benefit salmonids as well as 

other wildlife and human communities.

The overall aim of the recovery strategy is to gather needed data on the Rock Creek 

steelhead population and the watershed, while also addressing the potential limiting 

factors in a manner that is most likely to contribute to improved viability. The strategies 

and actions were defined through review and analysis of currently available information. 

They are consistent with actions identified in the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem 

Subbasin (including Rock Creek) Management Plan (NPCC 2004), and address risks 

identified in the ICTRT’s viability assessment for the population. A collaboratively 

designed implementation program that includes a research, monitoring, and evaluation 

(RM&E) plan to support adaptive management will allow managers the flexibility to 

continue or change course in response to new information. 

Gather Information on VSP Parameters

Information on population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity is 

needed to set priorities and determine the actions that will make the greatest contribution 

to steelhead recovery. Needed actions include initiating systematic surveys to calculate 

abundance and productivity, completing a gap analysis, characterizing spatial distribution 

and genetic variation, and evaluating hatchery contribution to naturally spawning 

steelhead in the Rock Creek subbasin. 

Protect and Conserve Existing Good Quality Habitat

Protecting existing good quality habitat is a high priority. Many objectives are likely to 

be met through habitat protection and the associated natural recovery of upland and 

riparian areas. Protection and maintenance includes compliance with existing rules and 

regulations, such as the State Forest Practices Act, the State Shorelines Act, and other 

State, County, and local regulations designed to protect aquatic habitat. Protection may 

also incorporate a wide range of voluntary actions such as fencing riparian areas, 

participation in the various agricultural land reserve programs, and voluntarily 

implementing programs that help to avoid impacts to aquatic resources. Land 

acquisitions, easements, cooperative agreements, and protective land designations can 

also be used to facilitate high quality habitat protection. 

Restore and Enhance Habitat and Gather Information 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxii

Restoration and enhancement of habitat conditions for salmon and steelhead populations 

should improve population production. The value of these actions to the viability of the 

population will depend on whether or not they address the factors currently limiting the 

population or threats associated with factors that are now, or are trending toward, 

becoming limiting, e.g. climate change. The success of these strategies is further 

enhanced when actions build from existing restoration efforts and incorporate a range of 

project types. 

• Conduct research to further evaluate factors and threats limiting habitat diversity 

in the Rock Creek watershed. This information is needed to prioritize and focus 

restoration and enhancement activities. 

• Improve instream flow during critical periods. The seasonally low to intermittent 

stream flow in the area of steelhead distribution upstream of the Columbia River 

backwater is a likely limiting factor on abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity. Low flow can result in stranding and mortality to eggs or juvenile 

steelhead. Further study is required to determine causes of low flow, whether 

anthropogenic or natural, and options to enhance stream flow. 

• Improve water quality, reduce summer high temperatures. Water temperature is 

directly related to riparian vegetative cover and other watershed characteristics 

such as channel complexity, floodplain function, and upland processes. Hence, 

many types of habitat actions are likely to function together to improve water 

quality, particularly water temperature. The more directly related actions to 

improve water quality include the following: 

o Restore riparian vegetative cover with appropriate native vegetation to 

increase shading. 

o Develop sediment control basins. 

o Manage livestock grazing in the riparian areas. 

o Increase deep pool habitat. 

• Improve/restore riparian function and condition. Actions to address this potential 

limiting factor include the following: 

o Restore riparian vegetative cover with appropriate native vegetation. 

o Manage livestock grazing in riparian areas. 

o Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas. 

o Relocate beaver to suitable areas. 

• Increase key habitat by improving or restoring channel structure and complexity. 

Key habitat, as described in Chapter 5, refers to characteristics such as riffles, 

pools, suitably aerated gravel, etc. that are essential to each steelhead life stage. 

The following actions would increase key habitat: 

o Introduce large woody debris (LWD) and other structures in stream as 

appropriate. 

o Improve riparian vegetation to provide future source of LWD. 

o Stabilize and protect stream banks. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxiii

o Fertilize streams with fish carcasses. 

• Improve and/or restore floodplain function and channel migration processes. 

Reconnecting floodplain habitats and side channels would provide additional 

sheltered rearing areas. Increasing LWD and other actions such as relocating 

floodplain infrastructure where feasible, implementing road management BMPs 

or decommissioning roads as appropriate, could restore floodplain function, 

moderate the “flashiness” of the stream, and moderate peak flows. 

• Improve or restore optimal sediment processes. Watershed processes of runoff 

and sediment production can be improved through restoring native upland plant 

communities, implementing appropriate upland management practices, managing 

off-road vehicle usage to reduce erosion and fine sediment, and managing roads 

to reduce fine sediment inputs to the stream. 

• Conduct research to determine status of food web and presence or absence of 

competition from other species for food resources. 

• Conduct research to determine presence and extent of predation on steelhead by 

non-native species such as piscivorous fish. 

Review and Reduce Effects of Harvest

As described in Chapter 5, only adipose fin-clipped steelhead are allowed to be retained 

in sport or recreational fisheries in Rock Creek and throughout the Columbia River, but 

wild steelhead may be accidentally caught and/or retained. Poaching is also considered a 

problem. Actions to address harvest effects include better review of current practices, 

enforcement of regulations, and considering whether any modifications are needed. 

Outreach and education to reduce retention or handling mortality is also recommended. 

Research Effects of Hatchery Fish (If Any)

As described in Chapter 5, hatchery strays of upriver origin may enter and spawn in Rock 

Creek, but no data are available on this issue. Monitoring for hatchery fish should be 

included in the RM & E program to be developed collaboratively after this plan is 

adopted. 

Address Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors

Out-of-subbasin limiting factors for Rock Creek steelhead may include hydroelectric 

operations, harvest, interactions with hatchery fish, predation, food, disease, competition, 

and ocean conditions. Actions to address these factors for all Middle Columbia steelhead 

are presented in the Columbia River Estuary Module (NMFS 2007b) and the 2008 

FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b), summarized in the Hydro Module (NMFS 

2008c). Table ES-1 summarizes the recovery strategy designed to improve the viability 

of Rock Creek steelhead. The table links strategies and actions to the factors and threats 

potentially limiting steelhead viability in the subbasin, and the viability parameters and 

life stages that would be most affected. Priority locations are provided for some 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxiv

strategies, with stream reaches or areas where actions should be applied first to gain the 

greatest benefit. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxv

Table ES-1. Recovery Strategy and Actions for the Rock Creek Population of Middle Columbia Steelhead.

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Gather information on population size and productivity 

• Gather information to calculate 

abundance and productivity estimates 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A N/A ab

pro

Gather information on population spatial structure and diversity 

• Conduct surveys to determine 

steelhead distribution. 

• Identify major life history 

strategies 

• Conduct studies to address 

genetic variation in the population 

• Assess the contribution of 

hatchery-origin steelhead to the natural spawning population 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A N/A sp

an

Gather information to further evaluate habitat limiting factors and threats in the basin 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat quantity. 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat quality. 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat function. 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A All life stages Al

pa

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support steelhead viability throughout the life cycle 

• Apply BMPs to livestock grazing 

practices 

• Apply BMPs to road system 

management 

• Apply BMPs to agricultural 

practices to control erosion and runoff 

• Manage stream corridor through 

conservation easements and/or land acquisition from willing sellers 

• Adopt and manage cooperative 

agreements 

Throughout watershed 

Key habitat quality and diversity, sediment inputs, water quality, stream flow 

Road and grazing management activities 

All life stages ab

prospan
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxvi

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Improve instream flow during critical periods 

• Most of the actions listed in other 

categories are likely to improve stream flow. 

• Protect springs 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, upper watershed 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia, altered food web 

Road and grazing management, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve water quality, reduce summer water temperatures 

• Restore riparian vegetative cover 

with suitable native vegetation to increase shading 

• Restore natural habitat functions 

and processes through actions previously identified 

• Develop sediment control basins • Management livestock grazing in 

the riparian areas 

• Increase deep pool habitat 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, upper watershed 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia 

Road and grazing management,, particularly in riparian areas, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve and/or restore riparian function and condition 

• Restore riparian vegetation cover 

with appropriate native vegetation 

• Manage grazing in riparian areas • Eradicate invasive plant species 

from riparian areas 

• Relocate beaver to suitable areas 

Rock Cr. Below unnamed trib. at RM 19.2, Luna Gulch, lower Squaw Cr. 

Hydrology, channel stability, fine sediment, water quality, key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, riparian vegetation 

Road and grazing management activities 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve and/or restore channel structure and complexity 

• Introduce LWD and other 

structure in stream as appropriate 

• Improve riparian vegetation to 

provide future source of LWD 

• Stabilize and protect stream banks • Fertilize streams with fish 

carcasses 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, headwater streams 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia, altered food web 

Road and grazing management, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve and/or restore floodplain function and 

• Reconnect floodplain habitats • Reconnect side channels 

Rock Cr. Below 

Channel morphology, 

Road and grazing 

Juvenile rearing stage 

abpro
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxvii

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

channel migration processes 

• Increase role and abundance of 

wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

• Relocate floodplain infrastructure, 

roads; improve maintenance, rehabilitate, decommission as appropriate 

• Remove dikes • Relocate beaver to suitable areas 

unnamed trib. at RM 19.2, Luna Gulch, lower Squaw Cr. 

habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, riparian vegetation, fine sediments, flow, water temperature 

management activities 

Address upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff 

• Restore native upland plant 

communities 

• Implement upland management 

practices to restore natural runoff and sediment production 

• Implement off-road vehicle 

management actions that reduce erosion and fine sediment 

• Implement road management 

actions that reduce fine sediment inputs 

Upper watershed 

Hydrology, channel stability, fine sediment, water quality, key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, riparian vegetation 

Road and grazing management activities and off-road vehicles 

Egg, fry ab

pro

Review and reduce effects of harvest on the Rock Creek steelhead population 

• Review the need for 

modifications to sport, tribal, and commercial harvest practices on direct catch and by-catch 

• Increase outreach efforts to 

reduce the number of steelhead caught in recreational fisheries near the mouth of Rock Creek 

All fishing areas in the basin, the Columbia River, and off-shore 

Direct mortality Harvest Adult 

migrants 

ab

Research and reduce hatchery effects on the Rock Creek steelhead population 

• Reduce the uncertainty of origin 

of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatcheryorigin fish 

• Monitor the potential for hatchery 

strays entering Rock Creek 

• Increase the proportion of 

Columbia River Basin hatchery steelhead marked with coded-wire 

Columbia River and anadromous reaches of Rock Creek 

Competition, genetic introgression 

Hatchery releases 

Juvenile and adult 

abspstrdiv
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxviii

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

tags, especially in programs shown to stray at high rates in the past, and support the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead releases with, at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip 

Reduce competition with and predation by nonnative piscivores 

• Reduce the number of non-native 

predators 

Columbia River and mouth of Rock Creek 

Predation Non-native 

species 

fry and juvenile 

abpro

Reduce mortality and/or improve passage at hydroelectric facilities 

• Implement strategies and actions 

in the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b) 

Columbia River 

Passage, predation, direct mortality 

Hydroelectric plants 

juvenile and adult 

ab

1 Expected response of action implementation ─ including how long for action to achieve full effectiveness 2BLM=Bureau of Land Management, Ecology=Washington Department of Ecology, KC=Klickitat County, KCCD=Klickitat County Conservation Districts, NRCS=Natio

Service, Private=private landowners and businesses, TNC=The Natural Conservancy, WDFW=Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, WRIA31 PU = WRIA 31 Pl

Nation, MNFS=National Marine Fisheries Service, ODFW=Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxix

Implementation 

Implementation of this plan depends on the voluntary actions and cooperation of local 

entities and citizen groups. An important part of implementation will be working 

cooperatively to develop an implementation schedule that includes site-specific actions 

and a detailed research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) plan addressing the 

information needs described in Chapter 8. A detailed RM&E plan should be developed 

collaboratively after the Rock Creek recovery plan is adopted. 

NMFS has worked independently with the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Klickitat County, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for the 

Rock Creek steelhead population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning group 

for the Washington Gorge Management Unit, a forum or entity that would take 

responsibility for coordinating implementation of the plan. Implementing the proposed 

recovery actions for steelhead in the Washington Gorge Management Unit, including the 

Rock Creek subbasin, would be a primary task for a Washington Gorge Area Regional 

Board, subject to concurrence by state, tribal, and local governments and the opportunity 

for involvement and comment by the public. 

In addition to their co-management responsibility and key role on a Gorge recovery board 

(if one is formed), the Yakama Nation will play an important role during implementation 

because of their funding agreement under the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, which are 

three Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) entered into between the Federal Columbia 

River Power System (FCRPS) action agencies (Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation), four tribes, and one state. The 

most relevant MOA to the Middle Columbia River steelhead is with the Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the three treaty fishing tribes—Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; 

and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. The MOAs are 10-year action 

agency commitments for projects to benefit fish affected by the FCRPS, with a focus on 

ESA-listed fish. The projects will be reviewed through the Northwest Power Act 

processes for implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program, administered by the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The agreement secures approximately 

$200,000 per year for habitat actions, including project management, in the Rock Creek 

subbasin. Some of the projects listed in Table 7.1 will be implemented with these funds. 

Cost Estimates 

There are existing Federal, tribal, state, county, and other local programs that are being 

carried out in the Rock Creek subbasin. Many of those programs are described in 

Appendix II. This plan assumes that those existing programs are funded, and will 

continue to be. At this time, this plan provides only additional incremental costs that 

would be incurred with implementation of this recovery plan. Total time and cost of 

recovery is estimated for the DPS as a whole and is iincorporated into Chapter 8 of the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan. As implementation proceeds and 

implementation schedules are developed, the costs of both existing programs and new 

incremental costs of this recovery plan will be included in those schedules. If existing 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

xxx

programs are not funded, funding will be identified as a need in the implementation 

schedule and the cost estimates for the recovery plan adjusted accordingly. 

In this chapter, cost estimates are provided for an extensive and reach-specific set of 

potential habitat actions that will be refined and prioritized in the implementation 

process. NMFS, in coordination with the Yakama Nation, developed these cost estimates 

for a range of habitat improvement/restoration actions that may be necessary to address 

limiting factors and improve viability of the Rock Creek steelhead population. These 

costs, presented in Table 7-1 (in Chapter 7), are general range summaries. Habitat action 

costs for recovery over a 10-year time period are estimated to be up to $1.8 million ($0.9 

million for years 1-5). The actions listed in Table 7-1 do not include or account for 

RM&E (Section 6.1.1), because those costs will be developed as part of implementation 

planning, nor do they account for tributary fishery harvest management and enforcement 

activities (Section 6.1.4), which are considered existing programs, nor for costs of out-ofsubbasin effects, which are addressed through other programs (Section 6.1.6). 

RM&E and Adaptive Management Framework 

Comprehensive, empirical monitoring data on fish populations and habitat are needed to 

identify appropriate projects and locations, populate habitat/production capacity 

modeling efforts (such as EDT, AHA, or other appropriate models), and inform adaptive 

management for the salmonid recovery plan. Information on fish distribution, 

abundance, productivity, habitat conditions, genetic diversity, pathogen levels, and other 

population parameters, as well as on population limiting factors, is necessary to help 

direct and evaluate these efforts. A coordinated monitoring program is needed to ensure 

that these various needs, including salmonid recovery planning, are met. 

As part of implementing the Rock Creek steelhead recovery plan, a detailed monitoring 

and evaluation program will be collaboratively designed and incorporated into an 

adaptive management framework based on the principles and concepts laid out in the 

NMFS’ guidance document, Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and 

Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance (NMFS 2007a) 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. The Rock Creek subbasin monitoring and 

evaluation program will build on existing programs designed for monitoring tributary 

habitat in the Rock Creek subbasin and will emphasize regional coordination. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

1

1. Introduction 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to develop recovery plans for species listed under the Act. The purpose 

of recovery plans is to identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered 

species to the point that they are again self-sustaining elements of their ecosystems and 

no longer need the protections of the ESA. 

This plan focuses on the conservation and survival of Middle Columbia River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Rock Creek subbasin, which encompasses an area of 223.2 

sq. miles (578.1 sq. km) in southeastern Washington and joins the Columbia River at RM 

230, about 12 miles upstream of John Day Dam (Figure 1-1). Lake Umatilla, the 

reservoir behind the dam, inundates the lower mile of Rock Creek. 

Figure 1-1 Rock Creek Subbasin. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

2

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

species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common name of the non-anadromous, or resident, 

form is rainbow trout. When NMFS originally listed the species as threatened on March 

25, 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was classified as an “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU) of 

salmonids that included both forms. Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations 

for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, delineating anadromous, steelhead-only 

“distinct population segments” (DPS) (Good et al. 2005). NMFS listed the Middle 

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

trout are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The DPS 

is made up of steelhead populations in Oregon and Washington tributaries of the 

Columbia River upstream of the Hood and Wind River systems, up to and including the 

Yakima River. Reasons for listing the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS included 

low returns to the Yakima River, poor abundance estimates for Klickitat River and 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead, and an overall decline of naturally producing 

“stocks” within the DPS. 

NMFS developed this recovery plan with involvement and input from the Yakama 

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

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

governments, and the public. While NMFS is directly responsible for ESA recovery 

planning for salmon and steelhead, NMFS believes that ESA recovery plans for salmon 

and steelhead should be based on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private 

conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. Local support of recovery 

plans by those whose activities directly affect the listed species, and whose actions will 

be most affected by recovery efforts, is essential. NMFS therefore supports and 

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

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

1.1 Purpose of Plan 

This Plan provides a roadmap for restoring the Rock Creek steelhead population and its 

habitats to a level that supports recovery of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 

and allows the population to become a viable component of its ecosystem. The Plan is a 

guidance document. It describes the current status of the Rock Creek population and its 

habitat, and summarizes the results of a technical assessment of the population’s viability. 

The Plan also identifies the factors and threats potentially affecting the population and 

proposes strategies and actions designed to aid in the population’s recovery. Finally, the 

Plan provides an implementation and adaptive management framework for making 

needed future adjustments on the road to recovery. 

1.1.1 ESA Requirements 

Section 4(f) of the ESA requires that a recovery plan be developed and implemented for 

species listed as endangered or threatened under the statute. 

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

in recovery plans: 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

3

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

habitat or range 

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

C. Disease or predation 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence 

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

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

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

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

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

list; and; 

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

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

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

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

and the science underlying those conclusions (NMFS Interim Recovery Planning 

Guidance, 2007). 

Once a species is deemed recovered and therefore removed from a listed status, section 

4(g) of the ESA requires the monitoring of the species for a period of not less than five 

years to ensure that it retains its recovered status. 

1.1.2 Coordination with Others

The Plan aims to provide consistency among related recovery planning and management 

efforts, including NMFS’ Federal treaty and trust responsibilities and the many state and 

local entities involved in salmon recovery. 

Federal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities 

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

harvestable salmon and steelhead. Achieving the basic purposes of the ESA such that the 

species no longer needs the protection of the Act may not by itself fully meet these rights 

and expectations, although it will lead to major improvements in the current situation. 

Ensuring a sufficient abundance of salmon to sustain harvest can be an important element 

in fulfilling trust and treaty rights as well as garnering public support for these plans. 

It is NMFS policy that recovery of salmonid populations must achieve two goals: (1) the 

recovery and delisting of salmonids listed under the provisions of the ESA, and (2) the 

restoration of the meaningful exercise of tribal fishing rights. “It is the agency’s view that 

there is no conflict between the statutory goals of the ESA and Federal trust responsibility 

to Indian tribes” (Letter from Terry Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

4

Atmosphere, to Ted Strong, Executive Director, Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 

July 21, 1998). Additionally, NMFS “will continue to join with states and tribes to 

develop a comprehensive approach to the restoration of fish and wildlife resources in a 

manner that fulfills all obligations under Federal law, including trust obligations to Indian 

tribes” (ibid.). 

Thus, it is appropriate for recovery plans to take these considerations into account and 

plan for a recovery strategy that includes harvest. In some cases, the desired abundances 

for harvest may come about through increases in the naturally spawning population. In 

others, the recovery strategy may include appropriate use of hatcheries to support a 

portion of the harvest. So long as the overall plan is likely to achieve the biological 

recovery of the listed ESU, it will be acceptable as a recovery plan. 

Treaty Indian fishing rights in the Columbia basin are under the continuing jurisdiction of 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in the case of United States v. Oregon, 

No. 68-513 (filed in 1968). The parties to U.S. v. Oregon are the United States acting 

through the Department of Interior (USFWS and Bureau of Indian Affairs) and 

Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service), the Warm Springs, 

Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the states of Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho. In U.S. v. Oregon, the Court affirmed that the treaties reserved 

for the tribes 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of fish destined to pass through their 

usual and accustomed fishing areas. 

The Rock Creek subbasin is part of the Yakama Nation’s ceded area, and home to the 

Rock Creek Band of the Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakama Nation. Yakama 

Nation staff developed much of the data on the Rock Creek population. The Yakama 

Nation is voluntarily participating in recovery planning and implementation in the Rock 

Creek subbasin and throughout its ceded area as a sovereign with treaty-reserved rights 

on and off the reservation, and as a fish and wildlife co-manager. In so doing, Yakama 

Nation does not waive or in any way alter its treaty-reserved rights. 

Other Federal, State and Local Responsibilities 

To ensure consistency in goals, strategies, and actions and to eliminate needless 

duplication of effort, the process aims to provide consistency between planning for ESA 

recovery, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) fish and wildlife 

program, the State of Washington watershed management and salmon recovery 

programs, and local planning and regulatory efforts. 

 

The Plan follows ESA guidelines and builds upon direction for Rock Creek in the Lower 

Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004), which included information 

provided by Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other 

Federal, state, and local entities. The NPCC adopted the subbasin plan into its Fish and 

Wildlife Program. Additional scientific data are drawn from other more recent sources, 

including technical products for WRIA 31 and those developed by the technical recovery 

team appointed by NMFS for the Interior Columbia recovery domain. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

5

1.2 Context of Plan Development

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

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

Northwest Region designated five geographically based “recovery domains”: Interior 

Columbia; Willamette-Lower Columbia; Puget Sound and Washington Coast; the Oregon 

Coast; and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast. The range of the Middle 

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

Interior Columbia domain (the other Interior Columbia sub-domains are the Snake River 

and Upper Columbia). Similar opportunities for technical and stakeholder involvement 

exist in each domain. 

1.2.1 Technical Recovery Teams

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

and species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The 

charge of each Technical Recovery Team (TRT) is to define ESU/DPS structures, 

develop recommendations on biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its 

component populations, provide scientific support to local and regional recovery 

planning efforts, and provide scientific evaluations of proposed recovery plans. The 

Interior Columbia TRT (ICTRT) included biologists from NMFS, states, tribes, and 

academic institutions. 

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

for ESU/DPS and population viability criteria – criteria to be used, along with criteria 

based on mitigation of the factors for decline, to determine whether a species has 

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

NMFS technical memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). Viable salmonid populations 

(VSP) are defined in terms of four parameters: abundance, population productivity or 

growth rate, population spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally 

self-sustaining, with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year time period. Each 

TRT made recommendations using the VSP framework, based on data availability, the 

unique biological characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, and the 

members’ collective experience and expertise. Although NMFS encouraged the TRTs to 

develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors 

limiting recovery, all the TRTs worked from a common scientific foundation. 

1.2.2 Planning Forums

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

develop planning forums that build to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led 

recovery efforts. NMFS defined “management units” based on jurisdictional boundaries 

as well as areas where citizen planning efforts were underway. The Mid-Columbia 

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

into three planning areas, White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; (3) Yakima 

subbasin; and (4) Southeast Washington. These management units have active planning 

and implementation forums, with the exception of the Washington Gorge Management. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

6

In the Washington Gorge Management Unit, NMFS has worked independently with the 

Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Klickitat 

County, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for the Rock Creek steelhead 

population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning forum for the Washington 

Gorge Management Unit. 

Several small tributaries to the Columbia River drain areas in eastern Washington State 

upstream of Rock Creek. These tributaries are included in the Washington Gorge 

Management Unit. There is evidence of steelhead spawning in some of them, but very 

little data are available. Appendix I summarizes the available information about these 

tributaries as it relates to recovery of Middle Columbia steelhead. NMFS considers 

investigating these areas lower priority than restoring the core populations of the DPS, 

but includes a description of the areas because they are in the management unit and may 

be of interest to scientists and stakeholders at some future date. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

7

Figure 1-2 NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS. 

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use this Plan

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they 

are important tools that help to do the following: 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

8

• Provide context for regulatory decisions. 

• Guide decision making by Federal, state, Tribal, and local jurisdictions. 

• Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions. 

• Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions. 

• Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. 

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery 

plans under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and 

allocate their resources: 

• Actions carried out to meet section 7(a)(1) obligations to use their programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of the ESA and to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species 

• Actions that are subject to ESA sections 4d, 7(a)(2), or 10 

• Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and permit requests 

• Harvest plans and permits 

• Selection and prioritization of subbasin planning actions 

• Development of research, monitoring, and evaluation programs 

• Revision of land use and resource management plans 

• Other natural resource decisions at the state, Tribal, and local levels 

NMFS will emphasize recovery plan information in ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations, 

section 10 permit development, and application of the section 4(d) rule by considering: 

• The importance of affected populations to listed species viability 

• The importance of the action area to affected populations and species viability 

• The relation of the action to recovery strategies and management actions 

• The relation of the action to the research, monitoring, and evaluation plan for the 

affected species 

In implementing these programs, recovery plans will be used as a reference and a source 

of context, expectations, and goals. NMFS staff will encourage the Federal “action 

agencies” to describe in their biological assessments how, within the action area, their 

proposed actions will affect individuals of specific populations and limiting factors 

identified in the recovery plans, and to describe any mitigating measures and voluntary 

recovery activities in the action area. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

9

2. Biological Background

This chapter describes habitat and population characteristics for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead in the Rock Creek subbasin, and also fills in some important background on 

salmonid biological structure. 

2.1 Physical Setting

Rock Creek joins the Columbia River at RM 230, about 12 miles upstream of John Day 

Dam. The watershed encompasses an area of 223.2 sq. miles (578.1 sq. km). Lake 

Umatilla, the reservoir behind the dam, inundates the lower mile of Rock Creek. 

Headwater tributaries of Rock Creek flow out of the Simcoe Mountains, which form the 

subbasin’s northern border and the southern edge of the Yakama Indian Reservation. 

Major tributaries to Rock Creek include Badger Gulch, Harrison Creek, Luna Gulch, 

Quartz Creek, White Creek and Squaw Creek (Figure 2-1). 

Figure 2-1. Geology and Stream Location of Rock Creek 

Subbasin (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

10

The entirety of the Rock Creek subbasin is located within Klickitat County, and the 

subbasin’s population, as of the 2000 census, was 503 persons. It is also part of the area 

the Yakama Nation ceded to the United States in the Treaty of 1855, while reserving 

fishing, hunting and gathering rights, among other rights and responsibilities. In the 

lower and eastern portions of the watershed, the Yakama Nation and its members own a 

significant amount of trust allotments. 

Lands in the Rock Creek subbasin remain largely undeveloped, with nearly 47 percent 

rangeland, 26 percent forestland, and 4 percent dry land agriculture (Figure 2-2). Most 

forestland exists at upper elevations; range and agricultural lands generally cover the 

middle and lower watershed. No irrigated land was estimated to exist as of 2001 (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). Developed land accounts for less than one percent of the 

subbasin area (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004), little of which is in the floodplain 

(http://klickitatcounty.org/Road/ContentROne.asp?fContentIdSelected=455695186&fCat

egoryIdSelected=948111261). Deeply incised canyons with narrow valley floors make 

up most of the upper portions of the fish-bearing tributaries. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

11

Figure 2-2. Land Use in the Rock Creek subbasin (Adapted from Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). 

2.1.1 Topography 

The Rock Creek drainage has a steep topography; approximately 20 percent of the area 

has side slopes greater than 100 percent (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). This is 

reflected in the subbasin’s great stream velocities and erosion potential. The underlying 

basalt geology also creates several potential barriers to upstream movement of adult 

anadromous fish, including partial barriers on Quartz Creek (RM 2.4) and upper 

mainstem Rock Creek (RM 19.4, RM 20.7, RM 22.7), as well as barriers on the upper 

Rock Creek mainstem (RM 23.1). A falls in Box Canyon (RM 0.3) is likely the only 

currently impassable barrier under most flow conditions (Greg Morris, pers. comm. 

2006). No complete barriers (natural or manmade) to steelhead passage were identified 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

12

during a habitat survey conducted in 2008 within the area delineated as steelhead 

distribution (Glass 2009); however, not all of the area was surveyed, and barriers could 

exist in the unsurveyed portions of the basin. The average Rock Creek basin elevation is 

2,162 feet (maximum 4,728 feet, minimum 266 feet) (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004). 

Streams in the Rock Creek subbasin share many similar geomorphic characteristics. 

From the headwaters, the streams cross a relatively flat basalt plateau at gradients of 

generally less than 1 percent. Headwater and plateau areas are primarily forested and 

presumed to be above most anadromous use. Coming off the plateau, streams enter 

steep-walled canyons where gradients increase to 2-4 percent or more, and substrates 

consist of gravel, cobbles, and boulders. Although limited by narrow floodplains, 

riparian vegetation in the canyon reaches is often of relatively good quality (Glass 2009). 

Suitable spawning gravel and rearing areas (pools) are intermittent and limited by 

geomorphic conditions. Downstream of the canyon reaches, streams flow through 

alluvial valleys that support agriculture and range uses. Gradients in these reaches 

generally drop from between 1 percent and 2 percent near the upper end to less than 1 

percent as streams approach the Columbia River (Lautz 2000). 

In several reaches of the lower river, large quantities of rock have been deposited where 

the grade breaks (Glass 2009). Through these avulsed areas, the channel is not well 

defined and often changes course during major flood events. The riparian vegetation 

along the creek in the avulsed area is sparse, largely due to the naturally unstable 

condition of the channel in those reaches. In the rest of the lower Rock Creek basin, 

riparian vegetation is highly variable (Aspect Consulting 2005). Substrate in alluvial 

reaches is dominated by gravel and cobble (Glass 2009). 

2.1.2 Hydrology

Average annual precipitation in Rock Creek is 16.2 inches (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004). Flows in the subbasin’s canyon and alluvial reaches are considered flashy, rising 

and falling rapidly in response to precipitation and snowmelt. Snowmelt runoff from 

higher elevations appears to help sustain flows into early spring. Aspect Consulting and 

WPN 2004 report that the streams have eroded into and dissected the underlying basalt 

unit, which has resulted in truncated basalt interflow zones, such that the aquifer units are 

discontinuous and disconnected from recharge sources. The water flowing in these 

discontinuous aquifer zones discharges along seepage faces in the canyons (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). Numerous springs in the subbasin also discharge 

groundwater through the incised underlying basalt. These springwater releases may 

provide important cool water refuges for juvenile salmonids during the summer and early 

fall when stream flows are at their lowest and stream temperatures are high (NPCC 

2004). The releases, however, are generally insufficient to sustain continuous stream 

flows in the lower subbasin during the dry season (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

No flow regulation occurs in the drainage, although small amounts of water are diverted 

for stock watering. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

13

Stream flow data are very limited for the subbasin and consist of historical information 

(presence or absence of flow) collected by the General Land Office in the 1860s (reported 

in Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004), USGS recorded flows from 1962 to 1968, 

incomplete staff gauge data being collected by the Yakama Nation since 2005, a 

continuous flow gauge operated by the Washington Department of Ecology since 

November 2007 (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?wria=31), and 

spot measurements of flow taken by Eastern Klickitat Conservation District since 1995 

(data for years 1995 to 2003 reported in Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Flows in Rock Creek are typically seasonal, with no measured surface flow at the 

monitoring station in the summer months (Figure 2-3). The exception in the period of 

record is the summer of 1965, when flows were maintained as a result of an exceptionally 

wet winter and spring (Figure 2-4). Monthly median (50 percent exceedance) and low 

(90 percent exceedance) during August, September, and October are zero cfs (Figure 2-5; 

Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). Pools are abundant in the basin even when stream 

flow is apparently zero. In late fall of 2008, no flow was apparent at the Department of 

Ecology flow gauge, yet at least 4,229 cubic meters of pool habitat were present. Pool 

volume in the reach inundated by Lake Umatilla and reaches on Tribal Trust lands were 

not included in the estimate (Glass 2009). 

Historical information, coupled with observed intermittent conditions based on USGS 

stream gauge data in the 1960s, suggest that the streamflow in Rock Creek is naturally 

intermittent rather than a condition created by human development (Aspect Consulting 

and WPN 2004). Much of the runoff generally occurs in two or three discrete events 

(Figure 2-5). For example, in water year 2008-2009, much of the total runoff occurred 

during two major events in December, and the balance occurred at much lower levels in 

spring. 

 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

14

Figure 2-3. Stream flow, water temperature, and air temperature at the Washington 

Department of Ecology gage near the mouth of the Rock Creek. from October, 2008 to June 

2009 (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=31B070). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

15

Figure 2-4. Discharge Hydrograph from Historical USGS flow Gauge near Mouth of Rock Creek.

(Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Figure 2-5. Monthly Exceedance Flows for Historical USGS Flow Gage near Mouth of Rock 

Creek. (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

16

2.1.3 Water Quality 

One headwater reach of Rock Creek is listed for temperature on the Washington 

Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) 2008 water quality assessment list (often referred to 

as the “303(d) list”) as Category 5, a water body that requires a TMDL (Ecology 2008). 

This headwater reach of Rock Creek was changed from Category 4B (designation for 

water bodies that have a pollution control program) to Category 5 on 3/24/05 because 

Ecology had not been able to confirm the results of implementation of items contained 

within the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Ecology and the Eastern 

Klickitat Conservation District (EKCD) 

(http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wats08/ViewListing.aspx?LISTING_ID=7967). 

While only one reach in Rock Creek Basin is designated Category 5, published data 

suggest that many areas in Rock Creek and some of its tributaries (i.e., Quartz Creek, 

Squaw Creek, and Luna Gulch) frequently exceeded the applicable temperature criterion 

(7-DADMax of 17.5°C [63.5° F]) over the period of 1995 to 2004 (Aspect 2005) (Figure 

2-6). A supplemental temperature standard (7-DADMax 13°C (55.4°F) for salmonid 

spawning and incubation is applicable to some areas of Rock Creek and several of its 

tributaries from February 1 to June 1 (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0610038/start.pdf). 

Conformance with this supplemental standard has not been assessed, but available data 

suggest that it is exceeded in many areas of Rock Creek (Figure 2-6). 

Approximately 73 percent of all O. mykiss observed in the basin during the single pass 

snorkel surveys conducted in late fall 2008 were found in the mainstem of Rock Creek 

between water temperature monitoring stations identified in Figure 2-6 as RC-09 and RC06 (Glass 2009). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

17

Figure 2-6. Daily maximum water temperature at four stations in Rock Creek based on 1999 to 2004 

data (Aspect 2005). (RC-09 is located near the mouth of Rock Creek, RC-8 is located just 

downstream of the confluence with Squaw Creek, RC-7 is located in Squaw Creek near the 

confluence with the mainstem Rock Creek, and RC-6 is located upstream in the basin near the 

confluence with Badger Gulch.)

In 1995-1996, Ecology, in cooperation with the EKCD and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), completed an evaluation of water temperature, including 

the influence of riparian canopy cover, on Rock Creek (Ehinger 1996). For the study, 

EKCD and the NRCS deployed continuous water temperature loggers at ten stations 

within Rock Creek during summer 1995. They also conducted a stream habitat 

evaluation at each station. During the study period, the loggers recorded daily maximum 

stream temperatures above the current default water temperature standard of 63.5°F 

(17.5°C) throughout the 1995 summer months at most stations monitored (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). In addition, stream habitat evaluation results showed that 

six of the ten stations had riparian canopy (vegetative) cover more than 10 percent below 

state target goals for eastern Washington Class A streams (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004). 

However, an analysis of historical aerial photographs revealed that the aerial extent of 

vegetation in the valley bottom of the mainstem of Rock Creek (lower 15 miles of the 

creek, excluding the area inundated by Lake Umatilla) increased 10 percent between 

1996 and 2002, presumably due to fire exclusion (Aspect 2005). Ehinger (1996) inferred 

that the high water temperatures in upper Rock Creek “may be natural for a small creek 

in a hot, sunny summer climate.” It was inferred that the lack of riparian shading and 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

18

rocky substrate contribute to elevated water temperatures in the lower stream reaches 

(Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Aspect Consulting (2005) arrived at much the same conclusion in an assessment of water 

temperature in Rock Creek conducted for the WRIA 31 Planning Unit. Namely, “The 

Rock Creek subbasin is sparsely populated with minimal water use, and geological 

conditions limit the quantities of groundwater discharge (springs) to support summer 

stream flows. This lack of late-season baseflow, in conjunction with the braided and 

highly dynamic stream channel and limited riparian vegetation in the lower reaches, 

combine to create a situation in which the water that is present is subject to abundant 

solar heating, and thus elevated water temperatures, throughout the summer. In this case, 

ongoing water temperature monitoring by EKCD is serving to establish a baseline 

condition for the watershed. Although it is difficult to definitively attribute the observed 

high water temperatures to natural causes versus anthropogenic causes, we are not 

aware of any evidence indicating it is the result of anthropogenic causes” (Aspect 2005). 

2.2 Life History Characteristics

Based on their level of sexual maturity at the time they enter freshwater and the duration 

of the spawning migration, steelhead populations in the Mid-Columbia DPS can be 

classified into one of three major life history patterns: summer run, winter run or a 

summer/winter run arrangement (ICTRT 2009). All steelhead in the Columbia River 

Basin upstream of The Dalles Dam, including the Rock Creek population, are classified 

as summer-run fish (Chapman et al. 1994; ICTRT 2009); however, Yakama Nation 

biologists suspect that a portion of the steelhead population in Rock Creek consists of 

winter-run fish. 

Generally, winter-run fish enter freshwater streams between November and April, while 

summer-run fish enter rivers between May and October. Summer steelhead are of the 

stream-maturing type and enter freshwater in a sexually immature condition, requiring 

several months in freshwater to mature and spawn. Winter steelhead mature in the ocean 

and enter freshwater with well-developed gonads and spawn relatively shortly after river 

entry (Bambrick et al. 2004). 

A combination of environmental cues, including flow and temperature, triggers spawn 

timing throughout the Rock Creek watershed. Spawning begins in the middle of March 

and peaks in early April. Upper watershed steelhead appear to spawn about three weeks 

later. Steelhead generally spawn in clear, cool streams with suitable gravel size, depth 

and flow velocity (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

The range of temperatures steelhead can tolerate varies with life stage and other 

characteristics. Temperatures above 13.3oC (56oF) can result in egg mortality (McEwan 

and Jackson 1996), and sufficient oxygen may not be available above 21.1oC (70oF) 

(ibid.). Steelhead are considered to do best at a range of 12.8-15.6o C (55.0-60.1o F) (Rich 

1987). Temperatures above 22o

 C (72o F) are highly stressful for steelhead. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

19

Data regarding the average age, sex ratio, etc. of steelhead spawners in Rock Creek are 

unavailable. Further research is needed. Spawners include an unknown number of kelts 

(repeat spawners). Some steelhead are iteroparous (do not die after spawning), and may 

return to the ocean for a short period and repeat the spawning migration, a life history 

adaptation that may be fundamental to ensuring population stability. Respawning rates 

may be affected by environmental conditions, location of the natal stream, sex, size at 

maturity, and differences in the energy investment of spawning among different stocks 

and species (Fleming 1998). Reduced genetic contributions from populations formerly 

supplemented by repeat spawners may contribute to the decline of steelhead stocks in the 

Columbia River basin (NMFS 2000). 

Iteroparity for Mid-Columbia steelhead ranges from reported rates of 2-4 percent above 

McNary Dam (at RM 292 measured from the mouth of the Columbia) (Busby et al. 1996) 

to 17 percent in the unimpounded tributaries below Bonneville Dam (at RM 146.1) 

(Leider et al. 1986). Iteroparity rates for Rock Creek River steelhead are unknown. 

Steelhead eggs incubate at the same time that temperatures are increasing. In the lower 

mainstem Rock Creek where densities are highest, fry emerge very rapidly. Densities 

from electro-shocking suggest that emergence occurs in approximately 60 days (NPCC 

2004). Because the lower mainstem becomes intermittent from July to late October, 

juvenile steelhead in the reach must use a number of life history strategies. While 

juveniles likely continue to rear in upper watershed areas during these months, juveniles 

reared in the lower watershed may either move out of the system, take advantage of 

pools, risking encounter with smallmouth bass and other predators in the lower 3.5-4.0 

miles, or move higher in the watershed (NPCC 2004). No predators were observed during 

snorkel surveys conducted in mid-October/early-November 2008 above the area 

inundated by Lake Umatilla excluding reaches on Tribal Trust lands (Glass 2009). 

Approximately 94 percent of the juveniles observed in the Rock Creek mainstem during 

these snorkel surveys were in the lower sections of the river, downstream of the 

Bickleton Bridge, suggesting that few, if any, move upstream to rear (Glass 2009). It is 

unknown if juveniles rearing anywhere in the watershed move into the Columbia River to 

rear. 

While limited information exists on steelhead abundance in the Rock Creek drainage, 

some observations suggest that a significant number of steelhead may use the Rock Creek 

watershed in years of good water and ocean conditions. Surveys conducted by the 

Yakama Nation in lower Rock Creek in 2002, 2003, and 2004 found as many as 35 to 45 

steelhead redds per mile in the lower 5 miles, and extensive distribution of redds 

throughout the watershed (NPCC 2004). These surveys, however, were intermittent and 

were not conducted across all potential habitat. Spawner surveys conducted in April of 

2009 found 20 redds and 6 additional features that might have been redds between the 

Bickleton Bridge and River Mile 4 (Glass 2009), the equivalent of roughly 2 redds per 

mile. Survey crews estimated that 30 to 40 percent of that area could not be adequately 

surveyed due to limitation on visibility, so the actual number of redds may have been 30 

to 40 percent higher than reported. More surveys are needed to determine steelhead 

abundance and distribution in the drainage. Further research is needed. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

20

Steelhead are believed historically to have utilized virtually all of the accessible major 

streams and tributaries of Rock Creek for some aspect of their life history. Spawning 

distribution probably included all accessible portions of the Rock Creek watershed. Then 

as now, the highest spawning densities likely occurred in the more complex, braided 

reaches of the lower mainstem of Rock Creek, and in third- and fourth-order tributaries 

with moderate (1-4 percent) gradients (NPCC 2004). The headwaters of the mainstem 

are generally above known anadromous fish use (NPCC 2004), although spawning has 

been observed up to the falls in Box Canyon (RM 0.3). 

The current steelhead range in the Rock Creek watershed likely resembles the historical 

condition. During single pass snorkel surveys conducted in early October to midNovember 2008, no O. Mykiss were observed in the Rock Creek mainstem between the 

upper extent of the Lake Umatilla backwater and approximately RM 2, where the survey 

stopped because of private land ownership. The snorkel survey resumed at 

approximately RM 5. Approximately 78 percent of the O. mykiss observed in the Rock 

Creek subbasin were between RM 5 and the confluence with Quartz Creek and a few 

more fish (5 fish total) were observed upstream of Quartz Creek. O. mykiss were also 

observed in Squaw Creek to a point roughly 5 miles upstream of the confluence with 

White Creek. The majority of O. mykiss in Squaw Creek were found downstream of the 

confluence with Harrison Creek. No O. mykiss were observed in the lower reaches of 

Quartz Creek. Since anadromous and resident forms cannot be visually distinguished, the 

proportion of the O. mykiss observed in 2008 that were of anadromous form is unknown 

(Glass 2009). 

Yakama Nation biologists observed live steelhead adults, redds, and O. mykiss fry in 

Rock Creek above the confluence of Quartz Creek; in Quartz Creek above the Box 

Canyon confluence; and in lower Box Canyon up to the falls at RM 0.3 (from the Quartz 

Cr. confluence). Live steelhead and redds have also been confirmed 0.5 RM up an 

unnamed tributary located below the confluence of Rock and Quartz creeks (RM 19.2). 

Additionally, steelhead adults and O. mykiss fry have been observed in Badger Gulch. 

Landowners report having seen steelhead adults, redds, and O. mykiss fry up Luna Gulch, 

from the confluence with Rock Creek, and into Squaw Creek, as well as catching 

steelhead in White and lower Harrison creeks (up to RM 2.5). Yakama Nation staff also 

noted ‘anecdotal’ evidence of steelhead being observed in mainstem Squaw Creek 2.0 

miles upstream of the confluence with White Creek. In the Rock Creek mainstem, BLM 

staff recorded seeing steelhead above the confluence with Quartz Creek as well as in 

lower Quartz Creek (BLM 1985; BLM 1986). Figure 2-7 shows the current distribution 

of Rock Creek steelhead as observed by Yakama Nation biologists. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

21

Figure 2-7. Rock Creek subbasin major streams and steelhead distribution 

as observed by Yakama Nation Fisheries Staff. 

2.3 Major Spawning Area

The ICTRT identified potential intrinsic habitat in the Rock Creek subbasin as a major 

spawning aggregation (MaSA) for Middle Columbia River steelhead (Figure 2-8). The 

ICTRT delineated this MaSA using model results that estimated the historical amount of 

potentially accessible spawning and rearing habitat available to a specific population based 

on stream width, gradient, and valley width from GIS-based analysis of tributary habitat 

associated with each population (ICTRT 2005). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

22

Figure 2-8. Rock Creek summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas (ICTRT 2009). 

2.4 Salmonid Biological Structure

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

they originated) creates unique patterns of genetic variation and connectivity that 

mirror the distribution of their spawning areas across the landscape. Diverse genetic, 

life history, and morphological characteristics have evolved over generations, 

creating runs highly adapted to diverse environments. It is this variation that gives the 

species as a whole the resilience to persist over time. 

Historically, a salmon ESU or, as in this case, steelhead DPS typically contained 

multiple populations connected by some small degree of genetic exchange by straying 

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

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

those in the next stream over. Fish whose natal streams are separated by hundreds of 

miles will have less genetic similarity. The ESU or DPS is a metapopulation defined 

by the common characteristics of populations within a geographic range. Recovery 

planning efforts focus on this biologically based hierarchy (Figure 2-9). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

23

McElhany et al. (2000) formally identified two levels in this hierarchy for recovery 

planning purposes: the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) or distinct population 

segment (DPS) and the independent population. The ICTRT identified an additional 

level between the population and ESU/DPS levels, which they call a major population 

group (MPG) (McClure et al. 2003). 

2.4.1 Distinct Population Segments

An ESU or DPS is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead that is uniquely 

adapted to a particular area or environment. Because of the hierarchical structure of 

salmonid populations, the concept of “distinctive group” has received considerable 

attention and refinement. An ESU is defined as a group of Pacific salmon that is 

“substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units and represents an 

important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species” (Waples 1991). A 

“population segment” is considered distinct (a DPS and hence, like ESUs, considered 

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

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

behavioral, or genetic characteristics, or if it occupies an unusual or unique ecological 

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

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

migration, and hence may have a broad geographic range across watersheds and river 

basins. 

2.4.2 Major Population Groups

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

that share similar genetic, geographic, and/or habitat characteristics (McClure et al. 

2003). These "major groupings" of populations (MPGs) are isolated from one another 

over a longer time scale than that defining the individual populations, but retain some 

degree of connectivity greater than that between ESUs/DPSs. The relationship 

between ESU/DPS, MPG, and independent populations is depicted in Figure 2-9. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

24

Figure 2-9 Hierarchical levels of salmonid species structure as defined by the TRTs for ESU/DPS 

recovery planning. 

2.4.3 Independent Populations

McElhany et al. (2000) defined an independent population as follows: 

“...a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or 

portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does not 

interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the 

same place at a different season. For our purposes, not interbreeding to a 

‘substantial degree’ means that two groups are considered to be independent 

populations if they are isolated to such an extent that exchanges of individuals among 

the populations do not substantially affect the population dynamics or extinction risk 

of the independent populations over a 100-year time frame.” 

2.5 Middle Columbia Steelhead Populations and MPGs 

The ICTRT identified 17 extant and 3 extirpated independent steelhead populations in the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS (McClure et al. 2003). These populations are 

shown in Figure 2-10. The ICTRT delineated the populations based on genetic 

information, geography, life-history traits, morphological traits, and population 

dynamics. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

25

Figure 2-10 Middle Columbia River Steelhead Independent Populations and Major 

Population Groups. 

The ICTRT grouped these independent populations into four major population groups 

(MPGs) within the DPS: the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, Yakima River 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

26

MPG, John Day River MPG, and Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. The Rock Creek 

population is one of five extant populations (Klickitat River, Fifteenmile Creek, Rock 

Creek, Deschutes River Eastside, and Deschutes River Westside) and two extirpated 

populations (White Salmon River and Deschutes Crooked River) comprising the 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG (Figure 2-10). Populations in the group are 

united primarily by proximity and occupy diverse habitats, generally those draining the 

eastern slopes of the Cascades and the Columbia Plateau. 

The ICTRT classified the Rock Creek population as Basic in size, based on intrinsic 

habitat potential (Table 2-1) 

Table 2-1 Rock Creek Summer Steelhead Basin Statistics (ICTRT 2009). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

27

3. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria 

The primary goal of ESA recovery plans is for the species to reach the point that it no 

longer needs the protection of the Act – i.e. to be delisted. Recovery plans may also 

contain “broad-sense goals,” defined in the recovery planning process, that go beyond the 

requirements for delisting to address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, 

economic, and ecological values. 

Delisting criteria are applied at the DPS level, and are based on determinations of the 

viability of the independent populations that make up the DPS. Criteria for delisting the 

Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are described in the Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA 

Recovery Plan, to which this plan is an appendix. This chapter provides recovery goals 

for the Rock Creek steelhead population, describes the criteria to be used to assess 

progress toward those goals, and describes the role of the Rock Creek steelhead 

population in overall DPS viability. 

There are two kinds of criteria that enter into a delisting decision: population, or 

demographic parameters (the biological recovery criteria) and “threats” criteria related to 

the five listing factors detailed in the ESA. The threats criteria define the conditions 

under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or mitigated. 

Together these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required under section 

4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA. Both kinds of criteria are discussed in this chapter. 

3.1 Recovery Goals 

The primary goal of this plan is for the Rock Creek steelhead population to be restored to 

a sufficiently robust condition to support recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. 

If a local, collaborative Washington Gorge Area Regional Board is formed, it may choose 

to define broad-sense goals for the Rock Creek subbasin and other areas within the 

Washington Gorge Management Unit. The Board’s broad-sense goals for the area would 

likely build upon direction from, and respond to interests identified by various 

stakeholders in the area. These goals would then guide the Board as it defines and 

implements future recovery actions for the Rock Creek subbasin. 

For DPS delisting, the Rock Creek population should attain at least “moderate” risk 

status, also called “maintained” status by the ICTRT (described in more detail in Section 

3.2.2). Achieving moderate risk status would be consistent with putting the population on 

a trajectory toward achieving viability. The ICTRT cautioned against closing off the 

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

the biological response to recovery actions (ICTRT 2007a). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

28

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria

The ICTRT developed biologically based viability criteria for ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Interior Columbia domain. The ICTRT based its approach to recovery 

on guidance from the NMFS Technical Memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and 

the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). This 

memorandum provides general direction for setting viability objectives at the ESU/DPS 

and component population levels. 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 (McElhany et al. 2000). 

Viability criteria at the population level address four VSP parameters (McElhany et al. 

2000): 

• Abundance – the average number of spawners in a population over a generation or 

more, 

• Productivity – the performance of a population over time in terms of recruits 

produced per spawner, 

• Spatial Structure – a population’s geographic distribution and the processes that 

affect that distribution, and 

• Diversity – the distribution of genetic, life history and phenotypic variation within 

and among populations. 

The ICTRT grouped specific population level criteria into two categories to assess 

viability at the independent population level: measures addressing abundance and 

productivity, and measures addressing spatial structure and diversity. The viability of an 

independent population is determined by integrating risks across the four parameters. 

Additionally, the VSP guidelines (McElhany et al. 2000) recommend that a viable DPS 

population should be large enough to: 

1. have a high probability of surviving variation observed in the past and expected 

future; 

2. be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances; 

3. maintain genetic diversity; and 

4. support/provide ecosystem functions. 

They also recommend that viable populations demonstrate sufficient productivity to 

support a net replacement rate of 1:1 or higher at abundance levels established as longterm targets. Productivity rates at relatively low numbers of spawners should, on 

average, be sufficiently greater than 1.0 to allow the population to rapidly return to 

abundance target levels. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

29

3.2.1 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria

The major objectives of the ICTRT’s viability criteria are to ensure preservation of basic 

historical metapopulation processes including 1) genetic exchange across populations 

within an ESU/DPS over a long time frame; 2) the opportunity for neighboring 

populations to serve as source areas in the event of local population extirpations; 3) 

population distribution within an ESU/DPS so that they are not all susceptible to a 

specific localized catastrophic event (ICTRT 2007b). 

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

critical components of ESU/DPS spatial structure and diversity. Having all MPGs within 

an ESU/DPS at low risk provides the greatest probability of persistence for the ESU/DPS. 

Thus, the ICTRT criterion for a viable ESU/DPS is that all extant MPGs and any 

extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS should be at low risk. 

The population level assessments provide the basis for evaluation viability at the MPG 

level and, in turn, for the DPS as a whole. The combined effects of requiring each MPG 

to sustain a minimum number of viable populations, representation of larger size classes 

of populations, major life history patterns and the maintenance requirement provide for a 

network of populations that would sustain the DPS. 

Further, the following five criteria should be met for an MPG to be regarded as low risk 

(viable) (ICTRT 2007b): 

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

of two populations) should meet viability standards. This equals to four for this 

MPG. 

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

3. Viable populations within an MPG must include some populations classified 

(based on historical intrinsic potential) as “Very Large,” “Large” or 

“Intermediate” generally reflecting the proportions historically present within the 

MPG. In particular, Very and Large populations should be at or above composite 

historical fraction within the MPG. 

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

present historically within the MPG should be represented in populations meeting 

viability requirements. 

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

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity to provide for ecological functions 

and to preserve options for DPS recovery. 

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

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

presence of viable populations across MPGs would preserve a high level of diversity 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

30

within the DPS, thereby promoting long-term evolutionary potential for adaptation to 

changing conditions. The presence of multiple, relatively nearby, viable and maintained 

populations acts as protection against long-term impacts of localized catastrophic loss by 

serving as a source of re-colonization (ICTRT 2007a). 

3.2.2 Application of Biological Viability Criteria to Rock Creek Population 

Although the risk levels of the populations within the DPS collectively determine MPG 

viability and, in turn, the likely persistence of the DPS, it may not be necessary for all of 

the populations to attain the lowest risk level. There may be more than one way for a DPS 

to meet the viability criteria. The ICTRT called alternative combinations of population 

risk status that would meet the MPG and DPS-level criteria “recovery scenarios.” In a 

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

discussion of possible recovery scenarios for each MPG.

For the Eastern Cascades Slope Tributaries MPG to be viable, four populations 

representing historical types of diversity in terms of life history, size category, etc., 

should meet criteria for a low extinction risk, i.e. less than 5 percent risk of extinction 

(alternatively, more than 95 percent probability of persistence). The Klickitat River, 

Fifteenmile Creek, and Deschutes West and East populations need to meet low risk 

criteria because of their life history types and other characteristics. In this recovery 

scenario, the biological recovery goal for the Rock Creek steelhead population is to 

contribute to recovery for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS by reaching a 

“maintained” or moderate risk status (ICTRT 2007a). A maintained or moderate risk is 

defined as having between 25 and 6 percent risk of extinction within 100 years. To 

achieve low risk the population would need to meet the 5 percent criterion, and for very 

low risk, 1 percent. Low and very low risk targets would be consistent with broad-sense 

goals that have been adopted for populations elsewhere. 

The ICTRT classified the Rock Creek steelhead population as a “Basic” sized population, 

based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007b) and provided viability criteria for a 

Basic population, as follows (ICTRT 2007b): 

Abundance 

For a Basic population, viable status, i.e. a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over a 100-

year timeframe, would require a mean minimum abundance threshold of 500 naturally 

produced spawners. Maintained status or moderate (6 to 25 percent) risk would also 

require a mean minimum abundance of 500 naturally produced spawners because 

“populations with fewer than 500 individuals are at higher risk for inbreeding depression 

and a variety of other genetic concerns” (ICTRT 2007b). 

Productivity 

Productivity rates at relatively low numbers of spawners should, on average, be 

sufficiently greater than 1.0 to allow the population to rapidly return to abundance target 

levels. For a Basic population at 500 naturally produced spawners to meet the moderate 

risk criterion, productivity should be at about 1.3 (ICTRT 2007b, Figure 4a). To meet the 

5 percent risk criterion (viable status), productivity should be >1.56. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

31

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

In general, the ICTRT defined two goals, or biological or ecological objectives, that 

spatial structure and diversity criteria should achieve (ICTRT 2007b): 

• Maintaining natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes. This goal 

serves to minimize the likelihood that populations will be lost due to local 

catastrophe, to maintain natural rates of recolonization within the population and 

between populations, and to maintain other population functions that depend on 

the spatial arrangement of the population. 

• Maintaining natural patterns of variation. This goal serves to ensure that 

populations can withstand environmental variation in the short and long-terms. 

Based on historical potential analysis, the ICTRT gave the Rock Creek population a 

combined integrated spatial structure/diversity rating of Moderate risk. The Rock Creek 

population has a relatively simple population structure, containing a single major 

spawning area (MaSA). Although observations indicate that steelhead spawning may 

occur across much of the historical range, the relatively simple population structure 

results in a moderate rating for complexity. There have likely been minor reductions in 

life history diversity and phenotypic variation, but these changes are not severe enough to 

raise risk levels above low for this parameter. 

3.3 Threats Criteria 

Listing factors are those features that were evaluated under section 4(a)(1) when the 

initial determination was made to list the species for protection under the ESA. These 

may or may not still be limiting recovery when in the future NMFS reevaluates the status 

of the species to determine whether the protections of the ESA are no longer warranted 

and the species could be delisted. 

At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS will examine whether the section 4(a)(1) 

listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, NMFS will use the 

listing factors (or threats) criteria described below in addition to evaluation of biological 

recovery criteria and other relevant data and policy considerations. 

To determine that the affected DPS is recovered to the point that it no longer requires the 

protections of the ESA, NMFS will review the status of the listing factors according to 

the specific criteria identified for each of them (see below). The threats need to have 

been addressed to the point that delisting is not likely to result in their re-emergence. It is 

possible that current perceived threats will become insignificant in the future due to 

changes in the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire lifecycle of salmon. Consequently, NMFS expects that the ranking of threats will change 

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

evaluate and review the listing factor criteria under conditions at the time. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

32

The specific criteria listed below for each of the relevant listing/delisting factors helps to 

ensure that underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated before 

considering a species for delisting. NMFS expects that if the proposed actions described 

in this plan are implemented, they will make substantial progress toward meeting the 

following listing factor (threats) criteria. 

Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range. 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, threats to habitat should be addressed to a degree 

sufficient to support a viable Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as outlined below:

1. Passage obstructions (e.g., dams and culverts) are removed or modified to improve 

survival and restore access to historically accessible habitat where necessary to 

support recovery goals. 

2. Flow conditions that support adequate steelhead rearing, spawning, and migration of 

a viable DPS are achieved where possible through management of mainstem and 

tributary irrigation and hydropower operations, and through the improvement of other 

water user efficiencies and conservation, including for municipal supply and other 

consumptive purposes. 

3. Forest management practices that protect watershed and stream functions are 

implemented on Federal, state, tribal, and private lands. 

4. Agricultural practices, including grazing, are implemented to protect and restore 

riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels, and to protect water quality from 

sediment, pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer. 

5. Urban and rural development, including land use conversion from agriculture and 

forestland to residential uses, avoids impairment of water quality or natural stream 

conditions. 

6. The effects of toxic contaminants on salmonid fitness and survival in the mainstem 

and tributaries are sufficiently limited so as not to affect recovery. 

7. Channel function, including vegetated riparian areas, canopy cover, stream-bank 

stability, off-channel and side-channel habitats, natural substrate and sediment 

processes, and channel complexity is restored to provide adequate rearing and 

spawning. 

8. Floodplain function and the availability of floodplain habitats for salmon are restored 

to a degree sufficient to support a viable DPS. This restoration should include 

connectedness between river and floodplain and the restoration of impaired sediment 

delivery processes. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

33

Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any utilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes should be managed as outlined below: 

1. Fishery management plans for steelhead are in place that (a) accurately account for 

total fishery mortality (i.e., both landed catch and non-landed mortalities) and 

constrain mortality rates to levels that are consistent with achieving population 

viability (i.e., provide for adequate spawning escapement given their productivity); 

and (b) are implemented in such a way as to avoid deleterious genetic effects on 

populations or negatively affect the distribution of populations. 

2. Federal, state, and local fishing rules and regulations are effectively enforced. 

3. Technical tools accurately assess the effects of the harvest regimes so that harvest 

objectives are met but not exceeded. 

4. Handling of fish is minimized to reduce indirect mortalities associated with education 

or scientific programs, while recognizing that monitoring, research, and education are 

key actions for conservation of the species. 

5. To the degree necessary to support a viable DPS, routine instream construction and 

maintenance practices are implemented in a manner to reduce or eliminate mortality 

of listed species. 

Factor C: Disease or predation 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any disease or predation that threatens its 

continued existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Hatchery operations do not subject steelhead populations to deleterious diseases and 

parasites and do not result in increased predation rates of wild steelhead; 

2. Predation by avian predators is managed in a way that promotes recovery of salmon 

and steelhead populations; 

3. The northern pikeminnow and other exotic piscivorous species are managed to reduce 

predation on steelhead to a degree sufficient to meet recovery goals; 

4. Populations of introduced smallmouth bass, walleye, channel catfish and other exotic 

piscivorous species are managed such that competition or predation does not impede 

steelhead recovery. 

5. Predation of steelhead runs below Bonneville Dam by marine mammals is managed 

within the framework of applicable statutes and to the degree necessary to protect 

upstream migration of steelhead. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

34

6. Physiological stress and physical injury that may cause disease or increase 

susceptibility to pathogens during rearing or migration should be reduced during 

critical low flow periods (e.g. low water years) or poor passage conditions (e.g. at 

diversion dams or bypasses). 

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms that threatens its continued existence should be addressed to the degree 

necessary to support a viable DPS, as outlined below: 

1. Sufficient resources, priorities, regulatory frameworks, and coordination mechanisms 

are established and/or maintained for effective enforcement of land and water use 

regulations that protect and restore habitats and for the effective management of 

fisheries. 

2. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land-use planning 

that guides human population growth and development. 

3. Habitat conditions and watershed function are protected through regulations that 

govern resource extraction such as timber harvest and gravel mining. 

4. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land protection 

agreements as appropriate, where existing policy or regulations do not provide 

adequate protection. 

5. Regulatory, control, and education measures to prevent additional exotic plant and 

animal species invasions are in place. 

Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, other natural and man-made threats to its 

continued existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Hatchery programs are being operated in a manner that is consistent with individual 

watershed and region-wide recovery approaches; appropriate criteria should be used 

for the integration of hatchery steelhead populations and extant natural populations 

inhabiting watersheds where the hatchery fish return. 

2. Hatcheries operate using appropriate ecological, genetic, and demographic risk 

containment measures for (1) hatchery-origin adults returning to natural spawning 

areas, (2) release of hatchery juveniles, (3) handling of natural-origin adults at 

hatchery facilities, (4) withdrawal of water for hatchery use, (5) discharge of hatchery 

effluent, and (6) maintenance of fish health during their propagation in the hatchery. 

3. Mechanisms are in place to reduce the incidence of, and impacts from, introduced, 

invasive, or exotic plant and animal species. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

35

4. Nutrient enrichment programs should be evaluated to determine where additional 

nutrient inputs can provide significant benefits. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

36

4. Current Status Assessment

This chapter summarizes the ICTRT’s viability assessment results for Middle Columbia 

River steelhead in the Rock Creek watershed. The assessment reflects existing data, 

previous assessment findings and GIS analysis. 

4.1 Abundance and Productivity 

At present, no direct estimates of abundance and productivity are available for Rock 

Creek steelhead. There have been no systematic redd surveys in this population area. 

The general presence of steelhead has been documented (NPCC 2004). The ICTRT 

assigned the Rock Creek steelhead population High risk based on the lack of information 

on current abundance and productivity (ICTRT 2009). 

4.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The Rock Creek population has a single major spawning area (MaSA) (a system of one 

or more branches capable of supporting 500 spawners). Steelhead are known to occur in 

Rock Creek up to a point 1⁄4 mile above the confluence with Quartz Creek (BLM 1985, 

1986), and possibly above it. Steelhead have also been located in lower Quartz Creek 

(BLM 1985, 1986). Steelhead are known to occur in Squaw Creek up to the confluence 

with Harrison Creek, and have occurred historically as far as the confluence with Spring 

Creek (C. Dugger, WDFW, pers. comm., 1999). Known utilization includes the lower 

and middle portions of Rock Creek, lower Quartz Creek and Squaw Creek. 

The ICTRT rated the Rock Creek population at Moderate risk for spatial 

structure/diversity (Table 4-1). Based on the ICTRT historical potential analysis, the 

Rock Creek population had a relatively simple population structure, containing a single 

MaSA. Although observations indicate that steelhead spawning may occur across much 

of the historical range, the relatively simple population structure results in a moderate 

rating for complexity. There have likely been minor reductions in life history diversity 

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

above low for the diversity parameter. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

37

Table 4-1 Rock Creek Summer Steelhead Population Spatial Structure and Diversity Risk Rating 

Summary (ICTRT 2009). 

4.3 Overall Risk Rating 

The Rock Creek steelhead population does not currently meet viability criteria because it 

is assigned High risk for abundance/productivity (Figure 4-1). The overall spatial 

structure/diversity rating is Moderate risk. The lack of direct estimates of abundance and 

productivity for this population was a factor in assigning it High risk. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

Very Low (<1%) HV HV V M 

Low (1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M HR 

High (>25%) HR HR HR 

Rock Creek* HR 

Figure 4-1. Integrated Risk Rating for the Rock Creek Steelhead Population (ICTRT 2009). Viability 

Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Moderate/Maintained; HR – High Risk; * = Candidate for 

Maintained; Shaded cells – does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

38

5. Limiting Factors and Threats 

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. Analysis of limiting factors and threats across the entire species’ life cycle forms 

the basis for designing recovery strategies and actions. NMFS defines limiting factors as 

the biological and physical conditions limiting DPS and population status (e.g. elevated 

water temperature), and defines threats as those human activities or naturally induced 

actions that cause the limiting factors (e.g. removal of riparian vegetation for agricultural 

or residential purposes, which causes loss of shade and, consequently, elevated water 

temperature). 

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are typically legitimate 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 the negative 

impacts. 

For steelhead and other salmonids, survival to reproduce depends on a complex, 

interacting system of environmental conditions, with different conditions needed for each 

life stage. Optimal water temperature, for example, varies (within limits) for adult 

migration vs. egg incubation or juvenile rearing. In addition, the particular factors 

limiting production may vary across different sections of the tributary drainage used by a 

particular population. Data on a full range of potential limiting factors is rarely available 

at the reach level. 

The list of potential limiting factors for the Rock Creek steelhead population, as for the 

other populations that make up the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS, is based on a 

substantial body of research on salmonids, local field data and field observations, and the 

considered opinions of regional experts. These are implicitly hypothetical statements to 

be tested, made with the expectation that by taking action in the face of some degree of 

scientific uncertainty, monitoring the results, continuing to conduct research to further 

characterize the factors limiting the population, and adapting our management actions in 

response, the state of our knowledge will improve and so will the survival of these fish, 

although not necessarily in a directly parallel process. This chapter describes factors that 

may be limiting Middle Columbia River steelhead production in the Rock Creek 

subbasin. 

5.1 Freshwater Habitat 

Low summer flows and high summer water temperatures occur naturally in some parts of 

the Rock Creek watershed because of bedrock terrain and steep slopes. The intensity of 

some of these factors may have increased because of anthropogenic changes in the 

subbasin. For example, historical forest practices, including logging and road 

construction, adversely impacted functional quality of riparian areas in some portions of 

the headwaters and canyon reaches (e.g., upper Rock Creek, Box Canyon and Quartz 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

39

Creek) (NPCC 2004). In addition, channel widening and incision, such as along lower 

Rock Creek, could cause a reduction or loss of summer base flows. 

While the Rock Creek watershed is sparsely populated, anthropogenic influences occur 

throughout the subbasin. Much of the watershed has been grazed or logged, and 

primitive roads extend from near the Columbia River to the headwaters of most streams 

in the subbasin. Beaver were once likely abundant and are now less common. Still, 

while grazing, roads, and other uses may contribute to habitat problems in some parts of 

the watershed, considerable forest canopy remains and most stream reaches support at 

least shrub-dominated riparian areas. 

The major factors and associated threats that potentially limit abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure and diversity of Middle Columbia River steelhead in the Rock Creek 

watershed are discussed briefly below. The factors were identified based on information 

in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s subbasin plan for the Lower MidColumbia Mainstem, including Rock Creek (NPCC 2004) and the Watershed Assessment 

for Rock Creek, part of WRIA 31 (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). They also reflect 

the input data for an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model for Rock Creek 

(available at: http://edt.jonesandstokes.com/). 

The stakeholders in the Rock Creek–Glade Creek watershed completed and approved in 

April 2009 the WRIA 31 Watershed Management Plan (WRIA 31 Planning Unit et al. 

2008), with the help of the State of Washington under the Watershed Management Act 

pursuant to chapter 90.82 Revised Code of Washington. The watershed plan includes 

identification of prioritized fish habitat issues and actions in the Rock Creek–Glade Creek 

watershed. In the fall of 2008 through spring of 2009, a quantitative instream habitat 

assessment and fish survey was conducted on non-Tribal lands in the Rock Creek 

watershed (Glass 2009). Fish habitat was assessed with a stratified random sample 

design incorporating the entire area indicated as potentially containing steelhead (Figure 

2-7 of this document). The total stream length assessed was 11,700 meters, or 14.5 

percent of a study area (Glass 2009). Potential limiting factors and threats identified in 

Glass 2009 and WRIA 31 Planning Unit et al. 2008 are incorporated in this summary. 

• Hydrograph. Seasonally low to non-existent stream flows might be a primary 

factor limiting steelhead production in the Rock Creek watershed. Low to 

intermittent and/or subterranean flows in all streams during late summer, fall and 

early winter can limit juvenile mobility and cause mortality due to stranding. The 

historical information, coupled with documented intermittent conditions (USGS 

1989; Ecology’s gaging station, 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=31B070), which occur 

under minimal human water use (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004), suggest that 

the streamflow in Rock Creek is naturally intermittent rather than a condition 

created by human development (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). However, 

the loss of riparian vegetation, instream habitat complexity and diversity, and 

floodplain connectivity in some reaches because of grazing, roads, and/or other 

land uses can increase the intensity of flows in some parts of the drainage. In the 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

40

Rock Creek subbasin, roads are at low density (Coe 2004, Harr et al. 1975, Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). The amount of vegetation in the valley bottom has 

been increasing since 1938, presumably due to fire suppression (Aspect 2005). 

Most of the land in the basin is lightly grazed. Low summer stream flows occur in 

the lower part of the subbasin ─ lower Rock Creek mainstem, lower Squaw 

Creek, and lower Luna Gulch ─ but also occur in some headwater and canyon 

reaches (NPCC 2004, Ecology’s stream gage 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=31B070). None of the 

stream length of the Rock Creek mainstem above the Bickleton Bridge to the 

upper extent of steelhead distribution (Figure 2-7) was dry in mid-October/early 

November 2008, although measured flow in the lower mainstem was zero (Glass 

2009). Flow in some of lower Rock Creek is below the surface because of the 

high proportion of alluvial material in the substrate. Approximately 14 percent of 

the stream length was dry in the reaches of the Rock Creek subbasin surveyed in 

mid-October/early November 2008 when measured flow in the lower mainstem 

was zero. Spring outflows feed some reaches and pools, and may provide 

important refugia during periods of low flow. 

• Water quality, high stream temperatures. Seasonally high water temperature is 

potentially a primary factor limiting steelhead production in the Rock Creek 

watershed (Glass 2009). As noted in Chapter 2, the range of temperatures 

steelhead can tolerate varies with life stage and other characteristics. 

Temperatures above 13.3oC (56oF) can result in egg mortality (McEwan and 

Jackson 1996), and sufficient oxygen may not be available above 21.1oC (70oF) 

(ibid.). Steelhead are considered to do best at a range of 12.8-15.6oC (55.0-60.1oF) 

(Rich 1987). Temperatures above 22oC (72oF) are highly stressful for steelhead. 

The Washington State water quality criteria for aquatic life list 63.5o F as the 

maximum for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration; temperatures above 

63.5o F can be lethal to developing fish embryos (WAC 173-201A-200). 

Summer water temperatures in the lower Rock Creek subbasin frequently rise 

above 63.5°F (Aspect 2005). With respect to steelhead incubation, some lower 

reaches of Rock Creek and Squaw Creek start exceeding 63.5°F in mid- to lateMay and in some reaches rise above 73.4°F (23.9°C) (Aspect Consulting 2005), a 

level considered potentially lethal for salmon and steelhead (Glass 2009). One 

reach of Rock Creek is listed twice on the Washington State Department of 

Ecology’s 2008 water quality assessment (known as the 303(d) list) as being 

impaired for water temperature (Category 5), and requiring a TMDL 

(http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wats08/ViewListing.aspx?LISTING_ID=7967). Loss of 

habitat quantity and diversity, channel degradation due to flooding and other 

factors, low summer flows, and loss of riparian vegetation can contribute to this 

potential limiting factor. High stream temperatures during summer and early fall, 

especially in the lower watershed, limit juvenile mobility and may result in 

stranding or mortality because of thermal stress (NPCC 2004). Potential 

anthropogenic effects on stream temperature have not been quantitatively 

evaluated; however, the evidence suggests that high water temperatures in Rock 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

41

Creek are a natural condition (Ehinger 1996, Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004, 

Aspect Consulting 2005). The amount of vegetation in the valley bottom has been 

increasing steadily since 1938, presumably due to fire suppression (Aspect 

Consulting 2005). Fine sediment levels in the basin tend to be low (Glass 2009), 

which suggests that filling of pools or widening of the stream, which would 

contribute to warm temperature, is unlikely. 

• Riparian function and condition. While the stream system’s rocky substrate and 

steep topography naturally inhibit riparian forest stand development along many 

reaches, riparian function and condition have been affected by major flood events, 

grazing, historical timber practices, road construction, and other land uses. Since 

2006, commercial forestry in the Rock Creek watershed is managed under a 

NMFS-approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): the Forest Practices HCP, or 

FPHCP, which applies to private commercial timberlands regulated by State 

Forest Practice Rules. Tribal harvest is managed under the Yakama Nation Forest 

Management Plan. Glass (2009) concluded that the magnitude of the 

anthropogenic effects is likely minor, because roads are sparse, largely located 

upslope of streams, and likely input little sediment (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004); harvest in riparian areas is highly regulated; and there is little development 

in the basin (Klickitat County Assessor’s Office 

http://www.klickitatcounty.org/Road/ContentROne.asp?fContentIdSelected=4556

95186&fCategoryIdSelected=-342308583&fX=X). Grazing affects portions of 

the Rock Creek watershed; its impacts can be directly observed in the lower 

mainstem. A 1995 stream habitat evaluation along Rock Creek showed that six of 

ten sites examined during the evaluation had riparian vegetative cover more than 

10 percent below the target for eastern Washington Class A streams (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004; Ehinger 1996). 

• Channel structure and complexity. Degraded channel structure and complexity in 

the subbasin may reduce key habitat quantity and habitat diversity for steelhead. 

Key habitat quantity refers to the amount of key habitat, such as riffles, that is 

present in the stream for each life stage. If key habitat is limited, fewer steelhead 

can be supported by the stream. Habitat diversity refers to the extent of habitat 

complexity, such as large wood, boulders, undercut banks and pools, and the 

processes that form pools and cover within a stream reach. Greater complexity 

increases survival and provides better habitat. Large wood in the stream plays a 

major role. Instream wood in the basin is low relative to streams of the Cascade 

Mountains (Glass 2009); however, riparian density has been increasing for at least 

70 years (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004), and increases in recruitment of 

instream wood are expected as the riparian stands mature. 

Glass 2009 estimated the area of spawning habitat in the Rock Creek subbasin at 

59,506 square meters and the volume of pools at low flow at 4,229 cubic meters 

(Glass 2009). Findings from a reconnaissance survey of portions of Rock Creek 

indicate that the creek’s general channel characteristics may be similar to those 

noted in an 1860s survey (e.g., broad rocky reaches), with the exception that the 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

42

lowermost reach may be wider today than historically (Aspect and WPN 2004). 

Over the years, however, key habitat quantity and habitat diversity have declined 

in some reaches due to disturbance of channel and riparian habitats from grazing, 

historical timber harvest, road construction, other anthropogenic changes and 

from major flood events. These factors could potentially have contributed 

cumulatively to changes in the hydrograph, altering available perennial wet 

habitat as well as decreasing riparian quality and function and instream habitat 

and function. In addition, key habitat quantity and habitat diversity have been lost 

in the one-mile reach above Rock Creek’s mouth as a result of inundation by Lake 

Umatilla behind John Day Dam on the Columbia River. 

• Floodplain function and channel migration processes. The stream channel in 

lower Rock Creek is highly dynamic and moves across the valley bottom with 

regularity, likely switching channels during flood flows. One of the more 

dynamic sections of the stream channel is upstream of the Old Highway 8 Bridge, 

where the channel changed courses many times over the period of photo record, 

and has distinctly different courses in 1938, 1969, 1996, and 2002 (Aspect 

Consulting 2005). Bridges for the Bickleton Highway and Old Highway 8 have 

locally increased hydro confinement, constricting flow and channel migration 

processes. The Bickleton Bridge is scheduled for replacement with a longer 

spanned bridge. A series of dikes also exists in a middle mainstem Rock Creek 

reach that limit the stream’s ability to meander. Extensive grazing, historically 

and currently, could potentially diminish riparian health and affect channel plain 

form in some reaches of the lower watershed, decreasing channel stability. 

However, most of the basin is lightly grazed, and grazing effects tend to be 

localized (Glass 2009). Although beavers have been observed near Luna Gulch 

(Glass 2009) and likely are present elsewhere in the basin, their abundance is 

likely lower than the historical population level. 

• Sediment routing. Sediment loads (the percentage of fines in spawning gravel, 

embeddedness and turbidity) in the Rock Creek subbasin may have increased over 

historical conditions. Actions potentially contributing to increased sediment 

delivery include historical forest practices (skidding and road building, clearing of 

upland forests and stream banks), agricultural and grazing practices (rill irrigation, 

streamside grazing), and road building and maintenance activities. 

However, there is no commercial irrigation in Rock Creek, most of the basin 

lands are lightly grazed, and roads are sparse and largely located upslope from 

streams (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). These would tend to minimize the 

anthropogenic effects on sediment routing. A recent study that evaluated 

sediment loads in 278 riffles located throughout the basin found that only two of 

the riffles, both located in backwater areas, had fine sediment levels that exceeded 

20 percent fines (Glass 2009). All other riffles had less than 20 percent fines and 

the majority of the riffles had less than 15 percent fines (Glass 2009). Previous 

studies have found these levels to have little effect on survival of eggs and alevins 

(Tappel and Bjornn, 1983, Chapman 1988). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

43

• Competition for food sources. Changes in the hydrological regime and riparian 

conditions affect the food web and thus increase competition among species. 

Macroinvertebrates can be produced in reduced quantities where there are poorly 

functioning hyporheic zones, diminished pool and riparian presence, and a lack of 

stream structure. To date, there has been no assessment of food production or 

competition for food in the basin. 

• Predation and competition. Inundation of the lower one mile of Rock Creek by 

the waters of Lake Umatilla behind John Day Dam may have increased access of 

piscivorous fish such as smallmouth bass, channel catfish, and northern 

pikeminnow to the lower mile of Rock Creek and the reservoir through which the 

steelhead must travel. However, no exotic piscivorous species were observed 

above the inundated area during snorkel surveys conducted in Rock Creek, Luna 

Gulch, and Squaw Creek during October and November of 2008 (Glass 2009). 

No evaluation has been done on the effects of predation and competition on the 

Rock Creek steelhead population. 

The ISAB (2007 and 2008) concluded that the Columbia River impoundments 

have created sloughs and backwater habitats where water exchange is very low 

and summer water temperatures are often several degrees warmer than the nearby 

main-channel habitats. As a consequence, introduced resident fish such as 

smallmouth bass and channel catfish are expanding into these habitats. The ISAB 

2007 also commented that increases in water temperature would favor further 

expansion of warm-water piscivores. Hence, the potential for predation could 

increase over time. 

5.2 Hatchery Effects 

Anadromous fish production within the subbasin is almost exclusively natural. Steelhead 

are not stocked in Rock Creek, and very few fin-clipped steelhead have been observed in 

the subbasin. Hatchery strays of upriver origin may enter and spawn in Rock Creek, but 

the effects of out-of-subbasin hatchery programs on the Rock Creek steelhead population 

are unknown. 

5.3 Tributary Harvest

Rock Creek and its tributaries are open to steelhead and trout fishing from June 1 to 

October 31 annually (trout over 20 inches are considered steelhead), and the area 

inundated by the John Day Pool (up to the Army Corps of Engineers Park at river mile 1) 

is open year around to allow for warm water fisheries and for trout over 12 inches (trout 

over 20 inches are considered steelhead) from June 16 to March 31. Only adipose finclipped steelhead may be retained (WDFW 2008a). Adult steelhead are not present in 

Rock Creek during the summer because of low or non-existent flows. They enter the 

creek after flows resume and temperatures drop, generally after the season is closed. 

Some minor tribal catches for ceremonial purposes are reported, but they are currently 

considered insignificant (Bill Sharp, Pers. comm. 2008). Poaching has been observed in 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

44

the subbasin, however, and is considered a problem. While increased patrols are desired, 

funding levels are mostly inadequate to provide for such services. 

The fishery targeting other species at the mouth of Rock Creek is quite active at times 

and it is expected that some steelhead are unintentionally caught by recreational anglers, 

of which only marked hatchery fish are permitted to be retained. Better educational 

opportunities at the Army Corps of Engineers Park may assist in preventing accidental 

catch and retention of wild steelhead. 

The overall mortality rate for catch-and-release adult steelhead fisheries depends on the 

encounter rate of naturally produced fish (percentage of run actually caught and released) 

in the fisheries, and the mortality rate associated with being caught and released (hookand-release mortality). In winter steelhead fisheries, WDFW (2008b) estimates that 

catch-and-release mortality is less than 5 percent, while mortality in summer steelhead 

fisheries is estimated to be higher, less than 10 percent of the wild fish handled, reflecting 

high temperatures. The catch and release mortality only affects that proportion of the 

wild run encountered in the fishery. WDFW (2008b) estimates that in the Rock Creek 

tributary fisheries less than 5 percent of the steelhead are handled, due to the closure of 

Rock Creek during the period adult steelhead would be present, and the limited effort 

during the time that steelhead may be present below the Army Corps of Engineers Park. 

Multiplying the catch and release mortality rate by the encounter rate provides the 

estimate of tributary fisheries impacts of less than one percent wild steelhead (WDFW 

2008b). For further evaluation of the harvest rate, please see the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan. 

Steelhead occupy many waters that are also occupied by resident trout species. It is not 

possible to visually separate juvenile steelhead from similarly sized stream-resident 

rainbow trout. Because juvenile steelhead and resident rainbow trout are the same 

species, are similar in size, and have the same food habits and habitat preferences, it is 

reasonable to assume that catch-and-release mortality studies on stream-resident trout 

also apply to juvenile steelhead. WDFW has implemented a number of regulation 

changes to limit impacts on juvenile steelhead in Rock Creek. These include increasing 

the minimum size limit for rainbow trout fisheries from 6 inches to the current size limit 

of 8 inches in the tributary and 12 inches below the Army Corps of Engineers Park. The 

daily bag limit was also reduced from 6 fish to 2 fish. Trout angling is only open from 

June 1 to October 31 in the tributary, and June 16 to March 31 in the area below the 

Army Corps of Engineers Park. These changes have reduced impacts on naturally 

produced juvenile steelhead/trout to less than 1 percent of the population, a substantial 

reduction from historical impacts of tributary fisheries that were estimated to be over 50 

percent in some Middle Columbia River steelhead basins (WDFW 2008b). Rainbow 

trout are not released into Rock Creek, and this also reduces harvest impacts. Fisheries 

that target non-resident warm water species can affect juvenile steelhead, but these 

fisheries are limited to the area below the Army Corps of Engineers Park (WDFW 

2008a). WDFW has submitted to NMFS a Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

(FMEP) for tributary fisheries in the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS to cover impacts 

from these fisheries under the 4(d) rule limit 4 of the ESA (WDFW 2008b). This FMEP, 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

45

when finalized, will have all the site-specific actions for the tributary fisheries. NMFS 

expects the FMEP to be completed in 2010. 

5.4 Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors and Threats

The Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan uses information from two 

“modules” developed by NMFS to address conditions in the Columbia River mainstem 

and estuary that affect all Middle Columbia steelhead: the Hydro Module, based on the 

NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System (NMFS 

2008b), and the Estuary Module (NMFS 2007b). In addition to proposed actions in the 

management unit plans, the DPS Plan relies upon Hatchery and Genetic Management 

Plans and Artificial Production for Pacific Salmon (Appendix C of the Supplemental 

Comprehensive Analysis, NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion) to address hatchery effects. 

For harvest effects, the Plan refers to fishery management planning through the 2008 U.S. 

v. Oregon agreement for mainstem fisheries, and Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans 

for tributary fisheries. The reader is referred to the DPS plan for this information. The 

following is a summary of the information most relevant to the Rock Creek plan. 

5.4.1 Harvest 

Without more data on Rock Creek steelhead abundance, and without targeted tagging of 

Rock Creek fish, the percentage of Rock Creek steelhead that are harvested in the 

Columbia River cannot be specifically calculated. However, it may be inferred that Rock 

Creek steelhead are subject to the same relatively low overall harvest rate estimated for 

other Middle Columbia steelhead. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2008) 

estimates that in 2002, tributary fisheries in the Rock Creek area affected about 

1 percent of the adult steelhead and less than 1 percent of the juvenile steelhead. 

Mainstem non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries have an estimated impact of 

1.6 percent of the A-run Middle Columbia steelhead (NMFS 2008a), and mainstem treaty 

fisheries have an estimate 6.64 percent impact (NMFS 2008a) for an overall estimated 

harvest impact of less than 10.24 percent. 

The various fisheries that may harvest Rock Creek steelhead as they migrate through the 

Columbia River and Pacific Ocean are the following. 

Ocean Fisheries 

Since steelhead are rarely caught in ocean fisheries, these fisheries are not considered a 

significant source of mortality to Middle Columbia River steelhead (NMFS 2000). 

Ocean fishing mortality on Middle Columbia River steelhead is assumed to be zero. 

Columbia River Mainstem Non-Tribal Fisheries 

There has been no direct freshwater non-tribal harvest on wild steelhead from the MidColumbia DPS since 1992, when the last wild fish catch-and-release regulations on these 

populations became effective. Therefore, all current non-tribal harvest impacts on MidColumbia DPS steelhead are due to incidental bycatch in commercial or recreational 

fisheries that target hatchery steelhead or other species, and monitoring these impacts is 

complex. Released fish experience a mortality rate, possibly delayed and difficult to 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

46

measure, that is highly variable and depends on what gear is used, how the fish is caught 

by the gear, how the fish are handled during capture and release, and environmental 

conditions. Release mortality is estimated to be very low (below 1 percent of encounters), 

with an unknown range of error. Recreational fisheries are monitored by creel surveys 

(fisheries technicians interview anglers about their catch, gear, and wild steelhead 

releases); the total recreational impact on winter and summer steelhead as they move 

through the mainstem to the tributaries is estimated to be less than 2.5 percent 

(Carmichael 2009). 

There are three stocks of summer steelhead used for management of treaty and non-treaty 

mainstem fisheries, including the lower Columbia River Skamania stock, upriver A-run 

stock, and upriver B-run stock. All MCR steelhead populations are designated A-run, 

except the two winter-run populations. In NMFS’ Biological Opinion for the 2008-2017 

U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries Agreement (NMFS 2008a), the wild MCR steelhead DPS in the 

non-treaty winter, spring, and summer mainstem fisheries are subject to a 2 percent 

harvest rate limit. Non-treaty fall fisheries are also limited to a 2 percent harvest rate 

limit for A-run summer steelhead. The total annual harvest rate limit for A-run steelhead 

in non-treaty fisheries is 4 percent and 2 percent for the summer-run and winter-run of 

the MCR steelhead DPS, respectively. The expected harvest impacts from non-treaty 

fisheries are less than the limits proposed in the U.S. v. Oregon fisheries Agreement. The 

yearly incidental catch of A-run steelhead in non-treaty fisheries has averaged 1.6 percent 

since 1999, and are not expected to change over the course of the Agreement (NMFS 

2008a). 

Treaty Native American Fisheries 

Tribal fishers in Zone 6 of the Columbia mainstem (between Bonneville Dam and 

McNary Dam) continue to retain wild steelhead for commercial sale or for personal use. 

Impacts on MCR steelhead from treaty-Native American fall fisheries that affect 

summer-run steelhead populations including Rock Creek are limited by harvest rate 

limits for B-run steelhead and Upper Columbia River bright fall Chinook (NMFS 2008a). 

The harvest rate on MCR summer-run steelhead in spring, summer, and fall Zone 6 

treaty-Native American fisheries combined averaged 11.7 percent since 1985 and 6.64 

percent since 1998 (NMFS 2008b, Table 8.8.5.5-1). The impacts resulting from the 

treaty-Native American fisheries are expected to be similar to the 1998-2006 average of 

6.64 percent. The harvest rate is less for populations that pass fewer dams in Zone 6 and 

are therefore subject to fewer non-Native American and treaty-Native American fisheries. 

5.4.2 Columbia River Hydropower Operations 

Hydrosystem construction and operation (flow regulation) in the Columbia River Basin 

has been a major cause of changes to the Columbia River and estuary from historical 

conditions. The effects of Columbia River hydro operations on salmonids are reviewed 

briefly here and described in detail in two NMFS documents: the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion (NMFS 2008b) and the Hydro Module (NMFS 2008c). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

47

Within the Rock Creek subbasin, steelhead and salmon were directly affected by the 

creation of the John Day Dam on the mainstem Columbia River, which effectively 

inundated the lowest reach of Rock Creek, reducing riparian habitat and increasing 

predation by native and non-native fish in the lower river. A lack of historical data 

inhibits quantitative evaluation of the impacts of John Day pool inundation on native fish, 

plant, and wildlife species. 

In the mainstem Columbia River, changes in river flow, circulation, water quality, 

contaminants, channel alterations, and predation have negative impacts on adult and 

juvenile fish. Hydro operations have changed flow conditions in the Columbia River and 

through the estuary. Before the development of the hydrosystem, Columbia River flows 

were characterized by high spring-runoff from snowmelt and regular winter and spring 

floods. Dam construction and operation have altered Columbia River flow patterns 

substantially throughout its basin. Historical flow records at The Dalles and Bonneville 

Dam demonstrate that annual peak flows have been reduced by about 50 percent, as 

water is stored for power generation and irrigation, and winter flows have increased 

approximately 30 percent. 

The Columbia River Estuary Module http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery -Plans/upload/Estuary-Module.pdf, provides more information 

on factors that limit viability of Rock Creek steelhead in the Columbia River estuary. 

5.4.3 Ocean Conditions 

The effects of ocean conditions on abundance of Pacific salmon and steelhead vary 

among species and populations within species. Migration patterns in the ocean may 

differ dramatically and expose different stocks to different conditions in different parts of 

the ocean. Some species have broad, offshore migration patterns that may extend as far 

as the Gulf of Alaska (steelhead, chum, some Chinook). Others have migration patterns 

along the Washington, British Columbia, Oregon and California coasts (Chinook, coho, 

cutthroat). Thus, ocean conditions do not have coincident effects on survival across 

species or populations. 

Ocean survival of steelhead has been dramatically affected by widespread changes in 

ocean conditions. Cooper and Johnson (1992) showed that variation in steelhead run 

sizes and smolt-to-adult survival was highly correlated between runs up and down the 

West Coast. Smolt-to-adult survival rates generally varied 10-fold between good and bad 

years. Ocean survival rates for three West Coast steelhead populations where good 

annual index data were available showed high variability and a generally declining trend 

since the late 1970s. 

5.4.4 Climate Change 

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to recovery of Rock Creek 

steelhead, as well as Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. The Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board (ISAB) for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin 

Indian Tribes, and NMFS reviewed the potential effects of climate change on salmonids 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

48

in the Columbia River basin (ISAB 2007). The ISAB report shows that changes in 

climate may adversely affect steelhead in freshwater habitats across the DPS by 

exacerbating existing problems with water quantity (lower summer streamflows) and 

water quality (higher summer water temperatures). Consistently identified types of 

impacts on snow pack, stream flow, and water quality in the Columbia Basin are the 

following (ISAB 2007): 

• Warmer temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as rain rather than 

snow. 

• Snow pack will diminish, and the timing of stream flow will be altered. 

• Peak river flows will likely increase. 

• Water temperatures will continue to rise. 

These changes may affect steelhead more than other salmonids because of their long 

rearing period in freshwater and sensitivity to water temperature. 

Changing conditions could also affect salmonid health and survival in the ocean through 

a variety of mechanisms, including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification 

of some waters, changes in the upwelling season, shifts in the distribution of salmonids, 

long term variability in winds and ocean temperatures, increased acidity, and increased 

atmospheric and oceanic variability. (NMFS 2007b, 2008a; ISAB 2007) 

All other threats and conditions remaining equal, future deterioration of water quality, 

water quantity, and/or physical habitat can be expected to cause a reduction in the 

number of naturally produced adult steelhead returning to these populations across the 

DPS. This possibility further reinforces the importance of achieving survival 

improvements throughout the entire steelhead life cycle. Recent research also indicates 

that neighboring populations with differences in habitat may show different responses to 

climate changes (Crozier and Zabel 2006; Crozier et al. 2008). This research reinforces 

the importance of maintaining habitat diversity. 

5.4.5 Other Large-Scale Threats

• Projected continued population growth will increase pressures for conversion of 

forestry and agricultural land uses to residential uses, with potential impacts on 

habitat and water conditions.

• Increase in exotic invasive species that potentially compete with native flora and 

fauna, and provide food and/or cover to species that potentially compete with, 

prey on or carry diseases which could affect native species. 

• New disease and/or pathogen introductions (e.g. from marine aquaculture 

operations on steelhead ocean migration routes, illegal stocking of out-ofsubbasin species). 

• Natural catastrophic events (e.g. earthquake, volcanic eruption and related 

effects). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

49

6. Recovery Strategy and Actions

The preceding chapters summarize recovery goals, biological criteria and threats criteria, 

current status assessment, and the limiting factors and threats identified for the Rock 

Creek steelhead population. How will we reach recovery? In this chapter, a recovery 

strategy is described to address the significant data gaps and uncertainties regarding the 

status of the Rock Creek steelhead population and to address the potential limiting factors 

based on the existing, best available science. In addition, Appendix II details the many 

efforts already underway to improve and protect watershed conditions in the Rock Creek 

subbasin—efforts that will benefit salmonids as well as other wildlife and human 

communities.

Lack of information about the Rock Creek steelhead population is a major problem for 

recovery planning for the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. Using the ICTRT 

criteria for DPS viability, this population needs to achieve “maintained” or moderate risk 

status for the DPS to be considered viable. The Rock Creek population’s high risk rating 

was assigned primarily on the basis of uncertainty and lack of information on current 

abundance and productivity. Thus, research and monitoring to resolve the uncertainties 

and address data gaps is a top priority. Although some published and unpublished data 

are available, some disagreement also exists among regional experts concerning limiting 

factors and threats for the Rock Creek steelhead population. Further research will help to 

resolve these disagreements. 

NMFS believes existing information and analyses are adequate to suggest a recovery 

trajectory and a scale of effort that can reasonably be expected to achieve the goal. A 

collaboratively designed implementation program that includes a research, monitoring, 

and evaluation (RM&E) plan to support adaptive management will allow managers the 

flexibility to continue or change course in response to new information. 

The overall aim of the recovery strategy is to gather needed data on the Rock Creek 

steelhead population and the watershed, while also addressing the potential limiting 

factors in a manner that is most likely to contribute to improved viability. The strategies 

and actions were defined through review and analysis of currently available information. 

They are consistent with actions identified in the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem 

Subbasin (including Rock Creek) Management Plan (NPCC 2004), and address risks 

identified in the ICTRT’s viability assessment for the population. 

6.1 Strategies and Actions 

The Plan proposes a number of strategies and actions to address data gaps and potentially 

limiting factors, assess anthropogenic effects, and implement actions to rebuild the Rock 

Creek steelhead population to the desired level of viability. 

6.1.1 Gather Information on VSP Parameters

Information on population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity is 

needed to set priorities and determine the actions that will make the greatest contribution 

to steelhead recovery. Needed actions include initiating systematic surveys to calculate 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

50

abundance and productivity, completing a gap analysis, characterizing spatial distribution 

and genetic variation, and evaluating hatchery contribution to naturally spawning 

steelhead in the Rock Creek subbasin. 

6.1.2 Protect and Conserve Existing Good Quality Habitat

Protecting existing good quality habitat is a high priority. Many objectives are likely to 

be met through habitat protection and the associated natural recovery of upland and 

riparian areas. Protection and maintenance includes compliance with existing rules and 

regulations, such as the State Forest Practices Act, the State Shorelines Act, and other 

State, County, and local regulations designed to protect aquatic habitat. Protection may 

also incorporate a wide range of voluntary actions such as fencing riparian areas, 

participation in the various agricultural land reserve programs, and voluntarily 

implementing programs that help to avoid impacts to aquatic resources. Land 

acquisitions, easements, cooperative agreements, and protective land designations can 

also be used to facilitate high quality habitat protection. 

6.1.3 Restore and Enhance Habitat and Gather Information 

Restoration and enhancement of habitat conditions for salmon and steelhead populations 

should improve population production. The value of these actions to the viability of the 

population will depend on whether or not they address the factors currently limiting the 

population or threats associated with factors that are now, or are trending toward, 

becoming limiting, e.g. climate change. The success of these strategies is further 

enhanced when actions build from existing restoration efforts and incorporate a range of 

project types. 

• Conduct research to further evaluate factors and threats limiting habitat diversity 

in the Rock Creek watershed. 

• Improve instream flow during critical periods. The seasonally low to intermittent 

stream flow in the area of steelhead distribution upstream of the Columbia River 

backwater is a likely limiting factor on abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity. Low flow can result in stranding and mortality to eggs or juvenile 

steelhead. Further study is required to determine causes of low flow, whether 

anthropogenic or natural, and options to enhance stream flow. 

 

• Improve water quality, reduce summer high temperatures. Water temperature is 

directly related to riparian vegetative cover and other watershed characteristics 

such as channel complexity, floodplain function, and upland processes. Hence, 

many types of habitat actions are likely to function together to improve water 

quality, particularly water temperature. The more directly related actions to 

improve water quality include the following: 

o Restore riparian vegetative cover with appropriate native vegetation to 

increase shading. 

o Develop sediment control basins. 

o Manage livestock grazing in the riparian areas. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

51

o Increase deep pool habitat. 

• Improve/restore riparian function and condition. Actions to address this potential 

limiting factor include the following: 

o Restore riparian vegetative cover with appropriate native vegetation. 

o Manage livestock grazing in riparian areas. 

o Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas. 

o Relocate beaver to suitable areas. 

• Increase key habitat by improving or restoring channel structure and complexity. 

Key habitat, as described in Chapter 5, refers to characteristics such as riffles, 

pools, suitably aerated gravel, etc. that are essential to each steelhead life stage. 

The following actions would increase key habitat: 

o Introduce large woody debris (LWD) and other structures in stream as 

appropriate. 

o Improve riparian vegetation to provide future source of LWD. 

o Stabilize and protect stream banks. 

o Fertilize streams with fish carcasses. 

• Improve and/or restore floodplain function and channel migration processes. 

Reconnecting floodplain habitats and side channels would provide additional 

sheltered rearing areas. Increasing LWD and other actions such as relocating 

floodplain infrastructure where feasible, implementing road management BMPs 

or decommissioning roads as appropriate, could restore floodplain function, 

moderate the “flashiness” of the stream, and moderate peak flows. 

• Improve or restore optimal sediment processes. Watershed processes of runoff 

and sediment production can be improved through restoring native upland plant 

communities, implementing appropriate upland management practices, managing 

off-road vehicle usage to reduce erosion and fine sediment, and managing roads 

to reduce fine sediment inputs to the stream. 

• Conduct research to determine status of food web and presence or absence of 

competition from other species for food resources. 

• Conduct research to determine presence and extent of predation on steelhead by 

non-native species such as piscivorous fish. 

6.1.4 Review and Reduce Effects of Harvest

As described in Chapter 5, only adipose fin-clipped steelhead are allowed to be retained 

in sport or recreational fisheries in Rock Creek and throughout the Columbia River, but 

wild steelhead may be accidentally caught and/or retained. Poaching is also considered a 

problem. Actions to address harvest effects include better review of current practices, 

enforcement of regulations, and considering whether any modifications are needed. 

Outreach and education to reduce retention or handling mortality is also recommended. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

52

6.1.5 Research Effects of Hatchery Fish (If Any) 

As described in Chapter 5, hatchery strays of upriver origin may enter and spawn in Rock 

Creek, but no data are available on this issue. Monitoring for hatchery fish should be 

included in the RM & E program to be developed collaboratively after this plan is 

adopted. 

6.1.6 Address Out-of-subbasin Limiting Factors

Out-of-subbasin limiting factors for Rock Creek steelhead may include hydroelectric 

operations, harvest, interactions with hatchery fish, predation, food, disease, competition, 

and ocean conditions. Actions to address these factors for all Middle Columbia steelhead 

are presented in the Columbia River Estuary Module (NMFS 2007b) and the 2008 

FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b), summarized in the Hydro Module (NMFS 

2008c). 

6.2 Summary of Recovery Strategy 

Table 6-1 summarizes the recovery strategy designed to improve the viability of Rock 

Creek steelhead. The table links strategies and actions to the factors and threats 

potentially limiting steelhead viability in the subbasin, and the viability parameters and 

life stages that would be most affected. Priority locations are provided for some 

strategies, with stream reaches or areas where actions should be applied first to gain the 

greatest benefit. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

53

Table 6-1. Recovery Strategy and Actions for the Rock Creek Population of Middle Columbia Steelhead. 

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Gather information on population size and productivity 

• Gather information to calculate 

abundance and productivity estimates 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A N/A ab

pro

Gather information on population spatial structure and diversity 

• Conduct surveys to determine 

steelhead distribution. 

• Identify major life history 

strategies 

• Conduct studies to address 

genetic variation in the population 

• Assess the contribution of 

hatchery-origin steelhead to the natural spawning population 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A N/A sp

an

Gather information to further evaluate habitat limiting factors and threats in the basin 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat quantity. 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat quality. 

• Conduct surveys to evaluate 

factors affecting habitat function. 

Entire Watershed 

Addresses a primary risk factor 

N/A All life stages Al

pa

Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support steelhead viability throughout the life cycle 

• Apply BMPs to livestock grazing 

practices 

• Apply BMPs to road system 

management 

• Apply BMPs to agricultural 

practices to control erosion and runoff 

• Manage stream corridor through 

conservation easements and/or land acquisition from willing sellers 

• Adopt and manage cooperative 

agreements 

Throughout watershed 

Key habitat quality and diversity, sediment inputs, water quality, stream flow 

Road and grazing management activities 

All life stages ab

prospan
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

54

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Improve instream flow during critical periods 

• Most of the actions listed in other 

categories are likely to improve stream flow. 

• Protect springs 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, upper watershed 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia, altered food web 

Road and grazing management, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve water quality, reduce summer water temperatures 

• Restore riparian vegetative cover 

with suitable native vegetation to increase shading 

• Restore natural habitat functions 

and processes through actions previously identified 

• Develop sediment control basins • Management livestock grazing in 

the riparian areas 

• Increase deep pool habitat 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, upper watershed 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia 

Road and grazing management,, particularly in riparian areas, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve and/or restore riparian function and condition 

• Restore riparian vegetation cover 

with appropriate native vegetation 

• Manage grazing in riparian areas • Eradicate invasive plant species 

from riparian areas 

• Relocate beaver to suitable areas 

Rock Cr. Below unnamed trib. at RM 19.2, Luna Gulch, lower Squaw Cr. 

Hydrology, channel stability, fine sediment, water quality, key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, riparian vegetation 

Road and grazing management activities 

All life stages ab

prospan

Improve and/or restore channel structure and complexity 

• Introduce LWD and other 

structure in stream as appropriate 

• Improve riparian vegetation to 

provide future source of LWD 

• Stabilize and protect stream banks • Fertilize streams with fish 

carcasses 

Rock Creek downstream of RM 19.2, lower Squaw Creek, headwater streams 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, fine sediment, flow, water temperature, thermal refugia, altered food web 

Road and grazing management, channelization 

All life stages ab

prospan
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

55

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Improve and/or restore floodplain function and channel migration processes 

• Reconnect floodplain habitats • Reconnect side channels • Increase role and abundance of 

wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

• Relocate floodplain infrastructure, 

roads; improve maintenance, rehabilitate, decommission as appropriate 

• Remove dikes • Relocate beaver to suitable areas 

Rock Cr. Below unnamed trib. at RM 19.2, Luna Gulch, lower Squaw Cr. 

Channel morphology, habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, riparian vegetation, fine sediments, flow, water temperature 

Road and grazing management activities 

Juvenile rearing stage 

abpro

Address upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff 

• Restore native upland plant 

communities 

• Implement upland management 

practices to restore natural runoff and sediment production 

• Implement off-road vehicle 

management actions that reduce erosion and fine sediment 

• Implement road management 

actions that reduce fine sediment inputs 

Upper watershed 

Hydrology, channel stability, fine sediment, water quality, key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, riparian vegetation 

Road and grazing management activities and off-road vehicles 

Egg, fry ab

pro

Review and reduce effects of harvest on the Rock Creek steelhead population 

• Review the need for 

modifications to sport, tribal, and commercial harvest practices on direct catch and by-catch 

• Increase outreach efforts to 

reduce the number of steelhead caught in recreational fisheries near the mouth of Rock Creek 

All fishing areas in the basin, the Columbia River, and off-shore 

Direct mortality Harvest Adult 

migrants 

ab

Research and reduce hatchery effects on the Rock Creek steelhead population 

• Reduce the uncertainty of origin 

of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatcheryorigin fish 

• Monitor the potential for hatchery 

strays entering Rock Creek 

• Increase the proportion of 

Columbia River and anadromous reaches of Rock Creek 

Competition, genetic introgression 

Hatchery releases 

Juvenile and adult 

abspstrdiv
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

56

Strategy Actions Action Area Potential Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed Life Stages Potentially Affected VS

Columbia River Basin hatchery steelhead marked with coded-wire tags, especially in programs shown to stray at high rates in the past, and support the mass marking of all hatchery steelhead releases with, at a minimum, an adipose fin-clip 

Reduce competition with and predation by nonnative piscivores 

• Reduce the number of non-native 

predators 

Columbia River and mouth of Rock Creek 

Predation Non-native 

species 

fry and juvenile 

abpro

Reduce mortality and/or improve passage at hydroelectric facilities 

• Implement strategies and actions 

in the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b) 

Columbia River 

Passage, predation, direct mortality 

Hydroelectric plants 

juvenile and adult 

ab

1 Expected response of action implementation ─ including how long for action to achieve full effectiveness 2BLM=Bureau of Land Management, Ecology=Washington Department of Ecology, KC=Klickitat County, KCCD=Klickitat County Conservation Districts, NRCS=Natio

Service, Private=private landowners and businesses, TNC=The Natural Conservancy, WDFW=Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, WRIA31 PU = WRIA 31 P

Nation, MNFS=National Marine Fisheries Service, ODFW=Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

57

7. Implementation and Cost Estimates

Implementation of this plan depends on the voluntary actions and cooperation of local 

entities and citizen groups. An important part of implementation will be working 

cooperatively to develop an implementation schedule that includes site-specific actions 

and a detailed research, monitoring, and evaluation plan addressing the information needs 

described in Chapter 8. As a regional collaborative structure begins to take shape, it has 

become clear that a detailed RM&E plan should be developed collaboratively after the 

Rock Creek recovery plan is adopted. 

7.1 Implementation 

NMFS has worked independently with the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Klickitat County, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for the 

Rock Creek steelhead population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning group 

for the Washington Gorge Management Unit, a forum or entity that would take 

responsibility for coordinating implementation of the plan. Implementing the proposed 

recovery actions for steelhead in the Washington Gorge Management Unit, including the 

Rock Creek subbasin, would be a primary task for a Washington Gorge Area Regional 

Board, subject to concurrence by state, tribal, and local governments and the opportunity 

for involvement and comment by the public. 

The Board could consist of representatives from Klickitat, Yakima, and Benton counties, 

local landowners, and the Yakama Nation. The Washington Gorge Area Regional Board 

could also provide an opportunity for coordination with the Lower Columbia River Fish 

Recovery Board (LCFRB), since the Washington Gorge Management Unit encompasses 

both the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, and the Willamette/Lower Columbia 

ESUs for Chinook, coho, and chum ESA-listed populations, which are covered by the 

LCFRB. The Board could prioritize recovery actions in the Rock Creek subbasin and 

other areas within the Washington Gorge Management Unit by developing one- and 

three-year implementation schedules that would build upon and respond to the interests 

of stakeholders in the area. 

Setting priorities for projects for funding and developing an implementation schedule 

should be based on a balance between the biological benefit of the project, its cost, and 

feasibility of implementation. Projects that address primary limiting factors, have high 

biological benefit, are relatively inexpensive, and are feasible should receive highest 

funding priority. Projects that are costly, have low biological benefit to listed fish 

species, and have relatively low feasibility should receive lowest funding priority. 

In addition to their co-management responsibility and key role on a Gorge recovery board 

(if one is formed), the Yakama Nation will play an important role during implementation 

because of their funding agreement under the Columbia Basin Fish Accords (Columbia 

Basin Accords 2008), which are three Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) entered into 

between the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) action agencies (Bonneville 

Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation), 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

58

four tribes, and one state. The most relevant MOA to the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead is with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the three treaty 

fishing tribes—Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation. The MOAs are 10-year action agency commitments for projects to 

benefit fish affected by the FCRPS, with a focus on ESA-listed fish. The projects will be 

reviewed through the Northwest Power Act processes for implementing the Fish and 

Wildlife Program, administered by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The 

agreement secures approximately $200,000 per year for habitat actions, including project 

management, in the Rock Creek subbasin. Some of the projects listed in Table 7-1 will 

be implemented with these funds. 

7.2 Costs 

There are existing Federal, tribal, state, county and other local programs that are being 

carried out in the Rock Creek subbasin. Many of those programs, for example the USDA 

NRCS Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, the Washington State Forest 

Practices regulations and county plans and ordinances are described in Appendix II. This 

plan assumes that those existing programs are funded, and will continue to be. At this 

time, this plan provides only additional incremental costs that would be incurred with 

implementation of this recovery plan. Total time and cost of recovery is estimated for the 

DPS as a whole and is iincorporated into Chapter 8 of the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan. As implementation proceeds and implementation 

schedules are developed, the costs of both existing programs and new incremental costs 

of this recovery plan will be included in those schedules. If existing programs are not 

funded, funding will be identified as a need in the implementation schedule and the cost 

estimates for the recovery plan adjusted accordingly. 

In an earlier iteration of this recovery plan, rough, preliminary estimates were also made 

for the data gathering actions described in Chapter 8 as part of the recovery strategy. The 

preliminary estimate for RM&E was reported at that time as $3,350,000 over 10 years. 

As described above, NMFS is not going to incorporate this cost estimate at this time; 

rather, we expect those costs to be developed as part of a collaborative effort to design an 

RM&E plan. 

In this chapter, cost estimates are provided for an extensive and reach-specific set of 

potential habitat actions that will be refined and prioritized in the implementation 

process. NMFS, in coordination with the Yakama Nation, developed these cost estimates 

for a range of habitat improvement/restoration actions that may be necessary to address 

limiting factors and improve viability of the Rock Creek steelhead population. These 

costs, presented in Table 7-1, are general range summaries. Habitat action costs for 

recovery over a 10-year time period are estimated to be up to $1.8 million ($0.9 million 

for years 1-5). The actions listed in Table 7-1 do not include or account for RM&E 

(Section 6.1.1), because those costs will be developed as part of implementation 

planning, nor do they account for tributary fishery harvest management and enforcement 

activities (Section 6.1.4), which are considered existing programs, nor for costs of out-ofsubbasin effects, which are addressed through other programs (Section 6.1.6). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

59

The list of actions in Table 7-1 was developed primarily to address habitat limitations in 

each major reach of Rock Creek. The actions are a primary component of the restoration 

and habitat enhancement strategy discussed in Section 6.1.3 of this plan. Costs were 

assigned to key actions such as riparian plantings with native vegetation, removal of 

exotic vegetation, fencing exclosures, and the installation of root wads and other instream 

structures. These labor-intensive actions will increase shading, resulting in an 

improvement to water quality and a restoration of riparian function and channel structure 

and complexity. Several water and sediment control basins will also be installed to assist 

in the removal of cattle from sections of the stream with an anticipated improvement of 

riparian condition. An additional major strategy is to protect and conserve existing good 

quality habitat (Section 6.1.2), through such actions as purchase of conservation 

easements or land acquisition from willing sellers. Table 7-1 includes costs for 

acquisition and easement estimates provided by personnel of The Nature Conservancy 

who have been involved with easements and acquisitions in the Rock Creek watershed. 

Although each easement and acquisition negotiation is unique, NMFS believes these 

values to be the best available estimate for such actions within the Rock Creek subbasin. 

Table 7-1 Costs Associated with Proposed Reach-Specific Actions for Rock Creek Provided by Yakama Nation 

Fisheries.

Rock Creek Actions and Costs

* = Utilized Oregon NRCS 2006 Conservation Practice Component Cost List 

# = Utilized Fiscal Year 2006 Montana NRCS Conservation Practices Cost List 

Reach Action Unit Unit 

Cost # Units Cost

RC1 – Rock Creek, 

mouth to boat ramp at 

RM 1.1 

Due to reach’s complete inundation by John 

Day Pool, only dam operation and reservoir 

actions can affect reach. 

RC2 – Rock Creek, 

boat ramp to Old 

Highway 8 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 2120 2968 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

Offsite water * Each 1500 2 3000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 8 16000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 350 3500 

Rootwad # Each 600 15 9000 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 10 10000 

RC3 – Rock Creek, Old 

Hwy. 8 to Squaw Cr. 

Bioengineered channel stabilization next to 

road 

per foot of 

channel 47 400 18800 

 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 46464 65049.6 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 3468 38148 

Offsite water * Each 1500 4 6000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 7 1400 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 400 4000 

Rootwad # Each 600 15 9000 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 4 12000 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

60

Rock Creek Actions and Costs

* = Utilized Oregon NRCS 2006 Conservation Practice Component Cost List 

# = Utilized Fiscal Year 2006 Montana NRCS Conservation Practices Cost List 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 4 4000 

SQ1 – Squaw Cr., 

mouth to Harrison Cr. Fencing # per foot 1.4 47520 66528 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 4 6000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 6 12000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 150 1500 

Rootwad # Each 600 8 4800 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 5 15000 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 2 2000 

SQ2 – Squaw Cr., 

Harrison Cr. to White 

Cr. 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 33792 47308.8 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 3 4500 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 6 12000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 150 1500 

Rootwad # Each 600 4 2400 

SQ3 – Squaw Cr., 

White Cr. to extent of 

distribution 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 31680 44352 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 3 4500 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 6 12000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 200 2000 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 5 15000 

Rootwad # Each 600 4 2400 

HA1 – Harrison Cr., to 

extent of distribution Fencing # per foot 1.4 22176 31046.4 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 2 3000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 4 8000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 150 1500 

Rootwad # Each 600 4 2400 

RC4 – Rock Cr., Squaw 

Creek to Imrie Property 

Bridge 

Spring protection per site 800 3 2400 

 

Dike removal Cubic yard 8 10800 86400 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 27456 38438.4 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 2 3000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 8 16000 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

61

Rock Creek Actions and Costs

* = Utilized Oregon NRCS 2006 Conservation Practice Component Cost List 

# = Utilized Fiscal Year 2006 Montana NRCS Conservation Practices Cost List 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 300 3000 

Rootwad # Each 600 8 3200 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 6 6000 

RC5 - Rock Creek, 

Imrie Property Bridge 

to Luna Gulch 

Spring protection per site 800 4 3200 

 

Dike removal Cubic yard 8 4500 36000 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 10560 14784 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Offsite water * Each 1500 1 1500 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 6 12000 

Revetment # per bank 

linear foot 10 200 2000 

Rootwad # Each 600 8 3200 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 8 8000 

LG1 - Luna Gulch: 

Rock Creek to Extent of 

Distribution 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 73920 103488 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 3468 38148 

Offsite water * Each 1500 7 10500 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 11 22000 

Rootwad # Each 600 16 9600 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 7 21000 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 8 8000 

RC6 – Rock Cr., Luna 

gulch to Badger Gulch Fencing # per foot 1.4 24288 34003.2 

 

Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Dike removal Cubic yard 8 1080 8640 

Offsite water * Each 1500 2 3000 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 5 11000 

Rootwad # Each 600 8 4800 

Exotic vegetation removal per acre 1000 2 2000 

BG1- Badger Gulch Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 4 12000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

RC7- Rock Cr., Badger 

Gulch to Unnamed 

Trib1 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 5280 7392 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 3 6000 

UN1 – Unnamed trib at 

Rock Cr. RM 19.2 Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 3 9000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 1445 15895 

RC8 – Rock Cr., 

Unnamed Trib 1 to 

Quartz Creek 

Fencing # per foot 1.4 32736 45830.4 

 Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 3 6000 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

62

Rock Creek Actions and Costs

* = Utilized Oregon NRCS 2006 Conservation Practice Component Cost List 

# = Utilized Fiscal Year 2006 Montana NRCS Conservation Practices Cost List 

 Rootwad # Each 600 6 3600 

QZ1 – Quartz Cr., 

mouth to small slide Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 12 3600 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

QZ3- Quartz Cr., small 

slide to Box Canyon Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 10 3000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

QZ4 – Quartz Cr., Box 

Canyon to Extent of 

Distribution 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 14 42000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 6 12000 

BX1 – Box Canyon, 

mouth to Box Canyon 

falls 

Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 10 30000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

RC9 – Rock Cr., Quartz 

Creek to Small Fall NO ACTIONS 

RC11 – Rock Cr., Falls 

to Super Slide Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 6 18000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 4 8000 

RC13- Rock Cr., super 

slide to small slide Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 6 18000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

Instream structures (rock weir etc) * Each 2000 5 10000 

RC15 – Rock Cr., slide 

to Triple Falls Water and sediment control basin * Each 3000 8 24000 

 Riparian planting # per tree 11 2890 31790 

General NRCS Conservation Reserve Program 

Cost per 

acre 41.60 

6000 

annually 249600 

General Conservation Easements 

Cost per 

acre 450 

50 

annually 22500 

General Land Acquisitions 

Cost per 

acre 600 

50 

annually 30000 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

63

8. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management 

Comprehensive, empirical monitoring data on fish populations and habitat are needed to 

identify appropriate projects and locations, populate habitat/production capacity 

modeling efforts (such as EDT, AHA, or other appropriate models), and inform adaptive 

management for the salmonid recovery plan. Information on fish distribution, 

abundance, productivity, habitat conditions, genetic diversity, pathogen levels, and other 

population parameters, as well as on population limiting factors, is necessary to help 

direct and evaluate these efforts. A coordinated monitoring program is needed to ensure 

that these various needs, including salmonid recovery planning, are met. 

As part of implementing the Rock Creek steelhead recovery plan, a detailed monitoring 

and evaluation program will be collaboratively designed and incorporated into an 

adaptive management framework based on the principles and concepts laid out in the 

NMFS’ guidance document, Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and 

Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance (NMFS 2007a) 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. 

8.1 Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a method of decision making in the 

face of uncertainty. It is a process of adjusting management actions and/or directions 

based on new information. It means taking an experimental approach to a complex task, 

making one’s assumptions clear, and continuously evaluating them in light of new 

information. It works best when the collection of performance data and methods of 

evaluation are designed to get the information managers need to make sound decisions. 

As outlined in the NMFS Adaptive Management guidance document, several types of 

monitoring are needed to support adaptive management: (1) implementation and 

compliance monitoring, which is used to evaluate whether the recovery plan is being 

implemented; (2) status and trend monitoring, which assesses changes in the status of an 

ESU and its component populations, as well as changes in status or significance of the 

threats to the ESU; and (3) effectiveness monitoring, which tests hypotheses and 

determines (via research) whether an action is effective and should be continued. (These 

three types of monitoring are discussed in more detail below.) 

In addition, it is important to build in some research to illuminate the many unknowns in 

salmon recovery—the “critical uncertainties” that make management decisions all the 

harder. Critical uncertainty research may seem expensive or unnecessary in light of basic 

information needs; however, in the long run, it may reduce monitoring and 

implementation costs. 

NMFS’ guidance document presents a decision framework that can guide the design of a 

research, monitoring, and evaluation plan. The framework (Figure 8-1) contains two 

basic sorts of questions: (1) questions regarding ESU status (biological viability criteria) 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

64

and (2) questions regarding statutory listing factors and factors limiting recovery 

(limiting factor and threats criteria). Evaluating a species for potential delisting requires 

an explicit analysis of both types of criteria. 

The guidance document contains a more detailed discussion of the framework and 

identifies the specific questions that should be answered to evaluate ESU status. These 

specific questions take the form of a series of decision-question sets that address the 

status and change in status of a salmonid ESU and the risks posed by threats to the ESU. 

The decision-question sets are designed to elicit the information NMFS needs to make 

delisting decisions. For recovery planners, the framework can guide future decisions 

about strategies and actions aimed at achieving recovery goals. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

65

Evaluation

Status of Viability Parameters

•Abundance

•Productivity

•Spatial Distribution

•Diversity

Status of Statutory Listing Factors ESU Viability Assessment

NMFS will determine an ESU is recovered when an ESU is no longer in danger of extinction 

or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of both 

the ESU’s status and the extent to which the threats facing the ESU have been addressed

Major Population Group Status

ESU Status

Population Status:

Listing Factor 1: 

The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

Listing 

Factor 3: 

Disease 

or 

predation

Listing Factor 4: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Listing 

Other Namanmadaffecting existence

Listing Factor 2: 

Over utilization for commercial, recreational or educational purposes

Status of 

Harvest Threats 

& Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Disease 

and 

Predation

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hatchery 

program’s

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hydropower

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Compliance and 

Implementation Monitoring 

Implement Adaptive 

Management Plan

Action Effectiveness 

Monitoring 

Status of 

Regulatory 

Mechanisms

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Critical Uncertaint

Research and Evalua

Status of 

Habitat 

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Actions

NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework

Figure 8-1 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

66

8.2 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support 

Adaptive Management 

Because of the length and complexity of the salmonid life cycle, there are many 

uncertainties involved in improving salmonid survival. Simply identifying cause-andeffect relationships between any given management action and characteristics of salmon 

populations can be a scientific challenge. It is essential to design a monitoring and 

evaluation program that will answer these basic questions: How will we know we are 

making progress? How will we get the information we need? And how will we use the 

information in decision making? 

Designing an effective monitoring program for salmon recovery involves the following 

initial steps: 

1. Clarify the questions that need to be answered for policy and management 

decision making. Include the full ESU and the full salmonid life cycle. 

2. Identify entity or entities responsible for coordinating development of this 

program. 

3. Identify: 

o Which populations and associated limiting factors to monitor 

o Metrics and indicators 

o Frequency, distribution, and intensity of monitoring 

o Tradeoffs and consequences of these choices 

4. Assess the degree to which existing monitoring programs are consistent with 

NMFS guidance. 

5. Identify needed adjustments in existing programs, additional monitoring needs, 

and strategy for filling those needs. 

6. Develop a data management plan (See Appendix B of Adaptive Management for 

ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and 

Monitoring Guidance (May 1, 2007) http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf

7. Prioritize research needs for critical uncertainties, testing assumptions, etc. 

8. Identify entities responsible for implementation. 

The Rock Creek subbasin monitoring and evaluation program will build on existing 

programs designed for monitoring tributary habitat in the Rock Creek subbasin, 

hydropower actions in the Mid-Columbia, Mid-Columbia hatchery programs, and other 

actions outside of the Mid-Columbia tributary subbasins (e.g., Columbia mainstem 

hydropower, estuary and ocean conditions and salmon use, mainstem and ocean harvest). 

The Rock Creek monitoring and evaluation program will provide (1) a clear statement of 

the metrics and indicators by which progress toward achieving goals can be assessed, (2) 

a plan for tracking such metrics and indicators, and (3) a decision framework through 

which new information from monitoring and evaluation can be used to adjust strategies 

or actions aimed at achieving the Plan’s goals. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

67

8.2.1 Implementation and Compliance Monitoring

Recovery actions implemented within the Rock Creek subbasin will be monitored to 

assess whether the actions were carried out as planned. This will be carried out as an 

administrative review and will not require environmental or biological measurements. 

Implementation and compliance monitoring simply check on whether activities were 

carried out as planned, and whether specified criteria are being met as a direct result of an 

implemented action. 

Implementation monitoring will address the types of actions implemented, how many 

were implemented, where they were implemented, and how much area or stream length 

was affected by the action. Indicators for implementation monitoring may include visual 

inspections, photographs, and field notes on numbers, location, quality, and area affected 

by the action. For example, if a fence is planned for 20 miles of stream corridor to keep 

livestock off the stream-banks so that riparian vegetation will rebound, implementation 

monitoring would verify the presence of the fence. Compliance monitoring would take 

note of the presence or absence of livestock in the fenced-off area. 

Success will be determined by comparing field notes with what was specified in the plans 

or proposals (detailed descriptions of engineering and design criteria). Thus, design plans 

and/or proposals will serve as the benchmark for implementation monitoring. Any 

deviations from specified engineering and design criteria will be described in detail. 

8.2.2 Status and Trend Monitoring

Status and trend monitoring is a simple compilation of data-based descriptions of existing 

conditions. To be useful in decision making, the raw data, or metrics, should be reduced 

to a more directly applicable form or indicator. For example, if the question is “What is 

the annual spawning population size of steelhead in Rock Creek?” the indicator would be 

total spawning numbers of steelhead over one season for the entire river basin; however, 

the metric, or directly measured thing, would be something quite different, perhaps 

steelhead redds sighted on weekly passes over known spawning grounds. Thus, the 

metric should be processed to translate it from the metric data type (e.g., redds) into the 

indicator data type (e.g., spawners), and then reduced to generate the indicator required 

(e.g., list of weekly counts on spawning grounds to annual total for watershed). 

A future collaborative Washington Gorge Area Regional Board could direct 

implementation and develop a program to monitor the status and trend of steelhead 

population viability attributes, their habitats and their associated limiting factors 

throughout the Rock Creek subbasin. In the event that a collaborative Board cannot be 

established, co-managers along with participating local entities and individuals would 

establish such a program to utilize and comport with the guidelines developed in the 

NMFS, “Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and 

Monitoring Guidance”, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) 

and the Collaborative, and the Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP). 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

68

8.2.3 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring specifically addresses cause-and-effect questions. 

Demonstrating the direct and indirect impact of management actions requires supporting 

all steps in the logical chain that connects the action to its expected impact. This chain is 

rarely short and usually contains several hypotheses. For this reason, it’s better to build 

the effectiveness monitoring into the recovery action strategies, with, for example, pilotscale tests or other methods carefully thought out beforehand. 

Effectiveness monitoring, tests hypotheses and determines (via research) whether an 

action is effective and should be continued. Effectiveness monitoring should be 

coordinated with implementation monitoring. Not all recovery actions recommended in 

this plan need to be monitored for effectiveness. However, it is important that a 

sufficient number of replicates of each “type” of action be assessed for effectiveness. To 

the extent possible, effectiveness monitoring of recovery actions should be coordinated 

with the Washington’s effectiveness monitoring program and should be monitored using 

the Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design with stratified random sampling, as 

described in the Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy (Monitoring Oversight 

Committee 2002). This strategy describes in detail the approach, indicators, and 

protocols needed to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration classes. 

Monitoring and evaluation will only provide the answers to the questions they were 

designed to address; they do not provide the framework for revising these questions if 

they are ill-posed, evaluating the assumptions upon which the strategy was built, or 

incorporating learning into future decisions on actions and strategies—this is the role of 

adaptive management. Further guidance on effectiveness monitoring and validation 

monitoring/research can be found in NOAA’s “Adaptive Management for Salmon 

Recovery: Evaluation Framework and Monitoring Guidance.” 

8.3 Research and Critical Uncertainties 

Critical uncertainties, the unknown aspects of environmental conditions vital to salmonid 

survival, are a major focus of the research, monitoring, and evaluation program. Critical 

uncertainties fall into several categories policy, legislation, and science. The RM&E will 

focus primarily on the scientific uncertainties. 

8.3.1 Out-of-Subbasin Uncertainties

There are numerous uncertainties regarding out-of-subbasin factors affecting the Rock 

Creek steelhead population. Successful recovery of steelhead as defined by the regional 

recovery plan requires achieving specific levels of productivity for populations within the 

entire DPS, not only acceptable productivity within any single basin that is a part of the 

DPS. This means that local communities in different watersheds/basins across local and 

state boundaries are dependent upon each other for successful delisting of these species. 

Results of actions, monitoring and research associated with NOAA’s Estuary Module and 

2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion should be coordinated with an appropriate local 

collaborative Board. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

69

8.3.2 In-Subbasin Uncertainties

Monitoring is needed to establish linkages between specific actions and resultant 

environmental effects. Those linkages are complex and often not well understood. 

Understanding them requires input from experts from various fields. It is important that 

the actions recommended in the Plan to benefit listed fish species in the Rock Creek 

subbasin be reviewed by fish ecologists, geologists, hydrologists, and other experts 

familiar with the recovery region to determine how uncertainties may affect the 

interpretation of results. 

Specific benchmark values for the VSP parameters will likely be refined during plan 

implementation based on new information. The following are examples of 

questions/research that would significantly enhance the ability to answer the information 

gaps or other relevant questions by providing new information to reduce uncertainty. 

These ideas and concerns could be discussed and prioritized during collaborative 

development of an RM& E plan. 

• Conduct surveys to determine steelhead distribution. 

• Gather information to calculate abundance and productivity estimates. 

• Evaluate population phenotypic and genetic variation. 

• Identify major life history strategies. 

• Conduct studies to address genetic variation in the population. 

• Assess the contribution of hatchery-origin steelhead to the natural spawning 

opulation. 

• Document the ‘spawner’ contribution/distribution throughout the subbasin. 

• Determine the number of Rock Creek steelhead caught in various fisheries. 

• Evaluate the importance of ‘straying’ as a mechanism of maintaining the 

population. 

• Determine survival from egg to fry. 

• Further evaluate limiting factors and their causes. 

• Evaluate what can be done to reduce stream temperature (Aspect Consulting 

2005; Glass 2009). 

• Evaluate what can be done to enhance stream flow (Aspect Consulting 2005; 

Glass 2009). 

• Implement genetic research to identify genotypic variation, help establish 

presence of winter and summer runs in Rock Creek. 

• Increase understanding of linkages between physical and biological processes so 

that managers can predict changes in survival and productivity in response to 

selected recovery actions. 

• Validate the EDT model for Rock Creek with up-to date information, conduct 

sensitivity analyses for the model, and test assumptions built into the Rock Creek 

model runs. 

• Determine relative performance (survival and productivity) and reproductive 

success of naturally produced steelhead in the wild. 

• Assess population structure. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

70

• Assess steelhead distribution in neighboring subbasins and determine genetic 

relationship to Rock Creek steelhead population 

• Determine the effects of exotic species on recovery of steelhead and the feasibility 

of actions to eradicate or control numbers of exotic species. 

• Evaluate increased predation risks from native and non-native fish and birds. 

• Assess eutrophication and aquatic vegetation impacts and determine ecologically 

sound solutions to address the problems near the mouth of Rock Creek. 

• Assess potential of conserving and rehabilitating springs. 

• Identify what current water temperatures in the lower river are, and whether fish 

can survive with higher average mainstem temperatures if in-stream and side 

channel/floodplain habitats are intact, diverse and provide thermal refugia. 

8.4 Existing Monitoring and Research 

Many entities have been or will be implementing recovery actions within and 

downstream from the Rock Creek subbasin. Monitoring programs with which to 

coordinate include: 

• WRIA 31 Watershed Monitoring Program (Klickitat County, EKCD, and the 

Washington Department of Ecology). 

• Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project, 

• Yakama Nation Monitoring, 

• NOAA Fisheries RME Program, 

• Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program, 

• PACFISH/INFISH Monitoring Program, 

• Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, 

• USFWS, USGS, and BOR Monitoring Programs, 

• WDFW and Department of Ecology monitoring programs, and 

• Local Conservation District monitoring. 

It is critical that these programs be consulted to emphasize utility, reduce redundancy, 

increase efficiency, and minimize costs. 

8.5 Additional Needs 

Additional monitoring needs may be identified in the future and should be incorporated 

into the RM&E plan during development or through the implementation of the adaptive 

management process. 

8.6 Data Management 

A formal and documented approach to data management is essential to adaptive 

management. A well-designed data management plan can help to ensure that data of a 

specified quality and quantity is available, at a specified time, to meet specified data 

analysis needs. Protocols, metrics, and other data standardization tools such as common 

data entry methods are a top priority for recovery plans. Coordination across existing 

monitoring programs and projects will be underpinned by an integrated monitoring and 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

71

data management framework. The framework would, for example, require the use of 

common methodologies for sample design, data collection, data validation, and data 

sharing in order to address common questions. Data management systems should be 

developed and coordinated with national and regional efforts for consistency with 

regional and national data standards. Project implementation data management should be 

consistent with PCSRF protocols where appropriate and guidance from PNAMP’s 

effectiveness work group. Further guidance on data management is provided in the 

NMFS Guidance document Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery. 

It may be appropriate to incorporate data management with the Yakima Klickitat 

Fisheries Project, the WRIA 31 Watershed Management Plan implementation (and the 

WRIA 31 initiating governments), and other regional programs to provide easy 

comparison with existing large datasets within the DPS. There may be some 

administrative obstacles to this, but efficiency would dictate that this is likely the most 

appropriate resource. Storage of new monitoring information and access to existing 

information will be under contract with the local implementation body of this plan. 

8.7 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs

This recovery plan will utilize existing monitoring programs to evaluate the status/trend 

and effectiveness of recovery actions within the Rock Creek Basin. Specifically, this 

approach should incorporate strategies, indicators, and protocols described in the WRIA 

31 Watershed Management Plan, the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy, the 

Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy, and Collaborative Systemwide 

Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP). The development of other regional 

monitoring programs may result in modifications to the monitoring programs used in the 

Rock Creek basin. These other programs, in various states of development, include such 

approaches as Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). As these 

programs develop more fully, they will provide guidance on valid sampling and statistical 

designs, measuring protocols, and data management. This information may be used to 

refine and improve the existing monitoring and evaluation programs in the Rock Creek 

basin. The intent is to make monitoring and evaluation programs in Rock Creek 

consistent with programs throughout the ESUs/DPSs and Columbia Basin. 

8.8 Coordination 

Many entities have been or will be implementing recovery actions within and 

downstream from the Rock Creek Basin. Monitoring programs to coordinate with 

include: 

• NOAA Fisheries RME Program, 

• Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program, 

• PACFISH/INFISH Monitoring Program, 

• Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, 

• USFWS, USGS, and BOR Monitoring Programs, 

• WDFW and WDOE Monitoring Programs, 

• Local Underwood Conservation District Monitoring, and 

• WRIA 31 Implementing Governments. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

72

It is critical that these programs be consulted to emphasize utility, reduce redundancy, 

increase efficiency, and minimize costs. 

8.9 Evaluation Schedule 

The Rock Creek subbasin currently has no collaborative regional Board guiding and 

coordinating recovery implementation. Tracking progress or needs for adaptive 

management in the Rock Creek subbasin by evaluating information from the recovery 

plan’s research and monitoring programs would be one of the roles of a Washington 

Gorge Area Regional Board. Appropriate time intervals and triggers/goals need to be 

established to evaluate project implementation, compliance and effectiveness; the status 

(and change in status) of a population’s viability attributes; the status of a population’s 

limiting factors; and the research needs identified in the recovery plan. 

On an annual basis, the Washington Gorge Area Regional Board would review efforts 

within the Rock Creek subbasin to determine whether funding has been obtained and 

actions initiated. Further evaluations should occur at intervals coordinated with other 

subbasin in the DPS. Reviews at this time should start with funding and implementation 

effectiveness. If funding and implementation have taken place previously, their 

effectiveness should be reviewed and progress toward the overall implementation of 

projects within Rock Creek should be measured. Status reviews should be coordinated 

with NOAA Fisheries five-year status reviews. Progress, or the lack thereof, should be 

evaluated within context of the entire DPS. In the absence of a Washington Gorge Area 

Regional board, monitoring efforts would probably continue to be 

coordinated/implemented through two programs -- Yakama Nation Fisheries, and, WRIA 

31 Watershed Planning under Chapter 90.82 RCW, which coordinates state and local 

efforts. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

73

9. References 

Aspect Consulting and WPN (Watershed Professionals Network). 2004. Level 1 

Watershed Assessment WRIA 31 (Rock-Glade Watershed). Prepared for: WRIA 

31 Planning Unit. Project No. 030009-001-01. November 12, 2004. Final Project 

funded through the Washington Department of Ecology Grant No. G020010. 

November 12, 2004. http://www.klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/default.asp?fd=3 

Aspect Consulting. 2005. Rock Creek Water Quality Report, WRIA 31. Prepared by 

Aspect Consulting for WRIA 31 Planning Unit. June 22, 2005. 

http://www.klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/default.asp?fd=3 

Bambrick, D., T. Cooney, B. Farman, K. Gullett, L. Hatcher, S. Hoefer, E. Murray, R. 

Tweten, R. Gritz, P. Howell, K. McDonald, D. Rife, C. Rossel, A. Scott, J. Eisner, 

J. Morris and D. Hand. 2004. Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team (CHART) 

Assessment for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. 

Chapter 4 In: W.R. Meehan (ed.). Influences of forest and rangland management 

on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 

Brown, J.C. 1979. Geology and Water Resources of Klickitat County. Washington State 

Department of Ecology Water Supply Bulletin No. 50. August 1979. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1985. Field exam of Rock Creek, Klickitat County. 

Memorandum to Wenatchee Area Manager. November 4, 1985. 2pp (plus 

attachments). 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Summary of Rock Creek Stream Survey, 

May 20, 1986 by Art Oakley, State Office Fishery Biologist. Central and Eastern 

Klickitat Conservation Districts. 1991. Watershed Inventory Project – Final 

Report. Prepared for the Washington State Conservation Commission. Grant 

Contract Number 89-34-02. 

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, E. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. 

Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead 

from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum 27. 

Carmichael, R. 2009. Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations 

in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. August 

2009. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

74

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds 

of large salmonids. Tran. Am. Dish. Soc. 117(1): 1-21. Bethesda, MD. 

Chapman, D., C. Pevan, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi, and F. Utter. 1994. Status of summer 

steelhead in the mid-Columbia River. Don Chapman Consultants Inc., Boise, ID, 

235p. 

Coe, D. 2004. The hydrologic impact of roads at varying spatial and temporal scales: a 

review of the published literature. Submitted to the Cooperative Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Research Committee. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, WA. 

Columbia Basin Accords. 2008. Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of 

Agreement between the Three Treaty Tribes and FCRPS Action Agencies. BPA 

(Bonneville Power Administration), Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 

USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission. 2008. Memorandum of agreement among the Umatilla, Warm 

Springs, and Yakama Tribes, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Three Treaty Tribes – Action 

Agency Agreement. April 4. Attachment G. Biological Benefits. Available at: 

http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Biological_opinions/FCRPS/2008_biop/Columbi

aBasinFishAccords.cfm 

Cooper, R., and T. H. Johnson. 1992. Trends in steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

abundance in Washington and along the Pacific coast of North America. 

Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division. 90pp. 

Crozier, L. and R.W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for 

differential population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal 

Ecology (2006) 75:1100-1109. 

Crozier, L., R.W. Zabel, and A.F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of 

climate change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring. Global 

Change Biology (2008) 14:236-249. 

Davis, D.A. 1993. Washington state pesticide monitoring program, reconnaissance 

sampling of surface waters (1992): Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 

Environmental Investigation and Laboratory Services Program, Olympia, WA. 38 

p. + appendices. 

Dugger, C. 1999. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 

to Kevin Lautz. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

75

Ehinger, W. 1996. Evaluation of High Temperature in Rock Creek (Klickitat County). 

Washington State Department of Ecology Report #96-308. February 1996. 

Fleming, I.A. 1998. Pattern and variability in the breeding system of Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo salar), with comparisons to other salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 55(Supplement 1): 59-76. 

Garcia, T. 1998. Letter from Terry Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, to Ted Strong, Executive Director, Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission. July 21. 

Glass, D. R. 2009. WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Klickitat 

County and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Grant No. G0900072. 

Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of Federally 

listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U. S. Commer., NOAA 

Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598p. 

Harr, D.H., W.C. Harper, and J.T. Krieger. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after 

road building and clear-cutting in the Oregon coast range. Water Resources 

research. 11(3): 436-444. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate Change Impacts on 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB climate Change Report, ISAB 

2007-2. May 11, 2007. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent 

Populations of Chinook, Steelhead, and Sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily 

Significant Units Within the Interior Columbia River Domain. Working Draft. 

July 2003. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007a. Memorandum to 

NMFS NW Regional Office, co-managers and other interested parties. Scenarios 

for MPG and ESU viability consistent with TRT viability criteria. January 8, 

2007. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007b. Viability Criteria 

for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. Technical Review 

Draft. March 2007. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2009. Current Status 

Reviews: Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Volume III: 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

76

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2008. Non-native species impacts on 

native salmonids in the Columbia River basin including recommendations for 

evaluating the use of non-native fish species in resident fish substitution projects. 

ISAB non-native species report. ISAB 2008-4. 

Lautz, K. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors: Water Resource 

Inventory Area 31. Washington State Conservation Commission. 

Leider, S. A., M. W. Chilcote, and J. L. Loch. 1986. Comparative life history 

characteristics of hatchery and wild steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) of summer 

and winter races in the Kalama River, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 43:1398–1409. 

McClure, M. M., E. E. Holmes, B. L. Sanderson, and C. E. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale, 

multi-species status assessment: Anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River 

basin. Ecol. Appl. 13(4):964–989. 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 

2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant 

units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. 

McEwan D. and T. A. Jackson, 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for 

California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Molenaar, D. 1982. Water in the Horse Heaven Hills, south-central Washington. 

Washington Dept. of Ecology. Water Supply Bulletin 51, in cooperation with US 

Geological Survey. 112 p., 1 plate. 

Morris, G. 2006. YN Fisheries. Personal communication. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological Opinion and incidental take 

statement on 2000 Treaty Indian and non-Indian fall season fisheries in the 

Columbia River Basin. Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Interim Endangered and Threatened 

Species Recovery Planning Guidance. Update 1.2. September, 2007. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007a. Adaptive Management for ESAListed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring 

Guidance. NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

May 1, 2007. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

77

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007b. Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead. November 5, 2007. Available 

at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery 

Plans/Estuary-Module.cfm

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Biological Opinion: Impacts of U.S. v 

OR Fisheries in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA listed Species 

and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat. May 5, 2008. Available at 

https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/biop_results_detail?reg_inclause_in=%28%27NWR%27%29&idin=107547 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act Consultation: consultation on remand for operation of the 

Columbia River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the 

Columbia Basin. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 

NMFS. 2008c. Recovery Plan Module for Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower 

Projects (“Hydro Module”). NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004. Draft Lower Mid-Columbia 

Mainstem, including Rock Creek Subbasin Plan. 2004. 

Packard, F. A., A. J. Hansen, and H. H. Bauer. 1994. Groundwater availability and 

simulated water-level declines in the basalt aquifers of the Horse Heaven Hills, 

south-central Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 

Report. 

Rich, A. A. 1987. Water temperatures which optimize growth and survival of the 

anadromous fishery resources of the lower American River. Report prepared for 

McDonough, Holland, and Allen, Sacramento, CA. 

Sharp, W. 2008. Yakama Nation Fisheries. Personal communication. 

Spencer, J., 2006. Yakama Nation Fisheries. Personal communication. 

Tappel, P.D., and T.C. Bjornn. 1983. A new method of relating size of spawning gravel 

to salmonid embryo survival. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

3: 123-135. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Miscellaneous streamflow measurements in the 

State of Washington, January 1961 to September 1985. USGS Open File report 

98-380. 

Waples, R. S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of "species" 

under the Endangered Species Act. Mar. Fish. Rev. 53: 11-21. 
Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

78

Washington Department of Ecology. 2008. 2008 Washington State Water Quality 

Assessment. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html. 

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western 

Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and 

Steelhead Stock Inventory. 212pp. 

WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008a. 2008-2009 Fishing 

in Washington Rule Pamphlet. Available on the Internet at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/2008/2008sportregs.pdf (accessed April 16, 2009). 

WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008b. Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plan. Mid-Columbia River Region. Prepared by 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. April 22, 2008. Olympia, WA. 

WRIA (Water Resources Inventory Area) 31 Planning Unit. 2008. Watershed 

Management Plan Rock-Glade Watershed (WRIA 31). 

http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/fileshtml/2008wria31/WRIA_31_Watershed_

Mgt_Plan_20080919.pdf

WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2005. WRIA 31 Habitat Limiting 

Factors Report. Available at: http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/wria31sum.shtml
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

79

Appendix I. Eastern Tributaries in the Washington Gorge 

Management Unit 

Introduction 

NMFS defined “management units” for salmon and steelhead recovery planning based on 

jurisdictional boundaries as well as areas where local recovery planning efforts were underway. 

Several small eastern Washington tributaries of the Columbia River that drain lands to the east of 

the Rock Creek watershed are included in the Washington Gorge Management Unit and are 

considered part of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. The management unit includes 

the White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek subbasins as well as the following small tributaries 

to the east: Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine Creek, Alder Creek, Glade Creek, and Fourmile 

Canyon (Figure ApI-1). 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) included these small eastern 

Washington State tributaries in the independent population boundaries of the Willow Creek and 

Umatilla populations of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS, which were historically the 

closest upstream independent populations (Figure ApI-1). The Willow Creek population is now 

considered extirpated (ICTRT 2009). 

Appendix I describes steelhead distribution and current conditions in several small tributaries to 

the Columbia River that drain areas in eastern Washington State upstream of Rock Creek. These 

tributaries are included in the Washington Gorge Management Unit of the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS, which also contains the Rock Creek subbasin. There is very little information 

available about these small eastern Washington tributaries. NMFS considers them lower priority at 

this time than restoring the core populations of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. These 

drainages do not have enough historical habitat potential to sustain minimum numbers of spawners 

over a long time. If there are steelhead present, which has not been established in all cases, the 

ICTRT believes that the long-term occupancy of these small, relatively isolated streams probably 

depends on straying from a variety of areas, with the nearest upstream populations likely being the 

largest contributors of strays. 

A summary of the available information is included as an Appendix to the Rock Creek Plan 

simply to acknowledge that these tributaries are part of the Washington Gorge Management Unit 

and that some insight into these areas might be useful to scientists and stakeholders in the future. 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

80

Figure ApI-1 NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

81

The Umatilla and Willow Creek populations are part of the Oregon-Washington bi-state 

Umatilla/Walla Walla major population group (MPG) of the Middle Columbia River steelhead 

DPS. The Umatilla/Walla MPG includes three extant populations and one extirpated population. 

The Umatilla population is classified as a large population, and the other two, the Walla Walla 

and the Touchet, are classified as intermediate in size. The Umatilla population spawns primarily 

in Oregon, the Walla Walla population in both Oregon and Washington, and the Touchet 

population entirely in Washington. The Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan (NMFS 

2009) and the Oregon Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan (Carmichael 2009) 

target the Umatilla population for viability and provide viability criteria, status assessment, 

limiting factors and threats, strategies and actions for recovery of the Umatilla population. The 

Willow Creek population is extirpated, and it is not considered to be a potential contributor to 

recovery of the DPS (NMFS 2009). 

The small eastern Washington tributaries do not have enough historical habitat potential to 

sustain minimum numbers of spawners over a long time. If there are steelhead present, which has 

not been established in all cases, the ICTRT believes that the long-term occupancy of these 

small, relatively isolated streams probably depends on straying from a variety of areas, with the 

nearest upstream population likely being the largest contributor of strays. For that reason, the 

ICTRT included Alder Creek, Glade Creek, and Fourmile Canyon in the Umatilla population, 

and by the same logic inferred that steelhead (if any) in Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine 

Creek, and Old Lady Canyon historically could have been related to the now-extirpated Willow 

Creek population. It is unlikely that any current production in those small tributaries on the 

Washington side reflects Willow Creek. It is much more likely that any current production in 

those streams is either ephemeral, or linked with a currently producing upstream tributary (e.g., 

the Umatilla), or the result of straying from other extant steelhead populations/hatchery programs 

(ICTRT 2003, ICTRT 2009, and Tom Cooney, pers. comm. 2009). 

Recovery Goal 

NMFS' goal is for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS to be recovered and removed from 

listed status under the ESA. Biological goals and criteria for the recovery of steelhead 

populations and MPGs in the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS were developed by the 

ICTRT (2009) and described in the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan. 

According to ICTRT viability criteria (ICTRT 2005, ICTRT 2007a, ICTRT 2007b), the 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG and other MPGs in the DPS should be at low risk (viable) for the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS to be considered viable. ICTRT criteria recommend, and 

the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan provides, that for the Umatilla/Walla 

Walla MPG to be regarded as viable: 

1. Two of the historical populations in the MPG should meet at least minimum viability 

standards. 

2. Viable populations within the MPG should include one large and one intermediate sized 

populations. 

3. All major life history strategies present historically should be represented. 

4. One population should be highly viable. 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

82

5. All populations that do not meet viable status should be maintained. 

Figure ApI-2 NMFS Populations and Major Population Groups for the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead DPS.

To meet the MPG-level viability criteria for the ESA, the Umatilla population should be at least 

viable (less than 5 percent extinction risk), or highly viable (less than 1 percent extinction risk). 

Either one of the intermediate populations, the Touchet or Walla Walla, should also reach viable 

or highly viable status. The remaining extant population should have no more than a 25 percent 

extinction risk. The Willow Creek population is considered extirpated and is not currently 

included in the ICTRT’s recommended recovery scenario for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

(ICTRT 2005, ICTRT 2007a). 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

83

Because the Umatilla is a large population, the ICTRT recommended that to be viable, it should 

reach a minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 naturally produced spawners with a sufficient 

intrinsic productivity to achieve a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe 

(ICTRT 2009). 

The ICTRT considered Alder Creek, Glade Creek, and Fourmile Canyon to be spawning areas 

for the Umatilla River steelhead population, and included them in the assessment of spatial 

structure/diversity for that population (Section 6.1.9 in Carmichael 2009, and ICTRT 2009). 

However, these small tributaries were not included in the abundance/productivity rating because 

the Umatilla River drainage contains sufficient intrinsic potential habitat by itself to meet the 

definition of a large population. The Umatilla drainage is the core production area for the 

population (ICTRT 2009). 

The Umatilla population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria because its 

abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity risk ratings are both moderate. It does 

meet criteria for a “maintained” (moderate risk) population. 

Recovery strategies and actions for the Umatilla population aim to improve viability by 

implementing actions to: 

• Coordinate between planners, scientists and those implementing recovery actions in 

Washington and Oregon for sequencing, monitoring and adaptive management. 

• Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and access for steelhead production. 

Improvements to freshwater habitat should be targeted to address specific factors in 

specific areas as described in the Southeast Washington Plan (SE Washington 

Management Unit Plan) and the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan (Oregon Management 

Unit Plan). 

• Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto 

natural spawning grounds within the Umatilla/Walla Walla subbasins. 

• Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 

Summary of Existing Information on the Eastern Washington Tributaries 

The eastern tributaries that are part of the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG fall within Washington’s 

Middle Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region, which comprises salmon-bearing streams in 

Benton, Kittitas, Yakima, and parts of Chelan and Klickitat counties. They are in the state’s 

Rock-Glade Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 31, which is bounded on the south and east 

by the Columbia River, on the west by the Klickitat River subbasin, and on the north by the 

Simcoe Mountains and a basalt ridge of the Horse Heaven Hills. They flow in a southerly to 

southeasterly direction to Lake Umatilla, the portion of the Columbia River impounded by the 

John Day Lock and Dam. Elevations range from 200 feet at the confluence of Rock Creek and 

the Columbia River to over 4,000 feet in the Horse Heaven Hills (WSCC 2005). 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

84

Wood Gulch and Pine Creek drain an area of Washington State that is dominated by extensive 

basalt flows having a total thickness of up to 5,000 feet. The erosion-resistant nature of these 

flows has resulted in the creation of deep (500 to 800 feet), steep-walled canyons and has 

severely constrained floodplain development along substantial portions of the streams within this 

area (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). Chapman, Alder, Glade, and Fourmile Creeks flow 

over deep deposits of loess (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). Steep-walled canyons are 

common in these creeks as well because the underlying loess is highly erosive. 

The streams appear to have similar geomorphic characteristics. Headwater tributaries flow out of 

the mountains and across the relatively flat basalt plateau at gradients of generally less than 1 

percent; this area is above known anadromous use. Coming off the plateau, streams enter steepwalled canyons; gradients increase to 2 – 4 percent or more. Below the canyon reaches, most of 

the streams enter alluvial valleys; gradients range between 1 percent and 2 percent near the upper 

end, dropping to less than 1 percent as streams approach the Columbia. 

Climate over the area is typical of that found on the east side of the Cascades; average daily 

temperatures range from 70°F in the summer (with maximums commonly above 90° F) to 37° F 

in the winter. Annual precipitation ranges from 14 to 16 inches in the eastern portion of upper 

Wood Gulch to less than 10 inches over the eastern two-thirds of the area. Most of the 

precipitation in the area falls between October and April (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Cultivated agriculture is a more dominant land use in those subbasins with deep deposits of 

loess, including the lower halves of Alder, Glade, and Fourmile Creeks. A large portion of the 

cultivated land is irrigated in the southern halves of Glade Creek and Fourmile Creek, and to a 

lesser extent in the Alder Creek tributaries (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

All these streams may have temperature problems: high water temperatures are recorded during 

summer months. Data suggest that water temperatures in Chapman Creek, Alder Creek, Wood 

Gulch and Pine Creek have been found to exceed the Washington Department of Ecology 

standard (17.5°C/63.5°F) (BLM 1986, EKCD 1997, Lautz 2000). 

The ICTRT (2007) used regression models based on available stream temperature-elevation data 

to characterize reach-specific temperature regimes. The ICTRT cautioned that those projections 

reflect the factors driving stream temperatures during the periods of observation and are not 

necessarily representative of historical conditions. However, they used temperature mapping, 

based on those relationships, to identify populations and areas that are subject to relatively high 

stream temperatures during key rearing (and spawning) periods. Glade Creek and Fourmile 

Canyon are temperature-limited areas that could potentially have had temperature limitations 

historically. Alder Creek appears to be only partially temperature limited (ICTRT 2009). 

Land use in Wood Gulch and Pine Creek subbasins is largely rangeland. While there is some 

dryland farming in these subbasins, the subbasins have shallow soils overlying aged basalts and 

are not well suited for cultivation. Cultivated agriculture is a more dominant land use in those 

subbasins with deep deposits of loess, including the lower halves of Chapman, Alder, Glade, and 

Fourmile Creeks. A large portion of the cultivated land is irrigated in the southern halves of 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

85

Glade Creek and Fourmile Creek, and to a lesser extent Alder Creek, subbasins (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Alder Creek 

Alder Creek encompasses an area of 199.09 sq. miles (127,418.3 acres). Very little information 

is available regarding habitat conditions or steelhead distribution in the basin. The lower portion 

of Alder Creek is perennial as a result of spring water inputs and, in the lower half of the 

subbasin, irrigation return flow. Despite relatively dense riparian vegetation along the narrow 

creek, stream temperatures in the summer tend to be warm, with seven-day average temperatures 

possibly exceeding the state standard. Hill slopes of Sixprong Creek, a tributary to Alder Creek, 

were found to be up to 50 feet in height, nearly vertical, and of highly erosive material. The 

stream channel is well-defined in much of the Sixprong Creek, except in the lowest reaches, 

which contain broad wetlands. Government Land Office (GLO) land survey notes of the late 

1800s indicate the steep canyon slopes were present at the time of early settlement (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Steelhead distribution: No surveys of fish distribution have been completed in the basin. 

Steelhead adults have reportedly been observed in the lower 1.5 mi. of Alder Creek (Yakama 

Nation Fisheries, unpublished information). 

Habitat Conditions: Geology in the basin is dominated by flood deposits and loess (Aspect 

Consulting and WPN 2004). The loess is derived from wind-blown sediments and does not 

contain the gravels and cobbles necessary to form spawning habitat; therefore, there may be little 

spawning gravel present in the basin. 

Glade Creek 

The Glade Creek watershed covers 432.7 square miles on a wide, open, largely treeless, gently 

south-sloping plateau in southeastern Washington known as the Horse Heaven Hills. The 

majority of the watershed, including the lower half of mainstem Glade Creek, the eastern 

tributaries of Moore Canyon, East Branch Glade Creek, and Carter Canyon, lies in western 

Benton County, while the main branch of Glade Creek and Coyote Canyon extend across the 

northeastern corner of Klickitat County and into the southeast corner of Yakima County. Glade 

Creek’s headwaters drain the east-west trending crest of the Horse Heaven Hills at elevations 

that range from 3,560 feet at the western end to 1,420 feet. East Branch joins the main branch of 

Glade Creek at an elevation of 365 feet; the confluence of Glade Creek at the Columbia River is 

at 266 feet above sea level (Garrigues 1996). 

Annual precipitation is typically under 10 inches (Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). About 90 

percent of the precipitation falls between November and April, primarily as snow (Packard et al. 

1994). 

The Glade Creek watershed is underlain by at least 5,000 feet of basaltic flows forming three 

basalt formations, each composed of numerous, layered basalt flows with many potential 

fractured, water-bearing zones. Loess, alluvial, glaciofluvial and lacustrine deposits overlie the 

basalt and range from less than 5 feet to about 200 feet thick (Packard et al. 1994). Groundwater 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

86

flow direction in the watershed is determined to a large extent by geologic structure and 

topography, which combine to funnel groundwater flow toward the lower reaches of Glade 

Creek (Garrigues 1996). Groundwater recharge in the subbasin is estimated to be roughly 300 

percent of pre-development conditions due to irrigation return flows (Aspect Consulting and 

WPN 2004). 

Glade Creek and its tributaries are intermittent streams that, historically, have often been dry in 

the summer and autumn (Molenaar 1982; Davis 1993). Flow typically only occurs in the 

precipitation and snow-melt period, based on six crest-stage gauges on central Glade Creek and 

various tributaries and at a discharge measurement site at the creek’s mouth (Molenaar 1982). 

Under normal precipitation conditions, nearly 100 percent of the flow in Glade Creek comes 

from baseflow (groundwater discharge), except during spring runoff and peak stream discharges 

after storm events (Garrigues 1996). 

Crop production is the basis of the economy in the Glade Creek watershed. Dryland wheat 

occupies the greatest crop area, but irrigated lands have increased dramatically since the early 

1970s (Packard et al. 1994) The principal groundwater use is for crop irrigation; however, the 

primary source of water used in the subbasin is surface water imported from the Columbia River 

(Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). 

Steelhead distribution: During a study conducted in spring of 2009, single pass snorkel surveys 

were conducted in Glade Creek. O. mykiss were not observed in Glade Creek (Glass 2009). 

Dace were the only species occupying the basin. 

Habitat Condition: No suitable spawning habitat was found in the lower 2.5 miles of the 

stream (Glass 2009). The loess that dominates most of the basin is derived from wind-blown 

sediments and does not contain the gravels and cobbles necessary to form spawning habitat; 

therefore, it appears that the lack of spawning habitat is a natural condition. The available 

information regarding the naturally occurring lack of spawning habitat (Glass 2009) and absence 

of surface water flow throughout much of the basin (Garringues 1996) suggests that Glade Creek 

cannot support salmonid populations under naturally occurring conditions. 

Fourmile Canyon 

No information is available for Fourmile Canyon. A review of available aerial photographs 

indicate that Fourmile Canyon does not have an outfall into the Columbia or a tributary to the 

Columbia, suggesting that the canyon cannot support anadromous species (Glass 2009). 

Chapman Creek 

The Chapman Creek watershed encompasses 24.15 sq. miles (15,453.5 acres). The headwaters 

and other stream sections are dry for much of the year. 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

87

Steelhead distribution: No O. mykiss were observed in the one pass snorkel surveys conducted 

in Chapman Creek in October and November of 2008 (Glass 2009). Speckled dace were the 

only species observed utilizing habitats in the basin during the survey. 

Habitat Condition: No suitable spawning habitat was found in the lower 4.5 miles of the 

stream, which includes the majority of the wetted area in late summer and fall. The loess which 

dominates most of the basin is derived from wind-blown sediments and does not contain the 

gravels and cobbles necessary to form spawning habitat; therefore, it appears that the lack of 

spawning habitat is a natural condition (Glass 2009). Due to the naturally occurring lack of 

spawning habitat, it is unlikely that Chapman Creek can support salmonid populations. 

Wood Gulch Creek 

Wood Gulch encompasses an area of 64.39 sq. miles (41,207.9 acres). The creek runs through a 

steep, arid canyon, with slopes that extend 500-800 feet up from the valley bottom. Precipitation 

in the basin ranges from 8 to 16 inches per year, falling primarily from October through April 

(Aspect Consulting and WPN 2004). The Wood Gulch fire burned 11,640 acres 2007, 

(www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/docs/mobilization/mobe_history_for_2008.pdf) including several 

stretches of riparian vegetation. 

Human population is sparse in the subbasin. The primary land use in the subbasin is rangeland. 

Commercial-scale wind energy facilities are also present in the subbasin on the plateaus. Few 

roads traverse the basin, and most existing jeep trails are located at a distance from the stream, 

except a few which reach the valley bottom. 

O. Mykiss distribution: Single pass snorkel surveys were conducted in Wood Gulch in October 

and November of 2008 (Glass 2009). O. Mykiss were observed between river mile 1 and river 

mile 9. The majority (58 percent) of these fish were observed between river mile 1 and river 

mile 5. The proportion of the population that is anadromous is unknown. The size distribution 

of the O. Mykiss in the lower 5 miles of the stream is consistent with sizes expected of juvenile 

anadromous fish; however, the size distribution of the fish in the upper 4 miles of the fish 

distribution suggests that those fish may be part of a resident population because there were 

numerous larger fish (Glass 2009). 

Habitat Condition: Twenty-four percent of the stream length surveyed in October and 

November of 2008 was dry. Dry segments were concentrated in the lower 1 mile of the stream 

(58.4 percent dry) and in segments upstream of approximately river mile 9 (68.7 percent dry) 

(Glass 2009). Based on GLO Land Survey notes from June 1867, Wood Gulch Creek was dry at 

the mouth and intermittent from there to the confluence of Big Horn Canyon, upstream of which 

perennial water seemed to return and extend to four miles upstream of the confluence with Big 

Horn Canyon, as well as 2-3 miles upstream into Big Horn Canyon (Aspect Consulting and 

WPN 2004). 

The majority of the spawning habitat in the Wood Gulch basin is located in the lower 5 miles of 

the stream. The percent fines in the spawning gravels in fall and early winter of 2008 was less 

than 20 percent in most of the basin, indicating that the quality of spawning gravel was generally 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

88

good. Sixty-nine percent of the pool (rearing) volume identified in the surveys of 2008 was 

found in a 0.5 mile segment between river miles 8 and 9. Twenty-eight percent of the O. mykiss

observed in the basin were found in this short stretch. The portion of the creek extending from 

river mile 1 to river mile 5 also contained numerous pools that represented 21 percent of the total 

pool volume in the basin. Fifty-eight percent of the O. mykiss observed in the basin were found 

in these pools (Glass 2009). 

Pine Creek 

Pine Creek is a small stream with a basin area of approximately 62.64 sq. miles (40,086.8 acres). 

Pine Creek feeds Lake Umatilla on the Columbia River upstream of John Day Dam in WRIA 31. 

Average subbasin elevation is 1904 feet; average annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 10 inches 

near the mouth to 14 to 16 inches in the headwaters of the basin (Aspect Consulting and WPN 

2004). 

A system of five culverts at the SR 14 highway crossing of Pine Creek was included in the 

WSDOT Fish Passage Barrier Inventory as of March 2006. The intended entrance is fully 

submerged at approximately 30 feet depth in Lake Umatilla. The upstream invert of the pipes is 

several feet above the pool water surface much of the year. A large volume of sediment and 

debris has filled in the previous creek channel nearly 15 feet, and obstructs the entrance to the 

submerged culvert. Only a small opening clogged with woody debris passes flow from the 

stream through the road fill. The constricted culvert entrance has created a barrier to fish passage 

due to physical obstructions and high water velocities (Harbor Consulting Engineers 2007). The 

culvert was attributed with 0 percent fish passage by WSDOT (2006). The barrier culverts are 

slated for replacement in 2012. 

O. Mykiss Distribution: Due to the passage barrier at the mouth, all fish in Pine Creek are 

resident fish. They may have some genetic link to a previous anadromous population, but they 

are not currently an anadromous population. 

The one pass snorkel surveys conducted in the lower 7 miles of the creek in November of 2008. 

Sixty-nine resident O. mykiss were observed distributed throughout the surveyed area (Glass 

2009). Forty percent of the O. mykiss were observed in a single pool at roughly river mile 1 and 

thirty-two percent of the fish were observed in a single pool at roughly river mile 8.3. The 

remaining 19 percent of the fish were scattered throughout the lower 7 miles of the creek. Since 

O. mykiss were found throughout the survey area, additional fish may be present upstream of the 

surveyed area. 

Habitat Condition: Within the area surveyed in November of 2008, 41.6 percent of the survey 

area was dry. Fifty-nine percent of the lower 5 miles of the stream was dry, but flow was more 

consistent further upstream where less than 10 percent of the channel length was dry (Glass 

2009). 

The majority of the spawning habitat in the surveyed portions of the Pine Creek basin is located 

between river mile 4 and river mile 8 (Glass 2009). The percent fines in the spawning gravels in 

November of 2008 was less than 20 percent in most of the basin, indicating that the quality of 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

89

spawning gravel was generally good. The total pool volume in the surveyed area was 182.1 

cubic meters. Pool habitat was distributed throughout the survey area. Many of the pools in the 

lower 5 miles were isolated between dry stretches of channel. 

Old Lady Creek 

A brief reconnaissance of Old Lady Canyon was completed on 12/16/08, four days after a period 

of heavy rain (Glass 2009). The basin has several emergent wetlands. Despite the heavy rains, 

the stream was not flowing. The culverts under Highway 14 near the mouth of the basin is well 

positioned to carry any flow but were dry and clean suggesting flow occurs rarely, if at all. 

Two vertical drops (no water) are along the apparent channel in the first reach of the basin; one is 

17 feet high and the second is 16 feet high. There is a 21-foot interval between the two drops 

where a small depression 0.5 foot deep is present. Both drops would be upstream barriers to fish 

movement if flow were present in the canyon (Glass 2009). 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

90

Appendix I References 

Aspect Consulting and WPN (Watershed Professionals Network). 2004. Level 1 Watershed 

Assessment WRIA 31 (Rock-Glade Watershed). Prepared for: WRIA 31 Planning Unit. 

Project No. 030009-001-01. November 12, 2004. Final Project funded through the 

Washington Department of Ecology Grant No. G020010. November 12, 2004. 

http://www.klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/default.asp?fd=3

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Summary of Rock Creek Stream Survey, May 20, 

1986 by Art Oakley, State Office Fishery Biologist. Central and Eastern Klickitat 

Conservation Districts. 1991. Watershed Inventory Project – Final Report. Prepared for 

the Washington State Conservation Commission. Grant Contract Number 89-34-02. 

Carmichael, R. 2009. Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. August 2009. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Davis, D.A. 1993. Washington state pesticide monitoring program, reconnaissance sampling of 

surface waters (1992): Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Environmental Investigation 

and Laboratory Services Program, Olympia, WA. 38 p. + appendices. 

EKCD (Eastern Klickitat Conservation District). 1997. 1997 Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring Report. 33 pp. 

Garrigues, R. S. 1996. Ground-water quality characterization and nitrate investigation of Glade 

Creek Watershed. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Environmental Investigation and 

Laboratory Services Program, Publication No. 96-348, Olympia, Washington. 34 p. + 

appendices. 

Glass, D. R. 2009. Draft WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Klickitat County 

and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Grant no. G0900072. 

Harbor Consulting Engineers. 2007. Pine Creek Fish Passage Conceptual Engineering Design. 

Prepared for Yakama Nation. January 31, 2007. Seattle, Washington. 

ICTRT 2003. (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent 

Populations of Chinook, Steelhead, and Sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily Significant 

Units Within the Interior Columbia River Domain. Working Draft. July 2003. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2005. Interior Columbia Basin 

TRT: Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. 

ICTRT Internal Review Draft. July 18, 2005. (Note: metrics presented in this report are 

based on a modified version of methods described within the 2005 report. Modifications 

will be described in detail in a forthcoming ICTRT document. 
Appendix I – Eastern Tributaries 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

91

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007a. Memorandum to NMFS 

NW Regional Office, co-managers and other interested parties. Scenarios for MPG and 

ESU viability consistent with TRT viability criteria. January 8, 2007. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007b. Viability Criteria for 

Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. Technical Review Draft. March 

2007. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2009. Current Status Reviews: 

Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Volume III: Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 

Lautz, K. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors: Water Resource Inventory Area 

31. Washington State Conservation Commission. 

Molenaar, D. 1982. Water in the Horse Heaven Hills, south-central Washington. Washington 

Dept. of Ecology. Water Supply Bulletin 51, in cooperation with US Geological Survey. 

112 p., 1 plate. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan 

Module for Salmon and Steelhead. November 5, 2007. Available at 

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

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Biological Opinion: Impacts of U.S. v OR

Fisheries in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA listed Species and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat. May 5, 2008. Available at 

https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/biop_results_detail?reg_inclause_in=%28%27NWR%27%29&idin=107547 

Packard, F. A., A. J. Hansen, and H. H. Bauer. 1994. Groundwater availability and simulated 

water-level declines in the basalt aquifers of the Horse Heaven Hills, south-central 

Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report. [in press] 

Washington State Conservation Commission. 2005. WRIA 31 Habitat Limiting Factors Report. 

Available at: http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/wria31sum.shtml
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

92

Appendix II. Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed

Many positive steps have already been taken or are currently underway that will improve 

steelhead habitat and overall watershed function in the Rock Creek drainage, and thus 

improve the viability of Rock Creek steelhead. The breadth of these efforts illustrates 

how natural resource managers, local governments, tribes, soil and water conservation 

districts, non-profit organizations, local land owners and many others are working 

together to improve watershed conditions that will support a viable Rock Creek steelhead 

population throughout its freshwater life stage. This appendix describes many of these 

efforts. 

Conservation Efforts 

• The Eastern Klickitat Conservation District (EKCD), under a 1996 Memorandum 

of Agreement with the Washington Department of Ecology, implemented actions 

to contribute to the protection of water quality, speed riparian recovery, and 

potentially prevent future flood-related damage in the Rock Creek drainage. In 

accordance with the MOA, the EKCD monitors water temperatures other water 

quality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrates). This MOA, however, 

lapsed in 2004 and has not been renewed, but the EKCD continues to implement 

its provisions. The EKCD monitors water temperatures other water quality 

parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrates) as well as plant vegetation 

throughout the watershed. Under a grant from the Washington Conservation 

Commission (WCC), the EKCD “cost-shares” with landowners for 

grassland/permanent cover plantings and for no-till seeding throughout the Rock 

Creek drainage. Under a different grant from the WCC, the EKCD is working 

with livestock growers throughout the basin to develop and implement BMPs 

(Best Management Practices) which target restoration and protection of riparian 

areas (Jim Hill, EKCD District Manager, pers. comm. 2006). 

• County governments, state and local agencies and other stakeholders/water 

resource interests developed a watershed plan under chapter 90.82 RCW for the 

Rock Creek Basin and elsewhere in Water Resource Inventory Area 31 (WRIA 

31). WRIA 31 encompasses the Rock Creek subbasin and other Columbia River 

tributary systems between the John Day Dam and Kennewick in Washington 

State. A watershed assessment 

(http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/Content.asp?fC=29&fD=3) was completed in 

support of the planning process (Glass 2009). The watershed management plan 

(http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/Content.asp?fC=31&fD=3), which was 

approved in April 2009, will guide water resource and habitat management 

(WRIA 31 Planning Unit 2008). Chapter 90.82 RCW provides for plan 

implementation in the amounts of $100,000 for each of the first three years, and 

$50,000 for two additional optional years. The watershed management plan 

includes a list of prioritized habitat and water resource issues and a suite of 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

93

strategies to address those issues. Actions undertaken to date to implement the 

plan include ongoing stream flow monitoring by Washington Department of 

Ecology and completion of a quantitative instream habitat assessment for Rock 

Creek and several other streams in the WRIA. 

• Washington’s water quality and other water resource related funding programs 

administered by Washington Department of Ecology take local priorities and 

consistency with WRIA watershed plans into consideration when determining 

whether to fund proposed projects through grants and/or low interest loans. The 

WRIA 31 watershed planning unit serves as the body that develops the local 

statement of agreed priority for projects proposed within Rock Creek and other 

areas of WRIA 31. 

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) works with landowners to conserve natural resources on private 

lands. The NRCS accomplishes this through various programs including, but not 

limited to, the Conservation Technical Assistance Program, Soil Survey Program, 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and the Wetlands Reserve 

Program. The NRCS works closely with local Conservation Districts; providing 

technical assistance and support.

• The Nature Conservancy has acquired land and conservations easements within 

the watershed. The Conservancy is working with Federal, state and private 

adjoining landowners to protect native habitats and significant plant and animal 

species, and to restore sites as functional ecosystems within the watershed. 

• The Yakama Nation has provided basic monitoring and recently received a small 

grant to perform fencing and riparian plantings in lower Rock Creek. These 

actions will begin to address at a small scale the following limiting factors: loss of 

riparian vegetation, altered food web, altered channel morphology. A small grant 

was recently awarded the YN to conduct water quality/quantity measures, habitat 

surveys, and Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling in Rock 

Creek. Complementing this effort, the YN has proposed assessing Rock Creek’s 

current and potential steelhead production by assessing the juvenile salmonid 

abundance, growth, life histories, and genetics. Data collected through assessment 

activities to determine steelhead distribution, diversity, relative abundance, and 

movement within or out of the watershed will help feed modeling efforts, which 

in turn will help prioritize restoration activities. 

Regulatory Protection 

Various state, tribal and county regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect riparian 

areas from current and future threats posed to listed species through habitat loss and 

degradation caused by human land uses and development. These mechanisms include 

Washington State forest and fish regulations, state and county shoreline development 

regulations and the Yakama Nation Forest Management Plan. In addition, some areas 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

94

receive special protection through designation, such as Wild and Scenic River reaches, 

primitive areas, and wildlife refuges. 

Washington State Forest Practices Regulations 

The Washington Forests & Fish Law (ESHB 2091) was signed into law in 1999 as part of 

The Washington State Forest Practices Act (Title 76.09 RCW), passed in 1974. The 

Forests & Fish Law, based on the Forests & Fish Report, resulted in changes to forest 

practices rules to protect riparian and aquatic resources on more than eight million acres 

of private forestland. It is intended to meet the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act 

concerning nonpoint source silvicultural practices. Changes to the law included: 

• Updates of the stream typing system in the state to improve mapping of fishbearing waters, 

• Increases in buffer widths along fish bearing and non fish bearing streams, 

• Changes in forest practices to protect against landslides 

• Mandatory requirements to update the forest road system to hydrologically 

disconnect roads from streams and minimize sediment delivered to streams, 

• New regulations on pesticide applications to prevent or avoid drift of chemicals 

into streams, 

• Increased protection of wetlands 

• Changes in enforcement, 

• Establishment of a scientifically based adaptive management and monitoring 

process for evaluating the impact of forest practices on aquatic resources, 

• Establishment of a process for amending the forest practices rules to incorporate 

new information as it becomes available, and 

• Establishment of a small landowner office to assist non-industrial landowners. 

The Forest Practices Rules prescribe how forest practices such as logging, road building, 

and applying chemicals are to be conducted in ways that protect public resources. When 

operators or landowners do not follow the rules, the WDNR issues enforcement orders 

and may also issue a civil (monetary) penalty. A civil penalty is most often issued when 

the violation caused significant environmental damage, when an operator or landowner 

does not comply with the department's enforcement orders, or when the operator or 

landowner has a history of repeated violations. All civil penalties become final orders of 

the department unless appealed. Although violators are notified and/or fined, the 

infractions are usually addressed after they have already been committed, and the fines 

are often relatively insignificant compared to the value of the timber harvested. 

Additional information regarding the Forest Practices rules can be found at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the State of Washington, 

submitted applications to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for incidental 

take permits under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. Issuance of these permits 

would provide assurances that all forest practices activities in compliance with the state 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

95

forest practices rules and administrative program will satisfy ESA requirements for 

aquatic species. The two services released the final HCP, environmental impact 

statement (FEIS), and implementing agreement in a Federal Register notice on Jan. 27, 

2006. This notice provides an opportunity for the public to review the final documents 

and the responses to public comments on the draft documents. 

Klickitat County Shorelines Master Plan 

The Klickitat County’s Shorelines Master Plan (SMP) regulates “development” within 

the “shorelines” of Rock Creek and other water bodies in Klickitat County’s jurisdiction. 

“Development” is broadly defined as: construction or exterior alteration of existing 

structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; 

bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or 

temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters 

overlying lands subject to the SMP regulations at any state of water level. “Shorelines” 

are those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured from the 

ordinary high water mark, floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet 

from such floodways, and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams and 

lakes. The SMP applies to the shorelines of the main stem of the Klickitat River as well 

as the shorelines of all tributaries with a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or more. 

The SMP designates various shorelines as “environments”, which determine the level of 

protection that is warranted. Rock Creek is designated “Conservancy Environment”, 

which allows a limited scope of development, subject to conditions (i.e. shoreline 

conditional use permit). 

Each development proposal is subject to review pursuant to the shoreline environment 

within which it is to be located. One or more shoreline permits must be secured prior to 

implementation: Substantial Development Permits (SDPs) are required for any 

development for which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000, or any 

development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or 

shorelines; Shoreline Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are required for development types 

that warrant conditions to ensure consistency with the SMP; and Variances (VARs) are 

issued to grant relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards of the 

SMP in order to avoid unnecessary hardship, provided that extraordinary circumstances 

are shown to exist and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 

Some types of development, such as a single-family residence, normal maintenance and 

repair, or construction of a normal protective bulkhead for a single family residence, are 

exempt from the requirement of a substantial development permit, but are still subject to 

all other provisions of the SMP. 

Klickitat County’s SMP was first adopted in the mid-1970s pursuant to the Washington 

State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and has been updated periodically since then. 

Existing structures and developments that were established prior to adoption of the SMP 

are considered legally established “nonconforming” uses. Since adoption of the SMP, all 

developments within shorelines, including modifications to nonconforming uses, have 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

96

been reviewed by the County and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to 

ensure compliance with the goals and requirements of the SMP. 

The Department of Ecology reviews County permit decisions and has final authority to 

approve or deny conditional use permits and variances. Persons may appeal the final 

decision to the Shorelines Hearings Board. 

Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance 

Klickitat County adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in 2001 and, with the 

concurrence of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Community Trade and 

Economic Development, and Ecology, amended it in 2004. The CAO extends beyond 

the geographical scope of the County’s SMP to protect wetlands, critical fish/wildlife 

habitat, geologically hazardous areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded 

areas. The CAO is, in effect, an overlay on existing land use regulations. The CAO 

provides for standard setbacks of 300’ from Category I wetlands; 200’ from Category II; 

and 75’ from Category III and IV. The CAO provides for standard buffers of 200’ from 

Type 1 & 2 waters; 150’ from Type 3 waters; 50’ from Type 4 waters; and 25’ from Type 

5 waters. A wildlife habitat management plan is required for new development that will 

likely impair habitat functions and values. As with the SMP, developments and uses that 

existed prior to the adoption of the CAO are considered legally established 

“nonconforming” uses. 

Klickitat County Floodplain Management Ordinance 

The Klickitat County Floodplain Management Ordinance (FPO) regulates all 

development and activities that may increase flood hazards. A permit is required for 

development within areas of special flood hazard (with at least 1 percent chance of 

flooding). The applicant for a non-residential structure must include a certification and 

flood analysis conducted by a professional engineer. In general, development that will 

does not meet the specific criteria in the ordinance for development in these areas, to 

protect public health and safety, will be denied. 

Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance 

The Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance (CZO) was adopted in 1979 and has been 

amended over time. Much of the Rock Creek watershed is zoned by the CZO as 

“extensive agriculture” which requires a 20-acre minimum lot size for the purpose of 

dividing properties, and new development/uses are restricted to resource management 

uses/activities and other compatible uses. One permanent residential dwelling is allowed 

per lot. Some areas of the watershed are zoned for residential development. The 

allowable minimum lot size for new lots is either 1 or 2 acres; and one residential 

dwelling is allowed per lot. Other than residential development, most new 

development/uses in these zones is either prohibited or allowed per a zoning conditional 

use permit. 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

97

Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO) 

The Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO) was adopted pursuant to the State 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The CEO and SEPA require an analysis of probable 

significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from a proposed development. 

The CEO and SEPA require a threshold determination for each proposed development 

that is not exempt. The threshold determination is a determination that a project will or 

will not have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. If a project has 

probable significant adverse impacts, and environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

prepared. Any proposed development/use that is not specifically exempt in SEPA, 

chapter 43.21C RCW, or the SEPA rules adopted by the Department of Ecology, chapter 

197-11 WAC, is required to comply with SEPA. Klickitat County provides applicable 

state agencies and tribes, as well as the public, the opportunity to review threshold 

determinations and EISs. 

Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) 

This act gives Ecology the authority to protect water quality in the state and to 

promulgate regulations as needed to achieve this goal. The Act makes discharges of 

pollutants into waters of the state unlawful and has provisions for enforcement of 

violations, including the authority and process for issuing compliance orders and civil 

penalties, and for seeking criminal penalties. The Act also provides for permitting 

processes, cooperation with other entities, water quality monitoring, grants, and 

numerous other subjects regarding management of water quality issues in the state. 

Washington’s Statewide Monitoring Program 

In 2001, Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 5637 was signed into law. This act related to 

monitoring of watershed health and salmon recovery. The Monitoring Oversight 

Committee developed a comprehensive statewide strategy that addresses the actions 

identified in SSB 5637 (Monitoring Oversight Committee 2002). Among other things, 

the Plan is intended to provide information regarding trends in fish, water, and habitat 

conditions and assess effectiveness of actions taken to improve watershed health and 

provide for salmon recovery. The strategy includes documentation of fish population 

trends in some areas of the state; however, the Rock Creek Subbasin is not one of the 

areas included to date in that monitoring effort. The strategy is also monitoring the 

effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts funded by the State. The monitoring of project 

effectiveness follows the Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy that was developed by the 

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board in support of the Comprehensive 

Statewide Strategy. The Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy specified methods to assess 

a wide range of restoration and protection projects. 

On-Site Sewage Systems 

Chapter 246-272 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulates the on site 

disposal of sewage in the state. The law is applicable to septic systems as well as larger 

on-site systems. The rule addresses location of systems, site evaluations, design, 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

98

installation, inspection, operation and maintenance, repair, abandonment, and other areas 

of concern. The rule helps to prevent the discharge of sewage into fish-bearing streams. 

Hydraulic Code 

Chapter 75.20 RCW governs construction projects within the waters of the state. The law 

requires hydraulic project approvals from the Department of Fish and Wildlife for 

wharves, bulkheads, bridges, culverts, fish habitat restoration projects, and other 

construction activities within the ordinary high water mark. This regulation helps to 

protect fish and fish habitat during construction. 

Regulation of Dairy Farms 

Chapter 90.64 RCW, the Dairy Nutrient Management Act, includes a number of 

requirements designed to protect water quality from dairy operations. These are in 

addition to NPDES requirements in the Federal and State Clear Water Acts for 

concentrated animal feeding operations. The Act requires inspection of all dairy farms, 

implementation of dairy nutrient management plans, technical assistance and 

enforcement (including civil penalties) against significant polluters. The intent of the 

regulation is to protect water quality and, subsequently, fish habitat. Ecology is the 

primary regulatory authority under this Act. 

Other Rules and Regulations 

There are over 100 additional rules and regulations applicable to the protection of water 

quality and fish habitat in the State of Washington. These rules cover a broad range of 

subjects such as groundwater quality standards, application of pesticides, well 

construction, motor oil disposal, utilities, solid waste disposal and recycling, water supply 

facilities, mining, energy facilities, dikes and levies, aquiculture, etcetera. Lists of 

applicable laws and rules and links to the specific requirements of those laws and rules 

can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules. 

Voluntary Programs 

A number of voluntary programs have been developed to encourage landowners to 

implement conservation programs on their lands and to assist landowners with habitat 

improvement actions. Some of these programs are described below. The list includes 

only the larger programs. Other programs exist and new programs may be developed in 

the future that can be used to assist with conservation actions on private lands. 

Lead Entity Process 

In 1998 the Washington State Legislature enacted chapter 77.85 RCW to empower 

citizens at the community level to engage in salmon recovery through a locally driven 

habitat protection and restoration program. The legislation recognized that active local 

participation is the key to ensuring public participation in, and support for, salmon 

recovery. Through this legislation, local “Lead Entities” were identified and funded to 

implement chapter 77.85 RCW. Lead Entities prioritize projects for PCSRF funding 

administered by Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board. A lead entity has 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

99

not been established for the Rock Creek subbasin, therefore PCSRF funds are not 

accessible at this time for habitat protection or restoration projects in the subbasin. 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a voluntary program designed to 

establish forested buffers along streams where riparian habitat is poorly developed. Land 

enrolled in CREP is removed from production and grazing under 10 to 15-year contracts. 

In return, landowners receive annual rental, incentive, maintenance and cost share 

payments. The CREP program is administered by the Farm Service Agency and the State 

of Washington. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

The Conservation Reserve Program provides technical and financial assistance to eligible 

farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their 

lands. The program encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other 

environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover such as native grasses, wildlife 

plantings, trees, filter strips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental 

payment for the term of a multi-year contract. The program is funded by the Farm 

Service Agency with technical assistance from the National Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS). 

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) 

The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary program that protects soil, 

improves air and water quality, and enhances fish and wildlife habitat through the use of 

buffers, filter strips, and wind breaks. Contract periods range from 10 to 15 years. Cost 

shares and yearly payments are provided as incentives for participation in the program. 

The program is run by the Farm Services Agency. 

The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 

The Grassland Reserve Program is a voluntary program that helps landowners and 

operators restore and protect grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, shrubland, and 

certain other lands, while maintaining the areas as grazing lands. The program includes 

options for permanent or 30-year easements. Landowners receive payment for the 

easements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the 

program in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program was re-authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill 

to promote agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national 

goals. The program is administered by NRCS. Management incentive payments and 

cost share benefits are available to support implementation of practices directly affecting 

the health of soils, water, animals, plants, and air. 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

100

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) 

The Conservation Security Program is a voluntary program that provides financial and 

technical assistance to producers who practice good stewardship on their agricultural 

lands and incentive to those that want to improve or expand their conservation measures. 

Lands that can be placed into the program include cropland, pastureland, prairie, 

rangeland, and incidental forested land. The contract period and cost-share payments are 

based on a three-tier approach, with increasing compensation associated with increased 

natural resource protection. The program is run by the NRCS. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a voluntary program that encourages creation 

of high quality wildlife habitats that support populations of National, State, tribal, and 

local significance. Through WHIP, the NRCS provides technical and financial assistance 

to landowners to develop upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their 

properties. Participants voluntarily limit future use of the land for a period of time, but 

retain private ownership. Agreements are usually five to ten years in duration. 

The Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) 

The Healthy Forest Reserve Program is a voluntary program established for the purpose 

of restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems to promote the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species, improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestrations. The 

program offers three enrollment options including a 10-year agreement, a 30-year 

easement, and a longer term easement. The compensation to landowners increases with 

the term of the easement agreement. The program is administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and through the Conservation District. 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 

The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program that provides technical and 

financial assistance to landowners to address wetland, wildlife habitat, soil, water, and 

related natural resource concerns on private lands. The landowner receives financial 

incentives to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands or lands that have been historically 

modified for agricultural production in exchange for retiring marginal land from 

agriculture. Easements are either permanent or 30-year agreements. The NRCS 

administers the program. 

Forestry Riparian Easement Program (FREP) 

The Forestry Riparian Easement Program was developed to partially compensate eligible 

small forest landowners in exchange for a 50-year easement on timber that is required to 

be left under the forest practices rules. The landowner still owns the property and retains 

full access, but has “leased” the trees and their associated riparian function to the State. 

WDNR administers this program. 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

101

Yakama Nation Forest Management Plan 

The Yakama Nation has voluntarily adopted the Yakama Nation Forest Management 

Plan, which is used to guide management of timber harvest and road construction and 

maintenance on tribal land. 

Conservation Designations 

Badger Gulch Natural Area Preserve 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) established the 180-acre 

Badger Gulch Natural Area Preserve in 1982 to protect four important native plant 

communities and three rare plants. The Natural Area Preserve lies within Klickitat 

County about 6.8 miles north of the Columbia River and 13 miles east of Goldendale on 

the Goldendale-Bickleton road. The preserve includes a 2-mile long portion of Badger 

Gulch, a narrow, steep-walled canyon that contains Badger Creek, which empties into 

Rock Creek near RM 15. The four protected native plant communities (Idaho fescue, 

houndstongue hawkweed, Oregon white oak-ponderosa pine, bluebunch wheatgrassSandberg's bluegrass and white alder riparian) and three rare plant species (porcupine 

sedge, shining flatsedge, and beaked cryptantha) play an important ecological role in 

protecting the subbasin's water quality and many vertebrate and invertebrate species 

(WDNR 1998). 

In 1998, Washington Department of Natural Resources’ Southeast Region developed the 

“Badger Gulch Natural Area Preserve Management Plan.” The purpose of the 

management plan is “to permit natural ecological and physical processes to predominate, 

while controlling activities that directly or indirectly modify these processes” on the 

preserve. The WDNR 1998 ‘Plan’ defines all aspects of management for the site from 

public use to monitoring and research activities (WDNR 1998). 

Klickitat Oaks Preserve 

Adjoining the Badger Gulch Natural Area Preserve is The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of 

Washington’s Klickitat Oaks Preserve. The current TNC Klickitat Oaks Preserve 414-

acre site conserves/preserves native habitats and significant plant and animal species as a 

functional ecosystem within the upper Rock Creek watershed. This area has been a 

major conservation site for the TNC since the ecological significance of the area was 

identified in the 1980s. The Conservancy is currently negotiating the purchase of an 

additional 120-acre plot and, with another private landowner, a 1,500-acre limited 

development conservation easement. Working with Federal, state and private adjoining 

landowners, the TNC’s purpose is to protect all of the native habitats and significant plant 

and animal species of the site as a functional ecosystem within the upper Rock Creek 

watershed. 

The Nature Conservancy has developed an initial preserve design and an in-depth Site 

Conservation Plan for the area. The Nature Conservancy’s conservation plan is a 

cooperative management strategy for the upper Rock Creek watershed involving the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, WDNR, and resident private landowners. The Nature 
Appendix II – Current Efforts to Improve the Watershed 

Rock Creek Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan 

October 2009 

102

Conservancy has made a long-term commitment to the site and is currently involved in 

restoration and management work on the ground, including exotic species control, plant 

and animal inventory and assessment, and long-term restoration planning. 

Appendix II References 

Glass, D. R. 2009. WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Klickitat 

County and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Grant No. G0900072. 

Hill, Jim. EKCD District Manager. Personal communication. 2006. 

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Management Plan for 

Badger Gulch Natural Area Preserve. 55pp. 

WRIA (Water Resources Inventory Area) 31 Planning Unit. 2008. Watershed 

Management Plan Rock-Glade Watershed (WRIA 31). 

http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/fileshtml/2008wria31/WRIA_31_Watershed_

Mgt_Plan_20080919.pdf