ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon 

River Watershed

June 2013

Prepared by

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Region
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

ii

DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

assistance of recovery teams, state agencies, local governments, salmon recovery boards, nongovernmental organizations, interested citizens of the affected area, contractors, and others. ESA 

recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any 

individuals or agencies involved in the Plan formulation, other than the NMFS. They represent 

the official position of NMFS only after they have been signed by the Northwest Regional 

Administrator. ESA recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of 

an action to be implemented by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation 

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

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

appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 

31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are subject to 

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

recovery actions.

The White Salmon River Watershed Recovery Plan straddles two NMFS Recovery Domains: the 

lower Columbia/Willamette River Recovery Domain, and the middle Columbia River (MCR)

Steelhead Recovery sub-domain of the Interior Columbia River Recovery Domain. As such, the 

White Salmon River Watershed Recovery Plan is appended to both the lower 

Columbia/Willamette River and the MCR Steelhead Recovery Plans.

With respect to both the lower Columbia/Willamette River Recovery Plan and the MCR

Steelhead Recovery Plan to which the White Salmon Watershed Recovery Plan is appended, 

where areas of disagreement arose between a management unit plan and a species level, 

evolutionarily significant unit or distinct population segment plans, NMFS worked with the 

relevant parties to resolve the differences, and, in a few cases, identified in the evolutionarily 

significant unit/distinct population segment plans, decided not to incorporate the disputed 

material in the evolutionarily significant unit or distinct population segment plans. NMFS 

reserves the right to decide whether or not to incorporate any such disputed materials into the 

species level plans.

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

7(a)(2) of the ESA. 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.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

iii

Contents

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

Recovery Planning Glossary............................................................................................................ ix

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................xv

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

1.1 Purpose of Plan ...................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.1.1 ESA Requirements....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.1.2 Coordination with Others ............................................................................................ 1-3

1.2 Context of Plan Development................................................................................................ 1-5

1.2.1 Planning Forum ........................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan...................................................................................... 1-7

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

2.1 Populations and Major Population Groups............................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Physical Setting...................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3 Ecosystem Conditions............................................................................................................ 2-8

2.3.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3.2 Migration Barriers ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.3 Riparian Function and Conditions............................................................................. 2-10

2.4 Life History Characteristics................................................................................................. 2-11

2.4.1 White Salmon River Chinook salmon ....................................................................... 2-11

2.4.2 White Salmon River coho salmon ............................................................................. 2-17

2.4.3 Upper Gorge chum salmon........................................................................................ 2-19

2.4.4 White Salmon River steelhead................................................................................... 2-21

2.5 Hatchery Production and Releases....................................................................................... 2-25

2.6 Harvest ................................................................................................................................. 2-27

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

3.1 Recovery Goals...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.1 ESU/DPS Viability Criteria......................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria ............................................................................... 3-10

3.3 Threats Criteria .................................................................................................................... 3-12

4 Current Status Assessment ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Risk of Extinction: Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT ......................................................... 4-1

4.2 Extinction Risk: Interior Columbia TRT............................................................................... 4-3

5 Limiting Factors and Threats................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Blocked Migration and Impaired Passage ............................................................................. 5-2

5.2 Freshwater Habitat................................................................................................................. 5-3

5.2.1 Lower White Salmon River Habitat Below Condit Dam............................................ 5-3

5.2.2 Habitat Upstream of Condit Dam................................................................................ 5-4

5.3 Hatchery Production and Releases......................................................................................... 5-6

5.4 Harvest ................................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.5 Federal Columbia River Hydrosystem................................................................................. 5-12

5.5.1 Hydro Project Impacts on Outmigrating Smolts ....................................................... 5-13

5.5.2 Hydro Project Impacts on Migrating Adults ............................................................. 5-13

5.6 Predation, Competition and Disease .................................................................................... 5-13

5.7 Ocean Conditions................................................................................................................. 5-14
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

iv

5.8 Climate Change.................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.9 Other Large-Scale Threats................................................................................................... 5-15

6 Recovery Strategy and Actions................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction Plans ......................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Fall Chinook salmon.................................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Spring Chinook salmon ............................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.3 Coho salmon ................................................................................................................ 6-4

6.1.4 Chum salmon............................................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.5 Steelhead...................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.6 Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................... 6-6

6.2 Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions............................................................................ 6-9

6.2.1 High Priority Reaches for Habitat Protection/Restoration and Proposed Actions.... 6-16

6.3 Hatcheries ............................................................................................................................ 6-19

6.4 Harvest-Related Strategies and Actions............................................................................... 6-19

6.5 Hydro-Related Strategies and Actions................................................................................. 6-20

7 Implementation and Cost Estimates ........................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Costs....................................................................................................................................... 7-2

8 Monitoring, Research, and Evaluation for Adaptive Management...................................... 8-3

8.1 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support Adaptive Management.......... 8-3

8.2 Adaptive Management........................................................................................................... 8-4

8.3 Critical Uncertainties............................................................................................................. 8-4

8.3.1 Research....................................................................................................................... 8-4

8.3.2 In-Watershed Research Needs..................................................................................... 8-5

8.3.3 Out-of-Watershed Research Needs.............................................................................. 8-5

8.4 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 8-6

8.4.1 Implementation Monitoring......................................................................................... 8-7

8.4.2 Status/Trend Monitoring.............................................................................................. 8-7

8.4.3 Effectiveness Monitoring............................................................................................. 8-8

8.5 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs...................................................................... 8-8

8.6 Coordination .......................................................................................................................... 8-9

8.7 Evaluation Schedule............................................................................................................... 8-9

8.8 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan .......................................................................................... 8-10

9 References................................................................................................................................... 9-1

Appendix I. Options for Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction....................................................1

Appendix II. Current Efforts and Regulations Addressing and Protecting Population 

Productivity in the White Salmon Watershed ............................................................................1

Appendix III. Jewett Creek ...............................................................................................................1

Appendix IV. White Salmon River Implementation Schedule: Summary of Actions and 

Potential Costs to Restore White Salmon River Anadromous Fish Populations and Their 

Habitat ............................................................................................................................................1
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

v

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. White Salmon watershed in Washington State (NPCC 2004) ......................................... xviii

Figure 1-1. White Salmon watershed in Washington State ..................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1. Historical fall and late fall demographically independent populations in the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006).................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2. Historical spring demographically independent populations in the lower Columbia River 

Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006)............................................................................ 2-3

Figure 2-3. Historical demographically independent populations in the lower Columbia River Coho 

salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006)........................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-4. Historical demographically independent populations in the Columbia River chum salmon 

ESU (Meyers et al. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-5. Historical summer and winter steelhead populations in the middle Columbia River DPS 

(ICTRT 2004; ICTRT 2007b). Note populations in gray are extirpated or functionally 

extirpated .............................................................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 2-6. White Salmon River watershed topography and hydrology (NPCC 2004) .......................... 2-9

Figure 2-7. Wild and total tule fall Chinook salmon escapement for the White Salmon River from 1992-

2003 (USFWS 2004) .......................................................................................................... 2-12

Figure 2-8. Possible extent of historic spawning distribution of Chinook salmon in the White Salmon 

River (NPCC 2004) ............................................................................................................ 2-14

Figure 2-9. Potential extent of historical spawning distribution of coho salmon in the White Salmon River 

(McElhany et al. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-10. Major Population Groups (MPGs) and populations of middle Columbia steelhead. Note the 

White Salmon steelhead population is considered functionally extirpated (ICTRT 2007b)2-22

Figure 3-1. Hierarchical levels of salmonid population structure as defined by the TRTs for ESU/DPS 

recovery planning ................................................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 3-2. Example of an abundance/productivity viability curve (ICTRT 2007a)............................. 3-10

Figure 4-1. Intrinsic habitat potential and Major Spawning Area for the White Salmon River 

summer/winter steelhead (ICTRT 2008).............................................................................. 4-5

Figure 8-1. NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework .......................................................................... 8-3
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

vi

List of Tables

Table ES-1. ESA listed DPS/ESU in the White Salmon River ................................................................xvi

Table ES-2. Recovery Strategies and Actions for White Salmon River Salmon and Steelhead Populations

................................................................................................................................................xxix

Table 2-1. Key habitat by life stage and time period for fall/spring Chinook salmon (NPCC 2004) ... 2-15

Table 2-2. Key habitat by life stage and time period for White Salmon River coho salmon ............... 2-19

Table 2-3. Key habitat by life stage and time period for steelhead (NPCC 2004) ................................ 2-24

Table 3-1. Population viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2003; McElhany et al. 2006).......................... 3-5

Table 3-2. Population persistence*/viability categories (McElhany et al. 2003; McElhany et al. 2006) 3-7

Table 3-3. Criteria guidelines for determining strata and ESU viability (McElhany et al. 2003, 2006) . 3-8

Table 4-1. Evaluation scores for White Salmon fall-run Chinook salmon (McElhany et al. 2004)........ 4-1

Table 4-2. Evaluation scores for White Salmon spring-run Chinook salmon (McElhany et al. 2004) ... 4-2

Table 4-3. Evaluation scores for White Salmon coho salmon (McElhany et al. 2004)........................... 4-2

Table 4-4. Evaluation scores for upper Gorge chum salmon (McElhany et al. 2004)............................. 4-3

Table 5-1. River miles of salmon and steelhead habitat above and below Condit Dam (NPCC 2004) .. 5-3

Table 5-2. Primary limiting factors for lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon 

River drainage ....................................................................................................................... 5-16

Table 5-3. Additional factors potentially limiting anadromous fish (lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon and coho salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, and middle Columbia River steelhead 

in the White Salmon River drainage). The primary limiting factors are highlighted in light 

yellow; factors that may become limiting in the future are highlighted in light gray........... 5-17

Table 6-1. Biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to enhance/reintroduce anadromous 

salmonid populations and acquire baseline habitat information in the White Salmon River 

Basin........................................................................................................................................ 6-8

Table 6-2. Primary biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to improve habitat in the 

White Salmon River watershed............................................................................................. 6-11

Table 6-3. Biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to improve habitat in the upper 

White Salmon River watershed............................................................................................. 6-12

Table 6-4. Summary table addressing hatchery, harvest and hydrosystem-related recovery strategies and 

actions.................................................................................................................................... 6-21

Table 7-1. Summary of potential costs to restore the White Salmon River fish populations and their 

habitat ...................................................................................................................................... 7-2

Detailed cost breakdown by specific action........................................................................................ AIV-2
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BKD Bacterial Kidney Disease

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

BMP Best Management Practice

CAO Critical Areas Ordinance

CBFWA Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

CEO County Environmental Ordinance

cfs cubic feet per second

CSMEP Collaborative System-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

CWT Coded wire tag

CUP Conditional Use Permits

CR Columbia River

CZO County Zoning Ordinance

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESHB Engrossed Substitute House Bill

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FMEP Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan

FMP Forest Management Plan

FPO Floodplain Management Ordinance

GIS Geographic Information System

HCD Habitat Conservation Plan

HGMP Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans

HCD Habitat Conservation Plan

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team

IHN Infectious Hemotapoietic Necroses

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board

km kilometer

LCR Lower Columbia River

LCFRB Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

LUMA Land Use Management Area

LWD Large Woody Debris

LWS Little White Salmon

MaSA Major Spawning Area

MCR Middle Columbia River

MCRFEG Middle Columbia River Fisheries Enhancement Group

MEA Management Emphasis Area
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

viii

MPG Major Population Group

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFH National Fish Hatchery

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPPC Northwest Power Planning Council

NRC National Research Council

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council

PIT Passive Integrated Transponder

PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership

RCW Revised Code of Washington

RM River-Mile

RM&E Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SMP Shorelines Master Plan

SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board

SSB Substitute Senate Bill

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRT Technical Recovery Team

TUs Thermal Units

UCD Underwood Conservation District

URB Upriver Bright

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geographic Survey

VSP Viable Salmonid Population

WAGIT Washington Gorge Implementation Team

WDF Washington Department of Fisheries

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area

W/LC TRT Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team

YN Yakama Nation, also Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

ix

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. An overall implementation plan incorporates a

monitoring, evaluation, and feedback framework in which the results of actions become feedback 

on design and implementation of future actions.

Anadromous fish: Species hatched in freshwater, migrate to and mature in salt water, and 

return to freshwater to spawn.

Baseline monitoring: In the context of recovery planning, scientists conduct baseline 

monitoring to establish historical and/or current conditions to measure progress (or lack of 

progress).

Broad-sense recovery goals: 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. Local recovery planning groups usually developed these goals.

Compliance monitoring: Determining whether recovery implementation or actions are meeting 

a specific performance standard, environmental standard, regulation, or law.

Delisting criteria: Criteria incorporated into Endangered Species Act (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 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determination and may include both technical 

and policy considerations.

Diel flow: Flow that occurs during a 24-hour period.

Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A listable entity under the ESA that meets tests of 

discreteness and significance according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 v. lifelong residence in freshwater, 

fecundity, run timing, spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age at maturity, egg size, 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

x

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

molecular genetic characteristics, etc.

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

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

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

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

U.S. ESA. The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the extent practicable, incorporate (1) 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination that the species is 

no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions that may be necessary 

to achieve the Plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement 

recovery actions. 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU): A group of Pacific salmon or steelhead trout that is (1) 

substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units and (2) represents an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Extinct: There are no individuals of this former population or species anywhere.

Extirpated: Zero population or individuals in a certain area but conspecifics exist elsewhere. 

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

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: A species or population that has been extirpated from an area; 

although a few individuals may occasionally be found, they are not thought to constitute a 

population.

Hyporheic zone: Area of saturated sediment and gravel beneath and beside streams and rivers 

where groundwater and surface water mix.

Implementation monitoring: An examination to determine whether the responsible public or 

private implementing entity performed the activity and/or completed it 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.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xi

Integrated hatchery program: The purpose of an integrated hatchery program is to increase 

abundance, while minimizing the genetic divergence of a hatchery broodstock from a naturally 

spawning population. To maintain the genetic characteristics of a local, natural population 

among hatchery-origin fish, an integrated program attempts to minimize the genetic effects of

domestication. The expected result is a reduction of the genetic risks that hatchery-origin fish 

may pose to the naturally spawning population.

Interim regional recovery plan: A recovery plan 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 its desired status. 

Locally developed recovery plan: State, tribal, regional, and local planning entities throughout 

the region drafted plans to address the ESA as well as other mandates and recovery needs. Local 

and regional citizen and business groups were also involved in these planning efforts.

Maintained status: Population status in which the population does not meet viability criteria 

but does support ecological functions and preserve options for ESU/DPS recovery.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xii

Major Population Group (MPG): A group of salmonid populations that is 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: Quantification of 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 spawning and rearing 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. 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. Often expressed as the number of 

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

Recovery domain: A NMFS-defined administrative unit for recovery planning 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 

recovery, delisting, reclassification, and/or other goals. Broad-sense goals are a subset of 

recovery goals. 

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. 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xiii

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

generally consistent with Technical Recovery Team (TRT) recommendations for ESU viability.

Redd: A female salmonid constructs a nest, or redd, in streambed gravels where she deposits her 

eggs and males fertilize them.

Recovery strategy: Statements that identify the assumptions and logic-the rationale-for the 

species’ recovery program.

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

water and the adjacent upland.

Salmonid: Fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, char, grayling, and whitefish. 

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

Segregated hatchery program: The intent of a segregated hatchery program is to maintain a 

genetically distinct hatchery population. The only way to reduce risk (genetic and ecological) to 

natural populations from segregated programs is to minimize the contribution of hatchery fish to 

natural spawning.

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 interested in or affected by recovery 

planning and/or actions.

Technical Recovery Team (TRT): NMFS convenes work groups, the TRTs, to develop 

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

or regions both complement and use TRTs and other technical products to identify recovery 

actions.

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: NMFS appointed TRTs to define criteria to describe a VSP based on the 

biological parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS and 

others use these viability criteria as technical input into the recovery planning process and 

provide a technical foundation for development of biological delisting criteria.

Viability curve: A curve describing combinations of abundance and productivity that yield a 

particular risk or extinction level at a given level of variation over a specified time frame.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xiv

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., June 2000. 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xv

Executive Summary

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)’s National Marine Fishers 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 selfsustaining elements of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. 

Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; they are guidance for anyone involved in 

species recovery efforts as well as for the various state, Federal, tribal, and local entities 

whose activities and jurisdictions may affect endangered species. A recovery plan provides a 

roadmap for restoring a listed species or population to biological viability and greater 

likelihood of long-term survival.

This is a plan for re-establishing the White Salmon River populations of lower Columbia 

River (LCR) Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, Columbia River (CR) chum salmon, and 

MCR steelhead. The Plan aims for these populations to contribute to the conservation and 

survival of their respective Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)/Distinct Population 

Segments (DPSs)

1

 (Table ES-1).

The White Salmon River fall and spring Chinook salmon are included in the LCR Chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ESU, which NMFS listed as threatened on March 24, 

1999 and reconfirmed June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of 

Chinook salmon in the CR and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to 

a transitional point east of Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in 

Washington. The White Salmon River spring Chinook salmon are considered extirpated 

(Good et al. 2005; Myers et al. 2006).

The White Salmon River coho salmon are part of the LCR coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) ESU, which NMFS listed as threatened on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all 

naturally spawned coho salmon populations in the CR and its tributaries from the mouth of 

the CR to a transitional point east of the Hood and White Salmon Rivers. The White Salmon 

River coho salmon are considered extinct (Good et al. 2005; Myers et al. 2006).

The White Salmon chum salmon are part of the CR chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) ESU, 

which NMFS listed as threatened on March 25, 1999. The CR chum salmon ESU includes

all naturally spawning populations in the CR and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon. 

Presently, all CR chum salmon spawning populations are located downstream of Bonneville 

Dam. Annual fish passage reports (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2000, 2001, 

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) for Bonneville Dam provided data that adult 

 

1 An ‘evolutionarily significant unit’ (ESU) of Pacific salmon (Waples 1991) and a ‘distinct population 

segment’ (DPS) of steelhead (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) are considered to be 'species,' as defined in section 

3 of the ESA.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xvi

chum salmon continue to pass upstream of Bonneville Dam, with adult counts averaging 139 

and ranging from a low of 46 to high of 411 from 2000 to 2008.

The White Salmon River historically included a population of MCR steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). The MCR steelhead DPS is made up of steelhead populations in 

Oregon and Washington tributaries of the CR upstream of the Hood and Wind River systems, 

up to and including the Yakima River. The White Salmon steelhead population is considered 

“functionally extirpated” for the following reasons: the population’s current lack of access to 

sufficient habitat to support sustained natural production; the presence of a large in-basin 

hatchery release program below the dam that uses out-of-basin broodstock (ICTRT 2007a); 

and only a few individual fish may still be present from the original White Salmon 

population. Functionally extirpated populations are those with so few remaining numbers 

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

population.

Table ES-1. ESA listed DPS/ESU in the White Salmon River

Species ESU/DPS Status Federal Register Notice

Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) LCR Chinook salmon Threatened 70 FR 37160 6/28/2005

Coho salmon (O. kisutch) LCR coho salmon Threatened 70 FR 37160 6/28/2005

Chum salmon (O. keta) CR chum salmon Threatened 70 FR 37160 6/28/2005

Steelhead (O. mykiss) MCR steelhead Threatened 71 FR 834 1/5/2006

Critical Habitat Designation

LCR Chinook salmon, 

CR chum salmon, LCR 

coho salmon, MCR 

steelhead

70 FR 52630 9/2/2005

Context of Plan Development

This recovery plan provides direction for potential recovery of the White Salmon River’s 

historical salmon and steelhead populations. This plan builds on the past and current efforts 

of the many parties currently working to rebuild populations and improve their habitat. This 

approach reflects NMFS’s belief that it is critically important to base ESA (4f) recovery 

plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts that are 

already underway. NMFS initiated a process that incorporated input from the Yakama 

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

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

local governments, and the public. That process produced the White Salmon Recovery Plan.

Currently, there are 18 ESA-listed species of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific 

Northwest. For the purpose of recovery planning for these species, NMFS Northwest Region 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xvii

designated five geographically based “recovery domains”: Interior Columbia,

Willamette/lower Columbia, Puget Sound and Washington Coast, Oregon Coast and the 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast. The White Salmon watershed is in an area 

where the Interior Columbia and Willamette/lower Columbia recovery domains overlap.

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

entities to develop planning forums that build to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led 

recovery efforts. NMFS defined “Management Units” based on jurisdictional boundaries as 

well as areas where local planning efforts were underway. In the LCR there are three 

management units for the LCR ESUs, these are 1) Oregon; 2) Washington; 3) the White 

Salmon River ESUs (not including the Steelhead DPS). In the MCR steelhead recovery 

domain the management units are 1) Oregon; 2) Washington Gorge, which, in turn, NMFS

subdivided into three planning areas, White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; 3) Yakima 

Basin; 4) Southeast Washington.

NMFS intends to incorporate the White Salmon Watershed Recovery Plan as an appendix to 

both the LCR Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan and the MCR Steelhead Recovery Plans 

since the White Salmon River watershed has ESA-listed species in both of the two NMFS 

Recovery Domains.

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 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 Willamette/lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (W/LC 

TRT) provided technical support for the LCR ESUs recovery plan, while the Interior 

Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), provided technical support for the White 

Salmon Steelhead Recovery Plan. These TRTs included biologists from NMFS, states, tribal 

entities, 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. A NMFS technical memorandum, Viable Salmon 

Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units describes these principles 

(McElhany et al. 2000). The memorandum defines VSPs 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 and 

based on data availability, the unique biological characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and 

habitats in the domain, and the members’ collective experience and expertise. Although 

NMFS has encouraged the TRTs to develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating 

viability and identifying factors limiting recovery, all the TRTs are working from a common 

scientific foundation.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xviii

Physical Setting

The White Salmon watershed drains approximately 386 square miles in south central 

Washington (Figure ES-1). The river begins along the south slope of Mt. Adams and flows 

south 45 miles to enter the CR at Underwood, Washington at river-mile (RM) 168.3. White 

Salmon River salmon populations pass one mainstem CR dam, Bonneville Dam, during their 

migration to and from the Pacific Ocean.

Figure ES-1. White Salmon watershed in Washington State (NPCC 2004)

Salmon and steelhead production in the White Salmon River watershed dropped significantly 

in the early 1900s after construction of Condit Dam at RM 3.3 on the White Salmon River. 

Condit Dam’s original owners built a fish ladder; however, high flows twice destroyed the 

ladder and subsequent owners did not reconstruct it after 1919.

Fish passage, either through removal of the dam or installation of upstream and downstream 

fish passage facilities has been under evaluation as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) re-licensing process. PacifiCorp Power, the owner of Condit Dam, 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xix

rejected the proposal to install fish passage facilities and is currently removing the dam. This 

Plan includes a proposal to establish or re-establish natural production of salmon and 

steelhead in the White Salmon watershed, based on natural re-colonization of the habitat 

above the dam after removal. Recovery actions may also include implementation of hatchery 

augmentation of populations and/or hatchery preservation of genetic stocks.

The White Salmon watershed is part of both of Washington State’s LCR salmon recovery 

domain and the MCR Steelhead Recovery sub-domain. White Salmon River is within parts 

of Skamania, Yakima, and Klickitat counties. In addition, the watershed falls within the 

state’s Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 29b. Half of the watershed lies within the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest and supports timber production and recreational uses.

The White Salmon watershed contains lands the YN ceded to the United States in the Treaty 

of June 9, 1855. Within this area, the Tribe reserves the right “to hunt and fish at all usual 

and accustomed places.” An in-lieu fishing site is located at the mouth of the White Salmon 

River, allowing tribal fishers to launch boats in an enclosed area and move out into the C R 

to their usual and accustomed fishing grounds.

Ecosystem Conditions

Condit Dam, at RM 3.3 on the mainstem White Salmon River, blocked all anadromous fish 

migration to historical habitats in the upper drainage. Dam removal began on October 26, 

2011. Historical operations at Condit Dam altered flows in the lower White Salmon River, 

causing flows to drop to as low as 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the 1.1-mile bypass reach. 

Average natural flows are about 700 cfs. Power peaking at the dam affected the river system, 

causing diel flow variations and impairing watershed processes, such as the transportation of 

spawning gravels and Large Woody Debris (LWD) to areas downstream of the project 

(NPCC 2004). The lack of sediment transport into these reaches has affected habitat 

conditions downstream of Condit Dam. Conditions in the lower river below the former 

location of Condit Dam and under the former reservoir are anticipated to change substantially 

in response to the removal of the dam and subsequent stabilization actions.

Upstream of Condit Dam, the White Salmon River has a relatively constant natural flow 

pattern because of glacial melt and a large water storage capacity. Tributary stream flows 

drop to low levels in the summer and peak in the winter. Upstream of the dam, Northwestern 

Lake occupied the portion of the river between Buck Creek and the dam. Removal of the 

dam is exposing the lakebed. The coarseness of substrate sediment in the former lakebed is 

variable, with coarser material deposited at the top of the former reservoir and finer material 

downstream. Riparian vegetation is currently non-existent, and banks will be unstable until 

restoration actions are completed.

The extent of time it will take to re-establish channel and watershed processes in the former 

lakebed and the area below the former dam is unknown. Upstream of the former 

Northwestern Lake, some tributaries have warm water temperature, sparse riparian 

vegetation, high nutrient levels, low instream LWD abundance, and poor pool volume and 

frequency. Biologists have documented fish-borne diseases, Bacteria Kidney Disease 

(BKD) and Black Spot in the watershed (section 5.6, Predation, Competition and Disease).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xx

Populations and Major Population Groups

Historically, MCR steelhead, likely ranged up the White Salmon River to the falls at RM 16 

and into Buck, Spring, Indian, and Rattlesnake creeks (NPCC 2004). Based on accessible 

spawning habitat and a combination of notes, diary logs, and interviews (Lane and Lane 

Associates 1981), biologists assume that spring Chinook salmon and coho salmon were 

present historically in the watershed. Husum Falls, RM 7.6, may have blocked fall Chinook

salmon migration and created a partial barrier for steelhead and coho salmon (NPCC 2004). 

All anadromous fish passage to historical habitats in the White Salmon drainage above RM 

3.3 ended after construction of Condit Dam and the failure of the fish ladder in 1919. Now 

that Condit Dam has been removed, populations are anticipated to repopulate the watershed.

Presently, the historical spring Chinook salmon population is considered extirpated (Good et 

al. 2005; Myers et al. 2006), the historical steelhead population is considered functionally 

extirpated (ICTRT 2007b), the historical coho salmon population is considered extinct (Good 

et al. 2005; Myers et al. 2006), and the historical fall Chinook salmon population is

considered at very high risk of extinction (ICTRT 2006; McElhany et al. 2004; Ford et al. 

2011).

Biological Viability Criteria

White Salmon River fall Chinook salmon

The W/LC TRT gave the White Salmon River fall Chinook salmon population a weighted 

average extinction risk score of 0.86 on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 = extirpation or nearly so, 

and 4 = very low extinction risk. This suggests that the population is at a very high risk of 

extinction (McElhany et al. 2004). Most W/LC TRT members considered hatchery strays to 

heavily influence the in-river fall-run Chinook salmon population, although some team 

members included the Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in their diversity

evaluation as a potential source for re-establishing a native-run.

White Salmon River spring Chinook salmon

The W/LC TRT rated the White Salmon River spring-run Chinook salmon with a weighted 

average extinction risk score of 0.07, indicating the population is likely extirpated. The 

team concluded that any population that may have been historically present is currently 

extirpated because of construction of Condit Dam.

White Salmon River coho salmon

McElhany et al. weighted the White Salmon coho salmon population with an average 

extinction risk score of 0.39, indicating that the population is likely very near extinction 

(2004) or extinct (Good et al. 2005).

White Salmon River chum salmon

The lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) identified the entire population of upper

Gorge Chum salmon, which includes the historical population of chum salmon spawning in 

the White Salmon River, to have a very low viability (LCFRB 2004). Bonneville Reservoir 

inundates most of historical habitat for this population. T
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxi

White Salmon River steelhead

The ICTRT classified the White Salmon River steelhead population as functionally 

extirpated (ICTRT 2008). The ICTRT considers extirpated populations as those entirely cut 

off from anadromy. Functionally extirpated populations are those with so few remaining that 

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

population. The ICTRT identified one historical Major Spawning Area (MaSA) within the 

White Salmon watershed. A few individuals from the original population may have been 

spawning in the reach below Condit Dam and some evidence suggests that resident O. mykiss

may have retained anadromous potential (Allen et al. 2006a and 2006b; Allen, personal 

communication, 2008).

Limiting Factors

Chapter 5 discusses in-watershed and out-of-watershed factors and related threats influencing 

the viability of the White Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS defines 

limiting factors as the biological and physical conditions that limit a species’ viability - e.g., 

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

actions that cause the limiting factors. For example, removing the vegetation along the banks 

of a stream (the threat) can cause higher water temperatures (the limiting factor), because the 

stream is no longer shaded. Analysis of limiting factors and threats across the species’ entire 

life cycle forms the basis for designing recovery strategies and actions.

“Threats” are present or likely anthropogenic activities or natural events that cause or 

contribute to the factors limiting the species’ recovery. The development of threat reduction 

strategies can be complex, especially when human activities that pose threats to the species 

satisfy otherwise “beneficial” societal or cultural functions (e.g., flow management may 

threaten the species by reducing summer flows an increasing water temperatures, but the 

flow management may support an agricultural economy or protect human safety and property 

through flood prevention). In such circumstances, it is desirable to manage a threat in such a 

way that it minimizes or eliminates the negative impacts to the species, while retaining 

essential societal or cultural functions.

Blocked Passage

Until recently, blockage of fish passage upstream of Condit Dam was the single greatest 

factor limiting salmon abundance and productivity in the White Salmon River watershed. 

When the dam was in place, fall Chinook salmon accessed only a small percentage of their 

historical spawning and rearing habitat in the watershed. While the area directly below the 

dam was not “blocked,” the hydraulics and substrate composition of this habitat had changed 

rendering it unsuitable for spawning. With the removal of Condit Dam, the hydraulics and 

substrate composition is evolving and now can support natural spawning though the habitat 

and substrates directly influence by the Bonneville Dam pool continue to limit spawning. 

Bonneville Dam has also flooded 80 percent of the spawning area used by chum salmon 

(NPCC 2004). 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxii

Tributary Habitat

The upstream habitats are currently being re-occupied by anadromous fish now that access 

has been provided. Spawning and rearing habitat upstream of the dam may eventually limit 

anadromous salmonid population abundance in the White Salmon River. Opportunities exist 

to improve upstream habitats to support future population levels. Sections 5.2, Freshwater 

Habitat and 6.2, Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions, for further discussion on 

tributary habitat.

Hatchery Practices and Releases

Chinook salmon

Most of the fish spawning naturally in the White Salmon River were assumed to be hatcheryorigin tule fall Chinook salmon based on CWT recoveries. Spring Creek NFH began marking 

all of its hatchery production in 2004 and as a result, recent spawning ground surveys have 

shown that the majority of the tule fall Chinook salmon returning to the White Salmon River 

are of natural origin (Roler 2011). Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook salmon were 

originally derived from White Salmon tule fall Chinook salmon and are anticipated to 

contribute to natural production now that Condit Dam has been removed. Stray upriver 

bright (URB) hatchery fall Chinook salmon may adversely affect productivity of the tule fall 

Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. These hatchery-origin strays are from releases 

at the Little White Salmon (LWS) NFH, located 3 miles downstream from the White Salmon 

River, and other releases in and below the Bonneville Pool. No facility releases hatcheryproduced Chinook salmon into the White Salmon River watershed.

Coho salmon

Biologists found coho salmon from past releases by the LWS NFH to stray into the White 

Salmon watershed. Coho salmon releases from LWS NFH ended in 2004. Biologists 

consider these strays along with releases from other upstream Columbia Basin hatchery 

programs as the source of naturally spawning coho salmon in the White Salmon River.

Chum salmon

There are no hatchery chum salmon programs releasing fish above Bonneville Dam, although 

some incubated at the Washougal Hatchery and released as fry into Duncan Creek may be 

among those that ascend the Bonneville ladders.

Steelhead

Releases of Skamania stock winter steelhead and summer steelhead may limit the diversity of 

any naturally produced winter steelhead in the watershed. Scientists consider neither as part 

of the LCR or MCR steelhead DPSs. Fisheries managers terminated the releases of 

Skamania stock hatchery steelhead in 2010 in anticipation of breaching Condit Dam.

Harvest

Harvest currently does not limit the abundance or diversity of White Salmon River

populations of steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, coho or chum salmon. All of these 

populations are extirpated or functionally extirpated (Good et al. 2005; ICTRT 2007b). Any 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxiii

coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, and spring Chinook salmon found in the White

Salmon River are strays from other basins. To protect naturally produced coho salmon, 

spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, and steelhead in the White Salmon River, sport 

fisheries may only retain hatchery fish that are adipose fin-clipped and release all unmarked 

salmon and steelhead https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/ (accessed January 3, 

2013). Ocean and mainstem fisheries heavily harvest fall Chinook salmon, and harvest 

rates are likely to affect the rate of population growth once additional habitat in the 

watershed becomes available (section 5.4, Harvest, for further discussion).

Federal Columbia River Hydrosystem

Much of the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers’ current conditions are altered compared 

to historic conditions. The development of hydropower and water storage projects within the 

CR Basin have resulted in the inundation of many mainstem spawning and shallow-water 

rearing areas (e.g., loss of spawning gravels and access to spawning and rearing areas); 

altered water quality (e.g., reduced spring turbidity levels), water quantity (e.g., seasonal 

changes in flows and consumptive losses resulting from use of stored water for agricultural, 

industrial, or municipal purposes), water temperature (e.g., including generally warmer 

minimum winter temperatures and warmer maximum summer temperatures), water velocity 

(e.g., reduced spring flows and increased cross-sectional areas of the river channel), food 

(e.g., alteration of food webs, including the type and availability of prey species), and safe 

passage (e.g., increased mortality rates of migrating juveniles and steelhead kelts) (Williams 

et. al 2005; Ferguson et. al 2005).

Model studies indicate that the hydrosystem has decreased the delivery of suspended 

particulate matter to the LCR and estuary by about 40 percent (as measured at Vancouver, 

Washington) and has reduced fine sediment transport by 50 percent or more (Bottom et al. 

2005). Overbank flow events, important to habitat diversity, have become rare, in part 

because flow management and irrigation withdrawals prevent high flows and in part because 

diking and revetments have increased the “bankfull” flow level (from about 18,000 to 24,000 

m3/s). The dynamics of estuarine habitat have changed in other ways relative to flow. With 

increasing flow, the availability of shallow (between 10 cm and 2 m depth), low-velocity 

(less than 30 cm/s) habitat now appears to decrease at a steeper rate than during the 1880s, 

and the flow absorption capacity of the estuary appears to have declined.

The CR Estuary Module, at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESARecovery-Plans/Estuary-Module.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012) provides more information 

on factors that may limit viability of anadromous salmonids in the CR Estuary.

Predation, Competition and Disease

Because of Bonneville Dam’s reservoir habitat, the abundance of predatory native and exotic 

fishes in the lower river has increased. Primary predators of juvenile salmonids in the CR 

include northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, and walleye. Terns, cormorants, and sea 

lions also consume large numbers of salmonids.

Hatchery steelhead juvenile releases into the White Salmon River probably led to 

competition with any natural origin smolts produced below the former Condit Dam, but

hatchery managers have terminated these releases. Hatchery adults that stray into the White 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxiv

Salmon River may compete for spawning and rearing habitat. Spawning of later returning 

URB fall Chinook salmon can reduce the productivity of naturally spawning tule fall 

Chinook salmon through redd superimposition.

Researchers have reported BKD and Black Spot throughout the White Salmon watershed

(Allen et al. 2006a, 2006b). Now that Condit Dam has been removed, diseased fish may 

introduce other pathogens and diseases into the watershed. The effects of disease on current 

or any potential future populations are unknown.

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. Ocean survival of salmonids has been dramatically affected by widespread changes in 

ocean conditions; smolt-to-adult survival rates generally vary 10-fold between good and bad 

years.

Climate Change

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to recovery of White Salmon River 

salmon and steelhead populations. Changes in climate may adversely affect salmon and 

steelhead by exacerbating existing problems with water quantity (e.g., lower summer stream 

flow) and water quality (e.g., higher summer water temperatures) and could be detrimental to 

many populations of salmonids and native fish species throughout the CR Basin. 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 2008a, Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis Chapter 5), available at

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-SnakeBasin/upload/Final_SCA_Ch1_7.pdf (accessed April 11,2012). See also ISAB 2007.

Recovery Goals and Criteria

The primary goal of this plan is to restore White Salmon River salmon and steelhead 

populations to viable status. McElhany et al. (2000) defines a VSP as an independent 

population that has negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe.

The visions, goals, and actions of many of the parties involved in the White Salmon recovery 

planning process may go beyond ESA delisting. These visions for broad-sense recovery 

incorporate ESA delisting goals. During the process of achieving broad-sense recovery 

goals, NMFS could delist White Salmon River salmon and steelhead. Broad-sense recovery 

goals incorporate many local and traditional uses, including those associated with rural and 

Native American values, which are important in the Pacific Northwest.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxv

Biological Viability Criteria

One of the main tasks assigned to the TRTs was to develop biologically based criteria for 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Viability criteria identify characteristics and conditions 

that, when met, would describe viable populations and a viable ESU or DPS.

The TRTs based their approaches 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. In their VSP 

guidelines, McElhany et al. (2000) recommend that a viable DPS population should be large 

enough to:

• Have a high probability of surviving variation observed in the past and expected 

future

• Be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances

• Maintain genetic diversity

• Support/provide ecosystem functions

NMFS organized the viability guidelines provided by McElhany et al. (2000) around four 

major considerations: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. ESU-level 

viability criteria consider the appropriate distribution and characteristics of component 

populations to maintain the ESU/DPS in the face of longer-term ecological and evolutionary 

processes (ICTRT 2005a). NMFS adopted the ICTRT and W/LC TRT-defined viability 

criteria as the biological criteria for delisting of the ESUs and DPS that include the listed 

White Salmon populations discussed in this Plan.

Recovery Strategy and Actions

Chapter 6 describes the recovery strategies for the White Salmon River salmon and steelhead 

populations. The recovery strategies for each population contain three key components: 1)

reintroducing naturally produced salmon and steelhead into historical habitat upstream of the 

former Condit Dam, 2) improving and increasing habitat for salmon and steelhead production

downstream of Buck Creek, 3) improving habitat upstream of Buck Creek in anticipation of 

the growth of anadromous populations. The Plan also recommends that harvest or hatchery 

actions do not impede efforts to improve salmon and steelhead viability.

Table ES-2 lists the strategies and actions proposed as an integrated approach to address 

limiting factors and threats to salmon and steelhead and achieve broad-sense goals in four 

categories: freshwater habitat, hatcheries, harvest, and hydrosystem operations.

The Plan also proposes a number of actions focused on data gathering and analysis. These 

efforts are needed to monitor the current population status and habitat conditions and to 

improve the likelihood that efforts to reintroduce salmon and steelhead in the White Salmon 

are efficient and successful.

Together, NMFS expects the proposed strategies and actions to increase abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of White Salmon River salmon and steelhead. 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxvi

The strategies and actions build from past and current efforts to restore passage and improve 

habitat conditions in the watershed.

Introduction/Restoration of Anadromous Salmonid Populations

In anticipation of the removal of Condit Dam, the White Salmon Working Group, made up of 

Federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers, as well as representatives of PacifiCorp (Condit 

Dam operators), developed several options for the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead 

into the White Salmon River. The group fleshed out each option with a description of the 

biological basis for the approach, operational and maintenance needs, and monitoring and 

evaluation needs. For details about the options and considerations, see Appendix I.

Fall Chinook salmon Reintroduction Plan Options

1. Salvage adipose-fin present Coded-Wire-Tag (CWT) - negative tule fall Chinook salmon 

from the White Salmon River in the fall of 2010 to start tule fall Chinook salmon 

restoration.

2. The Spring Creek NFH would spawn adults and rear eggs. The hatchery would acclimate 

and release the resulting juveniles at White Salmon Ponds.

3. No salvage effort in the White Salmon River or at Spring Creek NFH.

4. Salvage adipose-fin present CWT - negative tule fall Chinook salmon returning to the 

White Salmon River and outplant above Condit Dam prior to removal.

The White Salmon Working Group recommended the outplant Option 4 because they 

believed habitat is currently available above Condit Dam that can support natural spawning 

tule fall Chinook salmon. The White Salmon Working Group completed the salvage of 

native fish in late summer and early fall of 2011 prior to breaching the dam.

Spring Chinook salmon Reintroduction Plan Options

1. Natural colonization, i.e. no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Wild Klickitat spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile release into the White 

Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at Klickitat Hatchery, juveniles acclimated and 

released at White Salmon Ponds.

3. Klickitat Hatchery spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile releases into 

upper White Salmon River (from Klickitat Hatchery thinning release or other surplus 

juveniles).

4. Klickitat Hatchery integrated stock spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile 

release into White Salmon River, in future years (broodstock source would be hatcheryreared offspring of wild fish).

5. Transport surplus Klickitat Hatchery adults to White Salmon River.

6. Trap and transport Klickitat wild adults to White Salmon River.

7. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and 

suitability of Option 4.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxvii

The White Salmon Working Group recommended Option 7. Under this option Working 

Group members propose to monitor escapement of spring Chinook salmon into the upper 

White Salmon River, including the proportion of Carson stock hatchery spring Chinook

salmon on the spawning grounds. The White Salmon Working Group will also monitor 

spring Chinook salmon smolt production in the upper White Salmon. The 4-5 year 

monitoring period will determine if natural production is occurring and the source of that 

production. The monitoring period will also allow time for the development of the Klickitat 

Hatchery integrated spring Chinook salmon program and determine whether production 

capacity at this facility is available. The White Salmon Working Group considered the 

Klickitat Hatchery spring Chinook salmon program the best source of broodstock for 

reintroduction, even though it is not part of the LCR Chinook salmon ESU. The two nearest 

populations of spring Chinook salmon within the LCR ESU are in the Lewis River in 

Washington and the Sandy River in Oregon. Each of these basins have spring Chinook

salmon hatchery programs, but reintroduction efforts in the Lewis River Basin require 

current local production in the Lewis River is needed for reintroduction efforts in that basin, 

while broodstock collection and funding shortfalls constrain production in the Sandy River. 

The result is the unavailability of a suitable source of LCR spring Chinook salmon to support 

the reintroduction efforts in the White Salmon River.

Coho salmon Reintroduction Plan Options

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Juveniles from Washougal and/or Bonneville/Cascade hatcheries released into White 

Salmon River.

3. Collection of wild adult broodstock in Klickitat River with spawning and rearing at 

hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

4. Collection of wild adult broodstock in White Salmon River with spawning and rearing at 

hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

5. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and 

suitability of Options 2, 3, or 4.

The White Salmon Working Group decided on Option 5 for coho salmon. As described for 

spring Chinook salmon, White Salmon Working Group members propose to monitor 

escapement, hatchery- and natural-origin coho salmon on the spawning grounds, and juvenile 

production in the White Salmon River watershed. Sources of stray hatchery coho salmon 

include releases from Bonneville Hatchery and releases into the Klickitat and the Umatilla 

river basins. All of these releases derive from hatchery programs that are part of the LCR 

coho salmon ESU. A recovery team will use the results of the monitoring to determine 

future reintroduction activities.

Chum salmon Reintroduction Plan Options

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Active adult outplanting in years after Condit Dam removal.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxviii

3. Active stocking of juvenile chum salmon or outplanting of eggs in egg baskets and hatch 

boxes via WDFW’s Washougal Hatchery or Willard NFH.

4. Initiate provisional hatchery program for chum salmon using existing US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) hatcheries (White Salmon Ponds) for spawning and 

subsequent outplanting using chum salmon captured at Bonneville Dam.

The White Salmon Working Group decided on Option 1 for chum salmon. The group chose 

this option because of the uncertainty regarding the status of chum salmon above Bonneville 

Dam. This option calls for expanded spawning ground surveys in the Bonneville Pool using 

the mainstem chum salmon spawning habitat criteria developed for the population below 

Bonneville Dam. Those conducting surveys should focus in the lower reaches of suitable 

tributaries and include habitat suitability assessments for the reservoir and the tributaries.

Steelhead Reintroduction Plan Options

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Wild donor from local watershed as brood source for juvenile release into the White 

Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at suitable hatchery, juveniles acclimated and 

released at White Salmon Ponds.

3. White Salmon resident O. mykiss as brood source, with locally suitable anadromous wild 

donor stock spawned for juvenile release into upper White Salmon River.

4. White Salmon steelhead captive brood program using captured outmigrating juveniles.

5. White Salmon steelhead kelt reconditioning. Recondition local spawners to enhance 

survival.

Based on the potential to re-establish natural production of steelhead in the watershed, the 

White Salmon Working Group decided Option 1, natural re-colonization, was the best 

approach. The indication that the (resident) population of O. mykiss in the White Salmon 

River above the former Condit Dam still produces smolts, even though the construction of 

Condit Dam and the end of passage in 1919 eliminated anadromy, was the basis of the 

group’s decision. Recent monitoring in the White Salmon River above Condit Dam has 

identified O. mykiss juveniles displaying smolt behavior and morphology. Passive Integrated 

Transponder (PIT)-tagged juveniles have been detected passing Bonneville Dam, with one 

being recovered at the tern colony on East Sand Island (B. Allen personal communication, 

2007). In addition, biologists detected an individual juvenile O. mykiss PIT-tagged above 

Condit Dam in September 2004 at 98 mm and again as an adult ascending Bonneville Dam in 

July 2006. Genetic analysis of juvenile O. mykiss collected in the upper watershed above 

Husum Falls found differences from hatchery trout released in the watershed; additional 

samples are needed, however, to confirm this finding (Allen et al. 2006a).

Additional research by Carmichael (Ruzycki et al. 2003) in the Grande Ronde and by 

Thrower et al. (2004) in Alaska supports the theory that even though the population is 

functionally extirpated, there is some potential for re-establishing anadromous steelhead in 

the White Salmon River watershed. Using resident O. mykiss above the former Condit Dam 

could provide a genetic link to historical anadromous O. mykiss.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxix

Restoration of Habitat Impacted by Condit Dam and Formerly Occupied by 

Northwestern Lake

At the time this document was prepared, PacifiCorp had breached the dam and was in the 

process of removing the structure. PacifiCorp is currently implementing numerous 

decommissioning management plans that address protection of aquatic biota, bank 

stabilization, management of sediment and erosion, revegetation, and several other projects. 

The condition of the habitat downstream of the dam and that habitat recently occupied by the 

dam will be unknown for a period of time. A Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) 

entity will complete an assessment of habitat conditions after the dam is fully removed and 

stabilization efforts are complete. Based on this information, a proposed Washington Gorge 

Management Unit entity will identify priority restoration actions. These will likely include 

riparian planting and bank stabilization, as well as other actions to be determined.

Habitat Improvement Upstream of Buck Creek in Anticipation of Future 

Population Growth

Biologists have completed, or are in the process of completing, assessments of current habitat 

condition in the upper watershed (particularly Rattlesnake Creek). Based on this 

information, the Plan identified actions that would improve habitat in the upper watershed in 

anticipation of eventual anadromous fish population growth and occupation of existing 

habitat. Actions include placement of LWD, planting and management of riparian areas, 

improvements in passage, reduction of sediment inputs, reduction of anthropogenic effects 

on stream flow, and other actions.

Table ES-2. Recovery Strategies and Actions for White Salmon River Salmon and 

Steelhead Populations

Action Type Specific Action(s)

Dam Removal and Species Reintroductions

Complete dam removal Complete removal of Condit Dam 

Implement PacifiCorp's Decommissioning 

Management Plans

Restore channel mainstream above the former Condit 

Dam

Restore riparian condition

Restore channel, stabilize banks, replant banks, and 

restore habitat in inundated area previously occupied by 

the reservoir, as well as the habitats impacted downstream 

of the former Condit Dam site

Dredge mouth of White Salmon River if needed

Restore populations Implement reintroduction plan for the White Salmon

River salmonids

Post-Dam Removal RM&E

Baseline habitat data collection Gather information needed to identify and prioritize 

habitat actions that will provide the greatest 

opportunity to contribute to recovery

Install & maintain large multiplexing PIT-tag detectors 

in the lower White Salmon mainstem and in Buck & 

lower Rattlesnake creeks. Report findings

Implement population monitoring in the White Salmon 

River & major anadromous-accessible tributaries.

Population monitoring: 

- Monitor population abundance and productivity

- Monitor proportion and origin of hatchery salmon and 

steelhead on the spawning grounds Install two small stationary instream PIT-tag detectors 

in the lower most portion of Spring Creek 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxx

Action Type Specific Action(s)

Pit-tag 3,000 juvenile salmonid each year upstream and 

downstream of the former Condit Dam to track 

individual movement and seasonal growth rates

Conduct adult spawning ground surveys and monitor

Create and maintain fish counts & biological database

Mark adults for mark-recapture population estimates

- Assess the resident trout contribution to smolts 

downstream of the former Condit Dam; assess change in 

resident population after steelhead recolonization/reintroduction

Derive estimates of salmonid population abundance & 

complete reporting

- Genetic analyses Compare adult and smolt genetic analyses to ongoing 

adult salmon escapement estimates of WDFW and

smolt outmigration estimates of United States 

Geographic Survey (USGS) studies in the White 

Salmon River

Habitat Restoration

Protect existing habitat from future degradation through 

land use planning

Protect and conserve existing natural ecological processes

Protect existing habitat from future degradation though 

land management plans, conservation easements, 

acquisitions, re-classification of lands as natural areas 

Restore vegetation along stream sections that exceed state 

standards for temperature

Identify stream segments that are excessively warm; 

within those areas, work with willing landowners to 

implement actions to increase density of riparian 

vegetation where sparse; implement programs to 

protect existing riparian vegetation, reduce sediment 

inputs to streams

In cooperation with irrigation district and others, 

remove or replace barriers inhibiting upstream passage 

including dikes, culverts, and irrigation structures, 

provide/upgrade screening of irrigation diversions

Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or 

impaired by artificial barriers

Indian Creek culvert replacement

Reduce nutrient inputs Reduce runoff of nutrients from septic tanks, dairies, 

agricultural lands, and other sources

In cooperation with landowners plan, design and install 

stable wood and other large debris in streambeds and 

develop approaches to ensuring long-term LWD 

recruitment

Improve LWD abundance and recruitment

In cooperation with landowners develop grazing 

strategies that promote riparian recovery

Invasive species Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas

Restore channel With willing landowners, stabilize stream banks, 

restore natural channel form, reduce sediment inputs as 

needed from roads

Quantify anthropogenic effects on stream flow and 

identify priority actions

With willing landowners, implement water 

conservation measures

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency

Employ Best Management Practices (BMP)s with 

willing landowners

Protect/restore springs with willing landowners

Increase pool habitat

Restore wetlands with willing landowners 

Reduce anthropogenic effects on stream flow

Hydrologically disconnect roads from streams
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxxi

Action Type Specific Action(s)

Control road/stream interactions by reducing erosion 

potential

Public awareness Public awareness regarding restoration projects and 

importance of wood in streams and riparian areas 

Harvest

Manage harvest for low impact fisheries and rapid 

anadromous fish population growth

Harvest management

Adjust tributary harvest regulations in areas where 

harvest significantly impacts salmon and steelhead 

population growth

Hatcheries

Reintroduction: Hatchery production Rehabilitate White Salmon Ponds and update intake 

screen

Hydrosystem and Mainstem Predation

Maintain or improve hydropower operations and facilities 

at Bonneville Dam to enhance salmon and steelhead 

survival

Decrease water travel time during smolt outmigration

Maintain or improve hydropower operations and facilities 

at Bonneville Dam to enhance salmon and steelhead 

survival

Improve operation of adult passage, maintain high 

standards of adult fish passage at Bonneville Dam

Reduce predation on salmonids Reduce predation by pinnipeds, piscivores, cormorants 

and Caspian terns

Implementation and Cost Estimates

This plan provides specific management strategies and actions needed to address reestablishing viable anadromous salmonid populations in the White Salmon River watershed. 

These actions represent activities with the greatest potential for protecting and recovering 

salmon and steelhead, as well as for achieving broad-sense recovery goals. Implementation 

of recovery actions is not a one time or short-term initiative. The programs and actions will 

likely need sustaining, evaluating, adjusting, and augmenting over the full recovery period.

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 

White Salmon River Watershed Recovery Plan. Implementing the proposed recovery actions 

for MCR steelhead in the Washington Gorge Management Unit, which includes the White 

Salmon watershed, would be a primary task for a Washington Gorge Area Regional Board, 

subject to state, tribal, and local government concurrence and the opportunity for public 

involvement and comment.

Chapter 7 provides cost estimates developed by the Washington Gorge Implementation Team 

(WAGIT) for implementing the proposed habitat actions described in Chapter 6 for the 

White Salmon drainage. The Plan identified numerous RM&E actions. The results of 

studies will help to identify the priority actions within the watershed. The estimated RM&E 

actions will cost roughly $1,540,000 over a 5-year period. Implementation of PacifiCorp’s 

decommissioning plans is estimated to cost $0.9 to $1.1 million. Additional actions could 

cost up to $15,100,000. The total cost over a 5-year period for restoring anadromous 

populations in the White Salmon River could be as much as $16,781,000. Funding is not yet 

available to cover $13,200,000 of this cost.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

xxxii

Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management Framework

As part of implementing the White Salmon Recovery Plan, the proposed Washington Gorge 

Management Unit or another entity will design a detailed monitoring and evaluation 

program, which will be incorporated into an adaptive management framework based on the 

principles and concepts laid out in the NMFS guidance document, Adaptive Management for 

Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and Monitoring Guidance (available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/OtherDocuments.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012).

The White Salmon monitoring and evaluation program will build on existing programs 

designed for monitoring tributary habitat in the White Salmon River. Additionally, the 

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, 3) 

a decision framework in which new information from monitoring and evaluation can be used 

to adjust strategies or actions aimed at achieving the Plan’s goals.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-1

1 Introduction

The ESA of 1973 requires NOAA’s 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 where they are again self-sustaining elements of their 

ecosystems and no longer need the protection of the ESA.

This is a plan for the recovery of White Salmon River populations of fall Chinook salmon

and steelhead, and for establishing or re-establishing spring Chinook salmon, coho, and chum 

salmon populations in the White Salmon River so that they can contribute to the conservation 

and survival of the threatened LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, and CR chum 

salmon ESUs, and the threatened MCR steelhead DPS.

2

The White Salmon River drains approximately 386 square miles in southwestern Washington 

and joins the CR at Underwood, Washington, CR RM 163 (See Figure 1-1).

Salmon and steelhead production in the White Salmon River watershed dropped significantly 

in the early 1900s after construction of Condit Dam at RM 3.3 on the White Salmon River. 

Although the original owners constructed Condit Dam with a fish ladder, high flows twice 

destroyed the ladder, which was not rebuilt after 1919. The dam blocked access to most of 

the historical range of both spring and fall Chinook salmon, steelhead, and coho salmon 

populations that once spawned in the watershed. PacifiCorp breached Condit Dam in 

October 2011 and is currently removing the dam. This recovery plan includes the proposal 

developed as part of the FERC decommissioning process to re-establish natural production of 

spring and fall Chinook salmon, coho, chum salmon, and steelhead in the White Salmon 

watershed, based on natural re-colonization of the habitat above the dam after removal is 

complete. In addition, the Bonneville Dam reservoir inundated much of the historical 

spawning habitat of the chum salmon population that historically spawned in the watershed

(NMFS 2005). Some salmon and steelhead currently spawn and rear in accessible habitat 

below Condit Dam.

The watershed’s native salmon and steelhead populations are not viable and their respective 

ESUs/DPSs are now listed for protection under the ESA. The MCR steelhead population in 

the White Salmon River is considered functionally extirpated (ICTRT 2008) and also the 

LCR spring Chinook salmon and coho salmon and the CR chum salmon are considered 

extirpated (Myers et al. 2006).

 

2 An ‘evolutionarily significant unit’ (ESU) of Pacific salmon (Waples 1991) and a ‘distinct population 

segment’ (DPS) of steelhead (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) are considered to be 'species,' as defined in section 3 

of the ESA.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-2

Figure 1-1. White Salmon watershed in Washington State

NMFS developed this recovery plan with participation and technical contributions from the 

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

Federal and state agencies, local governments, and the public. While NMFS is the agency 

responsible for recovery planning for salmon and steelhead under the ESA, NMFS believes it 

is critically important to base ESA recovery plans for salmon and steelhead on the many 

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

region, and has attempted to do so in this plan.

1.1 Purpose of Plan

A recovery plan provides a roadmap for restoring a listed species or population to the point

where it becomes a viable component of its ecosystem. Recovery plans are not regulatory; 

they are guidance for recovery efforts. This Plan describes the current status of the White 

Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations and their habitat in the White Salmon 

watershed. The Plan also identifies the major limiting factors and threats affecting the 

populations and proposes strategies and actions designed to aid in population recovery by 

building on past and current efforts. Finally, the Plan provides an implementation and 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-3

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, which are to be addressed in recovery plans:

a. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the species’] habitat 

or range

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

c. Disease or predation

d. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

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:

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;

b. 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;

c. 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.

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 not less than 5 years to ensure that it 

retains its recovered status.

1.1.2 Coordination with Others

This Plan has been developed to achieve consistency with other related planning and 

management efforts.

Federal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities

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

salmon harvest. In the Treaties of 1855 between the U.S. Government and the Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of 

the Yakama Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and 

the Nez Perce Tribe, the tribes, in exchange for the preponderance of their lands, reserved the 

rights to fish within their reservations and “at all other usual and accustomed places.” The 

usual and accustomed places are understood to include the millions of acres of aboriginal 

land ceded to the United States in the 1855 treaties, which extends to the upper Columbia and 

Snake River Basins, and includes most of the geographic range of the middle Columbia 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-4

steelhead DPS. A complex history of treaties, executive orders, legislation, and court 

decisions have culminated in the recognition of tribes as co-managers who share 

management responsibilities and rights for fisheries in the Columbia Basin.

Achieving the basic purpose of the ESA (to bring the species to the point that it no longer 

needs the protection of the Act) may not by itself fully meet these rights and expectations, 

although it will lead to major improvements in the current situation. Ensuring a sufficient 

abundance of salmon to sustain harvest is an important element in fulfilling trust and treaty 

rights as well as garnering public support for these plans. ESA and tribal trust 

responsibilities complement one another. Both depend on a steady upward trend toward ESA 

recovery and delisting in the near term, while making aquatic habitat, harvest, and land 

management improvements for the long-term.

It is appropriate for recovery plans to take these considerations into account and plan for a 

recovery strategy that includes harvest. In some cases, increases in the naturally spawning 

populations may be sufficient to support harvest. In others, the recovery strategy may 

include appropriate use of hatcheries to support a portion of the harvest. So long as the 

overall plan is likely to achieve the recovery of the listed ESU/DPS, it will be acceptable as a 

recovery plan.

The NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee (June 2003), emphasized the importance of this co-manager relationship: “We 

have repeatedly stressed to the region’s leaders, tribal and non-tribal, the importance of our 

co-management and trust relationship to the tribes. NMFS enjoys a positive working 

relationship with our Pacific Northwest tribal partners. We view that relationship as crucial 

to the region’s future success in recovery of listed salmon.”

Treaty Indian fishing rights in the CR Basin are under the continuing jurisdiction of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Oregon in the case of U.S. 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 (BIA)) and Department of Commerce

(NMFS), 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 White Salmon watershed contains lands ceded to the United States by the YN in the 

Treaty of June 9, 1855. Within this area, the Tribe reserves the right “to hunt and fish at all 

usual and accustomed places.” An in-lieu fishing site is located in the White Salmon River 

upstream of the bridge at the mouth. This location allows tribal fishers to launch boats in an 

enclosed area and move out into the CR to their usual and accustomed fishing sites.

Several historical seasonal encampments and fishing areas used by local Indian bands were 

located on the White Salmon and its tributaries. Historically, before European settlement of 

the area, significant fisheries and winter village sites were located at the mouth of the White 

Salmon, at Husum Falls, RM 7.6 and at the falls at BZ Corner, RM 12.4. Another important 

winter village was located at Trout Creek (Lane and Lane Associates 1981). The Yakama 

people occupied the entire Rattlesnake Creek drainage. Villages were located near the 

confluence of the White Salmon River and Rattlesnake Creek, and another approximately 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-5

four miles up the creek. The upper White Salmon watershed also contains current and 

historical huckleberry fields traditionally used by the YN. Archaeological sites throughout 

the area testify to the importance of the White Salmon watershed as a seasonal and perennial 

area of aboriginal use. Present day tribal groups whose treaty reserved fisheries were 

affected by Condit Dam are the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian 

Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho (Lane and 

Lane Associates 1981).

Other Federal, State and Local Responsibilities

To ensure consistency in goals, strategies, and actions and to eliminate duplication of effort, 

planners and program administrators have endeavored to achieve consistency between ESA 

recovery plans, 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.

This Recovery Plan builds upon the White Salmon Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004), which was 

developed for the NPCC by the YN, WDFW, and other Federal, state, and local entities. The 

Plan contains an assessment and inventory of fish and wildlife resources in the watershed, as 

well as a management plan identifying locally informed fish and wildlife protection and 

restoration priorities. The NPCC adopted the White Salmon Subbasin Plan into its Fish and 

Wildlife program. Additional scientific data are drawn from other more recent sources, 

including technical products developed by TRTs appointed by NMFS for the Interior 

Columbia and Willamette/lower Columbia Willamette lower Columbia recovery domains 

and studies completed by the YN Fisheries, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USFWS, 

and the Underwood Conservation District (UCD).

This Plan is the product of a process initiated by NMFS, involving technical input from the

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

LCFRB, other Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and the public. The 

Plan’s recovery strategy for White Salmon River salmon and steelhead includes 

recommendations by these parties.

1.2 Context of Plan Development

Currently, there are 18 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; W/LC; Puget 

Sound and Washington Coast; the Oregon Coast; and the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast.

The White Salmon watershed is in an area of overlap between the Interior Columbia and 

W/LC recovery domains. Columbia River Chinook salmon, coho, and chum salmon are 

included in the W/LC domain. A run of fall Chinook salmon continues to exist in the

watershed. Chum, coho and spring Chinook salmon are considered extinct, extirpated, or 

functionally extirpated (Myers et al. 2006).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-6

The range of the middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS includes the White Salmon River 

watershed. The White Salmon River steelhead population is considered functionally 

extirpated. The entire recovery plan for the White Salmon River population of Middle 

Columbia River steelhead was not included in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct 

Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan. The Middle Columbia River plan explains that 

while the White Salmon watershed, which historically supported a population of Middle 

Columbia River steelhead, is part of the Washington Gorge management unit, the recovery 

plan for that population was being finalized as part of the Lower Columbia ESA Recovery 

Plan. The reason for including the White Salmon River population of Middle Columbia 

steelhead in the Lower Columbia ESA Recovery Plan was because the White Salmon River 

also includes single populations of three listed ESUs of salmon (Lower Columbia River 

Chinook and coho salmon and Columbia River chum). The need for an ecosystem approach 

warranted addressing all the listed salmonids that spawn in the White Salmon watershed in 

one plan. However, the delisting criteria, actions, and costs for the White Salmon River 

steelhead population are included in the Middle Columbia DPS plan in order to have all the 

information on the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS in one place. The Middle Columbia 

River steelhead DPS recovery plan will be updated to include the White Salmon 

Management Unit plan as an appendix. However, inclusion of the White Salmon 

Management Unit plan does not alter the recovery criteria articulated for the White Salmon 

River steelhead population in the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS recovery plan.

Technical Recovery Teams (TRT)

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 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. Both the W/LC TRT and the ICTRT did work relevant to the 

White Salmon populations. Each TRT included scientists from NMFS, states, tribal entities, 

academic institutions, and other Federal agencies.

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

ESU/DPS and population level 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 Salmon Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 

Units (McElhany et al. 2000). VSPs are defined in terms of four parameters: abundance, 

productivity or 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 and based on data availability, the unique 

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

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

regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors limiting 

recovery, all the TRTs are working from a common scientific foundation.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-7

1.2.1 Planning Forum

In each of the W/LC and Interior Columbia recovery domains, NMFS has worked with state, 

tribal, local, and other Federal entities to develop planning forums that build to the extent 

possible on ongoing, locally led recovery efforts. NMFS defined “Management Units” based 

on jurisdictional boundaries as well as areas where local planning efforts were underway. 

The W/LC Domain has four management units: 1) Oregon, 2) Washington, 3) White Salmon

and 4) Upper Willamette. The middle Columbia, a sub-domain of the Interior Columbia, 

also has four management units: 1) Oregon; 2) Washington Gorge, which, in turn, is 

subdivided into three planning areas; White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; 3) Yakima

Basin; 4) Southeast Washington.

NMFS works with recovery planning forums developed by the State. In Washington State 

these forums typically include representatives from state, tribal, local governments, and other 

stakeholders. The appropriate jurisdictions have not yet established a planning forum for the 

Washington Gorge Management Unit. Therefore, NMFS has worked independently with the

YN, Klickitat County, WDFW, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for White 

Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS encourages creation of a local 

planning forum that could provide guidance for further development and implementation of 

recovery plans for the Washington Gorge Management Unit.

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they are 

important tools that help to do the following:

• Provide context for regulatory decisions

• Guide decision making by Federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions

• Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions

• Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions

• Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery plans 

under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and allocate their 

resources:

• Actions carried out to meet Federal ESA section 7(a)(1) obligations

• Actions that are subject to ESA sections 4d, 7(a)(2), or 10

• Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and permit requests

• Harvest plans and permits

• Selection and prioritization of basin and watershed planning actions

• Development of research, monitoring, and evaluation programs

• Revision of land use and resource management plans
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

1-8

• Other natural resource decisions at the state, tribal, and local levels

NMFS will emphasize recovery plans in ESA section 7 (a)(2) consultations, section 10 

permits, and application of the section 4(d) rule by considering:

• Delisting criteria that address both viability and threats

• Description of limiting factors and threats (factors for decline)

• Description of a recovery program (site specific management actions necessary to 

achieve recovery of the species)

• Estimates of the time and cost to carry out measures to achieve the Plans’ goals

In implementing these programs, recovery plans will be used as a reference and a source of 

context, expectations, and goals. Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS staff will encourage the 

Federal “action agencies” to describe in their biological assessments how their proposed 

actions will affect specific populations, the limiting factors identified in the recovery plans, 

and any mitigating measures and voluntary recovery activities in the action area.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-1

2 Biological Background

This chapter describes population and habitat characteristics for the White Salmon River

salmon and steelhead populations. The chapter also discusses hatchery production and 

releases and harvest management in the White Salmon River watershed.

2.1 Populations and Major Population Groups

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon

White Salmon River fall and spring Chinook salmon are included in the LCR Chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ESU, which NMFS listed as threatened on March 24, 

1999, and reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations 

of Chinook salmon in the CR and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream 

to a transitional point east of Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in 

Washington. The historical site of Celilo Falls on the CR is considered the transitional point 

for this ESU, since it may have been a migration barrier to Chinook salmon at certain times 

of year (Myers et al. 1998). The ESU exhibits three major life history types: fall-run (tules), 

late fall-run (brights), and spring-run. The White Salmon River historically supported two of 

these life history strategies: fall-run Chinook salmon tules (Figure 2-1), and spring-run 

Chinook salmon (Figure 2-2).

There is no direct documentation of a historical (pre-Condit Dam) population of naturally 

spawning spring Chinook salmon (Myers et al. 2006). Fulton (1968) speculated that tribal 

members historically caught Chinook salmon upstream of Husum Falls, which were likely 

spring Chinook salmon, citing Bryant (1949) and USFWS (1951). These reports, however, 

did not indicate direct observations. Evermann and Meek (1898) surveyed the White Salmon 

River in August and September. No Chinook salmon were observed in August, possibly due 

to conditions not being conducive to observation due to flooding from the CR and to 

investigating only the lower mile of the river. Additionally, LeMier and Smith (1955) 

interviewed a long time resident who was unable to confirm the presence of spring Chinook 

salmon in the watershed.

Even though documentation of direct observations of spring Chinook salmon by 20th-centery 

residents, Myers et al. 2006 determined, based on the historically available habitat, that 

spring Chinook salmon were historically present in the basin. The observation of a spring 

Chinook salmon redd above Husum Falls on September 20, 2012, further supports the 

historical presence of spring Chinook salmon in the basin (personal communication R. Engle, 

USFWS, 2012). The determination that the redd observed belonged to spring Chinook 

salmon was based on the timing of the redd (prior to tule fall Chinook salmon spawning), the 

size (too large for resident trout), and its location above Husum Falls (no fall Chinook 

salmon have been observed above Husum Falls).

LeMier and Smith (1955) evaluated the capacity of the White Salmon River to support 

salmon if passage was re-established. Under conditions existing in 1955, they estimated the 

river could support 732 spring Chinook salmon and 452 fall Chinook salmon, but noted that 

conditions in the White Salmon River were degraded substantially in 1955 relative to 

historical levels. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling indicated the historic 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-2

potential abundance of fall Chinook salmon was roughly 775 adults. This figure is less than 

the estimated current potential without harvest, which suggests some error in the model 

assumptions or the reporting of results (Allen and Connolly 2005). The EDT modeling 

indicated the historic potential abundance of spring Chinook salmon was roughly 825 adults.

Figure 2-1. Historical fall and late fall demographically independent populations in the 

lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006)
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-3

Figure 2-2. Historical spring demographically independent populations in the lower

Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006)
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-4

Lower Columbia River coho salmon

White Salmon River coho salmon are part of the LCR coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

ESU, which NMFS listed as threatened on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally 

spawned coho salmon populations in the CR and its tributaries from the mouth of the CR to a 

transitional point east of the Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in 

Washington (Figure 2-3). At the time of listing, biologists identified only two naturally 

spawning populations: the Sandy River and the Clackamas River populations in Oregon.

Figure 2-3. Historical demographically independent populations in the lower Columbia 

River Coho salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006)
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-5

Columbia River chum salmon - White Salmon River chum salmon were part of the upper

Gorge Tributaries population of CR chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) ESU, which NMFS

listed as threatened on March 25, 1999, and reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes

all naturally spawning populations in the CR and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon

(Figure 2-4).

Figure 2-4. Historical demographically independent populations in the Columbia River 

chum salmon ESU (Meyers et al. 2006)
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-6

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

White Salmon River steelhead are part of the MCR Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) DPS, 

which NMFS listed as threatened on January 5, 2006. This DPS includes all naturally 

produced steelhead in the CR Basin upstream of the Wind River in Washington and the Hood 

River in Oregon (exclusive) to the Yakima River in Washington. Excluded are steelhead 

from the Snake River Basin (Busby et al. 1996). The MCR Steelhead DPS includes the only 

populations of inland winter steelhead in the United States (in the Klickitat and White 

Salmon rivers, Washington, and in Fifteenmile Creek, Oregon). The ICTRT identified 20 

populations within the DPS (16 summer-run and 4 winter-run). In addition the ICTRT 

identified the historical populations that have been extirpated in Willow Creek due to dam 

construction in the Deschutes River Basin (ICTRT 2004). Figure 2-5 shows populations 

within the DPS. The White Salmon population was initially considered to be one of the 

extirpated populations, (however, later analysis defined the population as being functionally 

extirpated (ICTRT 2007b).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-7

Figure 2-5. Historical summer and winter steelhead populations in the middle

Columbia River DPS (ICTRT 2004; ICTRT 2007b). Note populations in gray are 

extirpated or functionally extirpated
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-8

2.2 Physical Setting

The White Salmon River watershed drains approximately 386 square miles in south central 

Washington. The river begins along the south slope of Mt. Adams and flows south 45 miles 

to enter the CR at Underwood, Washington at CR RM 168.3. Elevation in the watershed 

ranges from 12,307 feet on Mt. Adams to 72 feet at the river’s mouth.

The White Salmon River watershed lies primarily within Klickitat County, however, the 

lower river below the top end of the former Northwestern Lake is shared with Skamania 

County, and the headwaters of the watershed also extend into Skamania and Yakima 

counties. These counties have a combined human population of 395,000 with less than 9,000 

people living in the White Salmon watershed, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/smallarea/default.asp

(accessed April 11, 2012). The watershed falls within Washington State’s WRIA 29b. Half 

of the watershed lies within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and supports timber 

production and recreational uses.

Several reaches of the White Salmon River have received special designations because of 

their scenic value. The nine-mile reach from the confluence of Gilmer Creek near BZ Corner 

to Buck Creek was designated a Federal Wild and Scenic River in 1986. The upper White 

Salmon from the headwaters to the boundary of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and 

Cascade Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with the White Salmon River was 

designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in 2005. The reach from the former location 

of Condit Dam, RM 3.3, to the mouth is within the boundaries of the CR Gorge National 

Scenic Area. Recovery actions within these designated scenic areas should be coordinated 

with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to ensure the scenic values are maintained.

2.3 Ecosystem Conditions

The watershed lies within a transitional ecosystem area. Western portions of the watershed 

receive moderate to heavy precipitation. Eastern portions of the watershed are substantially 

more arid. Vegetation reflects this transitional location, with mixed forests covering about 

95 percent of the watershed and grasslands and shrub steppe dominating remaining areas 

(Haring 2003). Trout Lake Valley, the major watershed valley, is surrounded by hills to the 

west and rolling plateaus to the east.

The White Salmon River and tributaries carve a watershed that is often rugged and steep, 

reflecting its past volcanic activity (Figure 2-6). From its headwaters, the White Salmon cuts 

sharply through mountains with precipitous cliffs and deeply incised canyons, dropping more 

than 5,000 feet in elevation before it reaches Trout Lake near RM 26, with a gradient change 

of 200 feet per mile (4 percent) between RM 35 and RM 30. The White Salmon loses 

another 1,800 feet in elevation from Trout Lake to the Columbia River. Gradient drops an 

average of 100 feet per mile (2 percent) from RM 17 to RM 12 as the river flows through a 

steep gorge with several falls. Tributaries between RM 7.6 and 16.3 are inaccessible to fish 

because of high falls at their mouths (NPCC 2004; WDFW and YN 1990).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-9

Figure 2-6. White Salmon River watershed topography and hydrology (NPCC 2004)

2.3.1 Hydrology

The White Salmon River mainstem naturally has a relatively constant natural flow pattern 

because of glacial melt, large water recharge, and storage capacity. Today this constant flow 

regime continues throughout the mainstem. Recharged water is released mostly in the 

middle portion of the mainstem canyon between the Trout Lake Valley and Husum Falls. 

Peak flows in the mainstem reflect snowmelt runoff, increasing from an average daily flow 

of 644 cfs during fall months to flows of 1,538 cfs in the spring (Haring 2003).

Operations at Condit Dam altered flows in the White Salmon River below the dam, causing 

flows to drop to as low as 15 cfs in the 1.1-mile bypass reach compared to natural flows of 

about 700 cfs. Power peaking at the dam affected the river system by causing diel flow

variations and by impairing watershed processes, such as the transportation of spawning 

gravels and LWD to areas downstream of the project (NPCC 2004). The dam was breached 

in October, 2011 and flows will return to the natural condition as the final stages of dam 

removal are completed.

Tributary reaches of the White Salmon generally have more volatile flows than the 

mainstem, dropping to low levels in the summer and peaking in the winter. Some tributaries 

flow only during high flow events and are dry the remainder of the year (NPCC 2004). Some 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-10

of these tributaries may also be affected by exempted wells that can reduce recharge rates 

and flows.

2.3.2 Migration Barriers

Condit Dam, constructed at RM 3.3, was completed in 1913 and blocked upstream migration 

of anadromous fish since that time, as well as causing high mortality for outmigrating 

juveniles. The dam was breeched in 2011 and completely removed by October 2012. 

Anadromous salmonids now have complete access to habitat upstream of RM 3.3.

Prior to construction of the dam, the upstream limit of all anadromous fish migration in the 

White Salmon River, except for possibly Pacific lamprey, was the upper falls at Big Brother 

Falls, RM 16.2, which is approximately 29 feet high. Historic reports of steelhead occurring 

above Big Brother Falls (Lane and Lane Associates1981) were apparently large resident 

rainbow trout (O. mykiss) confused as being steelhead (Chapman et al. 1990; Bair et al. 

2002). BZ Falls at RM 12.4, about 15 to 17 feet high, is likely to be the upstream limit for 

all salmonids, except for steelhead. Steelhead will likely be able to pass BZ Falls, but the 

upstream extent of the potential steelhead habitat will not extend beyond Big Brother Falls. 

Downstream of BZ Falls, Husum Falls, RM 7.6, was probably the historical barrier to fallrun Chinook salmon, sea-run coastal cutthroat trout, and perhaps coho salmon. Blasting 

shortly after the construction of Condit Dam reduced the height of the falls (Lane and Lane

Associates 1981). In its current configuration, Husum Falls is not a barrier to the passage of 

adult resident or anadromous salmonids, except at low fall flows, and will likely be a barrier 

to the upstream passage of juvenile salmonids and adult chum salmon. Numerous barrier 

falls 4 feet in height or greater on the river between Husum and Big Brother Falls will be 

partial or complete barriers to the upstream migration of juvenile salmonids (LeMier and 

Smith 1955).

Barriers also restrict salmon and steelhead production in several White Salmon tributaries. 

With the exception of steelhead, and possibly coho salmon under ideal flow conditions, the 

falls at RM 1.5 on Rattlesnake Creek and RM 0.8 on Mill Creek will be barriers to upstream 

migration for all salmonids. A 4-foot high diversion dam at RM 1.9 on Buck Creek will be a 

barrier to the upstream migration of salmonids < 9 inches in length (Bair et al. 2002). A 

waterfall at RM 3.2 on Buck Creek and the hydro project dam at RM 0.7 on Spring Creek 

will be complete barriers to upstream salmonid migration, as is a double-fall (72-82 feet) at 

RM 10.6 on Rattlesnake Creek (Allen et al. 2003).

2.3.3 Riparian Function and Conditions

In comparison to other CR subbasins, the White Salmon watershed is lightly to moderately 

developed. However, historical logging practices, including mainstem splash damming, and 

associated road building and inappropriate riparian grazing have likely resulted in

modification of flows, increased sedimentation, reduced riparian vegetation, loss of LWD, 

and increased summer temperature in some areas (NPCC 2004).

Until 1974, timber harvest typically extended to the edge of the stream/river. These practices 

were restricted in 1974 and have been further restricted in subsequent modifications of the 

Washington State Forest Practices Rules 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-11

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/fp_rules_history.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012). 

Additionally, the USFS prohibits harvest in riparian areas along fish bearing streams 

www.reo.gov/general/aboutNWFP.htm (accessed July 13, 2010).

Grazing has occurred since the late 1800s in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed and Trout Lake 

Valley, reducing native vegetation. Large historic marsh areas in the upper Rattlesnake 

Creek watershed were drained in the early 1900s to improve grazing conditions (Haring 

2003). Today timber practices have improved, grazing is better managed, and wetland 

draining has stopped. Nevertheless, many impacts of past land use actions remain in the 

watershed (Haring 2003). Residential development is occurring with increasing frequency in 

the lower watershed and along State Route 141; however, construction within the riparian 

area is largely prohibited.

Some habitat areas in the White Salmon River and tributaries remain healthy, but land use 

activities affect many areas. EDT modeling results suggest that mainstem habitat is in better 

shape than tributary habitat, with maximum temperatures, minimum temperatures, and 

dissolved oxygen remaining at optimum levels (Allen and Connolly 2005). The EDT 

modeling was completed prior to removal of the dam in 2011, and the model results do not 

reflect current conditions in the former lakebed or downstream of the dam. New data 

collected since the modeling was completed indicate that temperature meets Washington 

state water quality standards throughout the anticipated anadromous range with the exception 

of Rattlesnake Creek, which occasionally approaches lethal temperatures in some locations in 

some years (White and Plumb 2004; White and Plumb 2005; White and Cochrane 2005; 

Connolly 2003; Morris 2005). Habitat surveys completed in the watershed indicate that large 

wood and pools are low in frequency throughout the Rattlesnake watershed and many of the 

existing pools are of poor quality (shallow with little cover) (Allen and Connolly 2006a). 

Unscreened diversions in some locations may potentially affect juvenile survival. Nutrient 

levels in many portions of the watershed are quite high, up to two times the EPA 

recommended standard (White and Plumb 2004, 2005; White and Cochrane 2005, 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2000).

2.4 Life History Characteristics

2.4.1 White Salmon River Chinook salmon

This section describes fall and spring Chinook salmon populations in the White Salmon 

River watershed.

Abundance and Productivity

The W/LC TRT recognizes two historical independent Chinook salmon populations in the

watershed: White Salmon River fall-run Chinook salmon and White Salmon River spring-run 

Chinook salmon (Myers et al. 2003; Myers et al. 2006). These historical Chinook salmon 

populations are considered to be part of the Gorge stratum (or Major Population Group

(MPG)) of the lower Columbia Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 2006). These populations 

are described below.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-12

Fall Chinook salmon

Biologists consider tule fall Chinook salmon native to the system, although the historical size 

of the fall-run to the White Salmon River is unknown. Past hatchery records indicate that 

fall-run Chinook salmon in the LWS and White Salmon rivers began spawning in early 

September, with peak egg takes in the later part of the month (September 21, 1901); 

12,840,700 eggs were collected in 1901 (Myers et al. 2003; Myers et al. 2006; Bowers, 

1902).

The current stock origin for the naturally spawning tule fall Chinook salmon is considered 

mixed (NOAA 2005). Hatchery tule fall Chinook salmon were last released in the White 

Salmon River in the 1980s, but strays are commonly recovered in the river (WDFW 2003). 

The Spring Creek NFH is located on the CR approximately one mile west of the mouth of 

the White Salmon River.

Most of the fish spawning naturally in the White Salmon River were assumed to be hatcheryorigin tule fall Chinook salmon based on CWT recoveries. The USFWS (2004) estimated 

natural-origin fall Chinook salmon escapement in the White Salmon River by subtracting the 

hatchery component calculated by expanding the number of CWT recovered during carcass 

surveys by the Spring Creek Hatchery brood year tag rate from the total tule escapement

(Figure 2-7). Spring Creek NFH began marking all of its hatchery production in 2004 and as 

a result, recent spawning ground surveys have shown that the majority of the tule fall 

Chinook salmon returning to the White Salmon River are of natural origin (Roler 2011). The 

total number of fall Chinook salmon spawners (natural-origin and hatchery) has averaged 

2,750 from 1998-2007, even with low returns in the early 2000s (USFWS 2004; Roler 2009). 

The recent 10-year average (2002-2011) for escapement of natural spawning tule fall 

Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River has increased to 3,127 adults (Roller 2012).

Smith et al. (2007) determined that Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook salmon and naturalorigin fall tule fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon were genetically similar and were 

distinct from other tule fall Chinook salmon populations in the LCR ESU. Natural spawning 

tule fall Chinook salmon were also found to have not interbred with URB fall Chinook

salmon that also spawn in the White Salmon River (Smith and Engle 2011).

Figure 2-7. Wild and total tule fall Chinook salmon escapement for 

the White Salmon River from 1992-2003 (USFWS 2004)
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-13

Spring Chinook salmon

Biologists generally believe the White Salmon spring Chinook salmon population was 

historically significant, but declined to low numbers after construction of Condit Dam 

(LCFRB 2004). Fulton (1968) speculated that Chinook salmon historically caught by tribal 

members upstream of Husum Falls were likely spring Chinook salmon, citing Bryant (1949) 

and USFWS (1951) but these reports did not indicate direct observations of spring Chinook 

salmon. Evermann and Meek (1898) surveyed the White Salmon River in August and 

September and did not observe Chinook salmon in August, however, the conditions were not 

conducive to observation due to flooding from the CR, and only the lower mile of the river 

was investigated. If the life history timing of the White Salmon spring Chinook salmon were 

similar to other LCR spring Chinook salmon populations, adult spring Chinook salmon

would be expected to be on the spawning grounds in the upper river during the month of 

August, not entering their natal river. Lane and Lane Associates (1981) document early 

indications of the presence or absence of spring Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. 

Some of the persons interviewed remembered the presence of spring Chinook salmon, while 

others could not verify these observations. The W/LC TRT deduced that there was an 

historical population of spring Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River (Myers et al. 

2006).

LeMier and Smith (1955) evaluated the capacity of the White Salmon River to support 

salmon if passage was provided upstream of Condit Dam. Under conditions existing in 1955, 

they estimated the White Salmon River could support 732 spring Chinook salmon and 452 

fall Chinook salmon, but noted that conditions in the White Salmon River were degraded 

substantially in 1955 relative to historical levels. Chapman (1981), using instream flow 

measurements, estimated that in pristine conditions prior to the construction of Condit Dam 

the White Salmon River supported 625 adult Chinook salmon (spring and fall runs 

combined). Using similar methods, Young and Rybak (1987) estimated that the habitat

upstream of Northwestern Reservoir could support 35,000 spring Chinook salmon smolts, 

and from 140 to 1,120 spring Chinook salmon adults. Chapman (1981) and Young and 

Rybak (1987) noted that the watershed has cool summer water temperatures and deep canyon 

pools, conducive to spring Chinook salmon holding and rearing. The EDT modeling effort 

estimated capacity for approximately 560 to 650 spring Chinook salmon in the watershed. 

W/LC TRT members generally believe that the construction of Condit Dam extirpated spring 

Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River and eliminated the genetic resources of the 

population (McElhany et al. 2004, p. 71). As recently as 2009, stray hatchery spring 

Chinook salmon have been observed holding and spawning below Condit Dam, but their 

reproductive success is unknown (McElhany et al. 2004; NPCC 2004; Engle et al. 2010).

Spatial Structure and Diversity

Prior to the construction of Condit Dam, spring Chinook salmon probably ranged up the 

White Salmon River to above Husum Falls, RM 12, and probably up to Big Brother Falls at 

RM 16.2 (Chapman 1981; Young and Rybak 1987). They may have also migrated into 

Rattlesnake Creek (NPCC 2004). Fall Chinook salmon were limited to spawning and rearing 

habitat below Husum Falls (NPCC 2004). This conclusion was confirmed using Radiotagged adult fall Chinook salmon released above Condit Dam (Engle and Skalicky 2009).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-14

Since 1913, Condit Dam has limited distribution for Chinook salmon to the 3.3-mile area 

below the dam. While the dam was in place, Chinook salmon spawned and reared in the 

lower White Salmon River below Condit Dam, (Figure 2.8). Most of these spawners were 

fall Chinook salmon and many were hatchery strays. In 2011, fisheries co-managers 

transported and released upstream of Northwestern Lake naturally spawning Chinook salmon 

entering the White Salmon River in order to preserve the year class. Any redds present 

downstream of the dam when it was breached would have been destroyed though scour and 

subsequent deposition of sediments. 

Figure 2-8. Possible extent of historic spawning distribution of Chinook salmon in the 

White Salmon River (NPCC 2004)

Key Habitat during Different Life Stages

Biologists consider White Salmon River fall-run Chinook salmon an ocean-type salmon 

because they migrate to the ocean as subyearlings. Tule Chinook salmon begin entering the 

CR in early August, with the greatest abundance in the estuary between late August and early 

September. Tule counts at Bonneville Dam generally peak between September 4 and 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-15

September 9. Most tules mature at age three, with very few five-year-olds. Fall Chinook

salmon spawning in the White Salmon River peaks in late September through early October. 

The adults tend to spawn in mainstem rivers and large tributaries.

Since human activities have extirpated native spring-run Chinook salmon in the White 

Salmon River, scientists know little about their life history. Biologists would expect the 

historical spring-run Chinook salmon population to have a life history similar to other LCR 

ESU spring Chinook salmon populations. These spring Chinook salmon are a stream type 

because they primarily smolt as yearlings. Fecundity varies within and among Chinook

salmon populations. Adult spring-run Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River from 

February to Mid-May and spawn from late July to late September (Fulton 1968).

Both fall and spring Chinook salmon generally spawn in stream reaches at least 10 feet wide. 

They construct redds in gravel and small cobble substrate in pool tailouts, riffles, and glides. 

Eggs remain in the gravel until emergence, which occurs from February to April depending 

on water temperatures. Emerging fry seek out shallow, low velocity areas in the stream 

channel, preferring backwater and dammed pools, along with glides. Shortly after fry 

colonization, however, tule fall Chinook salmon juveniles begin their outmigration, while the 

spring Chinook salmon juveniles can continue rearing until October. During the inactive or 

overwintering life stage, spring Chinook salmon juveniles prefer non-turbulent deeper water 

habitat types (primary pools) in the main channel, but also use slower portions of large 

cobble riffles. Yearling spring Chinook salmon outmigrate during the following spring.

Table 2-1 shows key habitat for fall and spring Chinook salmon during different life stages.

Table 2-1. Key habitat by life stage and time period for fall/spring Chinook salmon

(NPCC 2004)

L i fe Stage Rel evant Months K ey H abi tat Descri pti ons 

Spawning Tule Sep-Oct

Spring Aug-Sep

Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas in glides 

containing a mixture of gravel and cobble sizes with 

flow of sufficient depth for spawning activity

Incubation Aug-May

Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas of glides as 

described for spawning with sufficient flow for egg and 

alevin development

Fry Colonization Feb-May

Shallow, slow velocity areas within the stream channel, 

including backwater areas, often associated with stream 

margins and back eddies and usually in relatively low 

gradient reaches

Active Rearing

Tule Feb-June

Spring Mar-Oct 

Relatively slow water habitat types, often near velocity 

shears, often associated with relatively low gradient 

stream channel reaches, including primary pools, 

backwaters, tailouts, glides, and beaver ponds

Inactive Rearing Oct-Mar

Non-turbulent habitat types, particularly deeper water 

types within the main channel, but also including 

slower portions of large cobble riffles

Migrant Tule, Age 0 Mar-Jun

Spring, Age 1 Mar-May

All habitat types having sufficient flow for free 

movement of juvenile migrants
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-16

L i fe Stage Rel evant Months K ey H abi tat Descri pti ons 

Pre-spawning 

Migrant

Tule Aug-Oct

Spring Feb-Sep

All habitat types having sufficient flow for free 

movement of sexually mature adult migrants

Pre-spawning 

Holding

Tule Aug-Oct

Spring Aug-Sep

Relatively slow, deep water habitat types typically 

associated with (or immediately adjacent to) the main 

channel
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-17

2.4.2 White Salmon River coho salmon

Myers et al. (2006) included the historic coho salmon population in the White Salmon River 

as part of the Gorge Stratum within the lower Columbia coho salmon ESU. This section 

describes the White Salmon River coho salmon population.

Abundance and Productivity

The W/LC TRT determined that coho salmon are native to the White Salmon River based on 

habitat and historical presence of coho salmon in other CR gorge tributaries (Myers et al. 

2006). Rich (1938) indicated that only a very small portion of the total CR coho salmon run 

migrated beyond Bonneville Dam. None of the early surveys of fisheries identified coho 

salmon in the White Salmon River, although the timing of these surveys did not coincide 

with coho salmon presence. Interviews with long-term residents and notes found in diaries 

indicate that coho salmon were likely present, but in low numbers (Lane and Lane Associates 

1981; Cobb 1924).

Chapman (1981), using instream flow measurements, estimated that in pristine conditions 

prior to the construction of Condit Dam the White Salmon River supported 5,489 adult coho

salmon. Young and Rybak (1987) estimated that the habitat could support 45,000 coho 

salmon smolts, and from 1,600 to 2,300 coho salmon adults. Scientists consider the current 

population in the White Salmon River extirpated (Johnson et al. 1991; Weitkamp et al. 1995; 

Schiewe 1996; Good et al. 2005). Good et al. (2005) suggested that recovery efforts could 

use existing hatchery programs to build naturally spawning populations. Currently, the size 

of this population is unknown. In a 2004 population status evaluation, W/LC TRT members 

found insufficient data to determine the productivity and abundance of the White Salmon 

River coho salmon population (McElhany et al. 2004). Some members noted that 

construction of Condit Dam probably resulted in the population’s extirpation, as most 

historical spawning habitat for the population lies above the dam. Myers et al. (2006) in 

designating the historical population structure for coho salmon in the Gorge strata identified 

two populations above Bonneville Dam: Oregon tributaries and Hood River and Washington 

tributaries and the White Salmon River (including the Wind River, Spring Creek, and the 

LWS River).

The LCFRB Recovery Plan (LCFRB 2004) proposed an abundance goal for recovery of 150 

fish. However, potential production estimates for coho salmon in the White Salmon River, 

completed for the NPCC subbasin planning (Allen and Connolly 2005; NPCC 2004) and for 

other efforts (Chapman et al. 1990; Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) 1990) 

suggest that the drainage could support 950 to 2,300 coho salmon, if decision makers and 

scientists are able to restore passage to historical habitats above the dam.

Spatial Structure and Diversity

With the removal of Condit Dam, habitat that could potentially support coho salmon extends

from the mouth up to RM 14 in the mainstem and into Buck, Spring, Indian, and Rattlesnake 

creeks (Figure 2-8) (NPCC 2004). This range may provide up to 21 miles of spawning and 

rearing habitat for coho salmon, with most potential spawning habitat above the location of 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-18

the former Condit Dam. Prior to breaching the dam, hatchery strays occasionally use the 

area below Condit Dam (NPCC 2004).

Figure 2-9. Potential extent of historical spawning distribution of coho salmon in the White 

Salmon River (McElhany et al. 2004)

Key Habitat during Different Life Stages

LCR coho salmon adults typically return to their spawning rivers from September through 

November, and typically spawn from October through January, with peak activity in 

November. Redds are constructed in gravel and small cobble substrate in pool tailouts, 

riffles, and glides, with sufficient flow depth for spawning activity. The eggs incubate in the 

gravel from October to May and generally emerge from February to April, depending on 

water temperatures. Emerging fry migrate to shallow, low velocity areas, which are 

associated with stream margins and back eddies.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-19

After fry colonization, juvenile coho salmon seek out slow water habitat types near velocity 

shears, which are often associated with relatively low gradient stream reaches where they 

continue rearing until October. Preferred areas are primarily backwater and dammed pools. 

As winter approaches, juveniles become inactive and prefer off channel pool habitat over 

primary pool habitat for overwintering. Coho salmon yearling migration occurs the 

following spring, peaking in May.

Table 2-2 describes key habitat by life stage.

Table 2-2. Key habitat by life stage and time period for White Salmon River coho 

salmon (NPCC 2004)

L i fe Stage Rel evant 

Months K ey H abi tat Descri pti ons 

Spawning Oct-Jan

Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas in glides containing a 

mixture of gravel and cobble sizes with flow of sufficient 

depth for spawning activity

Incubation Oct-May

Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas of glides as described 

for spawning with sufficient flow for egg and alevin 

development

Fry Colonization Mar-May

Shallow, slow velocity areas within the stream channel, 

including backwater areas, often associated with stream 

margins and back eddies and usually in relatively low 

gradient reaches

Active Rearing

0-age Mar-Oct

1-age Mar-May

Relatively slow water habitat types, often near velocity 

shears, often associated with relatively low gradient stream 

channel reaches, including primary pools, backwaters, 

tailouts, glides, and beaver ponds

Inactive Rearing Oct-Mar

Non-turbulent habitat types, particularly deeper water types 

within the main channel, but also including slower portions 

of large cobble riffles

Migrant Mar-May All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement 

of juvenile migrants

Pre-spawning 

Migrant Sep-Nov All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of sexually mature adult migrants

Pre-spawning 

Holding

Oct-Dec Relatively slow, deep water habitat types typically 

associated with (or immediately adjacent to) the main 

channel

2.4.3 Upper Gorge chum salmon

This section describes the segment of the upper Gorge chum salmon population that 

historically occupied the White Salmon River.

Abundance and Productivity

Chum salmon that returned to the White Salmon River were part of the upper Gorge 

Tributaries population (McElhany et al. 2004). Annual fish passage reports by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 

2008), for Bonneville Dam provided data that adult chum salmon continue to pass upstream 

of Bonneville Dam, with adult counts averaging 139 from 2000 to 2008 and ranging from a 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-20

low of 49 to a high of 411. Recent chum salmon surveys by WDFW have identified fewer

than five chum salmon carcasses above Bonneville Dam annually; no carcasses were 

observed in 2005 (Jenkins 2006), however researchers in Oregon observed chum salmon 

spawning at the mouth of Eagle Creek above Bonneville Dam in 2008 and 2009 (M. Weeber, 

personal communication 2010). Today, chum salmon are limited almost exclusively to 

habitats downstream of Bonneville Dam, with most spawning in Washington waters.

Biologists know little about the chum salmon production potential of the LCR or the White 

Salmon River. Chum salmon fecundity data are variable. In North America, the literature 

reports individual fecundity ranged from 2,018 to 3,977 eggs per female (Salo 1991). 

Fecundity data are available for wild chum salmon in the LCR, but not for the White Salmon 

River. Chum salmon broodstock collected from the lower Gorge population in 2007 had an 

average fecundity of 2,255 eggs and a range of 1,630 to 2,922 eggs (Hillson 2009).

In the upper Gorge Tributaries population, researchers assumed a 96 percent reduction in 

abundance due to the existence and operation of Bonneville Dam. They assumed impacts to 

be predominantly due to inundation of historical habitat by the reservoir (see spatial structure 

and diversity below), but to include about 5 percent passage mortality for juveniles and an 

additional 3 percent for adults (Tables 14-1 and 14-2 in NMFS 2008b).

Spatial Structure and Diversity

Small et al. (2006) analyzed genetic samples from populations in the coast, cascade, and 

gorge regions of the CR chum salmon ESU. They found significant heterogeneity in 

genotype distributions between zones and that collections formed regional groups in a 

neighbor joining tree. Cascade collections had higher allelic richness and private alleles, and 

the Cowlitz River supported genetically divergent fall and summer runs, the only summer 

chum salmon run extant in the CR drainage. They propose that chum salmon in the Cascade 

zone are remnants of original populations and they attributed the divergence between zonal 

groups to diverse ecological conditions in each zone, which promoted regional genetic 

adaptation, and to genetic drift experienced in small populations. No information is available

regarding the historical diversity for chum salmon in the White Salmon River.

In the White Salmon River, the pool behind Bonneville Dam has inundated approximately 80 

percent of the historical chum salmon spawning habitat, rendering it unusable (NPPC 2004).

Key Habitat during Different Life Stages

Chum salmon usually spawn in lower river reaches, dig their redds in the mainstem, 

tributaries or in side channels and tend to use shallower, slower running streams and side 

channels more frequently than do other salmonids. Water velocity in spawning areas varies 

widely for chum salmon. In Washington, Johnson et al. (1991) measured water velocities 

near 1,000 chum salmon redds and found that velocities where fish spawned varied from 0.0 

to 5.5 ft/sec (0.0 to 167.6 cm/sec), and that over 80 percent of the fish spawned in velocities 

between 0.7 and 2.7 ft/sec (21.3 and 83.8 cm/sec). This range is similar to that found in other 

species of salmon.

One detectable difference between chum salmon populations in different areas is the time it 

takes for eggs to incubate, hatch, and emerge as alevins from the gravel. Differences 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-21

between populations are caused by physical factors such as stream flow, water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, and gravel composition, and by such biotic factors as genetics, spawning 

time, and spawning density, all of which can affect survival (reviewed in Bakkala 1970; Salo 

1991). Scientists believe water temperature has the most influence on the rate of embryonic 

development in chum salmon (reviewed in Bakkala 1970; Koski 1975; Salo 1991). The 

amount of heat, measured in Thermal Units (TUs), required by fertilized chum salmon eggs 

to develop and hatch is about 400-600 TUs, and the heat required to complete yolk 

absorption is about 700-1,000 TUs. Lower water temperatures can prolong the time required 

from fertilization to hatching by 1.5-4.5 months.

Chum salmon do not typically have substantial freshwater rearing time. Most chum salmon

juveniles begin seaward migration with minimal time spent in natal streams. Consequently, 

the period of estuarine residence appears to be the most critical phase in the life history of 

chum salmon and may play a major role in determining the size of the subsequent adult-run 

back to fresh water. Chum salmon juveniles, like other anadromous salmonids, use estuaries 

to feed before beginning long distance oceanic migrations. However, chum salmon and 

ocean-type Chinook salmon usually have longer residence times in estuaries than do other 

anadromous salmonids (Dorcey et al. 1978; Healey 1982).

Biologists know little about the seaward migration of juvenile chum salmon from the 

Columbia River. Generally, however, researchers find migration of chum salmon juveniles 

out of estuaries appears to closely correlate with prey availability (LCFRB 2004). For 

information about conditions in the CR Estuary and how chum salmon may be affected, see 

the Proposed CR Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon & Steelhead 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/EstuaryModule.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012).

2.4.4 White Salmon River steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss, of which steelhead and rainbow trout are members, displays a wide 

variety of life history strategies (Busby et al. 1996). Anadromy is not obligatory in O. 

mykiss, but scientists extensively debate the heritability of anadromy (Rounsefell 1958; 

Mullan et al. 1992). Progeny of anadromous steelhead can spend their entire lives in 

freshwater (residualize), while progeny of rainbow trout can migrate seaward. The White 

Salmon River watershed supports both forms of O. mykiss. Although rainbow trout are not 

in the MCR steelhead DPS, genetic analysis shows that White Salmon steelhead and rainbow 

trout are an inland race of O. mykiss (Phelps et al. 1990; Phelps et al. 1994). The White 

Salmon population is as part of the Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG (Figure 2-10).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-22

Figure 2-10. Major Population Groups (MPGs) and populations of middle Columbia 

steelhead. Note the White Salmon steelhead population is considered functionally 

extirpated (ICTRT 2007b) 

Some biologists believe that residual steelhead populations in the form of resident trout may 

contribute to anadromy in the watershed. Phelps et al. (1990) found that introgression from 

hatchery rainbow plants was not evident in wild rainbow trout samples and high levels of 

genetic diversity still exist in this population. Seiler and Neuhauser (1985) caught more 

steelhead smolts than were predicted by the modeling. One hypothesis is that resident 

rainbow trout spawning upstream of the former Condit Dam continue to produce some

steelhead smolts, indicating that anadromous O. mykiss has maintained genetic diversity and 

fitness (NPCC 2004). 

Pre-removal monitoring in the White Salmon River above Condit Dam has identified O. 

mykiss juveniles displaying smolt behavior and morphology, and PIT-tagged juveniles have 

been detected passing Bonneville Dam with one being recovered at the tern colony on East 

Sand Island (B. Allen, personal communication, 2007). In addition, a juvenile O. mykiss

PIT-tagged above Condit Dam September of 2004 at 98 mm was detected ascending 

Bonneville Dam in July of 2006. Genetic analysis of juvenile O. mykiss collected in the 

upper watershed above Husum Falls are different from hatchery trout released in the basin, 

however additional samples are needed to confirm this finding (Allen et al. 2006). This 

information supports the theory that even though the population is functionally extirpated 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-23

there is still the potential for re-establishing anadromous steelhead in the White Salmon 

River Basin.

Biologists divide steelhead into two basic run types based on the salmonid species’ level of 

sexual maturity at the time they enter fresh water and the duration of the spawning migration. 

The stream maturing type, or summer steelhead, enters fresh water in a sexually immature 

condition and requires several months in fresh water to mature and spawn. The oceanmaturing type, or winter steelhead, enters fresh water with well-developed gonads and 

spawns relatively shortly after river entry (Bambrick et al. 2004). Based on habitat 

conditions and the composition of nearby populations, it is likely that the White Salmon 

River population historically supported both summer and winter life history patterns (ICTRT 

2008). Chapman (1981), using instream flow measurements, estimated that in pristine 

conditions prior to the construction of Condit Dam, the White Salmon River supported 763

adult steelhead. Young and Rybak (1987) estimated that the habitat could support 39,000 

steelhead smolts, and 2,770 adults.

Key Habitat during Different Life Stages

Steelhead generally return to the White Salmon River between April and October, although 

some hold over in the CR throughout the year and enter the river as they approach spawning. 

Wild steelhead spawn from February to June with peak spawning in April. Hatchery-reared 

summer steelhead in the White Salmon River watershed, however, typically spawn earlier, 

from December to February, with peak activity in January. Steelhead spawning and rearing 

currently occurs in the lower White Salmon and will occur in both mainstem and tributary 

habitats after dam removal.

Steelhead eggs incubate in their gravel beds for four to seven weeks, depending on water 

temperature, before hatching. After emergence, the small fry seek shallow, slow velocity 

areas within the stream channel, often associated with stream margins. As young steelhead 

mature they move into water with increasing depth and velocities. Juvenile steelhead 

typically spend two to three years in freshwater before outmigrating to the ocean. They 

typically move to interstitial spaces between cobble and boulders for cover during the fall, 

and remain in this habitat until March. In April, they return to a more active rearing life 

stage and seek out suitable habitat types. Outmigration occurs in spring and typically peaks 

in early May (NPCC 2004). Table 2-3 shows key habitat for steelhead during different life 

stages.

Some steelhead are iteroparous (do not die after spawning). A small proportion of repeat 

spawners, known as kelts, 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. 

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) up 

to 17 percent in the unimpounded tributaries below Bonneville Dam (at RM 146.1) (Leider et 

al. 1986). Iteroparity rates of summer and winter steelhead in the Kalama River, a tributary 

to the CR below Bonneville Dam have been estimated at 15 percent and 21 percent 

respectively (Withler 1966; Leider et al. 1986), while repeat spawners in the Hood River, an 

Oregon tributary in the impounded Bonneville Pool above Bonneville Dam, make up 9 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-24

percent of the summer and 13 percent of the winter-run of steelhead (Olsen 2004). The 

combined sampling from 1979 to 1981 (Howell et al. 1985) and the 2005 adult trapping data 

from YN and WDFW reported iteroparity rates for Klickitat River steelhead at 3.2 percent.

Sampling of adults at the Klickitat River’s Lyle Falls Fishway in 2004 and 2005 has 

indicated repeat spawning rates of 2.9 percent for summer steelhead and 8.8 percent for 

winters. Most repeat spawners are females. Iteroparity is a life history trait that should be 

assessed once steelhead re-colonize the White Salmon River and taken into account when 

management decisions for White Salmon steelhead are made.

Table 2-3. Key habitat by life stage and time period for steelhead (NPCC 2004)

Life Stage Relevant Months Key Habitat Descriptions

Spawning Mar-Jun Riffles, tailouts, and glides containing a 

mixture of gravel and cobble sizes with flow 

of sufficient depth for spawning activity

Incubation Mar-Jun Riffles, tailouts, and glides as described for 

spawning with sufficient flow for egg and 

alevin development

Fry Colonization May-Jul Shallow, slow velocity areas within the 

stream channel, often associated with stream 

margins

Active Rearing 0-age May-Jul; 

1-age, Mar-Oct;

2+-age, Mar-Oct

Gravel and cobble substrates with sufficient 

depth and velocity, and boulder/large 

cobble/wood obstruction to reduce flow and 

concentrate food

Inactive Rearing 0,1-age Oct-Mar Stable cobble/boulder substrates with 

interstitial spaces

Migrant 1-age, Mar-Jun

2+-age, Mar-Jun

All habitat types having sufficient flow for 

free movement of juvenile migrants

Pre-spawning 

Migrant

Winter, Nov-Apr

Summer, All

All habitat types having sufficient flow for 

free movement of sexually mature adult 

migrants

Pre-spawning 

Holding

Winter, Dec-May

Summer, All

Relatively slow, deep water habitat types 

typically associated with (or immediately 

adjacent to) the main channel
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-25

2.5 Hatchery Production and Releases

Fall Chinook salmon

No hatchery fall Chinook salmon are released directly in the White Salmon River watershed;

however, hatchery tule fall Chinook salmon from Spring Creek NFH do stray into the

watershed, contributing to natural production. Fish technicians have also recovered 

hatchery-origin URB fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. These URB fall 

Chinook salmon are primarily from the LWS NFH, Bonneville Hatchery, and Klickitat 

Hatchery programs and are not part of the LCR Chinook salmon ESU. Biologists and 

recovery planners are considering Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook salmon for use in the 

reintroduction of fall Chinook salmon after PacifiCorp completes decommissioning of Condit 

Dam. This program is described below.

Spring Creek NFH Tule fall Chinook salmon

Hatchery managers used fall Chinook salmon from the White Salmon River to establish the 

Spring Creek NFH fall Chinook salmon program; the hatchery program is part of the LCR 

Chinook salmon ESU. The program uses only returns to the hatchery for broodstock, but has 

incorporated other tule stocks in the past. Hatchery workers last released non Spring Creek 

NFH tule fall Chinook salmon from the hatchery in 1991; the fish were Bonneville tule fall 

Chinook salmon. The Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook salmon is the most representative 

of the native Chinook salmon population that was historically present in the White Salmon 

River.

The hatchery program mitigates for lost and degraded habitat because of the construction and 

operation of the CR hydrosystem by producing locally adapted broodstock for sport, 

commercial, tribal, and international harvest. The production goal for the current program is 

for an on-station release of 10,500,000 sub-yearlings annually, with 1,700,000 acclimated 

and released at the LWS NFH, and 2,800,000 eggs transferred downstream to the Bonneville 

State Hatchery. This production requires a minimum of 7,000 adults (4,000 females). As 

mentioned previously, recovery planners are considering fall Chinook salmon from the 

program for reintroduction into the watershed once decommissioning of Condit Dam is 

completed. Genetic analysis of naturally spawning fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon 

and other Bonneville Pool tributaries determined that Spring Creek NFH fall Chinook salmon 

are representative of the naturally spawning population of fall Chinook salmon in the White 

Salmon River (Smith et al. 2007; Smith and Engle 2011).

Non ESU Little White Salmon NFH Upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon

Biologists collected the original source of this stock of URB fall Chinook salmon at the 

Bonneville State Fish Hatchery. The current source of URB fall Chinook salmon is fish 

returning to the LWS NFH. The URB fall Chinook salmon stock is not native to the LWS 

and is not considered part of the LCR Chinook salmon ESU.

The purpose of the hatchery program is to successfully rear and release URB fall Chinook

salmon into the LWS, which will mitigate for lost and degraded habitat because of the 

construction and operation of the CR hydrosystem, meet U.S. v. Oregon court agreements, 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-26

and provide a 1.7 million fry release in the Yakima River Basin. The program production 

goal is to release 2.0 million sub-yearling URB fall Chinook salmon at the hatchery, and 2.5 

million sub-yearlings that come from the Bonneville State Hatchery and are acclimated for 4 

weeks before being released on-station. 

Spring Chinook salmon

Presently there are no hatchery programs associated with this population, however hatchery 

spring Chinook salmon have been observed spawning in the White Salmon River. In 2009, 

biologists examined 110 spring Chinook salmon carcasses at a weir installed at RM 1.1 at the 

White Salmon Ponds fish facility downstream of Condit Dam (Engle et al. 2010). All the 

spring Chinook salmon carcasses were hatchery-origin and post-spawn, i.e., near death or in 

a state of decay (Engle et al. 2010). The lack of natural-origin spring Chinook salmon

examined at the weir supports the observation that spawning does occur in the lower White 

Salmon River but rearing habitat is lacking (Engle et al. 2010).

Coho salmon

There are no hatchery programs that directly release hatchery coho salmon into the White 

Salmon River. The coho salmon program at the LWS NFH released coho salmon that may 

have contributed to straying into the White Salmon River in the past, but stray rates were not 

estimated. The LWS NFH discontinued the program after releases in 2004 because of

funding shortfalls. Stray coho salmon currently entering the White Salmon River may come 

from releases in the Klickitat and Umatilla rivers and from Bonneville Hatchery.

Chum salmon

Historical and current hatchery influences on chum salmon are minimal. Hatcheries have 

released chum salmon into only 4 of 10 Washington populations. Hatchery fish do not 

comprise a substantial fraction of any naturally spawning chum salmon population and all 

originate from local wild populations. Current chum salmon hatchery programs focus on 

reintroduction (Chinook River) and conservation (Duncan Creek, and Grays River) (LCFRB 

2004).

Steelhead

Scientists and recovery planners do not consider the hatchery programs in the White Salmon 

River watershed to be part of the MCR steelhead DPS. From 1995 to 2010, fisheries comanagers annually released both summer and winter steelhead smolts from broodstock 

collected at the Skamania Hatchery on the West Fork of the Washougal River into the White 

Salmon River below Condit Dam. The summer steelhead broodstock derives from summer 

steelhead from the Washougal and Klickitat Rivers. The winter steelhead broodstock derives

from returns to the Washougal River.

The Skamania Hatchery program goal was to provide fisheries for summer and winter 

steelhead in the White Salmon River as mitigation for losses from human development and 

concomitant habitat loss and to meet the obligations of the U.S. v. Oregon agreement. The 

program involved an annual release of 24,000 summer and 20,000 winter steelhead smolts, 

although actual releases varied from year to year. Production consisted of adipose-finclipped fish to allow for selective fisheries and to facilitate assessment of the ratio of 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

2-27

hatchery adults to wild adults. Workers trucked smolts from Skamania Hatchery and streamreleased them into the White Salmon River at RM 1.5. Fish managers terminated the 

program with the 2009 releases.

Biologists would need to develop or identify a more suitable broodstock to expedite the 

reintroduction of steelhead in habitats upstream of the former Condit Dam. Monitoring 

steelhead escapement and production, after dam decommissioning is complete, will 

determine whether there are impacts from these Skamania Hatchery releases.

2.6 Harvest

Primarily ocean and mainstem CR commercial, tribal, and sport intercept Chinook salmon

and coho salmon. Tributary sport fisheries also harvest some Chinook salmon and coho

salmon. The LCFRB recovery plan (LCFRB 2004) and the ESA section 7 Biological 

Opinion for fisheries managed under the U.S. v. Oregon Agreement (NMFS 2008c) describe 

in detail harvest management and harvest effects.

In 2012, the fisheries regulations in the White Salmon River prohibited the retention of 

unmarked Chinook salmon from April 1 to July 31, and unmarked Chinook salmon and coho 

salmon from August 1 to March 31, in the area from the mouth to the Northwestern Lake 

Road bridge (WDFW 2012).During the removal of Condit Dam the White Salmon was 

closed to fishing from the Northwestern Lake Road bridge downstream to the old county 

road bridge below the powerhouse. Regulations also prohibit the retention of chum salmon

in tributary recreational fisheries.

Steelhead harvest, while locally important, was historically likely less substantial than 

salmon harvest because of lower abundance and spawning times that coincided with higher 

flows (NPCC 2004). The YN reports that tribal members fished for salmon and steelhead 

historically as high as Husum Falls and Rattlesnake Falls on the White Salmon River (J. 

Meninick, YN Cultural Resources Department, personal communication, 2006). Section 5.4, 

Harvest, for an expanded discussion of harvest impacts.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-1

3 Recovery Goals and Viability 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., NMFS delists the species. Recovery plans may also 

contain “broad-sense goals,” defined in the recovery planning process as going beyond the 

requirements for delisting to address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, 

economic, and ecological values.

NMFS applies the delisting criteria at the ESU/DPS level based on determinations of the 

viability of the independent populations that make up the ESU/DPS. The LCR ESA 

Recovery Plan describes the criteria for delisting the LCR ESUs. As noted, this Plan is an 

appendix of the LCR ESA Recovery Plan. The middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery 

Plan describes the criteria for delisting the MCR Steelhead DPS. This plan is also an 

appendix to the middle Columbia Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan. This chapter provides 

recovery goals for the White Salmon River Chinook salmon, coho, chum salmon, and 

steelhead populations and describes the criteria NMFS will use to assess progress toward 

those goals and the role of the White Salmon River salmon populations in overall ESU/DPS

viability.

There are two kinds of criteria that enter into a delisting decision: biological criteria defining 

viable populations (section 3.2, Biological Viability Criteria) and “threats” criteria related to 

the five listing factors detailed in the ESA (section 3.3, Threats Criteria). The threats criteria 

define the conditions under which NMFS can determine that responsible parties have 

addressed or mitigated the listing factors or threats. Together these make up the “objective, 

measurable criteria” required under section 4(f)(1)(B). This chapter discusses both kinds of 

criteria.

3.1 Recovery Goals

The primary goal of this plan is for the White Salmon River salmon and steelhead 

populations to contribute to the delisting of the LCR ESUs and the MCR Steelhead DPS. 

McElhany et al. (2000) defines a VSP as an independent population that has negligible risk 

of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. However, all populations within an ESU or DPS do

not have to reach viable status for NMFS to delist the ESU/DPS (section 3.2.2, DPS and 

MPG Viability Criteria).

The visions, goals, and actions of many of the parties involved in the White Salmon recovery 

planning process may go beyond ESA delisting. The vision for broad-sense recovery 

incorporates ESA delisting goals in the sense that NMFS could delist White Salmon River 

salmon and steelhead during an extended and stepwise process of achieving broad-sense 

recovery goals. Broad-sense recovery goals incorporate many of the local and traditional 

uses, including those associated with rural and Native American values, which are important 

in the Pacific Northwest.

The proposed local, collaborative recovery board may choose to define additional, broadsense goals for the White Salmon River watershed and other areas within the Washington 

Gorge Management Unit. The board’s broad-sense goals for the area would likely build 

upon direction already adopted by various stakeholders in the area. These goals would then 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-2

guide the board as it defines and implements future recovery actions for the White Salmon

River watershed.

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria

One of the main tasks assigned to the TRTs was to develop biologically based criteria for 

determining the viability of ESA listed salmon and steelhead. Viability criteria identify 

characteristics and conditions that, when met, describe viable populations and a viable ESU 

or DPS.

The TRTs based their approaches 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. VSP guidelines 

provided by McElhany et al. (2000) recommend that a viable DPS population should be large 

enough to:

• Have a high probability of surviving variation observed in the past and expected 

future

• Be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances

• Maintain genetic diversity

• Support/provide ecosystem functions

NMFS organized the viability guidelines provided by McElhany et al. (2000 around four 

major considerations: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. ESU/DPSlevel viability criteria consider the appropriate distribution and characteristics of component 

populations to maintain the ESU/DPS in the face of longer-term ecological and evolutionary 

processes (ICTRT 2005a). The viability criteria defined by the ICTRT and W/LC TRT have 

been adopted as the biological criteria for delisting of the ESUs and DPS that include the 

listed White Salmon populations discussed in this Plan.

3.2.1 ESU/DPS Viability Criteria

Defining ESU and DPS Structure

The TRTs applied overall ESU/DPS-level viability criteria based on smaller units of MPG

and independent populations to determine paths toward viability. Central to this approach is 

the recognition that salmonid population structure is hierarchical. The TRT based the 

biological criteria for populations and ESU/DPS-level viability on the existence of a 

biological hierarchy that spans ESUs/DPSs, major groupings, populations, and substructure 

within populations (Figure 3-1). The approach recognizes that historical salmonid 

populations within an ESU or DPS retain some genetic similarities because they move 

between different habitats during their life cycle. This distribution across the landscape and 

the diverse genetic, life history and morphological characteristics that evolve/contribute 

significantly to a population’s long-term persistence.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-3

• Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Two criteria define an ESU or DPS listed under the 

ESA: 1) it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units,

2) it must represent an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species 

(Waples 1991).

• Major Population Grouping: A group of populations that share similar genetic, 

geographic (hydrographic), and/or habitat characteristics within an ESU/DPS (ICTRT 

2005b). The ICTRT termed this level in the hierarchy a MPG, and the W/LC TRT 

called it a “stratum.” The TRTs consider MPGs, strata, and the “geographic regions” 

described by the Puget Sound TRT to be analogous.

• Independent Population: McElhany et al. (2000) defined an independent population 

as “...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. 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.”

Hierarchy in Salmonid Population Structure

Figure 3-1. Hierarchical levels of salmonid population structure as defined by the TRTs 

for ESU/DPS recovery planning
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-4

The TRTs established ESU/DPS-level viability criteria based on the VSP guidelines 

identified by McElhany et al. (2000). The W/LC TRT identified five essential elements to 

address in its approach (McElhany et al. 2006). The ICTRT (2007) adapted these five 

elements for the middle Columbia Steelhead DPS. The five elements are:

Stratified Approach: Life history and ecological complexity that historically existed 

should have a high probability of persistence. The W/LC TRT aggregated populations 

into MPG, or strata, based on each combination of life history type and ecological zone. 

The ICTRT stratified the MCR steelhead DPS into groups based on ecoregion 

characteristics (Eastern Cascades, Columbia Plateau, John Day and Yakima), life history 

types (summer, winter and summer/winter) and other geographic and genetic 

considerations.

Viable Populations: Some individual populations within a MPG should have persistence 

probabilities consistent with a high probability of MPG persistence. The W/LC TRT 

defined high persistence probability based on the presence of at least two populations 

with a negligible risk of extinction and a strata average of a medium-low risk of 

extinction. The ICTRT defined high persistence probability based on the presence of at 

least two or one-half of historical populations with a negligible risk of extinction.

Representative Populations: Representative populations must achieve criteria or 

maintain viability criteria, but not every historical population needs to meet viability 

criteria. Viable combinations of populations should include “core” populations that are 

highly productive, “legacy” populations that represent historical genetic diversity, and 

dispersed populations that minimize susceptibility to catastrophic events.

Non-deterioration: No population should be allowed to deteriorate until ESU/DPS 

recovery is assured, and all extant populations should be maintained. Current populations 

and population segments should be preserved. Recovery measures will be needed in 

most areas to arrest declining status and offset the effects of future impacts.

Safety Factors: Higher levels of recovery should be attempted in more populations than 

the minimum needed to achieve ESU/DPS viability because not all attempts will be 

successful. Recovery efforts should target more than the minimum number of 

populations and more than the minimum population levels thought to ensure viability. 

Some populations should be highly viable.

W/LC TRT Recommended Viability Criteria 

The W/LC TRT document, Interim Report on Viability Criteria for Willamette and Lower 

Columbia Basin Pacific Salmonids (McElhany et al. 2003) describes recommended viability 

criteria for salmon ESUs in the W/LC recovery domain. The LCFRB applied these 2003 

criteria to assess viability and develop the recovery direction for the listed White Salmon

River Chinook salmon, coho, and chum salmon populations that NMFS and the NPCC 

adopted as part of the lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2004). 

This direction is also included in this recovery plan. Summarized below are the criteria and 

approach defined by the W/LC TRT in 2003. In 2006, the W/LC TRT (McElhany et al. 

2006) revised the 2003 criteria by incorporating new analyses by the W/LC TRT itself, other 

TRTs and state agencies, among others. The LCFRB and the WAGIT which includes White 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-5

Salmon stakeholders will eventually use the new criteria to update goals and status 

evaluations for Washington populations through the recovery plan revision process. The 

2006 revised viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2006) are available at

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc/viability_report_revised.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012).

Independent Population Viability Criteria

The W/LC TRT’s 2003 viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2003) use five population-level 

attributes as indicators for viability: 1) adult productivity and abundance, 2) juvenile outmigrant productivity, 3) population diversity, 4) habitat, 5) spatial structure. The 2003 report 

also provides a set of guidelines for examining viability for each indicator (McElhany et al. 

2003). Shown in Table 3-1 are the 2003 viability criteria.

Table 3-1. Population viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2003; McElhany et al. 2006)

Adult Population Productivity and Abundance

1. In general, viable populations should demonstrate a combination of population growth rate, 

productivity, and abundance that produces an acceptable probability of population 

persistence. Various approaches for evaluating population productivity and abundance 

combinations may be acceptable, but must meet reasonable standards of statistical rigor.

2. A population with a non negative growth rate and an average abundance approximately 

equivalent to estimated historical average abundance is in the highest persistence category. 

The estimate of historical abundance should be credible, the estimate of current abundance 

should be averaged over several generations, and the growth rate should be estimated with 

adequate statistical confidence. This criterion takes precedence over criteria 1.

Juvenile Outmigrant Production

The abundance of naturally produced juvenile migrants should be stable or increasing as 

measured by observing a median annual growth rate or trend with an acceptable level of 

confidence.

Within Population Spatial Structure

The spatial structure of a population must support the population at the desired 

productivity, abundance, and diversity levels through short-term environmental 

perturbations, longer-term environmental oscillations, and natural patterns of disturbance 

regimes. The metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the adequacy of a population’s 

spatial structure should specifically address:

a. Quantity: Spatial structure should be large enough to support growth and abundance, 

and diversity criteria.

b. Quality: Underlying habitat spatial structure should be within specified habitat 

quality limits for life history activities (spawning, rearing, migration, or a 

combination) taking place within the patches.

c. Connectivity: Spatial structure should have permanent or appropriate seasonal 

connectivity to allow adequate migration between spawning, rearing, and migration 

patches.

d. Dynamics: The spatial structure should not deteriorate in its ability to support the 

population. The processes creating spatial structure are dynamic, so structure will be 

created and destroyed, but the rate of flux should not exceed the rate of creation over 

time.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-6

e. Catastrophic Risk: The spatial structure should be geographically distributed in such 

a way as to minimize the probability of a significant portion of the structure being 

lost because of a single catastrophic event, either anthropogenic or natural.

Within Population Diversity

1. Sufficient life history diversity must exist to sustain a population through short-term 

environmental perturbations and to provide for long-term evolutionary processes. The 

metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the diversity of a population should be evaluated 

over multiple generations and should include: 

a. Substantial proportion of the diversity of a life-history trait(s) that existed 

historically, 

b. Gene flow and genetic diversity should be similar to historical (natural) levels and 

origins, 

c. Successful utilization of habitats throughout the range, and 

d. Resilience and adaptation to environmental fluctuations.

General Habitat

1. The spatial distribution and productive capacity of freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

habitats should be sufficient to maintain viable populations identified for recovery.

2. The diversity of habitats for recovered populations should resemble historical conditions 

given expected natural disturbance regimes (e.g., wildfire, flood, volcanic eruptions, etc.). 

Historical conditions represent a reasonable template for a viable population; the closer 

the habitat resembles the historical diversity, the greater the confidence in its ability to 

support viable populations.

At a large scale, habitats should be protected and restored, with a trend toward an appropriate 

range of attributes for salmonid viability. Freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitat attributes 

should be maintained in a non-deteriorating state.

The W/LC TRT’s revised criteria, described in their 2006 report Revised Viability Criteria 

for Salmon and Steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 

2006), use three population-level attributes as indicators of viability instead of the five 

identified in 2003. The 2006 attributes are: 1) abundance and productivity, 2) spatial 

structure, 3) diversity. The revised criteria include juvenile out migrant productivity as a 

subset of abundance and productivity and address habitat criteria as part of the discussion of 

listing factors criteria (McElhany et al. 2006).

The W/LC TRT’s 2003 system for integrating population attributes to assess population 

extinction risk used a 0-4 qualitative scale, with zero indicating a population with a low 

probability of persistence, and four indicating a population with high probability of 

persistence. The TRT’s 2006 report (McElhany et al. 2006) maintains this system (Table 3-

2).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-7

Table 3-2. Population persistence*/viability categories (McElhany et al. 2003;

McElhany et al. 2006)

Scale Viability Description Persistence 

Probability*

0 Very Low (VL) Either extinct or very high risk of extinction 0-40%

1 Low (L) Relatively high risk of extinction 40-74%

2 Medium (M) Medium high risk of extinction 75-94%

3 High (H) Low (negligible) risk of extinction (represents a 

“viable” level) 95-99%

4 Very High (VH) Very low risk of extinction >99%

* 100-year persistence probabilities

Strata and ESU Viability Criteria

The criteria developed by the W/LC TRT for recovery planning in 2003 state that for an ESU 

as whole to be viable, all of the historical strata need to have a high probability of persistence 

(McElhany et al. 2003). The W/LC TRT used ratings of individual population’s extinction 

risk to determine viability at the strata and ESU levels. Table 3-3 shows criteria guidelines 

identified by the W/LC TRT to complete these evaluations. The TRT maintained its support 

for the guidelines in its 2006 report (McElhany et al. 2006).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-8

Table 3-3. Criteria guidelines for determining strata and ESU viability (McElhany et 

al. 2003, 2006)

ESU-Level Criteria Guidelines

1. Every Stratum (life history and ecological zone combination) that historically existed should 

have a high probability of persistence

Strata-Level Criteria Guidelines

1. Individual populations within a stratum should have persistence probabilities consistent with 

a high probability of strata persistence

2. Within a stratum, the populations restored/maintained at viable status or above should be 

selected to:

a. Allow for normative metapopulation process, including the viability of “core” 

populations that are defined as the historically most productive populations

b. Allow for normative evolutionary processes, including the retention of the genetic 

diversity represented in relatively unmodified historic gene pools

c. Minimize susceptibility to catastrophic events

ESU-Level Recovery Strategy Criteria Guidelines

1. Until all ESU viability criteria have been achieved, no population should be allowed to 

deteriorate in its probability of persistence

2. High levels of recovery should be attempted in more populations than identified in the strata 

viability criteria because not all attempts will be successful

ICTRT Recommended 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). As stated above, this 

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

component population levels.

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

• Diversity - the distribution of genetic, life history, and phenotypic variation within 

and among populations
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-9

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.

The ICTRT’s objective for population abundance and productivity is that abundance should 

be high enough that 1) in combination with intrinsic productivity, declines to critically low 

levels would be unlikely assuming recent historical patterns of environmental variability; 2) 

compensatory processes provide resilience to the effects of short-term perturbations; 3) 

subpopulation structure is maintained (e.g., multiple spawning tributaries, spawning patches, 

life history patterns) (ICTRT 2005a).

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

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

potential habitat available to the population (ICTRT 2005a). This analysis used available 

Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers showing stream characteristics (e.g. 

channel width, gradient, and valley confinement) and empirically derived relationships 

between habitat type, stream structure, landscape processes, and spawning. The ICTRT built 

a model that also incorporated information from local biologists and recovery planners to 

identify natural barriers to migration and other local variations.

Mid-Columbia steelhead spawn in a wide range of tributary drainage areas: from small 

creeks such as Fifteenmile or Rock Creek to very large rivers such as the lower John Day. 

The ICTRT categorized historical population sizes as Basic, Intermediate, Large, and Very 

Large, and set minimum abundance thresholds for steelhead populations of each type as 

follows: Basic: 500 spawners; Intermediate, 1,000 spawners; Large, 1,500 spawners; Very 

Large, 2,250. The abundance thresholds are associated with minimum productivity 

thresholds, based on modeling studies described by the ICTRT (March 2007a and November 

2007b). Modeling studies link abundance and productivity, within limits: above a certain 

threshold, higher productivity can compensate for lower abundance and vice versa.

The ICTRT used the concept of the viability curve (ICTRT 2007a, 2007b; McElhany et al. 

2006) as a framework for defining population specific abundance and productivity levels to 

meet the objectives (Figure 3-2). A viability curve describes combinations of abundance and 

productivity that yield a particular risk threshold. The viability curve links the two 

parameters relative to extinction risks associated with short-term environmental variability. 

Given a particular productivity level, larger populations are more resilient in the face of yearto-year variability in overall survival rates than are smaller populations. Populations with 

relatively high intrinsic productivity (expected ratio of spawners to their parent spawners at 

low levels of abundance) are also more robust at a given level of abundance than populations 

with lower intrinsic productivity.

The ICTRT generated viability curves for each population to define the combinations of 

abundance and productivity corresponding to a range of extinction risks over a 100-year 

period - less than 1 percent (very low), less than 5 percent (low), less than 25 percent 

(moderate), and greater than 25 percent (high), see Figure 3-2. It targeted population level 

recovery strategies to achieve less than a 5 percent (low) risk of extinction in a 100-year

period. This is consistent with the VSP guidelines and conservation literature (McElhany et 

al. 2000; NRC 1995).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-10

Figure 3-2. Example of an abundance/productivity viability curve (ICTRT 2007a)

3.2.2 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria

Similar to the W/LCR TRT approach to strata and ESU viability criteria (Table 3-3) the 

ICTRT (2007) developed criteria based on recovery of MPGs. MPGs are geographically and 

genetically cohesive population groups, and are critical components of ESU/DPS spatial 

structure and diversity (Figure 2-10). 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.

Further, the following five criteria should be met for an MPG to be regarded as at 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.

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

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

on historical intrinsic potential) as “Very Large," "Large," or “Intermediate,” generally 

reflecting the proportions historically present within the MPG. In particular, Very 

Large and Large populations should be at or above their composite historical fraction 

within each MPG.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-11

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 

preserve options for ESU/DPS recovery.

Population Recovery Classifications

The W/LC TRT and LCFRB used the results of the 2003 Population Viability Criteria report 

to build a recovery scenario that describes the target status for each population. The W/LC 

TRT and the LCFRB classified individual populations as primary (targeted for restoration to 

high or high + probability of persistence), contributing (targeted for restoration to low or 

medium probability of persistence), or stabilizing (populations that are to be maintained at 

current levels and likely to have low probabilities of persistence). They identified the 

following target levels for White Salmon Chinook salmon, coho, and chum salmon. The 

LCFRB has updated the 2004 recovery plan and proposed to maintain the classifications for 

all of the White Salmon River populations except coho salmon, which has been elevated to a 

primary population classification (LCFRB 2010).

White Salmon River Fall Chinook salmon (Contributing, Medium)

Historically, the tule fall Chinook salmon population in the White Salmon was large. Condit 

Dam affected the population, although a small amount of fall Chinook salmon habitat was

available downstream of the dam and upstream from Bonneville Reservoir inundation. The 

Spring Creek Hatchery program, which originated from White Salmon River fall Chinook

salmon stock, is located three miles downstream of the river mouth and straying of returning 

hatchery adults to the White Salmon River is consistent with a contributing population 

designation. A tribal fishery targets Spring Creek Hatchery fish near the river mouth. The 

W/LC TRT and the LCFRB targeted the White Salmon population for medium viability to 

reflect concerns with hydro impacts (Bonneville and Condit dams) and higher harvest rates 

associated with combined treaty and non-treaty fisheries. Based on the TRT’s findings, the 

Plan proposed an abundance goal for recovery of 900 fish (LCFRB 2004).

White Salmon River Spring Chinook salmon (Contributing, Low)

This population was historically significant but is currently extinct. Reintroduction would 

include use of an outside stock. The best source stock may be from the Klickitat, which is 

outside the lower Columbia ESU. The W/LC TRT would need to provide criteria for 

evaluating appropriate source stocks for reintroduction. The low viability target for White 

Salmon spring Chinook salmon recognizes the long period required to restore a locally 

adapted natural population from an out-of-basin stock. Based on TRT findings, the Plan 

proposed an abundance goal for recovery of 400 fish (LCFRB 2004).

White Salmon River coho salmon (Primary, High)

The White Salmon River coho salmon are part of the Washington upper Gorge Tributaries 

and White Salmon River population. Lack of access to habitats upstream of Condit Dam
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-12

limits current potential for coho salmon production in the White Salmon River. There may 

be some coho salmon production occurring in the one-mile reach downstream of Condit 

Dam. Based on TRT findings, the Plan proposed an abundance goal for recovery of 150 fish 

(LCFRB 2004).

Upper Gorge chum salmon, including White Salmon River chum

salmon (Contributing, Medium)

The LCFRB identified the entire population of upper Gorge chum salmon to have a very low 

viability (LCFRB 2004). Bonneville Reservoir inundates most of historical habitat for this 

population and passage at Bonneville Dam impacts both juvenile and adult migration. The 

LCFRB proposed an abundance goal for recovery of 600 fish.

White Salmon River steelhead (Low Risk)

The ICTRT did not apply the same classification system to MCR steelhead populations but 

did identify that to be viable, the White Salmon steelhead population needs to reach a 

minimum abundance threshold of 500 naturally produced spawners with a sufficient intrinsic 

productivity to achieve a five percent or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe 

(ICTRT 2007b). The ICTRT recognizes that recovering this functionally extirpated

population to a viable level may not be necessary to achieve viability at the MPG and DPS 

levels.

3.3 Threats Criteria

NMFS evaluated listing factors under section 4(a)(1) when the agency made the initial 

determination to list the species for protection under the ESA. In the future, when NMFS 

reevaluates the status of the species to determine whether these factors continue to limit

recovery, the agency can decide whether the protections of the ESA are still warranted. If no 

longer warranted, NMFS could delist the species.

At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS will examine whether the entities responsible for 

recovery have addressed the section 4(a)(1) listing factors. 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 has 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 as a result of changes in 

the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of salmon. 

Consequently, as the result of RM&E, NMFS expects that the agency will change the ranking 

of threats over time and identify new threats. During the 5-year status reviews, NMFS will 

evaluate and review the listing factor criteria under conditions at the time.

The specific criteria listed below for each of the relevant listing/delisting factors help to 

ensure that responsible entities address and mitigate the underlying causes of prior to 

considering a species for delisting. NMFS expects that if the proposed actions described in 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-13

the 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 ESU or DPS is recovered, threats to habitat should be addressed to a 

degree sufficient to support a viable ESU or DPS as outlined below: 

1. Impaired fish passage (e.g., dams and culverts) is addressed, either through removal or 

modification of obstructions, to improve survival and restore access to historically 

accessible habitat where necessary to support recovery goals.

2. Flow conditions that support sufficient salmonid rearing, spawning, and migration of a 

viable ESU or DPS are achieved, where possible, through management of White Salmon 

River mainstem and tributary irrigation 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 best management 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 runoff.

5. Urban and rural development, including land use conversion from agriculture and 

forestland to residential uses, avoids impairment of water quality or impairment of

natural stream conditions.

6. The effects of toxic contaminants on salmonid fitness and survival in the White Salmon

mainstem and tributaries are sufficiently limited so as not to affect recovery.

7. Channel function, including vegetated riparian areas, canopy cover, streambank stability, 

off-channel and side-channel habitats, natural substrate and sediment processes, and 

channel complexity, is restored to provide adequate rearing and spawning habitat.

8. Floodplain function and the availability of floodplain habitats for salmon are restored to a 

degree sufficient to support a viable ESU/DPS. This restoration should include 

connectivity between river and floodplain and the restoration of altered sediment routing.

9. Water operations management in the mainstem White Salmon and tributaries maximize 

survival of juvenile rearing, emigrating smolts, and immigrating and spawning adults.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-14

Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes

To determine that the ESU or DPS is recovered, any utilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes should be managed as outlined below:

1. Fishery management plans for salmon 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); (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 tribal 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. Scientific handling of fish from adult and juvenile trapping operations 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 sufficient to support a viable ESU or 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 salmon populations to deleterious diseases and 

parasites and do not result in increased predation rates of wild salmon.

2. Predation by avian predators is managed in a way that promotes recovery of salmon 

populations.

3. The northern pike minnow are managed to reduce predation on salmon to a degree 

sufficient to meet recovery goals.

4. Populations of introduced smallmouth bass, walleye, and catfish are managed such that 

competition or predation does not impede salmon recovery. Predation by marine 

mammals on salmon runs below Bonneville Dam is managed within the framework of 

applicable statutes and to the degree necessary to protect upstream migration of salmon.

5. 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).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

3-15

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

To determine that the ESU or 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 ESU or 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 and 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 human-made factors affecting its continued existence

To determine that the ESU or DPS is recovered, other natural and human-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, recognizing Federal obligations;

appropriate criteria should be used for the integration, where appropriate, of hatchery

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, 

(6) maintenance of fish health during their propagation in the hatchery.

3. Mechanisms are in place to effectively continue monitoring the proportion of hatchery 

and wild spawners in the watershed.

4. Mechanisms are in place to reduce the incidence of, and impacts from, introduced, 

invasive, or exotic plant and animal species.

5. Nutrient enrichment programs should be evaluated to determine where additional nutrient 

inputs can provide significant benefits.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

4-1

4 Current Status Assessment

In 2004, the W/LC TRT completed a population extinction risk evaluation of salmon and 

steelhead populations in the Willamette and LCR Basins, including White Salmon River 

populations (McElhany et al. 2004). During the evaluation, biologists ranked each 

population for absolute extinction risk on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 = extirpation or nearly so, 

and 4 = very low extinction risk (McElhany et al. 2003). Each member of the W/LC TRT, 

based on the information available, ranked the VSP attributes such that the score for each 

attribute added up to 10, and then they provided an estimate of “data quality” based on their 

assessment of the overall amount of information available for each attribute (McElhany et al. 

2004). Discussed below are the results of this evaluation.

4.1 Risk of Extinction: Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT

White Salmon River Fall Chinook salmon

White Salmon River fall-run Chinook salmon received a weighted average score of 0.86, 

suggesting that the population is at a very high risk of extinction (Table 4-1). In their review, 

W/LC TRT members recognized the population’s low total abundance, some team members 

commented that the population is extirpated from its historical range, except for 2 to 2.5-mile

reach below Condit Dam, and that the overwhelming majority of fish observed in the river 

are strays from nearby hatcheries. Other members considered the observed adults as de facto

population members (McElhany et al. 2004). Overall, most TRT members considered the inriver fall-run Chinook salmon population to be heavily influenced by hatchery strays, 

although some members included the Spring Creek NFH in their diversity evaluation as a 

potential source for re-establishing a native-run.

Table 4-1. Evaluation scores for White Salmon fall-run Chinook salmon (McElhany et 

al. 2004)

Attribute* 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Average Data quality

Productivity 3.17 4.67 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.83

Juvenile outmigrants NR

Diversity 2.00 3.33 3.83 0.83 0.00 1.35 2.00

Habitat 3.50 5.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.50

Spatial Structure 7.17 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 3.00

* W/LC TRT scores rated on a 0-4 scale: 0 = extirpated or nearly so, 1 = relatively high extinction risk, 3 = low extinction 

risk, and 4 = very low extinction risk. NR = not relevant

White Salmon River Spring Chinook salmon

McElhany et al. (2004) gave the White Salmon spring-run Chinook salmon a weighted 

average extinction risk score of 0.07, indicating the population is extirpated (Table 4-2). The 

team concluded that the population is extirpated from construction and over 90 years of 

blocked passage at Condit Dam. Some members included observed spring-run-timed 

spawners at the base of Condit Dam, while others considered these fish as strays spawning in 

unsuitable habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon (McElhany et al. 2004).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

4-2

Table 4-2. Evaluation scores for White Salmon spring-run Chinook salmon

(McElhany et al. 2004)

Attribute* 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Average Data 

quality

Productivity 9.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.33

Juvenile outmigrants 10.00 NR NR NR NR NR 4.00

Diversity 8.33 1.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.50

Habitat 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50

Habitat (w/o dams) 3.75 3.50 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.50

Spatial structure 9.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 3.17

* W/LC TRT scores rated on a 0-4 scale: 0 = extirpated or nearly so, 1 = relatively high extinction risk, 3 = low 

extinction risk, and 4 = very low extinction risk. NR = not relevant

White Salmon River coho salmon

White Salmon coho salmon received a weighted average extinction risk score of 0.39, 

indicating that the population is extirpated or nearly so (Table 4-3). TRT members, however,

used a default score for no data, which assumes that fish may exist but are not monitored; 

other members noted that the White Salmon coho salmon population was probably extirpated 

following construction of Condit Dam, implying the default score might not be appropriate 

(McElhany et al. 2004). The TRT determined that hatchery introductions, the near absence of 

accessible spawning habitat, and the low probability of any successful natural reproduction 

suggest that most genetic diversity native to the White Salmon is extirpated and was replaced 

by hatchery introductions. In evaluating the habitat criterion, many TRT members included 

historical spawning habitat above the dam in their considerations (McElhany et al. 2004).

Table 4-3. Evaluation scores for White Salmon coho salmon (McElhany et al. 2004)

Attribute* 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Average

Data 

quality

Productivity 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.17

Juvenile outmigrants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Diversity 7.83 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.50

Habitat 5.33 3.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 2.00

Spatial structure 9.17 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 1.83

* W/LC TRT scores rated on a 0-4 scale: 0 = extirpated or nearly so, 1 = relatively high extinction risk, 3 = low 

extinction risk, and 4 = very low extinction risk.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

4-3

Upper Gorge Tributaries chum salmon

Upper Gorge Tributaries chum salmon, including those that occupied the White Salmon 

historically, received a weighted average extinction risk score of 0.18, indicating that the 

population is extirpated or nearly so (Table 4-4). Data are limited to Bonneville Dam 

passage counts, although many fish that ascend fall back to spawning areas below the dam. 

Fish technicians have recovered only a few carcasses above Bonneville Dam; no one has 

reported spawning aggregations, although biologist M. Weeber, (Weeber, M. personal 

communication, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 2010), observed 

individual spawners in Eagle Creek, Oregon. The Bonneville Pool eliminated spawning 

habitat in both the mainstem and lower creek reaches, creating a series of disconnected 

spawning sites and culverts, and, stream modifications on the transit corridor on the 

Washington side of the CR may limit access for a few chum salmon that may be present. 

Low abundance for the species as a whole may also restrict population dispersal (McElhany 

et al. 2004).

Table 4-4. Evaluation scores for upper Gorge chum salmon (McElhany et al. 

2004).

Attribute* 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Average Data quality

Productivity 9.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.00

Juvenile outmigrants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Diversity 8.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.17

Habitat 6.67 2.67 0.50 0.17 0.00 0.42 1.83

Spatial structure 7.33 1.83 0.67 0.17 0.00 0.37 1.83

* W/LC TRT scores rated on a 0-4 scale: 0 = extirpated or nearly so, 1 = relatively high extinction risk, 3 = low 

extinction risk, and 4 = very low extinction risk.

4.2 Extinction Risk: Interior Columbia TRT

White Salmon River Steelhead

Scientists consider the White Salmon River steelhead population functionally extirpated. 

The abundance of native summer and winter steelhead in the White Salmon River before 

1919, when the loss of the fish ladder at Condit Dam blocked passage to upriver spawning 

and rearing grounds is unknown. However, some natural steelhead production in the reach 

below Condit Dam continued to occur (Bambrick et al. 2004). Some biologists believe that 

residual steelhead populations in the form of resident trout may contribute to anadromy in the 

watershed. O. mykiss from Rattlesnake Creek have been observed showing physiological 

changes consistent with smoltification, and fish have been detected outmigrating during the 

typical smolt migration period (B. Allen, personal communication, 2007). As further 

evidence in support of the retention of anadromous life history traits, a PIT-tagged O. mykiss 

was detected outmigrating from lower Rattlesnake Creek in March 2005, and was detected 

again in July 2006 moving up through the adult fish ladder at Bonneville Dam, possibly as a 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

4-4

one-salt steelhead (B. Allen, personal communication, 2007). Even with this observation,

remnant genetic influences from the original White Salmon River steelhead population in 

fish spawning in the small section of the White Salmon River below Condit Dam is thought 

to be minor with natural production coming primarily from the large releases of out-of-basin 

hatchery stock.

Biologists generally believe that White Salmon River steelhead historically ranged from the 

mouth to RM 16.3 in the mainstem and into Buck, Spring, Indian, and Rattlesnake creeks 

(Figure 4-12) (ICTRT 2008). Some anecdotal historic records (WDF 1951), suggest that 

anadromous fish may have once ascended the White Salmon River as far as Trout Lake, RM 

28.2. Most biologists, however, consider Big Brother Falls, RM 16.2, to be the upper limit of 

historical steelhead migration (NPCC 2004). This historical range provided approximately 

33 to 40 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat (NPCC 2004; Bambrick et al. 2004; 

Ecology 2007).

The ICTRT identified one MaSA, below Big Brother Falls, within the White Salmon 

watershed based on its historical intrinsic potential analysis. The ICTRT defines a MaSA as 

a system of one or more branches that contains sufficient habitat to support at least 500 

spawners. The ICTRT does not consider any population fewer than 500 spawners to be 

viable, regardless of its intrinsic productivity.

Figure 4-1 shows the intrinsic habitat potential and MaSA for the White Salmon River 

summer/winter steelhead populations as identified by the ICTRT in their 2008 analysis 

(ICTRT 2008). Intrinsic potential is the estimated relative suitability of a habitat for 

spawning and rearing of anadromous salmonids species under historical conditions inferred 

from stream characteristics including channel size, gradient, and valley width.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

4-5

Figure 4-1. Intrinsic habitat potential and Major Spawning Area for the White Salmon 

River summer/winter steelhead (ICTRT 2008) 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-1

5 Limiting Factors and Threats

Scientists generally describe the reasons for a species’ decline 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).

For salmon and steelhead, 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 versus egg 

incubation or juvenile rearing. Because of this complexity, in many cases, scientists have a 

poor understanding of the actual limiting factors.

The list of limiting factors for the White Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations, as 

for the other populations that make up the LCR salmon ESUs and the MCR steelhead DPS 

addressed in this recovery plan, is based on a substantial body of research on salmonids, local 

field data and field observations, and the considered opinions of regional experts. These are 

implicitly hypothetical statements, made with the expectation that by taking action in the face 

of some degree of scientific uncertainty, then monitoring the results, continuing to conduct 

research as a high priority, and adapting our management actions in response, the state of our 

knowledge will improve and so will fish survival, although not necessarily in a directly 

parallel process.

Until recently, the primary factor limiting production of all White Salmon species was the 

presence of Condit Dam. PacifiCorp breached the dam in October 2011, and has removed

the structure. Now that the dam no longer serves as a barrier to upstream migration, the 

primary factor affecting recovery in the White Salmon River watershed is the lack of native 

stocks. Spring Chinook salmon, coho, chum salmon, and steelhead populations are either 

extirpated or functionally extirpated (Good et al. 2005, ICTRT 2007b, Ford et al. 2011). The 

development of local populations will necessitate natural re-colonization or require the 

introduction of stocks from other basins, but may be limited by the quality of habitat within 

the watershed.

Salmon and steelhead have not occupied the habitat upstream of the dam for decades. An 

abundance of unoccupied habitat is present in the basin. Therefore, habitat quality upstream 

of the former dam is not currently limiting the populations. Fall Chinook salmon and some 

strays of other species utilize the lower river below the former Condit Dam. The numbers of 

fall Chinook salmon spawners increased from low levels in the early 2000s (WDFW 2002) to 

an average of 2,750 for the 2007-08 period (Roler 2009). The majority of the fall Chinook

salmon, spawning in the lower river, were assumed to be strays from Spring Creek NFH.

The marking of all of the production at Spring Creek NFH has shown that the escapement in 

recent years has been overwhelmingly from natural-origin fall Chinook salmon (Roler 2011).

Prior to breaching of the dam, the habitat in the lower river may have been limiting Chinook

salmon production in the years of high abundance.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-2

In the future, some of the species that historically occupied the watershed may slowly begin 

to occupy upstream habitat through natural re-colonization/straying. More direct stocking 

may also occur to facilitate the rate of population growth. As the populations recover, some 

factor related to in-river habitat, quality may eventually become the factor limiting salmonid 

production. To a certain degree, this will depend upon the species that come to occupy that 

habitat and also on the degree that the various natural waterfalls in the basin end up 

restricting dispersion of the species.

When the dam was breached, the reservoir drained quickly. Biologists have not yet had the 

opportunity to evaluate the current condition of habitat downstream of the dam, but they 

anticipate large amounts of sediment entering the lower river and moving into the Columbia 

River. They cannot predict, with any certainty, other habitat conditions after removal; 

however, the reduction of habitat carrying capacity of the habitat is likely to persist for some 

unknown period of time. Habitat downstream of the dam may limit population production in 

the lower river until that habitat recovers from the effects of the removal of the dam, though 

redds were observed in the lower river in 2012 (R. Engle, USFWS, personnel communication 

December 2012).

The discussion below further describes what biologists currently know about the condition of 

the basin’s habitat. Numerous studies completed since 2002, including the applicable results 

of the EDT run completed in 2004 (Allen and Connolly 2005), form the basis of this habitat 

discussion. In that spirit, this chapter describes potential factors that may limit future 

anadromous salmon and steelhead populations in the White Salmon River watershed. 

Chapter 5 is organized as follows: 

• Section 5.1 addresses the migration barrier at Condit Dam.

• Section 5.2 identifies freshwater life cycle factors.

• Section 5.3 describes effects on the populations from hatchery production and 

releases.

• Section 5.4 discusses impacts from harvest.

• Section 5.5 identifies effects from the CR hydrosystem.

• Section 5.6 discusses effects of predation.

• Section 5.7 discusses ocean effects.

• Section 5.8 discusses climate change.

• Section 5.9 discusses other large-scale threats.

5.1 Blocked Migration and Impaired Passage

The single greatest factor limiting salmon and steelhead populations in the White Salmon

River watershed was the migration barrier at Condit Dam. Only a small percentage of the 

historical anadromous spawning and rearing areas was accessible. Table 5-1 presents the 

current or pre-Condit Dam removal and historical distribution (post Bonneville Dam) within 

the White Salmon River watershed based on the assumptions built into the EDT model. Note 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-3

that as an artifact of the EDT model, it defined fall and spring Chinook salmon spawning 

habitat with no overlap. As a result, the fall Chinook salmon habitat was reduced to cover an 

area less than what biologists generally believe to be historically accessible. Biologists have 

considered fall Chinook salmon habitat to have historically extended up to Husum Falls at 

RM 7.6, which may overlap with possible spring Chinook salmon spawning habitat between 

Condit Dam and Husum Falls. Chum salmon is the only species that would have access to

all of its remaining historical range with the dam in place.

Table 5-2 summarizes primary limiting factors for LCR fall Chinook salmon. Table 5-3 

summarizes additional limiting factors affecting anadromous fish in the White Salmon River 

Basin. Described below are these limiting factors.

Table 5-1. River miles of salmon and steelhead habitat above and below Condit 

Dam (NPCC 2004).

Species Historical 

Distribution

Current 

Distribution

% of 

Historical 

Access

Comments

Chum salmon 1.2 miles 1.2 miles 20%

80 percent of 

spawning area 

flooded by Bonneville 

Dam

Fall Chinook salmon 3.6 miles 3.4 miles 94%

6 percent of spawning 

area above Condit 

Dam 

Spring Chinook salmon 12.8 miles 0 miles 0% All of spawning area 

above Condit Dam

Coho salmon 21.1 miles 3.4 miles 16%

Majority of spawning 

area above Condit 

Dam

Steelhead 32.9 miles 3.4 miles 10%

Majority of spawning 

area above Condit 

Dam

5.2 Freshwater Habitat

5.2.1 Lower White Salmon River Habitat Below Condit Dam

Prior to removal, operations at Condit Dam had reduced the rearing potential in the bypass 

reach downstream of the dam because minimum flows were 15 cfs, which was only a small 

percentage of the natural low flows of approximately 626 cfs (United States Geographic 

Survey (USGS) 2010). Power peaking associated with dam operation caused further diel 

flow variation, which has led to dewatering, stranding, and an increase in bioenergetic losses 

because of movements associated with daily flow changes.

The transport of rock and sediment, as well as nutrients, cold water and large wood down the 

White Salmon River stopped at Northwestern Lake. As a result, coarse material tends to 

dominate the reach downstream of the dam. Historically, this reach likely had more gravel, 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-4

cobble, and large wood which salmon and steelhead used as spawning habitat, than is 

currently present.

The removal of Condit Dam has restored normative flows in the reach. Sediment and woody 

material transport is also being re-established. During the years after dam removal, flows 

will transport fine sediment out of the previous reservoir area downstream to the CR. These 

sediments are likely to affect the quality of spawning habitat in the reach downstream of the 

dam until the river re-establishes a stable channel and the banks of the new channel also 

become relatively stable. The reduced habitat quality may decrease the numbers of fall 

Chinook salmon (and other species that stray into the lower river) that the river can support 

for an unknown number of years.

Steelheads use the lower reach of the White Salmon River and the area at the mouth of the 

White Salmon River. Other species migrating to rivers upstream of the White Salmon River 

use the river as a cool water refuge in the summer and also as temporary overwintering 

habitat (High et al. 2006; Keefer et al. 2008). By filling in rearing area and holding pools,

the sediment released from behind the dam may alter this cool water refuge area for upstream 

migrants. The return of downstream wood transport may help to eventually deposit wood 

that helps to scour pools, sort sediments and create holding habitat.

5.2.2 Habitat Upstream of Condit Dam

Flow Regimes

A watershed analysis conducted by the USFS in the upper White Salmon River indicated 

that, based on past management activities, portions of the upper White Salmon River may be 

subject to increased peak flow events (USFS 1998). Tributary reaches of the White Salmon 

generally have more volatile flows than the mainstem White Salmon. Road building, 

removal of trees from riparian areas, clearing of forests and agricultural lands, loss of 

wetlands, and other impacts on ecosystem function may have modified the intensity of flows 

in some tributary reaches.

Channel Structure, Riparian Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity

Some stream reaches in the tributaries have few deep pools and little instream wood (Allen et 

al 2006a, 2006b; Morris 2004). Substrate in Rattlesnake Creek has a low percentage of 

‘fines’ and abundance of spawning sized material (Morris 2003). No additional data 

representing habitat quality in the mainstem White Salmon River are available to date.

Both timber harvest and fires have impacted forested lands within the lower reaches of the 

watershed. Biologists consider 72 percent of riparian areas within the upper White Salmon 

to be late successional, as compared with 38 percent for the entire basin (USFS 2002). Small 

red alder tends to dominate riparian areas along Rattlesnake and Buck Creeks; conifers in the 

riparian area are sparse (Allen et al. 2006a, 2006b).

Roads can affect salmonid habitat by reducing natural infiltration and increasing hydroconfinement, leading to altered flow regimes, peak flows, and increased delivery of fine 

sediment to streams. The magnitude of effect as measured by road density is dependent upon 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-5

the number of roads, the locations of roads, the surfacing used, traffic levels, and mid-slope 

engineering of the road (Dubé et al. 2004).

Researchers calculated road densities (road miles/square-mile) in the upper, middle, and 

lower White Salmon River at 3.7 miles per square mile (2.3 kilometers per square km), 3.1 

miles per square mile (1.9 kilometers per square kilometer), and 4.0 miles per square mile 

(2.5 km per square km), respectively. Tributary road density in the upper White Salmon 

ranged from 0.2 to 4.4 miles per square mile (0.1 to 2.7 km per square km) (USFWS 2002). 

Rattlesnake Creek has a density of 3.54 miles per square mile (2.2 km per square km) and

Buck Creek a density of 5.05 miles per square mile (3.1 km per square km) (Allen and 

Connolly 2005). Analyses of the effects of roads on sediment inputs or stream flow have 

been limited to the headwaters of the mainstem (USFS 2002) and the headwaters of 

Rattlesnake Creek (Panakanic Watershed Analysis, 

http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/forestpractices/wsasmt.cgi?wsaval=acme (accessed April 11, 

2012). The Forest Service assessment identified roads that needed addressing. The upper 

Rattlesnake assessment found that roads were not contributing high amounts of sediment.

After the dam decommissioning efforts are completed, fine sediment will likely dominate

habitat in the area previously occupied by the reservoir until such time as the fine materials 

deposited behind the dam are transported out of the reach, a new channel becomes 

established, and banks stabilize. Riparian seeding and tree planting, described in 

PacifiCorp’s Re-vegetation and Wetlands Management Plan (PacifiCorp Energy 2010), will 

address the lack of riparian vegetation in the inundated area. Wood abundance may be high 

because the reservoir stopped downstream transport of woody debris since 1919; actual 

abundance will depend on the amount of wood transported into the reservoir and the decay 

rate of that wood.

Water Quality

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels in the mainstem White Salmon River are at 

or near optimum levels for salmonids (White and Plumb 2004). Maximum temperature

within the expected anadromous range meets Washington state water quality standards with 

the exception of Rattlesnake Creek which approaches lethal temperatures in some locations 

in some years (White and Plumb 2004; White and Plumb 2005; White and Cochrane 2005, 

Connolly 2003; Morris 2005). Phosphorus and nitrate/nitrite in the basin (mainstem and 

tributaries) is very high. Phosphorus levels tend to be roughly twice the recommended EPA 

standard for creeks and streams and nitrate/nitrite is as much as two orders of magnitude 

higher that the EPA recommended standard (White and Plumb2004, 2005; White and 

Cochrane 2005, EPA 2000).

There are currently several segments of the mainstem White Salmon and tributaries listed as 

impaired waterways, 303(d) listings, by the Washington State Department of Ecology, 

although some of the data on which the listings are based needs updating. Ecology lists 

individual reaches on Gilmer Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, the mainstem White Salmon, and 

Trout Lake Ditch as Category 5 (water quality impaired) for fecal coliform. Temperature 

impairments have led to the Category 5 listing of reaches on Indian and Rattlesnake creeks

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html (accessed April 11, 2012).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-6

5.3 Hatchery Production and Releases

Discussed below are effects of hatchery production and releases on White Salmon River 

salmon and steelhead populations.

Chinook salmon

Tule fall Chinook salmon from Spring Creek NFH contribute to natural production of fall 

Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. Most of the fish spawning naturally in the 

White Salmon River were assumed to be hatchery-origin tule fall Chinook salmon based on 

CWT recoveries. Spring Creek NFH began marking all of its hatchery production and as a 

result, recent spawning ground surveys have shown that the majority of the tule fall Chinook 

salmon returning to the White Salmon River are of natural origin (Roler 2011). Spring Creek 

NFH tule fall Chinook salmon originally derive from White Salmon tule fall Chinook salmon

and biologists and recovery planners anticipate that Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook 

salmon may be used to supplement natural production in the future. Smith and Engle (2011)

collected genetic samples from juvenile salmon emigrated from the White Salmon River and 

determined that the naturally produced fall Chinook salmon juveniles grouped with Spring 

Creek NFH tules when compared to other LCR tule fall Chinook salmon populations and 

stray URB fall Chinook salmon.

Stray URB hatchery fall Chinook salmon may be affecting the productivity of the tule fall 

Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. These URB fall Chinook salmon are strays 

from releases at the LWS NFH and other releases in the Bonneville Pool. Through redd 

superimposition, URB fall Chinook salmon can adversely affect tule fall Chinook salmon:

Peak spawning time for URB fall Chinook salmon is in late October and into November after 

tule fall Chinook salmon spawning has been completed. Since habitat has been very limited 

in the White Salmon River, URB fall Chinook salmon that spawn on top of tule fall Chinook 

salmon redds can decrease the productivity of the White Salmon River population. The LWS 

NFH is taking measures to decrease the number of stray URB fall Chinook salmon. Recent 

escapement data for the White Salmon River has shown a decrease in the abundance of URB 

fall Chinook salmon spawners, but in some years, their abundance exceeds that of tule fall 

Chinook salmon (Roler 2011). If these measures are unsuccessful in reducing the number of 

stray URB fall Chinook salmon to acceptable levels, the hatchery will implement other 

actions.

Biologists do not know the actual stray rate of Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook salmon

into local tributaries, but these Spring Creek hatchery fish do contribute to naturally 

spawning tule fall Chinook salmon in upper gorge tributaries, including the White Salmon 

River. The exact proportion of these hatchery fish on the spawning grounds could not be 

determined because only a small number of the hatchery’s fish were marked. The estimated 

number of tule fall Chinook salmon spawners has increased in recent years peaking in 2003 

with 1,575 being observed in the Wind River, 12,471 in the White Salmon River, and 10,686

in the Klickitat River (Jenkins, 2006; Roler 2009). All recent production at Spring Creek 

NFH fall Chinook salmon have been externally marked allowing for differentiation between 

natural-origin and hatchery fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River. All age-classes 

of the hatchery tule fall Chinook salmon returning to Spring Creek NFH were marked in 

2010, and escapement to the White Salmon River was estimated to be composed of 1,142 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-7

natural-origin and 558 hatchery-origin tule fall Chinook salmon adults (Roler 2011). Smoltto-adult survival rates averaged 0.136 percent for the 1991-95 brood years (Spring Creek 

NFH Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) 2002). The total exploitation rate for the 

hatchery program was as high as 75.3 percent for the 1982-89 brood years. An estimate for 

brood years 1990-93 has the total exploitation rate at 67 percent, with nearly half of the 

impacts occurring in the CR, primarily in the Zone 6 area above Bonneville Dam (Spring 

Creek NFH HGMP 2002).

Hatchery-produced spring Chinook salmon are not released into the White Salmon River 

Basin though strays from the LWS NFH and other programs were recovered at a weir on the 

White Salmon River in 2009 (Engle et al. 2010).

Coho salmon

Hatchery biologists found that coho salmon from the LWS NFH had strayed into the White 

Salmon watershed prior to the closure of the program in 2004. Biologists consider these 

strays and others from releases further upstream in the CR to be the likely source of naturally 

spawning coho salmon in the White Salmon River.

Steelhead

Until 2010, fisheries managers released summer and winter steelhead from Skamania 

broodstock into the White Salmon River below Condit Dam to support tribal and recreational 

fisheries. Technicians marked all hatchery fish to allow for selective fisheries. These 

releases may limit the diversity of any naturally produced winter steelhead in the basin. 

However, the primary constraint on summer and winter steelhead in the White Salmon River 

has been the limited spawning and rearing habitat. Further, biologists do not believe

Skamania stock steelhead are reproductively successful when spawning naturally; thus, 

adverse effects on natural populations may be limited. The hatchery terminated releases of 

these hatchery fish as of 2010 and biologists expect any potential impacts associated with 

these releases within the White Salmon will diminish after 2011. There may also be

significant straying of migrating hatchery fish from other basins into the White Salmon 

seeking a cold water refugia (High et al. 2006, Keefer et al. 2008). These strays may 

originate from different DPSs including the Snake River Basin. While some may contribute 

to rebuilding the population, other strays may have a negative impact.

5.4 Harvest

Harvest currently does not limit the abundance or the diversity of White Salmon River

steelhead, and spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and chum salmon, populations. NMFS 

considers all of these populations extirpated or functionally extirpated (Good et al. 2005; 

ICTRT 2007b; Ford et al. 2011). Any coho, chum, spring Chinook salmon, and most 

steelhead found in the White Salmon River are strays from other basins. In the White 

Salmon River, non-tribal coho salmon and steelhead fisheries are selective for marked 

hatchery fish, requiring the release of unmarked salmon and steelhead. Regulations prohibit 

retention of fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River from October 1 to December 31.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-8

Fall Chinook salmon

Ocean fisheries off the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia catch LCR fallrun (tule) Chinook salmon populations (NMFS 2008c). Total exploitation rates were 

generally higher through 1993 (averaging 69 percent), lower from 1994 to 1999 (averaging 

34 percent), then increasing since 2000 (averaging 49 percent). From 2002 to 2006,

regulators limited fisheries to a 49 percent exploitation rate. Total exploitation rates have 

been higher in some years but have averaged 49 percent from 2002 to 2006. The average 

exploitation rates for non-treaty fisheries in the CR for these same periods were 16 percent, 8

percent and 9 percent respectively. Tribal fisheries have a higher harvest rate on the 

Bonneville Pool tule populations, including the White Salmon River population (NPCC 

2004; NMFS 2000).

For the last several years, NOAA Fisheries has limited Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council (Council) and in-river fisheries by specifying a total exploitation rate limit. From 

2002 to 2006, the limit was 49 percent. The Council reduced the exploitation rate to 42

percent in 2007. NOAA Fisheries’ guidance to the Council for 2008 was that Council 

fisheries should be managed such that the total exploitation rate on LCR Chinook salmon tule 

populations, from all fisheries does not exceed 41 percent. For 2009 and thereafter, NOAA 

Fisheries has set a total exploitation rate limit for tule Chinook salmon through their annual 

guidance letter to the Council. The Council’s Salmon Forest Management Plan (FMP)

requires NOAA Fisheries to provide such guidance. Fisheries subject to the 2008 U.S. v. 

Oregon Agreement that are part of the set of Prospective Actions must be managed subject to 

the overall exploitation rate limit as proposed in 2008 and have been since 1999 (NMFS 

2008c). Biologists believe that tribal fisheries do not have a significant impact on the entire 

LCR tule fall Chinook salmon run, but do have a higher harvest rate on the Bonneville Pool 

tule populations, including the White Salmon River (NPCC 2004; NMFS 2000). Under the 

U.S. v. Oregon Agreement, there are a number of escapement and management objectives 

that limit the harvest of fall Chinook salmon in fisheries that would impact White Salmon 

River fall Chinook salmon, for example, a minimum escapement goal of 7,000 adults (4,000 

females) to meet broodstock needs at Spring Creek NFH can restrain ocean, lower river 

mainstem, and above Bonneville Dam treaty fisheries (NMFS 2008c).

Tributary fisheries minimally impact tule fall Chinook salmon. The White Salmon River 

tributary fishery accounts for less than one percent of the total run-size of LCR fall Chinook 

salmon and less than 4 percent of the White Salmon River tule fall Chinook salmon (NMFS 

2008c). Currently, Washington fisheries regulations allow fall Chinook salmon retention in 

the lower White Salmon River from July 1 to March 31 annually, but close the river to the 

retention of Chinook salmon 1⁄2 mile upstream from the Highway 14 bridge from October 1 to 

December 31 to protect spawning salmon (WDFW 2009). Catch record cards are the basis 

for the estimated total recreational Chinook salmon catch in the White Salmon River. These 

data can contain recording errors and fish misidentification, along with dip-in fish destined 

for upriver systems. The exploitation rate of White Salmon River tule fall Chinook salmon

during WDFW-regulated fisheries in the White Salmon River is less than 5 percent of the 

terminal run. Biologists estimate the terminal run-size based on the annual catch rate and 

spawning escapement estimate data collected since 1995 (NPCC 2004). The average annual 

catch of wild tule fall Chinook salmon is approximately 30 fish and the average annual 

escapement estimate is 461, therefore, the average annual terminal run of White Salmon 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-9

River tule fall Chinook salmon is approximately 491 fish. Biologists extrapolate total runsize of the White Salmon River tule fall Chinook salmon and total fisheries impact from 

these data. Using the estimated annual terminal run-size and estimated annual exploitation 

from ocean and CR mainstem fisheries, the estimated average total run-size of White Salmon 

River tule fall Chinook salmon is 784 fish (NPCC 2004). The total number of fall Chinook 

salmon spawners (natural-origin and hatchery) has increased from low levels in the early 

2000s (USFWS 2004) to an average of 2,750 for the 1998-2007 period (Roler 2009). The 

sport harvest has remained at roughly 30 adult fall Chinook salmon (Kraig and Smith 2008). 

Therefore, in recent years the proportion of the total escapement caught in the fishery has 

remained small.

Spring Chinook salmon

If the White Salmon River produced spring Chinook salmon, they would contribute to lower

Columbia mainstem fisheries and treaty fisheries in the Bonneville Pool. Spring Chinook 

salmon originating from above Bonneville Dam do not contribute to ocean fisheries 

compared to other LCR spring Chinook salmon populations (NMFS 2008c). Fishery 

managers would deal with spring Chinook salmon originating from the White Salmon River 

as part of the upriver spring and Snake River summer Chinook salmon group. This group 

includes all natural and hatchery produced spring Chinook salmon originating from the CR 

and its tributaries above Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2008c). The abundance of this group and 

the status of natural-origin spring Chinook salmon from the Snake River and upper CR is the 

basis for establishing harvest rates for both lower river commercial and recreational fisheries 

and tribal treaty fisheries above Bonneville Dam. The harvest rate for this group averaged 

14.5 percent from 1999 to 2008, but the actual harvest rate for prospective White Salmon 

spring Chinook salmon would be less because they are not exposed to the full Zone 6 (above 

Bonneville) treaty fishery (ODFW and WDFW 2009). Tributary sport regulations for the 

White Salmon River require the release of unmarked Chinook salmon from April 1 to June 

30 protecting natural-origin spring Chinook salmon that may enter the White Salmon River 

(WDFW 2009).

Coho salmon

NMFS considers White Salmon coho salmon extinct and therefore allows no fisheries 

targeting coho salmon in the White Salmon River (Good et al. 2005). Stray hatchery coho 

salmon can be retained and all wild coho salmon must be released in fisheries downstream of 

the location of Condit Dam from July 1 to March 31 (WDFW 2009) LCR coho salmon are 

caught in both ocean and in-river fisheries. Until 1993 the exploitation rates of LCR coho 

salmon have been very high, contributing to their decline (NMFS 2008c). The combined 

ocean and in-river exploitation rates for LCR coho salmon averaged 91 percent through 

1983, averaged 69 percent from 1984-1993, and decreased to an average of 16.7 percent

from 1994-2007 (NMFS 2008c). The exploitation of hatchery coho salmon has remained 

approximately 50 percent through the use of selective fisheries.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council in accordance with the 2008 U.S. v. Oregon

Agreement and related biological opinions regulates LCR coho salmon harvest, which is 

subject to a total exploitation rate limit for the combined ocean and in-river fisheries.

Previously, ocean regulators used Oregon Coast natural coho salmon as a surrogate for 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-10

estimating ocean fisheries impacts to LCR coho salmon. In 2006, largely as a consequence 

of increased attention resulting from its listing, the methods for assessing harvest in ocean 

fisheries changed so that they were more specific to LCR coho salmon (NMFS 2008c).

Each year, harvest managers in the CR will set coho salmon fishing regulations, after 

accounting for anticipated ocean harvest, so as not to exceed the total exploitation rate limit.

In 2008, the total exploitation rate limit was 8 percent based on the year specific 

circumstances. For 2009 and thereafter, NOAA Fisheries will set a total exploitation rate 

limit for LCR coho salmon through their annual guidance letter to the Council. Fisheries 

subject to the 2008 U.S. v. Oregon Agreement that are part of the set of Prospective Actions 

must be managed subject to the overall exploitation rate limit as proposed in 2008 and as 

they have been since 1999. Under the U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement (NMFS 

2008c) these non-treaty fisheries do not exceed the 50 percent catch sharing objective for 

coho salmon destined for above Bonneville Dam.

Chum salmon

In the first half of the 20th century there was a substantial commercial chum salmon fishery 

with a harvest rate of more than 500,000 chum salmons in some years (Myers et al. 2006). 

Harvest of chum salmon in the CR is limited to indirect fishery mortality. Regulators closed 

or drastically minimized commercial chum salmon fisheries in the 1950s due to severe 

population declines. Currently, there are no recreational or commercial fisheries in the CR. 

The number of chum salmon landed as take incidental to lower river commercial gill net 

fisheries has been fewer than 50 fish in each of the last five years. Harvest impacts to chum 

salmon from CR commercial and recreational fisheries are constantly below 5 percent and 

since 1998 have averaged 1.6 percent. Biologists assume ocean fishing mortality on CR 

chum salmon to be zero. Regulations prohibit retention of chum salmon in the White Salmon 

River.

Middle Columbia River steelhead

NMFS considers White Salmon River steelhead functionally extirpated (ICTRT 2007b). 

Any future White Salmon River produced steelhead would have similar fishery impacts as 

biologists have observed for steelhead destined for the other MCR Basins in Bonneville Pool. 

Various fisheries can catch these steelhead as they migrate through the CR and Pacific 

Ocean. These fisheries are discussed briefly below.

Ocean Fisheries

Ocean fisheries rarely catch steelhead; therefore, biologists do not consider these fisheries a 

significant source of mortality to MCR steelhead (NMFS 2000). Biologists assume ocean 

fishing mortality on MCR steelhead to be zero.

Columbia River Mainstem Non-Tribal Fisheries

There has been no direct freshwater non-tribal harvest on wild steelhead from the MCR 

steelhead 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 by-catch in commercial or recreational 

fisheries that target hatchery steelhead or other species. Monitoring these impacts is 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-11

complex. Released fish experience a mortality rate, possibly delayed and difficult to 

measure, that is highly variable and depends on what gear is used, how the fish are caught by 

the gear, how the fish are handled during capture and release, and environmental conditions. 

Biologists estimate release mortality to be very low (below one percent of encounters (NMFS 

2008c)), with an unknown range of error. Fish technicians monitor recreational fisheries by

conducting creel surveys, interviewing anglers about their catch, gear, and wild steelhead 

releases. Biologists estimate the total recreational impact on winter and summer steelhead as 

they move through the mainstem to the tributaries to be less than 2.5 percent (ODFW 2008).

There are three stocks of summer steelhead used for management of treaty and non-treaty 

mainstem fisheries, including the LCR Skamania stock, upriver A-run stock, and upriver Brun stock. All MCR steelhead populations are designated A-run, with two populations being 

winter-run. In NOAA’s Biological Opinion for the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries 

Agreement, the wild MCR Steelhead DPS in the non-treaty winter, spring, and summer 

mainstem fisheries are subject to a 2 percent harvest rate limit (NMFS 2008c). 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 nontreaty fisheries has averaged 1.6 percent since 1999; co-managers do not expect to the 

incidental catch rate to change over the course of the Agreement (NMFS 2008c).

Treaty Indian 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. The U.S. v. 

Oregon Fisheries Agreement does not establish specific harvest rate limits for tribal fisheries 

on steelhead during the spring or summer seasons that extend through July 31. Reported 

steelhead catch in Zone 6 winter and spring fisheries for 2003 to 2005 ranged from 0.7 

percent to 7.9 percent of the winter steelhead run over Bonneville Dam. In 2004, reported 

and estimated non-reported steelhead catch together amounted to 4.8 percent of the run at 

Bonneville, with an unknown range of error (ODFW 2008).

Harvest restrictions for B-run steelhead and upper CR bright fall Chinook salmon limit tribal 

fishery impacts on MCR steelhead (NMFS 2008b). The harvest rate on MCR summer-run 

steelhead in spring, summer, and fall Zone 6 tribal fisheries combined averaged 11.7 percent 

since 1985 and 6.64 percent since 1998 (NMFS 2008b, Table 8.8.5.5-1). Co-managers 

expect the impacts resulting from the tribal fisheries to be similar to the 1998-2006 average 

of 6.64 percent. The harvest rate is mostly for populations that pass more dams in Zone 6

than the White Salmon steelhead population, which passes only one Zone 6 dam. White 

Salmon steelheads are therefore subject to fewer non-Native American and tribal treaty

fisheries and experience a harvest rate estimated to be less than 10 percent.

White Salmon River Fisheries

The White Salmon River was open year-round for marked hatchery steelhead up to the 

Powerhouse outfall. After dam breaching, the area open to steelhead fisheries is the lower 

three miles of the mainstem river, and also upriver as far as Husum. This fishery harvests 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-12

marked Skamania hatchery steelhead released in the basin as juveniles and out-of-basin 

steelhead that dip-in to the White Salmon River when seeking cooler water temperatures in 

the summer. According to catch card data available for the 2002-03 return year, fisheries 

harvested 3,135 marked summer steelhead and 133-marked winter steelhead (WDFW 2008). 

Non-tribal fisheries for Chinook salmon and coho salmon are open in the lower White 

Salmon River all year and require the release of unmarked Chinook salmon and coho salmon

by non-tribal fishers.

5.5 Federal Columbia River Hydrosystem

Hydropower system construction and operation (flow regulation) in the CR Basin has been a 

major cause of changes in the CR and estuary from historical conditions.

Within the White Salmon watershed, creation of the Bonneville Dam pool on the mainstem 

CR affected steelhead and salmon by effectively inundating the lower 0.96 miles of the 

habitat. This resulted in the loss of riparian, spawning, and rearing habitat and increased 

predation by native and non-native fish in the lower river. The effects are greatest on White 

Salmon chum salmon, since the dam inundated all but 0.24 miles of their original habitat. A 

lack of historical data inhibits quantitative evaluation of the impacts of Bonneville pool 

inundation on native fish, plant, and wildlife species.

Dams altered conditions within much of the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers compared 

to historic conditions. The development of hydropower and water storage projects within the 

CR Basin resulted in the inundation of many mainstem spawning and shallow-water rearing 

areas (e.g., loss of spawning gravels and access to spawning and rearing areas); altered water 

quality (e.g., reduced spring turbidity levels), water quantity (e.g., seasonal changes in flows 

and consumptive losses resulting from use of stored water for agricultural, industrial, or 

municipal purposes), water temperature (e.g., including generally warmer minimum winter 

temperatures and cooler maximum summer temperatures), water velocity (e.g., reduced 

spring flows and increased cross-sectional areas of the river channel), food (e.g., alteration of 

food webs, including the type and availability of prey species), and safe passage (e.g., 

increased mortality rates of migrating juveniles) (Williams et. al 2005; Ferguson et. al 2005).

Model studies indicate that the hydrosystem and reduced river flows caused by climate 

change together have decreased the delivery of suspended particulate matter to the lower 

river and estuary by about 40 percent (as measured at Vancouver, Washington) and have 

reduced fine sediment transport by 50 percent or more (Bottom et al. 2005). Overbank flow 

events, important to habitat diversity, have become rare, in part because flow management 

and irrigation withdrawals prevent high flows and in part because diking and revetments 

have increased the “bankfull” flow level (from about 18,000 to 24,000 m3/s). The dynamics 

of estuarine habitat have changed in other ways relative to flow. The availability of shallow 

(between 10 cm and 2 m depth), low-velocity (less than 30 cm/s) habitat now appears to 

decrease at a steeper rate with increasing flow than during the 1880s, and the absorption 

capacity of the estuary appears to have declined.

The CR Estuary Module, at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESARecovery-Plans/Estuary-Module.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012), provides more information 

on factors that limit viability of LCR Chinook salmon and coho salmon, CR chum salmon, 

and MCR steelhead in the CR Estuary.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-13

5.5.1 Hydro Project Impacts on Outmigrating Smolts

As anadromous juvenile salmonids migrate from freshwater rearing habitats to the ocean, 

they are vulnerable to a host of factors that affect their survival. Scientists have conducted 

many studies in recent years to determine both the direct effects associated with project

passage (e.g., instantaneous mortality, injury, loss of equilibrium, reservoir and tailrace 

predation) and indirect effects (e.g., vulnerability to predation in the estuary or plume, 

disease, and physiological stress), which contribute to the total mortality of seaward 

migrating salmonids (Counihan et al. 2005).

White Salmon River salmonids must pass only Bonneville Dam on their way to and from the 

Pacific Ocean. The 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological 

Opinion’s Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) requires a 10-year program of 

configuration improvements at the dam including the installation of turbines with minimum 

gap runners at Powerhouse 1 and increased guidance into the juvenile bypass systems at both 

powerhouses (NMFS 2008b). BPA will continue and further increase the pike minnow sport 

fishery incentive program, removing more of these predators from Bonneville pool. Upon 

implementation of these changes, juvenile survival from the mouth of the White Salmon to 

below Bonneville Dam is expected to be 95.5 percent for Chinook salmon, coho and chum 

salmon and 90.8 percent for steelhead (NMFS 2008b, Table 14.3 of the Incidental Take 

Statement).

5.5.2 Hydro Project Impacts on Migrating Adults

Passage Survival

Fish returning to the White Salmon watershed must pass Bonneville Dam and Reservoir. 

Prospective actions under the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion’s RPA are expected to 

maintain the current high survival rates of 98.6 percent for spring-run Chinook salmon, 98.5 

percent for steelhead, and 96.9 percent for fall-run Chinook salmon, coho, and chum salmon 

(NMFS 2008b, Table 14.1 of the Incidental Take Statement). Sea lions take about 22 percent 

of adult winter steelhead and 8.5 percent of adult spring Chinook salmon in the tailrace of 

Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2008b).

The 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion RPA requires that the USACE install, and improve as

needed, sea lion excluder gates at all main adult fish ladder entrances and must continue to 

support land and water based harassment efforts by NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, WDFW and 

the Tribes to keep sea lions away from the area immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam.

5.6 Predation, Competition and Disease

There has been an increase in abundance of predatory native and exotic fishes below Condit 

Dam within the reservoir created by Bonneville Dam. Primary predators of juvenile 

salmonids in the CR include northern pike minnow, smallmouth bass, channel catfish,

walleye, terns, cormorants, and sea lions. Northern pike minnow are native cyprinids that are 

widely distributed throughout the CR Basin. Because these predators consume millions of 

salmonid smolts per year in the LCR, they are the subjects of an extensive predator control 

effort.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-14

Hatchery steelhead juvenile releases into the White Salmon have probably led to competition 

with any natural-origin smolts produced below Condit Dam; these releases were discontinued 

in 2010. Hatchery adults that stray into the White Salmon River may compete for spawning 

and rearing habitat. Spawning of later returning URB fall Chinook salmon can reduce the 

productivity of naturally spawning tule fall Chinook salmon through redd superimposition.

Hatchery managers have reported Bacterial Kidney and Black Spot diseases throughout the 

White Salmon Basin (Allen et al. 2006a, 2006b). Now that PacifiCorp has breached Condit 

Dam, diseased fish moving into waters upstream of the former dam site may introduce other 

pathogens and/or diseases into the basin. The effects of disease on current or any potential 

future populations are unknown.

5.7 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, and some Chinook salmon). Others have migration 

patterns along the Washington, British Columbia, Oregon, and California coasts (Chinook 

salmon, coho, and cutthroat salmon). Thus, ocean conditions do not have coincident effects 

on survival across species or populations.

Widespread changes in ocean conditions have dramatically affected ocean survival of 

steelhead. 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.

Scientists know little about the early ocean life history of CR chum salmon.

5.8 Climate Change

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to recovery of listed salmon and

steelhead populations. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for the NPCC, 

CR Basin Indian Tribes, and NMFS reviewed the potential effects of climate change on 

salmonids in the CR Basin (ISAB 2007). The ISAB report shows that changes in climate 

may adversely affect steelhead in freshwater habitats across the MCR DPS by exacerbating 

existing problems with water quantity (lower summer stream flows) and water quality 

(higher summer water temperatures). Impacts on snow pack, stream flow, and water quality 

in the Columbia Basin include 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.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-15

These changes may affect steelhead more than other salmonids because of their long rearing 

period in freshwater.

Changing conditions could also affect salmonid health and survival in the ocean through a 

variety of mechanisms, including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification of 

some waters, changes in the upwelling season, shifts in the distribution of salmonids, longterm variability in winds and ocean temperatures, increased acidity, and increased 

atmospheric and oceanic variability (NMFS 2007, 2008a; ISAB 2007).

All other threats and conditions remaining equal, future deterioration of water quality, water 

quantity, and/or physical habitat can be expected to cause a reduction in the number of 

naturally produced adult steelhead returning to these populations across the DPS. This 

possibility further reinforces the importance of achieving survival improvements throughout 

the entire steelhead life cycle. Recent research also indicates that neighboring populations 

with differences in habitat may show different responses to climate changes (Crozier and 

Zabel 2006; Crozier et al. 2008). This research reinforces the importance of maintaining 

habitat diversity.

5.9 Other Large-Scale Threats

Other large-scale threats that may affect salmon and steelhead populations in the White 

Salmon watershed in the future include the following: 

• Human population growth. Pressures may increase for conversion of forestry and 

agricultural land uses to residential uses and residential water development, with 

potential impacts on habitat and water conditions.

• Increase in exotic invasive species that potentially compete with native flora and 

fauna. Such invasive species could provide food and/or cover to species that

potentially compete with, prey on, or carry diseases that could affect native species.

• New diseases and/or pathogens. Migrating steelhead can introduce them through 

exposure to marine aquaculture operations or illegal stocking of out-of-watershed

species, among other means.

• Natural catastrophic events.(e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale 

forest fires).

Table 5-2 lists the primary factors limiting the production of fall Chinook salmon, the only 

extant population in the White Salmon River drainage. Table 5-3 lists the combined factors 

limiting the production of the extirpated or functionally extirpated spring Chinook salmon, 

coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead populations within the White Salmon watershed. 

Also listed are the potential impacts on population VSP parameters, sites where these impacts 

may be observed, the underlying anthropogenic threats, life stage affected, significance, and 

actions that would address the limiting factors.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-16

Table 5-2. Primary limiting factors for lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River drainage

Limiting Factor VSP Parameter

Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected

Significance

(Scope/Severity) Actions

Lack of spawning gravel and 

spawning area

Abundance, 

productivity

Lower 3.3 RM of 

mainstem White 

Salmon River

High fine sediment loads 

delivered from the former 

Northwestern Lake

Spawning and 

incubation

Fine sediments 

accumulated in the 

bottom of the former 

Northwestern Lake will 

be transported into the 

lower 3.3 miles of the 

river for potentially 

many years. These 

fine sediments will 

tend to settle out in 

lower gradient areas 

and will also tend to 

build up during lower 

flow periods. The net 

effect on habitat 

remains unknown.

Restoration of habitat in 

the reaches formerly 

occupied by Northwestern 

Lake and downstream of 

the former dam site. 

Natural processes will 

eventually come to an 

equilibrium. 

Harvest Abundance, 

productivity

All, but especially 

ocean and 

Columbia River 

fisheries

Commercial, 

recreational, and tribal 

fisheries

Upstream 

migration, 

ocean survival

Significant harvest of 

fall Chinook salmon is 

allowed annually. 

While the specified 

allowed harvest is 

expected to result in 

gradual population 

growth, the allowable 

rate of harvest may 

slow recovery

Modify fisheries

Genetic changes and/or 

competition with hatchery fish

Genetic diversity, 

abundance and 

productivity

All spawning areas Strays from other areas Spawning and 

rearing

Unknown Monitor
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-17

Table 5-3. Additional factors potentially limiting anadromous fish (lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and coho 

salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, and middle Columbia River steelhead in the White Salmon River drainage). The 

primary limiting factors are highlighted in light yellow; factors that may become limiting in the future are highlighted in light 

gray.

Limiting Factor VSP Impacted 

Parameter Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected

Significance

(Scope/Severity) Actions

Lack of an extant viable 

population

Abundance and 

Productivity

All Populations of steelhead, 

spring Chinook salmon, 

coho salmon, and chum 

salmon are considered 

extirpated or functionally 

extirpated

All stages Re-colonization by 

the extirpated 

species will be limited 

to natural 

repopulation of the 

basin through 

straying 

The preferred approach 

for reintroduction of 

species into the basin is to 

allow natural straying into 

the river. Hatchery 

alternatives may be 

implemented if population 

recovery is determined to 

be too slow.

Harvest All All Now that the dam has 

been removed, an 

abundance of unoccupied 

habitat has become 

available. Harvest will 

directly affect the rate of 

species re-colonization 

and population growth.

All Will delay the rate of 

recovery in direct 

proportion to the 

numbers of fish 

potentially spawning 

in the basin that are 

caught 

Manage fisheries to 

increase the potential for 

escapement into the White 

Salmon River.

High sediment loads in the 

reaches formerly occupied by 

Northwestern Lake and the 

reaches downstream of the 

former lake and a lack of 

suitable spawning habitat 

downstream of Buck Creek

Abundance and 

Productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity

All The high sediment loads 

mobilized out of the area 

of the former lake may 

eradicate suitable 

spawning habitat 

downstream of Buck 

Creek for many years. 

The absence of quality 

spawning habitat in the 

lower reaches may deter 

stray fish from moving into 

the upper basin where 

All May delay recolonization of the 

basin

Implementation of 

PacifiCorp’s Dam 

Decommissioning Plans. 

Additional analysis of both 

habitat and re-colonization 

rates will be required to 

determine if additional 

actions are needed.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

5-18

Limiting Factor VSP Impacted 

Parameter Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected

Significance

(Scope/Severity) Actions

good spawning habitat is 

available.

Factors that may become limiting as the populations grow

Stream flow Primarily 

abundance and 

productivity

Buck Creek Water diversions. Fry colonization, 

inactive age-0 

and 1, juvenile 

rearing, 

migration

Diversion withdraws 

70 percent of flow 

from Buck Cr., while 

unused portion 

returns to White 

Salmon via gully 

Address Buck Creek water 

diversion

Large Woody Debris 

abundance

Primarily 

abundance and 

productivity

Mainstem White 

Salmon upstream 

of Buck Creek and 

lower White 

Salmon River 

mainstem.

Removal of wood for 

recreation; land use 

practices that reduce

riparian forests

Fry colonization, 

juvenile rearing, 

overwintering, 

pre-spawners, 

spawners

Lack of LWD 

reduces pool habitat, 

sediment sorting and 

habitat complexity

Place LWD as appropriate 

and feasible. Address 

wood removal by boaters. 

Add structure to form 

pools

Stream temperatures Abundance, 

productivity, spatial 

structure and 

diversity

Indian and 

Rattlesnake 

Creeks, lower Buck 

Creek, and 

possibly the 

reaches formerly 

occupied by 

Northwestern Lake

Land use practices that 

reduce riparian function; 

lack of riparian vegetation 

within the footprint of the 

former Northwestern Lake

Juvenile rearing,

active age-0, 

spawning, 

migration

Currently the problem 

exists primarily in

Rattlesnake and 

Indian Creeks, but 

may become a 

problem in the 

reaches previously 

occupied by the 

reservoir. 

Increase shading along 

temperature limited 

reaches.

Harassment, predation and 

competition

Primarily 

abundance, 

productivity

Bonneville Pool Inundation by Bonneville 

Pool 

Adult migrants, 

pre-spawners, 

holding

Increase in exotic 

species and 

recreational activity in 

lower river

Improve programs that 

target exotic piscivorous 

fish in the mainstem 

Columbia
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-1

6 Recovery Strategy and Actions

The preceding chapters summarize recovery goals, biological and threats criteria, current 

status assessment, and the major limiting factors and threats identified for the White Salmon 

River salmon populations. How will we reach recovery? The White Salmon recovery 

strategy contains two key parts: 1) a plan for reintroducing naturally produced salmon and 

steelhead into historical habitat after the removal of Condit Dam, 2) improving and 

increasing freshwater habitat for salmon and steelhead production in key reaches of the 

watershed. The Plan also recommends ensuring that harvest or hatchery actions do not 

impede efforts to improve salmon and steelhead viability.

Blocked passage at Condit Dam was the primary limiting factor for both salmon and 

steelhead until the dam was breached in October 2011, and completely removed in October 

2012. The methods considered to reintroduce salmonids to their historical habitat, included

natural re-colonization, artificial propagation, or some combination of the two. Section 6.1 

and Appendix I describe reintroduction plans.

Sections 6.2 through 6.5 also propose additional actions regarding freshwater habitat, 

hatcheries, harvest, and hydrosystem operations.

6.1 Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction Plans

The White Salmon Working Group, made up of Federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers, 

as well as representatives of PacifiCorp (Condit Dam operators), developed several options 

to consider for the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead into the White Salmon River. The 

group fleshed out each option with a description of the biological basis for the approach, 

operational and maintenance needs, and monitoring and evaluation needs. For more details 

about the options and considerations, see Appendix I.

Some members of the White Salmon Working Group proposed that after Condit Dam 

removal or passage restoration, the reintroduced/re-colonized populations in the White 

Salmon River be experimental populations pursuant to section 10(j) of the ESA. However, 

these fish would not meet the ESA’s definition for an experimental population, which is 

defined, in part, as one that is “wholly separate geographically from non-experimental 

populations of the same species.”

After the removal of Condit Dam, populations of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and 

steelhead cannot remain “wholly separate geographically” from other populations within the 

listed ESU/DPS. Keeping the populations “wholly separate” from the other populations 

within the listed species is also not consistent with the recovery strategy where the goal is for

listed species from neighboring populations to re-colonize the habitat above Condit Dam 

after its removal. Furthermore, as Sections 2.4.4 and 6.1.5 (MCR steelhead) describe, the 

steelhead population in the White Salmon River still evidence some of its ability for 

anadromy and is not wholly extirpated.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-2

6.1.1 Fall Chinook salmon

The White Salmon Working Group agreed on a salvage plan for tule fall Chinook salmon to 

maintain natural production assuming Condit Dam removal. Beginning in 2008, biologists 

tested a salvage plan to see if technicians could capture enough adult tule fall Chinook 

salmon below Condit Dam and safely transport them to spawning habitat above the dam. 

Biologists monitored the transported tule fall Chinook salmon to determine post-release 

survival, movement, and spawning habitat preferences (Engle and Skalicky 2009). In 2009, 

technicians installed a weir at the White Salmon Ponds site and tested increasing adult 

salmon collection and estimating escapement above the White Salmon Ponds site (Engle et 

al. 2010).

The White Salmon Working Group evaluated the following options for tule fall Chinook 

salmon (see Appendix I for detailed descriptions).

1. Salvage adipose present CWT-negative tule fall Chinook salmon from the White 

Salmon River in the fall of 2010 to start tule fall Chinook salmon restoration.

2. Spring Creek NFH would spawn adults and rear eggs. The hatchery would acclimate 

and release the resulting juveniles at White Salmon Ponds.

3. Salvage adipose present CWT-negative tule fall Chinook salmon returning to Spring 

Creek NFH to start tule fall Chinook salmon restoration.

4. Outplant adults, adipose present, in 2011 above Condit Dam prior to removal.

5. No salvage effort in the White Salmon River or at Spring Creek NFH. Salvage 

adipose present CWT-negative tule fall Chinook salmon returning to the White 

Salmon River and outplant above Condit Dam prior to removal.

The White Salmon Working Group selected the outplant option (Option 4) for tule fall 

Chinook salmon because they believed that the habitat currently available above Condit Dam 

that can support natural spawning tule fall Chinook salmon and because this option would 

minimize the potential impacts of hatchery rearing. Biologists tested a number of collection 

alternatives 2008 to ensure that technicians could collect unmarked tule fall Chinook salmon

in adequate numbers and safely transport them above Condit Dam (Engle and Skalicky 

2009). In 2008, the goal was to transport up to 500 adults made up of marked hatchery fall 

Chinook salmon collected in the lower White Salmon River and fall Chinook salmon from 

Spring Creek NFH. Hatchery fall Chinook salmon were used for this test because Condit 

Dam did not have a system to safely pass juvenile salmon during their outmigration. In 

2008, technicians collected 90 adults in the White Salmon River and transported 333 adults 

from Spring Creek NFH to habitat above Condit Dam (Engle and Skalicky 2009).

Monitoring of the transported adults determined the movement of adults after release, where 

spawning occurred, and determined that spawning was successful. The White Salmon 

Working Group is finalizing an operating plan for collection and transportation of adult tule 

fall Chinook salmon in 2010 (see Engle and Skalicky 2009). In 2009, technicians installed a 

weir and tested it adjacent to the White Salmon Ponds, using the historic weir location to 

collect more tule fall Chinook salmon adults (Engle et al. 2010). In 2011, prior to Condit 

Dam breaching, a total of 679 tule fall Chinook salmon were collected from the lower White 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-3

Salmon River and transported and released between Husum Falls and Northwestern Lake, of 

these 552 were determined to be natural-origin. Furthermore, spawning ground surveys 

determined that spawning was successful below Husum Falls (R. Engle, USFWS, November 

2012, personal communication).

6.1.2 Spring Chinook salmon

The White Salmon Working Group reviewed the following options for reintroducing spring 

Chinook salmon into White Salmon River (see Appendix I for detailed descriptions).

1. Natural colonization, i.e., no active reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Wild Klickitat spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile release into the 

White Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at Klickitat Hatchery, juveniles 

acclimated and released at White Salmon Ponds.

3. Klickitat Hatchery spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile release into 

upper White Salmon River, starting in the spring of 2010 (from Klickitat Hatchery

thinning release or other surplus juveniles).

4. Klickitat Hatchery integrated stock spring Chinook salmon as brood source for 

juvenile release into White Salmon River, in future years (broodstock source would 

be hatchery-reared offspring of wild fish).

5. Transport surplus Klickitat Hatchery adults to White Salmon starting in the fall of the 

year of removal.

6. Trap and transport Klickitat wild adults to White Salmon starting in the fall of the 

year of removal.

7. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and

suitability of Option 4.

The White Salmon Working Group decided on Option 7 for spring Chinook salmon. Under 

this option Working Group members propose to monitor escapement of spring Chinook 

salmon into the upper White Salmon River, including the proportion of Carson stock 

hatchery spring Chinook salmon on the spawning grounds. The Working Group also will 

monitor spring Chinook salmon smolt production in the upper White Salmon River. The 4-5 

year monitoring period will determine if natural production is occurring and the source of 

that production. The monitoring period will also allow time for the development of the 

Klickitat Hatchery integrated spring Chinook salmon program and determine whether 

production capacity at this facility is available. The White Salmon Working Group 

considered the Klickitat Hatchery spring Chinook salmon program the best source of 

broodstock for reintroduction, even though it is not part of the LCR Chinook salmon ESU

because it is within the transition zone between LCR and interior CR populations (Ford et al. 

2011). The two nearest populations of spring Chinook salmon within the LCR ESU are in 

the Lewis River in Washington and the Sandy River in Oregon. Each of these basins have 

spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs but reintroduction efforts in the Lewis River 

Basin require current local production, while broodstock collection and funding shortfalls 

constrain production in the Sandy River. The result is the unavailability of a suitable source 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-4

of spring Chinook salmon stock to support the reintroduction efforts in the White Salmon 

River. NMFS is currently reviewing whether a population re-established in historic habitat 

using a non-ESU spring Chinook salmon stock can be part of the listed ESU for recovery and 

delisting purposes. The Hood River spring Chinook salmon recovery efforts are using a nonESU spring Chinook salmon stock for reintroduction.

6.1.3 Coho salmon

The White Salmon Working Group reviewed the following options for reintroducing coho 

salmon into White Salmon River (see Appendix I for detailed descriptions).

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Juveniles from Washougal and/or Bonneville/Cascade hatcheries released into White 

Salmon River.

3. Collection of wild adult broodstock in Klickitat River with spawning and rearing at 

hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

4. Collection of wild adult broodstock in White Salmon River with spawning and 

rearing at hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

5. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and 

suitability of Options 2, 3 or 4.

The White Salmon Working Group decided on Option 5 for coho salmon. As described for 

spring Chinook salmon, the Working Group members propose to monitor escapement, 

hatchery- and natural-origin coho salmon on the spawning grounds, and juvenile production 

in the White Salmon River Basin. Sources of stray hatchery coho salmon include releases 

from Bonneville Hatchery and releases into the Klickitat and Umatilla River basins. All of 

these releases derive from hatchery programs that are part of the LCR coho salmon ESU. A 

recovery team will use the results of the monitoring efforts to determine future reintroduction 

activities.

6.1.4 Chum salmon

The White Salmon Working Group reviewed the following options for reintroducing chum 

salmon into White Salmon River (see Appendix I for detailed descriptions).

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Active adult outplanting in years after Condit Dam removal.

3. Active stocking of juvenile chum salmon or outplanting of eggs in egg baskets and 

hatch boxes via WDFW’s Washougal Hatchery or Willard NFH.

4. Initiate temporary hatchery program for chum salmon using existing USFWS 

hatcheries for subsequent outplanting of chum salmon captured at Bonneville Dam.

The White Salmon Working Group decided on Option 1 for chum salmon. The group chose 

this option because of the uncertainty regarding the status of chum salmon above Bonneville 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-5

Dam. This option calls for expanded spawning ground surveys in the Bonneville Pool using 

the mainstem chum salmon spawning habitat criteria developed for the population below 

Bonneville Dam. Those conducting surveys should focus in the lower reaches of suitable 

tributaries and include habitat suitability assessments for the reservoir and the tributaries.

6.1.5 Steelhead

The White Salmon Working Group reviewed the following options for reintroducing 

steelhead into White Salmon River (see Appendix I for detailed descriptions).

1. Natural re-colonization, i.e., no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

2. Wild donor from local watershed as brood source for juvenile release into the White 

Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at suitable hatchery and juveniles 

acclimated and released at White Salmon Ponds.

3. White Salmon resident O. mykiss as brood source, with locally suitable anadromous 

wild donor stock spawned for juvenile release into upper White Salmon River.

4. White Salmon steelhead captive brood program using captured outmigrating 

juveniles.

5. White Salmon steelhead kelt reconditioning. Recondition local spawners to enhance 

survival.

Based on the potential to re-establish natural production of steelhead in the basin, the White 

Salmon Working Group decided that Option 1, natural re-colonization, was the best 

approach. Indications that the (resident) population of O. mykiss in the White Salmon River 

above Condit Dam still produces smolts, even though the construction of Condit Dam and 

the end of passage in 1913 eliminated anadromy, was the basis of the group’s decision. 

Recent monitoring in the White Salmon River above Condit Dam has identified O. mykiss

juveniles displaying smolt behavior and morphology. Biologists detected juveniles PITtagged in Rattlesnake Creek passing Bonneville Dam, with one recovered at the tern colony 

on East Sand Island (B. Allen, personal communication, 2007). In addition, biologists 

detected a juvenile O. mykiss PIT-tagged above Condit Dam in September 2004 at 98 mm 

ascending Bonneville Dam in July 2006. Genetic analysis of juvenile O. mykiss collected in 

the upper watershed above Husum Falls found differences from hatchery trout released in the 

basin; additional samples are needed, however, to confirm this finding (Allen et al. 2006).

Additional research by Carmichael (Ruzycki 2003) in the Grande Ronde and by Thrower et 

al. (2004) in Alaska has identified a potential strategy for steelhead in the White Salmon. 

Research conducted by Thrower et al. (2004) indicated that:

after 70 years of freshwater residency, a formerly anadromous, wild, 

freely breeding population of O. mykiss has retained large amounts of 

genetic variability associated with growth, precocious maturation and 

smolting despite complete selection against the phenotypic expression of 

at least one of the fitness related characters (smolting migration) critical 

for the re-establishment of an anadromous population.... Genetic potential 

for smolting can lie dormant or be maintained through a dynamic 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-6

interaction between smolting and early maturation for decades despite 

complete selection against the phenotype. The results have significant 

implications for the preservation of threatened anadromous stocks in fresh 

water and the inclusion of resident fish of formerly anadromous 

populations, currently trapped behind longstanding barriers to migration, 

as one component of the same population.

This information supports the theory that even though the population is functionally 

extirpated, there is some the potential for re-establishing anadromous steelhead in the White 

Salmon River Basin. Using resident O. mykiss above Condit Dam will provide a genetic link 

to historical anadromous O. mykiss.

6.1.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

The key to the success of all of these options is to implement all of the proposed monitoring 

and evaluation activities, including development and implementation of an approach to 

monitor adult escapement, adult movement, presence/absence of stray hatchery-origin 

salmon and steelhead, and population productivity. In the future, if the need arises, and after 

careful evaluation and consensus among the co-managers, biologists could use a weir to 

exclude hatchery-origin adults, thus creating a refuge for naturally produced salmon and 

steelhead. Another reason that the White Salmon Working Group supported these options 

was that the removal of Condit Dam provides a rare opportunity to study the natural recolonization of newly available habitat without using hatchery intervention. The proposed 

White Salmon Recovery Board and NMFS will evaluate the proposed options and make an 

assessment after 5 years to determine the next steps for reintroduction of salmon and 

steelhead in the White Salmon River.

Much remains unknown about the current status of the historical salmon and steelhead 

populations in the White Salmon and the capability of the habitat to support increased 

production. This Plan proposes the following actions to establish a baseline of current 

population status and habitat conditions and to help ensure that efforts to reintroduce salmon 

and steelhead in the White Salmon are efficient and successful. The YN, USGS, WDFW, 

USFWS, and UCD identified these actions. Chapter 8 offers further discussion of basin-wide 

monitoring and evaluation activities.

Biologists need to gather data and analyze information needs upstream and downstream of 

Condit Dam now that PacifiCorp has removed the dam. This information will inform project 

selection and implementation and improve the rate and success of reintroduction.

Below is a description of a multi-agency cooperative process for planning reintroduction. 

Table 6-1 summarizes the biological objectives, actions, and existing strategies for data 

gathering and analysis; it also outlines some needed habitat restoration. The YN, USGS, 

WDFW, USFWS, and UCD agreed to these general biological objectives and provided the 

detailed actions for which they would accept responsibility. In 2012, the White Salmon 

Working Group will work to refine the monitoring and evaluation plan to reflect the removal 

of Condit Dam in 2011.

Various management entities have implemented some of these monitoring and evaluation 

activities starting in 2006 and continued these activities through the removal of Condit Dam 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-7

(e.g., Allen et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2007). Recovery planners are seeking funding to 

continue the monitoring post-dam removal.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-8

Table 6-1. Biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to enhance/reintroduce anadromous salmonid 

populations and acquire baseline habitat information in the White Salmon River Basin

Biological Objective Full Description Actions and Existing Strategies

Implement reintroduction plan Salmon and steelhead will be allowed to naturally re-colonize habitat 

above the former Condit Dam. Intensive monitoring activities will be 

implemented, including implementation of a program designed to 

monitor adult and juvenile abundance

Continue monitoring activities already occurring in the basin 

and expand to include population monitoring in the White 

Salmon River and Rattlesnake Creek

Complete gathering of information on 

existing salmonid stocks

Determine the status, life histories, and genetic composition of fish 

populations in the White Salmon River and its tributaries that are now

accessible to anadromous salmonids. 

Finalize adult and juvenile monitoring program for existing 

stocks in the White Salmon River. Assess interaction of 

bright and tule Chinook salmon populations and rainbow and 

steelhead

Hatchery status monitoring Monitor the proportion and origin of hatchery salmon and steelhead 

on the spawning grounds

Continue to count adipose marked and unmarked carcasses 

and tagged adults

Maintain genetic diversity of listed 

salmonids

Continue to monitor current salmonid species composition and 

viability to determine effects of reintroduction actions

To maintain the genetic diversity of salmonid species in the 

White Salmon River complete analysis of information that 

describes the stocks and genetic diversity that currently exists

Population status monitoring Monitor salmon and steelhead spawning escapement to estimate 

viable salmonid population parameters

Estimate population abundance using statistically robust 

methodologies

Assess effect of anadromous fish on 

resident fish

Assess the resident fish population prior to the reintroduction of 

anadromous salmonids

Assess resident trout contribution to smolts. Establish 

comprehensive monitoring program (of trout population). 

Assess change in resident population after steelhead recolonization/reintroduction begins
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-9

6.2 Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions

This plan proposes a number of freshwater habitat strategies and actions to rebuild the

salmon and steelhead populations in the White Salmon River drainage to the desired levels of 

viability. The Plan recognizes that anadromous salmonids did not occupy the habitat 

upstream of the former Condit Dam; therefore habitat upstream of the dam was not limiting 

the population. However, now that the river upstream of the dam is becoming accessible, 

and anadromous salmonids are beginning to use this habitat, factors such as head cutting at 

the head of the old reservoir and the practice of removing large woody debris could limit the 

carrying capacity of the existing habitat. The factors limiting the populations during the 

process of rebuilding will be habitat affected by dam removal, or an out-of-basin factor such 

as harvest, predation, or ocean conditions which affects the rate of population growth.

Habitat downstream of the dam currently affects salmon production. With the removal of

Condit Dam, the habitat downstream of the dam has changed dramatically and the habitat 

within the footprint of the existing reservoir may be of very low quality. Restoration of the 

habitat in those areas will be a priority.

Restoration of upstream habitats is also included in this Plan. Salmonids will eventually 

fully occupy the upstream habitats. Immediate initiation of restoration activities in the 

upstream habitats will ensure that quality habitat is available as the populations grow.

Maintenance and protection of existing high quality habitats to ensure no net loss in quantity 

or quality of existing available habitat can also be an important element in providing for the 

development of salmonid populations in the basin. Land use planning, implementation of 

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

voluntary commitments are potential tools for protecting and maintaining high quality 

habitat.

The Plan defines four freshwater habitat strategies: 1) gain information needed to identify 

and prioritize habitat actions that will provide the greatest opportunity to contribute to 

recovery, 2) restore mainstem habitat downstream of Buck Creek, 3) protect and conserve 

existing natural ecological processes, 4) improve habitat in upriver reaches. The fourth 

strategy addresses habitat improvement in upriver reaches that anadromous populations have 

recently begun to occupy. Because the fourth strategy does not address a known limiting 

factor, it is therefore a broad-sense strategy. The White Salmon Working Group defined the 

strategies and actions through review and analysis of currently available information. Many 

reaches in the White Salmon watershed have quality habitat and functional ecological 

processes that are currently capable of supporting anadromous fish populations or have 

moderate habitat quality and quantity and the potential to become high quality habitat (White 

and Cochrane 2005; Morris 2003, 2004, 2005; Allen et al. 2006a, 2006b; White and Plumb 

2004, 2005). The strategies and actions address risks that the TRT identified in viability 

assessments for the populations.

This Plan designed the strategies and actions together to protect and improve freshwater 

habitat in the drainage and, thus, improve the potential productivity of White Salmon 

salmonid populations. The Plan’s actions to restore passage and habitat also expect to 

benefit other anadromous and resident species, including cutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey 
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-10

(Lampetra tridentata), a candidate for ESA listing and an important food source for members 

of the YN. Table 6-2 summarizes the strategies and actions related to improvement of 

freshwater habitat. Table 6-3 summarizes proposed habitat related actions associated with 

the fourth strategy: improve habitat that anadromous populations may eventually occupy.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-11

Table 6-2. Primary biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to improve habitat in the White 

Salmon River watershed

Biological Objective Species Full Description

VSP

Parameter 

Addressed

Actions and Existing Strategies

Gain information needed 

to identify and prioritize 

habitat actions that will 

provide the greatest 

opportunity to contribute 

to recovery

All species Complete habitat surveys to help 

prioritize restoration needs and measure 

select habitat attributes above and below 

Condit Dam to document changes 

associated with removal of the dam as 

well as documenting time to recovery

All An assessment of existing conditions 

is needed to prioritize recovery efforts

Restore mainstem habitat 

downstream of Buck 

Creek

All species The effects of dam removal can only be 

estimated. With the dam removed, 

surveys will need to be conducted to a) 

document the habitat conditions 

immediately after removal, b) document 

changes in habitat over time, and c) 

identify and prioritize habitat restoration 

projects

All Restore habitat through the 

implementation of PacifiCorp’s 

Decommission Management Plans

Complete surveys following dam 

removal. Identify and implement 

priority actions for habitat restoration 

such as bank stabilization of 

restoration of native vegetation.

Protect and conserve 

existing natural ecological 

processes.

All species Protection and conservation of existing 

habitat will ensure that quality habitat is 

available as populations grow and will 

help to avoid additional impacts to 

habitats currently in use

All • Land use planning to minimize 

anthropogenic effects

• Land acquisition and conservation

• Adoption and management of 

conservation agreements

• Application of BM P BMPs

• Public outreach to educate river 

uses and others
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-12

Biological Objective Species Full Description

VSP

Parameter 

Addressed

Actions and Existing Strategies

Restore riparian 

vegetation along stream 

sections that exceed state 

standards for temperature

All species Some stream segments within the 

expected range of anadromous salmonid 

distribution are known to be excessively 

warm. Since it takes time to grow trees 

that will eventually provide shade,

planting of trees and implementing other 

programs to restore and protect riparian 

conditions is desirable in the near term

All • Identify stream segments that are 

excessively warm within the 

expected anadromous salmonid 

distribution

• Where riparian trees are sparse, 

implement programs to increase 

the density of the riparian 

vegetation

• Implement programs to protect 

existing riparian vegetation

Table 6-3. Biological objectives, management strategies, and actions to improve habitat in the upper White Salmon River

watershed

Biological 

Objective Species Full Description

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed

Actions and Strategies

Additional Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions Addressing Likely Future Limiting Habitat Factors and Habitat Quality

Improve habitat in 

upriver reaches

All 

populations

Protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes that support 

the viability of populations and 

their primary life history 

strategies throughout their life 

cycle

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck 

Creek, White Salmon River 

(Buck Creek to Husum Falls), 

All Parameters • Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition and conservation

• Adopt and manage conservation agreements

• Consistently apply BMP BMPs and existing laws to protect and 

conserve natural ecological processes

• Provide public outreach to educate river uses and others
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-13

Biological 

Objective Species Full Description

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed

Actions and Strategies

Spring Creek

All 

populations

Gain information needed to 

identify and prioritize habitat 

actions that will provide the 

greatest opportunity to 

contribute to recovery

Priority locations: Watershed 

areas above Buck Creek, with 

emphasis on the mainstem

All • Conduct habitat surveys to help prioritize restoration needs

• Implement projects to improve habitat

All 

populations

Restore passage and 

connectivity to habitats blocked 

or impaired by artificial barriers

Priority locations: Buck Creek

Abundance

Productivity

Spatial 

Structure

• Remove or replace barriers blocking or impairing passage including 

dams, dikes, road culverts, and irrigation structures

• Provide screening at 100 percent of irrigation diversions

• Replace screens that do not meet criteria

All 

populations

Reduce nutrient loads; Nutrient 

levels in the White Salmon Basin

are high (White and Plumb 2005; 

White and Cochrane 2005). The 

nutrient enrichment may 

decrease juvenile or adult fish 

survival. A rehabilitation 

strategy is recommended. 

Monitoring will help determine 

if actions taken have improved 

the situation

Abundance

Productivity

Spatial 

Structure

• Reduce runoff from septic tanks

• Reduce nutrient runoff from dairies and agricultural lands

All 

populations

Improve floodplain connectivity 

and function and channel 

migration processes

Abundance

Productivity

• Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels

• Restore wet meadows

• Reconnect floodplain to channel
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-14

Biological 

Objective Species Full Description

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed

Actions and Strategies

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck 

Creek, White Salmon River 

(Buck Creek to Husum Falls),

Spring Creek

Spatial 

Structure

• Relocate or improve floodplain infrastructure and roads

• Conduct public awareness and education about restoration efforts

All 

populations

Improve channel structure and 

complexity

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck 

Creek, White Salmon River 

(Buck Creek to Husum Falls), 

Spring Creek

Abundance

Productivity

• Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds

• Stabilize streambanks

• Restore natural channel form

All 

populations

Improve riparian condition and 

LWD recruitment 

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck 

Creek, White Salmon River 

(Buck Creek to Husum Falls), 

Spring Creek

Abundance

Productivity

• Restore natural riparian vegetative communities

• Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery

• Eradicate invasive plants species from riparian areas

Steelhead

Spring 

Chinook 

salmon

Coho salmon

Reduce anthropogenic effects on 

hydrograph to provide 

appropriate flows during critical 

periods

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck Creek

Abundance

Productivity

• Implement agricultural water conservation measures

• Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency

• Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in 

strategies above

• Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture, and grazing practices and to road 

management

• Protect and/or rehabilitate springs

• Increase pool habitat

• Restore wetlands and other water holding capacity on plateau
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-15

Biological 

Objective Species Full Description

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed

Actions and Strategies

All 

populations

Reduce summer water 

temperatures

Priority locations: Rattlesnake 

Creek, Indian Creek, Buck Creek

Abundance

Productivity

• Improve riparian vegetation

• Reduce sediment inputs to streams
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-16

6.2.1 High Priority Reaches for Habitat Protection/Restoration 

and Proposed Actions

The White Salmon Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004) identifies the following areas as high 

priority reaches for protection and restoration (based on anticipated potential distribution):

• Steelhead habitats are likely concentrated in the White Salmon River mainstem 

upstream to Husum Falls and in Rattlesnake Creek. The reach between Husum Falls 

and Big Brother Falls, RM 16.2, may also contain potential habitat. Rattlesnake 

Creek has an abundance of rainbow trout as well as numerous restoration 

opportunities.

• Spring Chinook salmon will likely concentrate in habitats in the mainstem reaches 

downstream of BZ Falls, RM 12.4. This habitat area would include the reaches 

downstream of the former Condit Dam, the footprint of the reservoir, and reaches 

between Buck Creek and BZ Falls. With the dam’s removal, significant, high priority 

restoration opportunities exist.

• Coho salmon would likely utilize both the lower river and the upper river habitats,

including the tributaries (Rattlesnake, Spring, and Buck creeks).

• Fall Chinook salmon are likely to concentrate in areas downstream of Condit Dam, 

and upstream as far as Husum Falls after passage resumes.

• Chum salmon are likely to concentrate near the mouth of the White Salmon River.

The following areas rank as the highest priorities for habitat restoration. Reasons for their 

ranking and actions proposed to address limiting factors and threats are summarized below 

based on information provided in White and Cochrane (2005), Morris (2003, 2004, 2005), 

Allen et al. (2006a, 2006b), White and Plumb (2004, 2005), EDT modeling results (Allen 

and Connolly 2005), the White Salmon Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004), and Klickitat Lead 

Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy (Klickitat Lead Entity 2005).

White Salmon River Mainstem - Site of Condit Dam, RM 3.3

Achieving multiple DPS/ESU population recovery goals depends largely on the success of 

efforts to restore passage to upriver spawning and rearing habitats and improve flow and 

habitat conditions in the lower river.

Actions:

• The complete removal of Condit Dam to provide unimpeded upstream passage by 

adult and juvenile salmonids.

• Improve flow and habitat conditions in the lower White Salmon River.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-17

White Salmon River Mainstem - Mouth to Condit Dam

After breaching, sediment loads below the dam site have increased, directly impacting fall 

Chinook salmon present in the reach at the time of dam removal. Sediment loads will impact 

potential spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, chum and coho salmon in the 

lower White Salmon River, and will impact the migration corridors for all anadromous 

species. An assessment of conditions after dam removal will determine the best approach to 

restoration.

Actions:

• Restore habitat through the implementation of PacifiCorp’s Decommissioning 

Management Plan.

• Assess limiting habitat features due to dam removal and restore habitat as needed to 

provide for spawning, rearing, and adult holding and migration.

• Place LWD and gravel as appropriate.

White Salmon River Mainstem - Condit Dam to Buck Creek

This reach currently contains the section under the former Northwestern Reservoir. It should 

provide important habitat for salmon and steelhead spawning, rearing, migration, and adult 

holding after the effects of the Condit Dam removal are addressed. Large quantities of 

sediment have accumulated in the reservoir since the original owners built the dam in 1913. 

With the dam’s removal, it may require years for the river to establish a stable channel. The 

banks of the river will tend to slough and erode until they reach a stable angle of repose and 

attain sufficient vegetation to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes. The time needed to reestablish a stable channel with clean gravels is unknown. Recovery planners and fish 

managers could take actions to hasten restoration. Biologists cannot identify the precise set 

of actions with any confidence until they evaluate the habitat conditions post-dam removal.

Actions:

• Restore habitat through the implementation of PacifiCorp’s Decommissioning 

Management Plan.

o Assess habitat-limiting features and identify restoration needs.

o Implement projects to restore habitats, including planting of native vegetation.

White Salmon River Mainstem - Buck Creek to Husum Falls

This reach extends from the headwaters of the former Northwestern Lake to Husum Falls. 

The reach has high potential for salmon and steelhead spawning, rearing, and adult holding. 

USFWS also listed the mainstem White Salmon River up to Husum Falls as proposed critical 

habitat for bull trout; that same habitat is important for coastal cutthroat trout. Habitat in the 

reach generally remains in good condition. Therefore, recovery planners proposed no 

actions, though as use by anadromous fish increases, an assessment of the habitat in this 

section should be completed.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-18

White Salmon River Husum to BZ Falls

There is little data available regarding habitat conditions between Husum and BZ Falls. This 

reach would likely support coho salmon and steelhead and possible spring Chinook salmon. 

Biologists generally think the reach is in good condition, making restoration in this reach a 

lower priority. The primary action for this section would be to assess habitat features and 

restore habitat as needed to provide for spawning, rearing, and adult holding and migration.

Rattlesnake Creek

Rattlesnake Creek and its tributaries provide significant spawning and rearing habitat for 

rainbow trout and likely highly productive habitat for coho salmon and steelhead once fish 

can pass to these upstream areas. The reach has low quality pools, excessive fine sediment in 

some spawning gravels, limited instream cover, and high summer stream temperatures in 

some areas (Morris 2003, 2004, 2005, White and Plumb; 2004, 2005, White and Cochrane 

2005, Allen et al. 2006a, 2006b). Alders dominate riparian areas and limit long-term wood 

recruitment potential (Allen et al. 2006a; 2006b).

Actions:

• Protect functional riparian areas.

• Place LWD and other instream structure as appropriate to create pools, increase 

cover, and retain spawning gravels.

• Restore floodplain connectivity.

• Restore wetlands and other water holding capacity on the plateau through use of 

check dams and other methods.

• Establish conifers in riparian areas.

• Plant trees to reduce sediment input from banks.

• Implement measures to reduce cattle impacts to stream.

Buck Creek

Buck Creek provides potential spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. 

Biologists believe that habitat quality is currently limited because of insufficient pools and 

spawning gravels, low summer flows, and unscreened agricultural diversion. No data 

currently supports these suppositions, except for that relating to temperature. Available data 

indicate that temperatures in Buck Creek meet WA state standards (White and Plumb 2004; 

White and Cochrane 2005).

Actions:

• Conduct habitat studies to identify limiting factors within Buck Creek.

• Place LWD and other instream structure, as appropriate, to create pools and retain 

spawning gravels.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-19

• Assess instream flows and initiate actions to improve base flow.

• Screen agricultural diversion and improve passage at irrigation diversion.

Spring Creek

Spring Creek may provide productive habitat for reintroduced anadromous coho salmon and 

steelhead runs. Production potential is currently limited because of decreased habitat 

diversity and increased sediment. Biologists have not evaluated the factors limiting habitat in 

Spring Creek.

Actions:

• Conduct assessments to identify factors 

• Protect or improve instream wood and functional riparian areas as necessary.

• Place LWD as appropriate.

6.3 Hatcheries

Artificial production may play a role in the recovery of salmon and steelhead populations in 

the White Salmon. The White Salmon Working Group has proposed a strategy to allow for 

the natural re-colonization of the White Salmon River after Condit Dam removal. As 

described above in section 6.1, biologists will evaluate the natural re-colonization of the 

newly accessible habitat and, if escapement and productivity goals are not being achieved, 

then the White Salmon Working Group or a new recovery planning body will consider

additional strategies using artificial propagation. Innovative programs, such as those 

employed by the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, as described in the Klickitat 

Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan (YN 2008), would be consulted and appropriate 

methodologies adopted (Table 6-4).

6.4 Harvest-Related Strategies and Actions

WDFW will continue to manage non-tribal fisheries for selective fisheries that target marked 

hatchery salmon and steelhead, requiring the release of unmarked (wild) fish. Overall 

impacts are very low for these tributary fisheries, with impacts generally less than 5 percent 

of the naturally produced fish (NPCC 2004).

In 2009, the recreational fishing regulations in the White Salmon River prohibited the 

retention of unmarked Chinook salmon from April 1 to June 30 and closed the river to 

retention of all Chinook salmon 1⁄2 mile above the Hwy 14 Bridge from October 1 to 

December 31. Fishing regulations prohibit retention of wild (unmarked) coho salmon and 

unmarked Chinook jack salmon (Chinook salmon less than 24 inches) in the White Salmon 

River annually from July 1 to March 31. Fishing regulations also prohibit retention of chum 

salmon in tributary recreational fisheries.

Mainstem harvest will continue to be managed through the U.S. v. Oregon process, and will 

be subject to consultation with NMFS. Co-managers will incorporate enhanced public 

education and non-tribal fisheries along with new selective fisheries regulations to ensure 

understanding and compliance.
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-20

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 U.S. 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 BIA and Department of Commerce (NMFS), 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.

A new U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement has been completed, and NMFS has 

completed a section 7 Biological Opinion addressing the impacts of the fisheries 

management action and hatchery production in the new agreement (NMFS 2008c). The new 

management agreement will cover CR fisheries management and hatchery production actions 

from 2008 to 2017.

During the last 10-15 years, U.S. v. Oregon, the CR Fish Management Plan and successor 

agreements that contain restraints on the fisheries necessitated by ESA listings have managed 

harvest regulations. The agreements quantify and allocate between tribal and non-tribal 

fishing subject to ESA-imposed constraints for listed species (Table 6-4).

6.5 Hydro-Related Strategies and Actions

Actions to address out-of-watershed hydro-related limiting factors and threats are included in 

the recently released 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008b). (Available at

https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=27149)

(accessed April 11, 2012).

Within the White Salmon River watershed, removal of Condit Dam will achieve the goals of 

restoring flows to the 1.1-mile bypass reach; recruiting gravel to the lower 3 miles of river;

and, in the long-term, restoring MCR steelhead spawning habitat. Removal will also provide 

unimpeded movement of adult and juvenile lower Columbia salmonids (fall Chinook salmon, 

coho, and chum salmon) in the White Salmon River (Table 6-4).
ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed — June 2013

6-21

Table 6-4. Summary table addressing hatchery, harvest and hydrosystem-related recovery strategies and actions

Priority Strategies Populations Affected

and Addressed Key Types of Actions VSP Parameters 

Addressed

Potential Limiting Factors

Addressed

Hatchery

Restore natural production into 

historically utilized habitats, 

including blocked areas above the 

former Condit Dam

All populations • Monitor escapement and natural re-colonization 

of historical habitat 

• Develop preferred option from reintroduction 

plan based on monitoring of natural recolonization

All parameters Lack of native stock

Harvest

Manage harvest for low impact 

fisheries and reduce harvest-related 

adverse effects in those fisheries that 

have significant impacts

All populations • Manage harvest for low impact fisheries 

• Adjust tributary harvest regulations in areas 

where harvest significantly impacts salmon and 

steelhead population growth

Abundance

Productivity

Commercial, recreational, and 

tribal fisheries in ocean, mainstem 

CR and tributaries

Hydrosystem Issues and Mainstem Predation

Maintain or improve hydropower 

operations and facilities at 

Bonneville Dam to enhance salmon 

and steelhead survival

All populations • Maintain surface passage routes to improve 

juvenile passage at Bonneville Dam

• Decrease water travel time during smolt 

outmigration

• Improve operation of adult passage 

• Maintain high standards for adult fish passage at 

Bonneville Dam

All parameters Hydrosystem development and 

operations in mainstem CR alter 

steelhead migration conditions and 

delay passage.

Reduce predation on, and 

competition between, salmonids

All populations • Reduce predation by pinnipeds

• Reduce predation by piscivores

• Reduce predation by cormorants

• Reduce predation by and relocate Caspian terns

Abundance

Productivity

Hydrosystem development and 

operations in mainstem CR increase 

predation on, and competition 

between, salmonids.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

7-1

7 Implementation and Cost Estimates

NMFS recognizes that there are significant uncertainties regarding expected future habitat 

conditions, that actions will need to restore habitat, and that actions require successful

recolonization of salmonid populations in the White Salmon River watershed. NMFS is 

committed to an ongoing effort to address these uncertainties. This will require rigorous 

application of an adaptive management process that identifies key uncertainties, proposes 

competing hypotheses, and uses recovery actions and appropriate research and monitoring to 

test these hypotheses and adjust management accordingly.

Recovery is achievable only through the combined and coordinated actions of Federal and 

state agencies, tribes, and local governments, and with the participation of non-profit 

organizations, the business sector, and citizens. Collectively, NMFS refers to these parties as 

implementing partners. It will be essential that a collaborative implementation structure be 

set up to improve communication and work on a shared sense of priorities.

7.1 Implementation

The Washington Gorge Implementation Team (WAGIT) will coordinate implementation of 

the recovery plan for the White Salmon River watershed. The WAGIT is comprised of 

Klickitat County, the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Geological Service, NMFS, the Central 

Klickitat and Underwood Conservation Districts, and various other stakeholders such as the 

Middle Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group. Representatives of the White 

Salmon Working Group are also participating on the WAGIT.

Implementation is being facilitated through the various existing programs in the area, 

including harvest management programs, the Yakama Nation Fisheries Program, 

Washington’s Lead Entity Process, watershed planning and implementation processes 

initiated under state regulations and coordinated through the Klickitat County, various state 

and local habitat and watershed programs, and the various programs administered by the 

conservation districts. The WAGIT chose to draw upon and work within the many ongoing 

programs rather than developing a parallel, potentially duplicative process.

A balance between the biological benefit of a recovery action, its cost, and feasibility of 

implementation provides the basis for the WAGIT prioritization framework. Projects that 

address primary limiting factors, have high biological benefit to listed fish, are relatively 

inexpensive, and are feasible, receive highest funding priority. Projects with high cost, low 

biological benefit to listed fish species, and relatively low feasibility receive lowest funding 

priority.

Funding sources for salmon and steelhead recovery actions in the Columbia basin vary.

They include: 

• Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) (states and tribes)

• Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) (a combination of PCSRF and Washington 

State funds)

• Columbia Basin Fish Accords

• Congressional appropriations (Federal agencies)
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

7-2

• State appropriations (state agencies)

• NPCC Fish and Wildlife program (states and tribes)

• Federal/state grants

• Non-profit organization programs and grants

7.2 Costs

NMFS, in coordination with the WAGIT and the White Salmon Working Group, provided

cost estimates for implementing the White Salmon River Recovery Plan. The team

developed cost estimates for a range of actions necessary to successfully reestablish 

anadromous fish populations in the White Salmon River watershed. There are numerous 

research, monitoring, and evaluation actions, specified in this Plan. Completed RM&E 

studies will help identify priority projects. In the absence of needed information, NMFS 

developed interim cost estimates for all potential recovery actions. NMFS and the area 

biologists estimated that RM&E actions will cost roughly $1,540,000 over a 5-year period. 

Chapter 8 provides further discussion of monitoring. Implementing PacifiCorp’s 

decommissioning plans for Condit Dam is estimated at $0.9 to $1.1 million. Habitat actions 

related to the dam decommissioning could cost up to $15,100.000. The total cost over a 5-

year period for restoring anadromous populations in the White Salmon River is estimated to 

be $16,781,000 (Table 7-1). More detailed information regarding these costs is provided in 

Appendix IV, White Salmon River Implementation Schedule: Summary of Actions and 

Potential Costs to Restore White Salmon River Anadromous Fish Populations and Their 

Habitat.

Table 7-1. Summary of potential costs to restore the 

White Salmon River fish populations and their habitat

ACTION CATEGORY COST

Implementation of 

PacifiCorp’s 

decommissioning plans

 $900,000 to 1,100,000 

RM&E $1,540,000

Habitat Restoration and 

other actions 15,100,000 

Hydrosystem and Mainstem 

Predation Not Estimated

TOTAL $16,781,000

The action categories listed in Appendix IV are derived from Chapter 6 Recovery Strategy 

and Actions. In many cases the specific actions provided in Appendix IV offer more detail 

than that described in Chapter 6. This is particularly true with regard to data collection and 

population monitoring. As discussed in Chapter 6, there is uncertainty regarding the primary 

factors that will limit the White Salmon populations in the long-term. Proposed data 

collection will fill those data gaps and provide direction for specific habitat restoration 

actions.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-3

8 Monitoring, Research, and Evaluation for Adaptive 

Management

The various research and monitoring efforts proposed and underway in the White Salmon watershed

regarding salmon and steelhead reintroduction, habitat restoration, and other activities require 

comprehensive empirical monitoring data on fish populations and habitat to identify appropriate 

project actions and strategies, select suitable sites and priority locations for actions, populate 

habitat/production capacity modeling efforts (such as EDT and All H’s Analyzer [AHA]), and inform 

adaptive management for the salmonid recovery plan. Needed is additional information on fish 

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

population parameters, as well as on population limiting factors. White Salmon recovery also requires 

a coordinated monitoring program to meet these various needs, as well as to help direct and evaluate 

the recovery effort.

8.1 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. To simply identify cause-and-effect relationships 

between any given management action and the 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? 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 regarding 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 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-4

Guidance (May 1, 2007) http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESARecovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012).

7. Prioritize research needs for critical uncertainties, testing assumptions, etc.

8. Identify entities responsible for implementation.

8.2 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management means taking an experimental approach to a complex task, making 

one’s assumptions clear, and continuously evaluating them in the light of new information. 

Adaptive management works best when the design of performance data collection and 

evaluation methods helps the information managers make sound decisions. As outlined in 

the NMFS Adaptive Management guidance document, several types of monitoring are 

needed: 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 (or a DPS) and its component populations, as well as changes in 

status or significance of the threats to the ESU (or the DPS); 3) effectiveness monitoring, 

which tests hypotheses and determines (via research) whether an action is effective and 

should be continued. In addition, it’s important to build research to illuminate the many 

unknowns in salmon recovery - the “critical uncertainties” - that make management decisions 

all the more difficult.

NMFS’ guidance document presents a decision framework (Figure 8-1) that can guide the 

design of a RM&E plan. The framework contains: 1) questions regarding ESU/DPS status 

(biological viability criteria); 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 necessary to evaluate ESU/DPS 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 DPS and the risks posed by threats to the DPS. NMFS designed the decisionquestion sets to elicit the information it needs to make delisting decisions. For recovery 

planners, the framework can guide future decisions about management strategies and actions 

aimed at achieving recovery goals.

The White Salmon monitoring and evaluation program will build on existing programs 

designed for monitoring tributary habitat in the White Salmon. The White Salmon 

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; 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.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-3

Figure 8-1. NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-4

8.3 Critical Uncertainties

Data gaps important to recovery can be divided into two major categories: 1) those that deal 

with critical uncertainties; 2) gaps in knowledge about the linkages between specific actions 

and their effects on habitat factors and VSP parameters. Monitoring and evaluation will fill

some of the data gaps; research will fill others.

Critical uncertainties, the unknown aspects of environmental conditions vital to salmonid 

survival, are a major focus of the RM&E program. To establish linkages between specific 

actions and resultant environmental effects will require monitoring. 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 White Salmon watershed be reviewed by fish ecologists, geologists, 

hydrologists, and other experts familiar with the recovery region.

The Plan expects that specific benchmark values for the VSP parameters will be refined 

during Plan implementation based on new information that addresses current uncertainties.

There are numerous out-of-basin uncertainties. The geographic areas that constitute the 

multiple ESU/DPSs encompass a large part of northern Oregon and a large part of southern

Washington draining into the Columbia River. There are multiple populations across 

species. This context is significant in terms of uncertainties:

• Under the ESA, successful recovery of listed species as defined by NMFS requires 

achieving specific levels of productivity for populations within the entire ESU/DPS, 

not only acceptable productivity within any single basin that is a part of the 

ESU/DPS. Local communities in different watersheds/basins across local and state 

boundaries are dependent upon each other for successful delisting of these species.

• Of the seven necessary components of an ESA recovery plan, only three are the 

responsibility of in-basin parties - for which there is currently no collaborative 

governing board. The other components (e.g., hydropower operations, harvest, 

hatcheries, macro-economics, estuarine conditions), though significant to impacts on 

overall mortality, involve factors that are outside of the White Salmon watershed and 

actions taken within the watershed do not directly these factors. To measure the 

increases/decreases in productivity of the target populations before they migrate out 

of the watershed will require monitoring.

8.3.1 Research

As noted earlier, unknown aspects of environmental conditions vital to salmonid survival are 

termed “critical uncertainties.” Critical uncertainty research targets specific issues that 

constrain effective recovery plan implementation. This includes evaluations of cause-andeffect relationships between fish, limiting factors and actions that address specific threats 

related to limiting factors. Listed below are research actions to assess the effects of the 

uncertainties on recovery of listed fish species in the White Salmon watershed. Research 

actions address both in-basin and out-of-basin factors and are not all-inclusive. The 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-5

following lists in-watershed and out-of-watershed research needs. This list derives from a 

longer list identifying potential research needs for other basins within the ESUs and DPS.

8.3.2 In-Watershed Research Needs

• Determine fish abundance, origin, and production data after decommissioning of 

Condit Dam.

• Determine mainstem restoration needs after PacifiCorp’s decommissioning plans 

have been implemented.

• Conduct habitat/population assessment work in Buck Creek.

• Track sediment downstream of Buck Creek through time.

• Monitor water quality after dam decommissioning.

• Assess impacts of dam removal on mainstem and tributary mouths above project area.

• Address potential issues at in-lieu fishing site after dam decommissioning.

• The White Salmon River is a thermal refuge. How important is this? What impact 

will this have on salmon and steelhead? Steelhead move into the White Salmon River 

to seek cold water refuge when mainstem Columbia River temperatures increase. 

What impact has dam-removal had on this condition?

• 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.

• Test assumptions and sensitivity of EDT and other model runs.

• Determine relative performance (survival and productivity) and reproductive success 

of naturally producing species.

• Assess population structure.

• Determine the effects of exotic species on recovery and the feasibility of actions to 

eradicate or control numbers of exotic species.

• Improve the understanding of the range of interactions between resident and 

anadromous forms of O. mykiss. The nature of the relationship is inherently complex 

and needs further evaluation, especially as recolonization begins to occur.

• Investigate instream flow needs for the mainstem White Salmon and tributaries that 

will support anadromous fish.

8.3.3 Out-of-Watershed Research Needs

• Monitor harvest levels.

• Develop better methods to estimate harvest of naturally produced salmon and 

steelhead and indirect harvest mortalities in freshwater and ocean fisheries.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-6

• Assess the interactions between hatchery and naturally produced salmon and 

steelhead.

• Assess if hatchery programs increase the incidence of disease and predation on 

naturally produced fish.

• Evaluate increased predation risks from native and non-native fish, birds, and 

mammals.

These should be coordinated with NOAA’s CR Estuary Recovery Plan Module (NMFS 

2007) and the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c).

8.4 Monitoring

The Plan includes direction for RM&E to: define unknown population characteristics, 

contribute to regional monitoring efforts, better direct efforts within the watershed, and 

assess the effectiveness of future actions.

Research and monitoring are designed to test implementation, validation, status/trend, and 

effectiveness. Implementation monitoring determines if the appropriate entities implemented 

the planned actions as intended and whether all implementation objectives are on schedule 

(section 8.1, Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation program to Support Adaptive 

Management). Status/trend monitoring determines the current conditions (status) of the 

populations and their habitats and their changes over time (section 8.2, Adaptive 

Management). Effectiveness monitoring focuses on whether the recovery actions changed 

the environment and/or the VSP parameters (section 8.3, Critical Uncertainties). Validation 

monitoring determines whether the fundamental ecological assumptions underlying the 

recovery plans are true. Prominent among these assumptions are the effects of specific 

environmental conditions on survival and abundance of listed fish species embodied in the 

EDT model. Researchers will determine which assumptions need testing once recovery 

planners fill the critical data gaps (section 8.3, Critical Uncertainties).

Conditions outside the watershed will affect and inform actions, research, and monitoring 

within the watershed. Out-of-basin conditions do and will have a significant effect on the 

success of recovery of species within the watershed. These factors include commercial 

harvest, sport and tribal harvest, conditions in the mainstem CR (including hydroelectric 

operations), and conditions in the estuary and ocean including short and longer term cycles in 

ocean conditions. The regional RM&E program developed under the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion will measure status, trends, and effectiveness of actions in this area.

A recently formed multi-agency Condit Technical Working Group (now White Salmon 

Working Group) met in early 2007 to discuss RM&E issues (and actions to resolve them) in 

light of the proposed removal of Condit Dam. The section “In-Watershed Research Needs”

(below) the RM&E questions drafted during this meeting are detailed further.

Key Question #1: What is the source of colonizing salmon and steelhead? 

Collect genetic samples after dam decommissioning and compare with samples collected 

prior to dam removal using genetic analysis.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-7

Key Question #2: Has the abundance and origin of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout 

spawners changed between pre- and post- dam removal? 

Compare pre-removal abundance of spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, 

steelhead, and coho salmon with abundance post dam removal.

Key Question #3: Has smolt production increased after dam removal?

Compare smolt estimates pre-dam removal for Chinook salmon fry, and coho, Chinook 

salmon, and steelhead smolts (USGS) with smolt population estimates after dam removal.

Key Question #4: Has the habitat changed after dam removal?

Compare bathymetric surveys below Condit in the early 1990s with post-removal 

surveys. Conduct cross-sectional profiles just above reservoir and near mouth to 

document down-cutting and sediment transport.

Described below is a general framework for monitoring within the White Salmon watershed.

8.4.1 Implementation Monitoring

Effective RM&E requires implementation and compliance monitoring checks to determine

whether action entities carried out the activities as planned and whether action entities met

specified criteria as a direct result of an implemented action. Scientists will monitor recovery 

actions within the White Salmon watershed to assess whether action entities implemented the 

actions as planned. This monitoring will consist of an administrative review and will not 

require environmental or biological measurements.

Implementation monitoring will address the types, numbers, and locations of actions 

implemented and how much area or stream length each action affected. Indicators for 

implementation monitoring will include visual inspections, photographs, and field notes on 

numbers, location, quality, and area affected by an action. For example, if fencing 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.

Comparing field notes with the specifications in the plans or proposals (detailed descriptions 

of engineering and design criteria) will determine success. Thus, design plans and/or 

proposals will serve as the benchmark for implementation monitoring. Evaluations will

describe in detail any deviations from specified engineering and design criteria.

8.4.2 Status/Trend Monitoring

Status and trend monitoring is a compilation of data based descriptions of existing 

conditions. To be useful in decision-making, a scientist reduces the raw data, or metrics, to a 

more directly applicable form or indicator. For example, if the question is “What is the 

annual spawning population-size of steelhead in the White Salmon River?” The indicator 

would be total spawning numbers of steelhead over one season for the entire river basin. The 

metric, or directly measured thing, however, would be something quite different, perhaps 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-8

steelhead redds sighted on weekly passes over known spawning grounds. Thus, a scientist 

would process the metric to translate it from the metric data type (e.g., redds) into the 

indicator data type (e.g., spawners) and then summarize to generate the indicator required 

(e.g., from a list of weekly counts on spawning grounds to an annual total for the watershed).

A future collaborative board directing implementation will develop a program to monitor the 

status and trend of salmon and steelhead and their habitats throughout the White Salmon 

watershed. The program will utilize guidelines developed in the Pacific Northwest Aquatic 

Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and the Collaborative System-wide Monitoring and 

Evaluation Project (CSMEP).

8.4.3 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring specifically addresses cause-and-effect questions. Demonstrating 

the direct and indirect impact of management actions requires supporting all steps in a logical 

chain that connects the action to its expected impact. This chain is rarely short and usually 

contains several hypotheses. For this reason, it’s better to build the effectiveness monitoring 

into the recovery action strategies with, for example, pilot-scale tests or other methods 

carefully thought out beforehand.

Not all recovery actions the Plan recommends need monitoring to determine effectiveness. 

However, it is important that scientists assess a sufficient number of replicates of each “type” 

of action to assess effectiveness. To the extent possible, monitoring for recovery action 

effectiveness will use the Before-After-Control-Impact 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. It is critically 

important to coordinate the effectiveness monitoring programs with status/trend monitoring 

and effectiveness monitoring within the hydro sector.

Monitoring and evaluation will only provide the answers to the questions the RM&E designs

intended to address. They do not provide the framework for revising questions that are ill 

posed. Evaluating the assumptions upon which the recovery planners built their strategy or 

incorporated learning into future action and strategy decisions is the role of adaptive 

management.

8.5 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 White Salmon watershed. Specifically, this 

approach will incorporate strategies, indicators, and protocols described in the 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, the upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy, the 

Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy, and CSMEP. The development of other 

regional monitoring programs may result in modifications to the monitoring programs used 

in the White Salmon watershed. These other programs, in various states of development, 

include such approaches as PNAMP. As these programs develop more fully, they will 

provide guidance on valid sampling and statistical designs, measuring protocols, and data 

management. Scientists may use this information to refine and improve the existing 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-9

monitoring and evaluation programs in the White Salmon watershed. The intent is to make 

monitoring and evaluation programs in the White Salmon watershed consistent with 

programs throughout the Columbia basin as well as the ESUs and DPS.

8.6 Coordination

Many entities have been or will be implementing recovery actions within and downstream of 

the White Salmon watershed. Monitoring programs to coordinate with include:

• Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries project

• YN Monitoring

• NOAA Fisheries RM&E program 

• Washington SRFB program

• PACFISH/INFISH Monitoring program

• Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring program

• USFWS, USGS, and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), monitoring programs

• WDFW and Washington Department of Ecology monitoring programs

• Washington Department of Ecology Watershed Assessment and Management Process 

(Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.82)

• Local UCD monitoring

It is critical that recovery planners consult with these programs to emphasize utility, reduce 

redundancy, increase efficiency, and minimize costs.

8.7 Evaluation Schedule

While the White Salmon watershed currently has no collaborative regional board guiding 

work, a regional board for the Washington Gorge Management Unit could develop as a 

follow-up to recovery planning. An appropriate first check-in for the watershed is 3 years 

from the adoption of the Plan. At this time, the board or co-managers should review efforts 

within the watershed - whether or not they have obtained funding and initiated actions. At 

years 5, 8, and 12 further evaluations should occur in order to coordinate with other 

watersheds in the ESUs and the middle Columbia Steelhead DPS. Reviews at this time 

should start with funding and implementation effectiveness. If funding and implementation 

have taken place previously, the RM&E program should review their effectiveness and 

measure progress toward the overall implementation of projects within White Salmon. The 

evaluation should place progress, or the lack thereof, within context of all the ESUs and the 

DPS.

The first major step in the adaptive management program is to obtain 5-year implementation 

schedules from each of the partners that describe the tasks, schedules, priorities, and 

estimated cost to implement the recovery actions. The RM&E program will request that each 

of the Federal and state agencies, tribal and local governments, and non-governmental 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

8-10

partners prepare an implementation schedule for their recovery actions. A regional 

implementation schedule covering the entire White Salmon Management Unit will combine 

these individual schedules. The recovery partners will complete their initial schedules in the 

summer of 2010; they will prepare new schedules annually incorporating changes or 

modifications based on implementation and effectiveness evaluations. NOAA Fisheries 5-

year ESA status reviews should coordinated with additional evaluations of the status of 

viability attributes limiting factors and new information critical uncertainties. The White 

Salmon Recovery Plan should incorporate the results of these programs into adaptive 

management and coordinate with other middle Columbia steelhead recovery plans, the 

recovery plan estuary, and harvest modules for the CR, as well as the 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion.

8.8 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

The information in this chapter provides a framework for the development of a salmonid 

RM&E and adaptive management plan for the White Salmon Basin. When NMFS finalizes 

the recovery plan’s goals and objectives, a process will begin to fully develop a RM&E plan

with the White Salmon Working Group and append it to the recovery plan when the recovery 

plan is completed. A multi-agency salmonid reintroduction plan for the White Salmon River 

will rely heavily on results of research guided by ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-1

9 References

Allen, M.B., P.J. Connolly, and K. Martens. 2003. Characterization of flow, temperature, 

habitat conditions, and fish populations in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Assess 

current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek associated with 

restoration efforts, 2002 Annual Report, ed., P. J. Connolly. Contract #00005068, 

Project #2001-025-00. Prepared by USGS, Western Fisheries Research Center, CR

Research Laboratory for BPA Environment, USFWS, Portland, Oregon.

Allen, M.B. and P.J. Connolly. 2005. Assessment of the White Salmon watershed using the 

EDT model. Prepared by USGS for the YN.

Allen, M.B., P.J. Connolly, C.S. Munz, and J.C. Charrier. 2006a. Assess current and 

potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek in association with restoration 

efforts. USGS Reports. 2003-2004 Annual Report, Project No. 200102500, 101 

electronic pages, BPA Report DOE/BP-00005068-4).

Allen, M.B., P.J. Connolly, C.S. Munz, and J.C. Charrier. 2006b. Assess current and 

potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek associated with restoration 

efforts. USGS Reports. 2004-2005 Annual Report, Project No. 200102500, 101 

electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00005068-4).

Allen, M.B. 2007. USGS. Personal communication.

Allen, M.B. 2008. USGS. Personal communication.

Bair, B., D. Grover, and P. Powers. 2002. Effects of the proposed Condit Dam removal on 

fish populations and habitat in the White Salmon Wild and Scenic River. March 20, 

2002. USFS.

Bakkala, R.G. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta 

(Walbaum) 1792. FAO Species Synopsis No. 41. Circular 315. U.S. Department of 

the Interior. Washington, D.C.

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 assessment for 

the MCR Steelhead DPS.

Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Bapitsta, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, 

and M.H. Schiewe . 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the 

decline and recovery of CR salmon. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-68, 8/1/2005.

Bowers, G.M. 1902. Little White Salmon Station, Washington. Report to the 

Commissioner, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-2

Bryant, F.G. 1949. A survey of the CR and its tributaries with special reference to its fishery 

resources – Part II. Washington streams from the mouth of the Columbia to and 

including the Klickitat River (Area I). USFWS, Special Service Report 62. 110p.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.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. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo, 

NMFS-NWFSC-27.

Chapman, D.W. 1981. Pristine production of anadromous salmonids-White Salmon River. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, OR. 97 pp. 

Chapman, D.W., W.S. Platts, and M. Hill. 1990. Evaluation of introduction of anadromous 

salmonids upstream from Condit Dam in the White Salmon River, Washington. 

December 20, 1990. Prepared for PacifiCorp Electric Operation by Don Chapman

Consultants Inc. Boise, Idaho.

Cobb, J.N. 1924. Diary. 17 June 1924 to 28 February 1924. Preliminary report of fishery 

work, 1924. Notes, 6 October 1924. Cobb Collection.

Connolly, P. 2003. Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek 

associated with restoration efforts; USGS Reports, 2002-2003 Annual Report, Project 

No. 200102500, 188 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00005068-2).

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. Report No. 92-20.

Counihan, T.D., J.M. Hardiman, C.E. Walker, A.L. Puls, and G.S. Holmberg. 2005. Survival 

estimates of migrant juvenile salmonids through Bonneville Dam using Radiotelemetry, 2005. Draft Annual Report of Research Prepared by USGS, Cook, 

Washington for the USACE, Portland, Oregon.

Crozier, L. and R. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential 

population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology,

75:1100-1109.

Crozier, L., R. Zabel, and A. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate change 

at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global 

Change Biology 14:236-249.

Dorcey, A.H.J., T.G. Northcote, and D.V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes 

essential to salmon? University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-3

Dubé, K., W. Megahan, and M. McCalmon. 2004. Road surface erosion model. WDNR

Olympia, WA.

Engle, R. 2012. December 3, 2012 email to Richard Turner, NMFS, regarding map of tule 

fall Chinook salmon and spring redd.

Engle, R. and J. Skalicky. 2009. Capture, transportation and reintroduction of LCR fall 

Chinook salmon in the upper White Salmon River. USFWS, CR Fisheries Program 

Office, Vancouver, Washington.

Engle, R.O., W.K. Brignon, and J. Skalicky. 2010. Evaluation of a resistance board weir in 

the White Salmon River for capture of LCR fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) for transport during the year of Condit Dam Removal. USFWS. CR 

Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, Washington.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Ambient water quality criteria 

recommendations. Information supporting the development of state and tribal 

nutrient criteria for rivers and streams in Nutrient Ecoregion III, xeric west including 

all or parts of the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, 

Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and the 

authorized Tribes within the Ecoregion. EPA Washington D.C.

Evermann, B.W. and S.E. Meek. 1898. A report upon salmon investigations in the CR 

Basin and elsewhere on the Pacific Coast in 1896. U.S. Fish Comm., Bull. 17:15-84.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2002. Final supplemental final 

environmental impact statement–Condit hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2342). 

FERC, Washington, DC, 20426.

Ferguson, J.W., G.M. Matthews, R.L. McComas, R.F. Absolon, D.A. Brege, M.H. Gessel,

and L.G. Gilbreath. 2005. Passage of adult and juvenile salmonids through Federal 

CR Power System dams. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFSNWFSC-64, 160 p.

Ford M.J. (ed.), T. Cooney, P. McElhany, N. Sands, L. Weitkamp, J. Hard, M. McClure, R. 

Kope, J. Myers, A. Albaugh, K. Barnas, D. Teel, P. Moran and J. Cowen. 2010. 

Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed under the ESA Pacific 

Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFSNWFSC-113, November 2011.

Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tschawytscha) in the CR Basin – past and present. Special scientific report –

Fisheries No. 571. USFWS, Washington D.C.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-4

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (eds). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs 

of west coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-NWFSC-66. Seattle, WA.

Haring, D. 2003. Addendum to Wind/White Salmon WRIA 29, salmonid habitat limiting 

factors analysis, (originally issued July 1999). White Salmon River Watershed.

Washington Conservation Commission.

Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile pacific salmon in the estuaries: the life support system. In

Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

High, B., C.A. Peery, and D.H. Bennett. 2006. Temporary straying of CR summer steelhead 

in cool water areas and its effect on migration rate. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135:519-

528.

Hillson, T.D. 2009. Reintroduction of LCR Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek. 2007. 

Annual Report. Project 200105300. BPA, Portland, Oregon.

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra, and D. Ortmann. 1985. Stock 

assessment of CR anadromous salmonids (2 vols.). BPA Project No. 83-335.

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent populations of 

Chinook , steelhead, and sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily Significant Units Within 

the Interior Columbia River Domain. Working Draft, July 2003.

ICTRT 2004. Preliminary guidelines for population-level abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity supporting viable salmonid populations: An update.

December 13, 2005. ICTRT Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, 

Washington.

ICTRT 2005a. 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 in the 2005 report. 

Modifications will be described in detail in a forthcoming ICTRT document.)

ICTRT 2005b. Updated population delineation in the Interior Columbia Basin. May 2005 

Technical Memorandum updating the July 2003 working draft of Independent 

Populations of Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for Listed Evolutionarily Significant 

Units within the Interior Columbia River Domain.

ICTRT 2006. Draft stock status assessments, in preparation.

ICTRT 2007a. Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia basin salmonid ESUs. 

Technical Review Draft, March 2007.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-5

ICTRT 2007b. Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia basin salmonid ESUs. 

Technical Review Draft, November 2007.

ICTRT 2008. Current status reviews: Interior Columbia basin salmon and steelhead ESUs. 

Volume III: MCR Steelhead DPS. May 2008. Draft.

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on CR Basin 

fish and wildlife. May 11, 2007.

Jenkins, K. 2006. Washington CR and tributary stream survey sampling results. 2003. CR 

Progress Report 06-02. WDFW, Vancouver, Washington.

Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991, Status 

review of the LCR coho salmon. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-202. Seattle, 

WA.

Keefer, M.L., C.T. Boggs, C.A. Perry, and C.C. Caudill. 2008. Overwintering distribution 

behavior and survival of adult summer steelhead: variability among CR populations.

N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 28:81-96.

Klickitat Lead Entity. 2005. Klickitat Lead Entity region salmon recovery strategy. 

September 2005.

Koski, K.V. 1975. The survival and fitness of two stocks of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus 

keta) from egg deposition to emergence in a controlled-stream environment at Big 

Beef Creek. Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.

Kraig, E. and S. Smith. 2008. Washington State sport catch report 2002. WDFW Olympia, 

WA.

Lane & Lane Associates. 1981. White Salmon River Indian fisheries and Condit Dam. 

Prepared for the BIA. Prepared by Lane and Lane Associates with Douglas Nash. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, BIA, Portland, OR.

LCFRB (Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board). 2004. Lower Columbia salmon 

recovery and fish & wildlife subbasin plan. December 2004.

LCFRB 2010. Draft Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan. 

February.

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.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-6

LeMier, E.H. and W.E. Smith. 1955. Biological appraisal of the Big White Salmon River. 

WDF, Olympia, Washington.

Meninick, J. 2006. YN Cultural Resources Department. Personal communication.

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of ESUs. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42.

McElhany, P.T., Backman, C. Busack, S. Heppell, S. Kolmes, A. Maule, J. Myers, D. 

Rawding, D. Shively, A. Steel, C. Steward, and T. Whitesel. 2003. Draft 

Willamette/Lower Columbia Pacific salmonid viability criteria.

McElhany, P., T. Backman, C. Busack, S. Kolmes, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, C. 

Steward, T. Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2004. Status evaluation of salmon and steelhead 

populations in the Willamette and LCR Basins. W/LC TRT. NOAA Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

McElhany, P., C. Busack, M. Chilcote, S Kolmes, B. McIntosh, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. 

Steel, C. Steward, D. Ward, T. Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2006. Revised viability 

criteria for salmon and steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia basins. 

Available at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc/viability_report_revised.cfm

(accessed April 11, 2012).

Morris, G. 2003. Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek 

associated with restoration efforts, Yakama Indian Nation. Annual Report, Project 

No. 200102500, 51 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00010217-1).

Morris, G. 2004. Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek 

associated with restoration efforts. Yakama Indian Nation. Annual Report, Project 

No. 200102500, 67 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00010217-2).

Morris, G. 2005. Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek 

associated with restoration efforts. Yakama Indian Nation. 2004-2005 Annual 

Report, Project No. 200102500, 83 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP00017940-1).

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre. 1992. 

Production and habitat of salmonids in the MCR tributary streams. Monograph I. 

USFWS.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, 

F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S Waples. 1998. Status review of 

Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443p.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-7

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2003. Historical population structure of 

Willamette and LCR Basin Pacific salmonids. NMFS. Seattle, Washington.

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik and M.T. 

Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette 

River and LCR Basins. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-73.

NMFS. (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological opinion and incidental take 

statement on 2000 Treaty Indian and non-Indian fall season fisheries in the CR Basin. 

Seattle, Washington.

NMFS. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66.

NMFS. 2007. CR Estuary ESA recovery plan module for salmon and steelhead. Available 

at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/Estuary-Module.cfm (accessed April 11, 2012).

NMFS. 2008a. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of the Federal CR Power System and 

mainstem effects of BOR upper Snake and other tributary actions. NMFS, Portland, 

Oregon. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-SnakeBasin/upload/Final_SCA_Ch1_7.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012).

NMFS. 2008b. ESA Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation: consultation on remand for 

operation of the CR Power System and 19 BOR projects in the Columbia basin. 

NMFS, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS. 2008c. Biological Opinion: Impacts of U.S. v Oregon fisheries in the CR in years 

2008-2017 on ESA listed species and Magnuson-Stevens Act essential fish habitat. 

May 5, 2008. Available at https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=107547 (accessed April 11, 2012).

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004. Draft White Salmon Subbasin 

Plan.

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1986. Council staff compilation of information 

on salmon and steelhead losses in the CR Basin. Appendix D, 1987 CR Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon.

NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Science and the ESA. Committee on Scientific 

Issues in the ESA. Commission on Life Sciences. NRCl. National Academy Press.

ODFW (Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Oregon Conservation and Recovery 

Plan for Oregon steelhead populations in the MCR Steelhead DPS. Available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/InteriorColumbia/Mid-Columbia/upload/Mid-C-Oregon.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012).
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-8

ODFW and WDFW( Washington Department Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Joint staff report: 

Stock status and fisheries for spring Chinook salmon, summer Chinook salmon, 

sockeye, steelhead, and other species, and miscellaneous regulations. January 26, 

2009. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/crcindex.htm (accessed April 11, 

2012).

Olsen, E.A. 2004. Hood River and Pelton Ladder evaluation studies. Final report to BPA, 

Portland, Oregon. (Contract # DE-BI-89BIP00632). Available: 

http://www.fishlib.org/library/Documents/BPA_Fish_and_Wildlife/81758-1.pdf

(accessed11 April 2012).

PacifiCorp Energy. 2010. Revegetation and wetlands management plan. Available at 

http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/Hydro/Hydr

o_Licensing/Condit/20110315RevegWetlandsMgmtPlan.pdf (accessed April 

13,2012).

Phelps, S.R., N. Switzler, and B. Ingram. 1990. Electrophoretic characterization of five 

rainbow trout collections from the White Salmon River, Washington and 

determination of their genetic similarities to four hatchery strains. Unpublished 

report to the Pacific Power and Light Company from the WDF, Olympia. (Available 

from Environmental and Technical Services Division, NMFS, Portland, OR).

Phelps, S.R., B.M. Baker, P.L. Hulett and S.A. Leider 1994. Genetic analysis of Washington 

steelhead: initial electrophoretic analysis of wild and hatchery steelhead and rainbow 

trout. WDFW, Fish Management Program Report 96-9, Olympia, Washington.

Rich, W.H. 1938. The salmon runs of the CR in 1938. Fisheries Bulletin 37. USFWS

Washington D.C.

Roler, R. 2009. Washington CR tributary stream survey sampling results-2007. WDFW 

Vancouver, WA.

Roler, R. 2011. Washington CR tributary stream survey sampling results-2010. WDFW

Vancouver, WA.

Roler, R. 2012. Washington CR tributary stream survey sampling results – 2011. WDFW 

Vancourver, WA.

Rounsefell, G.A. 1958. Anadromy in North American salmonidae. Fisheries Bulletin Fish 

and Wildlife Service 58:171-185.

Ruzycki, J.R., M.W. Flesher, R.M. Carmichael and D.L. Eddy. 2003. Lower Snake River 

compensation plan: Oregon evaluation studies - steelhead life history 

characterization; genetic characterization; kelt reconditioning. Portland, Oregon.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-9

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon. In C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds., Pacific 

salmon life histories, pp. 231-309. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 

Canada.

Schiewe, M.H. 1996. Conclusions regarding the updated status of west coast coho salmon. 

Memorandum to W. Stelle and H. Diaz-Soltero dated Dec 20, 1996. Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, NMFS. Seattle, WA.

Seiler, D. and S. Neuhauser 1985. Evaluation of downstream migrant passage at two dams: 

Condit Dam, White Salmon River, 1983 and 1984, Howard Hansen Dam, Green 

River, 1984. WDF, Progress Report No. 235, Olympia, Washington.

Small, M.P., A.E. Frye, J.F. Von Bargen and S.F. Young. 2006. Genetic structure of chum 

salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) populations in the lower Columbia River: Are chum 

salmon in Cascade tributaries remnant populations? Conservation Genetics 7:65-78.

Smith, C.T. and R. Engle. 2011. Persistent Reproductive Isolation between Sympatric 

Lineages of Fall Chinook Salmon in the White Salmon River, Washington. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140:3, 699-715.

Smith, C.T., A. LaGrange, W. Ardren, R. Engle and D. Olsen. 2007. Genetic analysis of 

juvenile Chinook salmon collected in the White Salmon River. Laboratory Report for 

FONS 13210-2006-062, October 23, 2007. Abernathy Fish Technology Center, 

Applied Program in Conservation Genetics. Longview, Washington.

.

Spring Creek NFH (National Fish Hatchery) Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan. 2002. 

Spring Creek NFH: HGMP plan. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-HarvestHatcheries/Hatcheries/upload/FWS_HGMP_SC.pdf (accessed April 11 2012).

Spring Creek Reprogramming. 2008. Memorandum of agreement among BPA, USACE, 

USFWS, NMFS, with reference to ODFW regarding Spring Creek NFH 

reprogramming. Portland, Oregon.

Thrower, F.P., J.J. Hard, and J.E. Joyce. 2004. Genetic architecture of growth and early lifehistory transitions in anadromous and derived freshwater populations of steelhead, 

Journal of Fish Biology 2004, 65 Supplement A, pp. 286-307.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 

2008. Annual fish passage report. Available at

http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/fishdata/home.asp (accessed April 11, 2012).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1998. Upper White Salmon watershed analysis. Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-10

USFS 2002. Gifford Pinchot National Forest roads analysis. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1951. LCR Fisheries Development Program 

subbasin reports. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 2004. Hatchery Evaluation Team meeting. Carson NFH production coordination 

meeting, August 6, 2004. Vancouver, Washington. U.S. v. Oregon. 2008-2017 

United States v. Oregon Management Agreement. May 2008. NMFS, Seattle, WA.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2010. USGS 14123500 White Salmon River near 

Underwood, WA. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/ (accessed April 11, 2012).

Waples, R.S., R.P. Jones, Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. Status review for Snake 

River fall Chinook salmon, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Seattle.

WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries). 1951. Planning reports. LCR Fisheries 

Development Program. Washington. Preliminary draft. August 1951.

WDF and YN (Yakama Nation). 1990. White Salmon River subbasin salmon and steelhead 

production plan.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory: 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ (accessed April 19, 2012).

WDFW. 2003. LCR fisheries management and evaluation plan. Available at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/State-TribalManagement/FMEP-LCR-Fisheries.cfm (accessed April 19, 2012).

WDFW. 2008. Steelhead: Washington State sport catch report 2002. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00510/wdfw00510.pdf (accessed April 13, 2012).

WDFW. 2011. Sport Fishing Rules 2012/2013 pamphlet edition. Available at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/ (accessed December 31, 2012).

WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2007. Condit Dam removal final State 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) supplemental environmental impact statement. 

Ecology Publication #07-06-012. WDOE, Yakima, Washington. Available at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0706012.html (accessed April 19, 2012).

Weeber, M. 2010. Personal communication via February 1, 2010 email to Rich Turner re: 

chum salmon data from Eagle Creek.

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milnew, J.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. 

Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and 

California. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. Seattle, WA.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

9-11

White, J. and T. Cochrane. 2005. Assess current and potential salmonid production in 

Rattlesnake Creek associated with restoration efforts. UCD. 2004-2005 Annual 

Report, Project No. 200102500, 31 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP00006301-4).

White, J. and R. Plumb. 2004. Assess current and potential salmonid production in 

Rattlesnake Creek associated with restoration efforts. UCD. 2002-2003 Annual 

Report, Project No. 200102500, 49 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP00006301-2).

White, J. and R. Plumb. 2005. Assess current and potential salmonid production in 

Rattlesnake Creek associated with restoration efforts. UCD. 2003-2004 Annual 

Report, Project No. 200102500, 90 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP00006301-3).

Williams, J.G., S.G. Smith, R.W. Zabel, W.D. Muir, M.D. Scheuerell, B.P. Sandford, D.M. 

Marsh, R.A. McNatt, and S. Achord. 2005. Effects of the Federal CR Power System 

on salmonid populations. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo, NMFSNWFSC-63, 150 p.

Withler, I.L. 1966. Variability in life history characteristics of steelhead trout (Salmo 

gairdneri) along the Pacific coast of North America. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23(3): 

365-392.

YN (Yakama Nation). 2006. Personal communications with J. Meninick.

YN 2008. Klickitat River anadromous fisheries master plan. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries 

Project 1988-115-35. Toppenish, Washington.

Young, B. and E. Rybak. 1987. Estimated anadromous salmonid production potential for 

the White Salmon River. Joint report prepared by the USFWS, Wash. Dept. 

Fisheries, NMFS, and WDF.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-1

Appendix I. Options for Salmon and Steelhead 

Reintroduction

The following are reintroduction plans for salmon and steelhead in the White Salmon River 

that were developed by the White Salmon Working Group, made up of Federal, state, and 

tribal fisheries managers, as well as representatives of the PacifiCorp (Condit Dam 

operators). The White Salmon Working Group developed a number of options for the 

reintroduction of salmon and steelhead into the White Salmon River in anticipation of the 

removal of Condit Dam in the fall of 2009. Each option developed for the various salmon 

and steelhead populations includes a description of the biological basis for the approach, 

operational and maintenance needs, and the monitoring and evaluation needs to support the 

approach. Each of the Plans and assorted options that were developed are listed below, with 

the preferred option highlighted in gray.

Tule Fall Chinook salmon

Salvage Effort Options within the White Salmon River in Preparation of Removal of Condit 

Dam.

1. Salvage adipose present CWT-negative tule fall Chinook salmon from White Salmon 

River in fall 2010 to start tule fall Chinook salmon restoration. Eggs collected and 

reared at Spring Creek NFH, juveniles acclimated and released at White Salmon 

Ponds.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize collection of adult returns that presumably are natural progeny 

from previous spawning populations in the White Salmon.

ii. The mass marking protocol used at Spring Creek NFH would allow for 

identification of “wild” fish on the spawning grounds.

1. Hatchery fish would be either adipose-fin clipped or have a CWT present.

2. Wild fish would have adipose-fins present and no CWT.

b. O&M (Operation and Maintenance ) Needs

i. Temporary weir construction at White Salmon Ponds.

1. A salvage effort with fish wheel or active adult seining in Lower River to 

capture adipose present tule fall Chinook salmon could also be used in lieu of 

or in addition to weir.

(a) Several options should be discussed for what efforts might be fiscally and 

logistically possible.

2. New screens would be needed at the intake structure to comply with NOAA 

Fisheries or a waiver would be required to operate the ponds and weir during 

adult collections.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-2

3. Potential need to coordinate with Condit Dam operations should flow 

manipulation need to occur for selected capture method.

ii. Eggs reared at Spring Creek NFH and transferred for acclimation at White 

Salmon Ponds for release in April or May per rotary trap timing of tule fall 

Chinook salmon.

1. Ponds need to be watered up and ready by spring following dam removal to be 

used for acclimation.

2. Potential upriver or alternative acclimation strategies could be used if White 

Salmon Ponds are not a viable option.

iii. Program Size

1. 1996 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) Document states 

32,000 0+ juveniles for production and release. This translates into about 58 

adults that will return based on SCNFH escapement estimates.

2. NMFS Draft White Salmon Recovery Plan states abundance recovery goal of 

900 adults (TRT recommendations, pg 105).

3. White Salmon Subbasin Plan (using EDT analysis) estimates 792-995 for 

abundance estimation from historical through removal with PFC.

4. Based on adult escapement estimates for White Salmon, 500 to 600 adults 

might “fill out” escapement. The production goals would correlate to annual 

releases of 275,000 to 330,000.

5. Capacity at White Salmon ponds would be 300,000 for release.

iv. Need to revise HGMP from Spring Creek NFH

1. Would encompass tules and other stocks that may be acclimated at ponds 

(pending workgroup decisions).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Specific juvenile tagging of these fish is also needed to determine survival rates 

and evaluate the salvage action.

ii. Genetic analysis of adults collected for salvage effort in 2010.

1. Needed to properly assess success of salvage effort and also act as a baseline 

for monitoring hatchery/wild fish interactions on the spawning grounds for 

future years.

iii. Continuation of rotary trapping and genetic analysis to determine production of 

juveniles.

iv. Expansion of WDFW carcass surveys into areas above Condit dam in 2010 and 

beyond.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-3

v. Some decision process to end production based on rotary trapping results of 

successful spawning abundance or on wild adult escapement estimates (might be 

easier to estimate).

2. Salvage adipose present tule fall Chinook salmon returning to Spring Creek NFH in fall 

2009 to start restoration. Eggs collected and reared at Spring Creek NFH, with juveniles 

acclimated and released at White Salmon Ponds.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize collection of adult returns that presumably are natural progeny 

from previous spawning populations in the White Salmon.

ii. Annual returns to Spring Creek NFH have some components that are presumed to 

be naturally produced fish.

1. Fish that have their adipose fin and do not have a CWT.

2. This would need to be verified by analysis of CWT return data in combination 

with scale analysis between CWT/adipose fin clipped fish and “wild” 

interceptions at the hatchery.

b. O&M Needs

i. Eggs reared at SCNFH and transferred for acclimation at White Salmon Ponds for 

release in April or May per rotary trap timing of tule fall Chinook salmon

1. Ponds need to be watered up and ready by spring 2011, this should be 2010 if 

we are collecting in 2009, if going to be used for acclimation.

2. Would need to modify screens or get a waiver from NOAA Fisheries.

3. Potential upriver or alternative acclimation strategies could be used if White 

Salmon Ponds are not a viable option.

ii. Program Size

1. 1996 CBFWA Document states 32,000 0 + juveniles for production and 

release. This translates into about 58 adults that will return based on SCNFH 

escapement estimates.

2. NMFS Draft White Salmon Recovery Plan states abundance recovery goal of 

900 adults (TRT recommendations, pg 105).

3. White Salmon Subbasin Plan (using EDT analysis) estimates 792-995 for 

abundance estimation from historical through removal with properly 

functioning conditions.

4. Based on adult escapement estimates for White Salmon, 500 to 600 adults 

might “fill out” escapement. The production goals would correlate to annual 

releases of 275,000 to 330,000. 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-4

5. Capacity at White Salmon ponds would be 300,000 for release.

iii. Need to revise HGMP from Spring Creek NFH.

1. Would encompass tules and other stocks that may be acclimated at ponds 

(pending workgroup decisions).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Specific juvenile tagging of these fish is also needed to determine survival rates 

and evaluate the salvage action.

ii. Genetic analysis of adults collected for salvage effort in 2009.

1. Needed to properly assess success of salvage effort and also act as a baseline 

for monitoring hatchery/wild fish interactions on the spawning grounds for 

future years.

iii. Expansion of WDFW carcass surveys into areas above Condit dam in 2010 and 

beyond.

iv. Continuation of rotary trapping and genetic analysis to determine natural 

production of juveniles.

v. Some decision process to end production based on rotary trapping results of 

successful spawning abundance or on wild adult escapement estimates (might be 

easier to estimate).

3. No salvage effort in the White Salmon or at SCNFH

a. Biological Basis

i. Assumes natural colonization in the future.

ii. Would assume that sediment movement after dam removal would be large and 

allow for successful natural colonization immediately.

b. O&M Needs

i. None at SCNFH

c. RM&E Needs

i. Continuation of rotary trapping and genetic analysis to determine natural 

production of juveniles.

ii. Expansion of WDFW carcass surveys into areas above Condit dam in 2010 and 

beyond.

4. Outplant adults, adipose present, in 2010 above Condit Dam prior to removal.

a. Biological Basis
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-5

i. Assumes natural colonization and allows some spawning to occur above Condit 

Dam prior to removal.

ii. Would assume that sediment movement after dam removal would be large and 

allow for successful natural colonization in later years.

iii. Could be done in conjunction with any of the previous actions or for a number of 

years to allow for natural colonization.

b. O&M Needs

i. Radio-tagging and Peterson disc tagging of adults to determine movement to 

White Salmon.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Continuation of rotary trapping and genetic analysis to determine production of 

juveniles.

ii. Expansion of existing carcass surveys conducted by WDFW to monitor spawning 

above Condit Dam during 2009 and in 2010.

Spring Chinook salmon

1. Natural re-colonization - no active reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

a. Biological Basis

i. Probably very small number of returning native adults - may not be sufficient 

number to restart population.

ii. Concerns about Carson fish on spawning grounds?

b. O&M Needs - little to none

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor any natural spawner escapement.

ii. Monitor Carson fish on spawning grounds.

iii. Monitor smolt production.

2. Wild Klickitat spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile release into the White 

Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at Klickitat Hatchery, juveniles acclimated and 

released at White Salmon Ponds.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize collection of wild Chinook salmon from locally adjacent 

watershed, with similar geomorphologic characteristics and flow regime.

ii. No mass marking to minimize harvest to return as many spawners to White 

Salmon River as possible.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-6

1. Hatchery fish would have unique CWT if determined that carcasses survey 

would be productive. More important to CWT after natural production is 

established.

2. Use PIT-tagging. Limited Wild fish would have adipose fins present and no 

CWT.

b. O&M Needs

i. New improved broodstock collection facility at Lyle Falls Fishway (~3 years out).

ii. Isolated spawning and rearing at Klickitat Hatchery - several options should be 

discussed for what efforts might be fiscally and logistically possible.

iii. White Salmon Pond rehabilitation and O&M.

iv. Juvenile transport at fry or smolt stage.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural and hatchery escapement to spawning grounds.

ii. Monitoring natural escapement in Klickitat River (relatively low in recent years) 

and any impacts to natural population from broodstock collection.

3. Klickitat Hatchery spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile release into upper 

White Salmon River, starting in spring 2010 (from Klickitat Hatchery thinning release or 

other surplus juveniles).

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize use of hatchery Chinook salmon from locally adjacent 

watershed.

ii. Possible concerns about genetic mixing in Klickitat Hatchery stock of stream- and 

ocean-type Chinook salmon (see c.ii. below).

b. O&M Needs

i. Isolated spawning and rearing at Klickitat Hatchery - several options should be 

discussed for what efforts might be fiscally and logistically possible.

ii. Upper White Salmon release site identified/developed and O&M.

iii. Direct stream release locations identified/developed.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Fish Health monitoring (BKD concerns).

ii. Assessment of possible effects of use of genetically mixed Klickitat Hatchery 

stock (evidence of possible broodstock mixing of stream-type [spring-run] and 

ocean-type [summer-run] in Klickitat Hatchery stock).
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-7

4. Klickitat Hatchery integrated stock spring Chinook salmon as brood source for juvenile 

release into White Salmon River, in future years (broodstock source would be hatcheryreared offspring of wild fish).

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize use of integrated stock Chinook salmon from locally adjacent 

watershed.

ii. May alleviate concerns of broodstock mining effects on Klickitat wild population 

(pending success of program at Klickitat Hatchery).

iii. Would likely alleviate concerns regarding use of current Klickitat Hatchery stock 

due to possible mixing of stream- and ocean-type Chinook salmon (see 3.c.ii 

above).

b. O&M Needs - similar to Option 3 above.

c. RM&E Needs - similar to Option 3 above (except for 3.c.ii).

5. Transport surplus Klickitat Hatchery adults to White Salmon starting in fall 2010.

a. Biological Basis

i. May be precluded by disease concerns resulting from out-of-basin transfer of 

adult fish.

ii. Possible concerns about genetic mixing in Klickitat Hatchery stock of stream- and 

ocean-type Chinook salmon (see 3.c.ii. above).

b. O&M Needs

i. Trucking O&M.

ii. Racking in of transported broodstock.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Radio-telemetry study.

ii. Assessment of possible genetic effects (see 3.c.ii. above).

6. Trap and transport Klickitat wild adults to White Salmon.

a. Biological Basis

i. May be precluded by disease concerns resulting from out-of-basin transfer of 

adult fish.

b. O&M Needs

i. Trucking O&M.

ii. Racking in of transported broodstock.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-8

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor any natural re-colonization in interim (concerns about Carson fish?)

ii. Radio-telemetry study.

iii. Monitoring natural escapement in Klickitat River (relatively low in recent years) 

and any impacts to natural population from adult trap and transport.

7. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and 

suitability of Option 4.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would determine if sufficient number of returning adults to restart population.

ii. Concerns about Carson fish on spawning grounds?

b. O&M Needs - little to none (unless Option 4 initiated).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor any natural spawner escapement.

ii. Monitor Carson fish on spawning grounds.

iii. Monitor smolt production.

Coho salmon

1. Natural re-colonization - no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

a. Biological Basis

i. Sufficient number of returning adults to restart population?

ii. Identification of coho benefits from EDT modeling efforts.

b. O&M Needs - little to none

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural spawner escapement.

ii. Monitor smolt production.

2. Juveniles from Washougal and/or Bonneville/Cascade hatcheries released into White 

Salmon River.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would use LCR coho stock for brood source (Washougal Hatchery, Lewis River,

Type N, and/or Tanner Creek).

b. O&M Needs
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-9

i. Existing facilities at Washougal, Bonneville and Cascade hatcheries.

ii. For possible acclimation - White Salmon Pond rehabilitation and O&M.

iii. Juvenile transport at fry or smolt stage.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural and hatchery escapement to spawning grounds.

ii. Monitor natural production.

iii. Fish health monitoring.

3. Collection of wild adult broodstock in Klickitat River with spawning and rearing at 

hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would use nearby wild broodstock source.

b. O&M Needs

i. Identify suitable hatchery facilities for spawning and rearing.

ii. Adult capture facility at Lyle Falls Fishway on Klickitat River.

iii. For possible acclimation - White Salmon Pond rehabilitation and O&M.

iv. Juvenile transport at fry or smolt stage.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural and hatchery escapement to spawning grounds.

ii. Monitor natural production.

iii. Fish health monitoring.

4. Collection of wild adult broodstock in White Salmon River with spawning and rearing at 

hatchery facility and juvenile release in White Salmon River.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would use local wild broodstock source.

b. O&M Needs

i. Identify suitable hatchery facilities for spawning and rearing.

ii. Adult capture facility - Weir or White Salmon Ponds rehabilitation.

iii. For possible acclimation - White Salmon Pond rehabilitation and O&M.

iv. Juvenile transport at fry or smolt stage.

c. RM&E Needs
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-10

i. Monitor natural and hatchery escapement to spawning grounds.

ii. Monitor natural production.

iii. Fish health monitoring.

5. Monitor natural escapement and production for 4-5 years then evaluate need and 

suitability of Options 2, 3 or 4.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would determine if sufficient number of returning adults to restart population.

ii. Identification of coho benefits from EDT modeling efforts.

b. O&M Needs - little to none (unless Options 2, 3, or 4 initiated).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural spawner escapement.

ii. Monitor smolt production.

Chum salmon

1. Natural re-colonization - no reintroduction efforts from outside sources.

a. Biological Basis

i. Allows for natural colonization from populations within or below Bonneville 

pool.

b. O&M Needs

c. RM&E Needs

i. Continuation of either annual or every nth year chum surveys using revised chum 

specific “Patch” analysis or remote sensing techniques to monitor re-colonization 

efforts.

2. Active adult outplanting in years after Condit Dam Removal.

a. Biological Basis

i. Decreases timeframe of re-colonization and potentially provides better

opportunity for multiple pairs of chum salmon to spawn in White Salmon.

ii. Most likely chum salmon are extirpated from White Salmon and chances for 

spawning to be occurring presently seem very unlikely.

iii. Accelerates building of chum population in White Salmon.

b. O&M Needs
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-11

i. Adults would have to be trapped in Bonneville Dam fishways or below 

Bonneville Dam (Ives Island, Duncan, Hardy and/or Multnomah Creek deltas) 

and trucked to release point in White Salmon River.

ii. Appropriate chum spawning channels could be constructed in suitable habitat 

within lower White Salmon River and adults transported into these channels.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Begin annual or every nth year surveys using chum specific “Patch analysis to 

monitor population dynamics.

ii. Identification of donor populations and determine both genetic and population 

fitness of these populations. (Below Bonneville stocks appear to be genetically 

best suited, and most easily obtained.)

iii. Identification of suitable spawning/outplanting locations and juvenile rearing 

habitat within White Salmon and lower tributaries.

iv. Potential PIT-tagging or Radio-tracking to determine spawning ground 

distribution and success or utilize remote sensing techniques.

3. Active stocking of juvenile chum salmon or outplanting of eggs in egg baskets and hatch 

boxes via WDFW’s Washougal Hatchery or Willard NFH.

a. Biological Basis

i. Decreases timeframe of re-colonization and potentially provides better 

opportunity than natural re-colonization.

ii. O&M needs - yet to be determined but could involve infrastructure needs to

Willard or Washougal hatcheries in addition to fish culture needs.

b. RM&E Needs

i. Continuation of either annual or every nth year surveys using chum specific 

“Patch analysis to monitor population dynamics.

ii. Identification of donor populations and determine both genetic and population 

fitness of these populations. (Bonneville fishway and or below Bonneville stocks 

appear most suitable and most easily obtained).

iii. Identification of suitable stocking locations and juvenile rearing habitat within the 

White Salmon River and lower tributaries.

iv. Potential PIT-tagging or Radio-tracking to determine distribution, timing and 

movement of chum salmon juveniles.

4. Initiate temporary hatchery program for chum salmon using existing USFWS hatcheries 

for subsequent outplanting using only chum captured at Bonneville Dam.

a. Biological Basis
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-12

i. Decrease risk to downstream donor stocks whose numbers are annually declining.

ii. Uses parent stock of chum salmon with fidelity to the Bonneville Reservoir and 

possible the White Salmon River.

iii. Decreases timeframe of re-colonization.

b. O&M Needs

i. Adults would have to be trapped in Bonneville Dam fishways.

ii. Adults would be held and spawned in Service Hatcheries.

iii. Eggs or juveniles would be outplanted in suitable habitat.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Survey and identify suitable habitats prior to outplanting.

ii. Evaluate success of any outplanted eggs.

iii. Continuation of either annual or every nth year surveys using chum specific 

“Patch analysis to monitor population dynamics.

iv. Potential PIT-tagging or Radio-tracking to determine distribution, timing and 

movement of returning adult chum salmon passing Bonneville Dam.

Steelhead

There are indications that the population of O. mykiss in the White Salmon River above 

Condit Dam is still producing smolts even though anadromy has been eliminated since the 

construction of Condit Dam and the end of passage in 1913. Pre-removal monitoring in the 

White Salmon River above Condit Dam has identified O. mykiss juveniles displaying smolt 

behavior and morphology, and PIT-tagged juveniles have been detected passing Bonneville 

Dam with one being recovered at the tern colony on East Sand Island (B. Allen, personal 

communication, 2007). In addition, a juvenile O. mykiss PIT-tagged above Condit Dam 

September of 2004 at 98 mm was detected ascending Bonneville Dam in July of 2006. 

Genetic analysis of juvenile O. mykiss collected in the upper watershed above Husum Falls 

are different from hatchery trout released in the basin, however additional samples are 

needed to confirm this finding (Allen et al. 2006). This information supports the theory that 

even though the population is functionally extirpated there is still the potential for reestablishing anadromous steelhead in the White Salmon River Basin.

Based on the potential to re-establish natural production of steelhead in the basin, the White 

Salmon Working Group decided that Option 1, the natural re-colonization approach, was the 

best suited for the status of O. mykiss in the basin. The key to the success of this option is to 

implement all of the proposed monitoring and evaluation activities, including screw trap 

operations and the installation of a weir on Rattlesnake Creek to monitor adult escapement,

adult movement, and presence/absence of stray hatchery-origin steelhead. In the future, if 

the need arises, the weir could be used to exclude hatchery-origin adults creating a refuge for 

naturally produced steelhead. Another reason that the White Salmon Working Group 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-13

supported Option 1 was that the removal of Condit Dam provides a rare opportunity to study 

the natural re-colonization of newly available habitat without using hatchery intervention. 

Option 1 will be evaluated and an assessment made after 5 years to determine if the approach 

should continue or if the other proposed options should be considered.

1. Natural re-colonization - no reintroduction efforts from outside sources

a. Biological Basis.

i. Potentially a small number of returning native adults but may not be sufficient 

number to restart population.

ii. Recent USGS studies identify PIT-tagged resident O. mykiss migrating from the 

White Salmon above Condit Dam. One PIT-tag collected at East Sand Island, and 

one detected passing back upriver through the Bonneville Dam fishway (steelhead 

life history may still be present in upper watershed). 

b. O&M Needs

i. Maintenance of weir(s) in tributary stream(s).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor all natural spawner escapements.

ii. Monitor hatchery stray steelhead on the spawning grounds.

iii. Juvenile fish surveys for abundance and growth (via PIT-tagging).

iv. Rotary Screw Trap (both in lower river and above current reservoir site) to collect 

out migrants for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) analysis, and juvenile production.

v. Adult and juvenile weir trap and/or instream PIT-tag detector for monitoring in 

Rattlesnake Creek.

vi. Redd capping to conduct DNA analysis.

2. Wild donor from local watershed as brood source for juvenile release into the White 

Salmon River. Eggs collected and reared at suitable hatchery, juveniles acclimated and 

released at White Salmon Ponds.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize collection of wild steelhead from locally adjacent watershed, 

with similar geomorphologic characteristics and flow regime.

ii. Marking to minimize harvest and still provide monitoring information on 

returning adults.

b. O&M Needs

i. White Salmon Pond rehabilitation and O&M.

ii. Juvenile transport at fry or smolt stage.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-14

iii. Possible identification and development of upriver acclimation site.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitor natural and hatchery escapement to spawning grounds.

ii. Monitoring natural escapement in brood source river and any impacts to natural 

population from broodstock collection.

3. White Salmon resident O. mykiss as brood source with locally suitable anadromous wild 

donor stock spawned for juvenile release into upper White Salmon River.

a. Biological Basis

i. Would emphasize both local (resident) and from locally adjacent watershed.

ii. Possible concerns of ESA status of new population.

b. O&M Needs

i. Upper White Salmon release site identified/developed and O&M.

ii. Possible identification and development of upriver acclimation site.

c. RM&E Needs

i. Fish Health monitoring (BKD/IHN concerns).

ii. Assessment of possible effects of use of genetically mixed local donor stock.

4. Develop White Salmon captive brood program using captured outmigrating juveniles.

a. Biological Basis

i. Capture genetically unique White Salmon steelhead for captive brood program 

development.

b. O&M Needs

i. Transport equipment.

ii. Spawning, incubation, rearing and adult holding facilities.

iii. Possible identification and development of upriver acclimation site.

c. RM&E Needs

i. DNA analysis to ensure White Salmon population.

5. White Salmon Steelhead Kelt Reconditioning. Recondition local spawners to enhance 

survival to repeat spawning stage.

a. Biological Basis

i. Maximize survival of White Salmon steelhead to bolster early stages of White 

Salmon re-colonization effort.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AI-15

b. O&M Needs

i. Adult downstream weir trap to collect females.

ii. Holding area and feed.

iii. Direct stream release locations identified/developed (for release of reconditioned 

adults).

c. RM&E Needs

i. Monitoring holding/release methods (i.e. release below Bonneville, or release into 

White Salmon, hold and release into White Salmon just prior to spawning). 

ii. PIT-tag adults for Bonneville Dam detection.

iii. Rotary Screw Trap (both in lower river and above current reservoir site) to collect 

out migrants for DNA analysis.

iv. Acoustic tag monitoring in White Salmon and Columbia plume to track kelt 

movement.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-1

Appendix II. Current Efforts and Regulations 

Addressing and Protecting Population Productivity in 

the White Salmon Watershed

Population Enhancement and Habitat Restoration Actions

Positive change is underway to address limiting factors and threats to improve steelhead

habitat conditions. A number of actions are proposed, being planned, or are already being 

implemented in the watershed to address these conditions and the affected populations. 

Recent actions include:

• Planning for population introduction/reintroduction upstream of the former Condit 

Dam

• Plantings of trees in riparian zones to provide for future shade and LWD recruitment

• Assessment of habitat condition in Rattlesnake Creek to identify opportunities for 

future restoration actions

• Klickitat County expects to initiate the development of a White Salmon Watershed 

(WRIA 29b) Management Plan in the near future, pending the availability of funding

Regulatory Protection

Federal, state, county, and tribal regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect habitat from 

current and future threats posed to listed species through habitat loss and degradation caused 

by human land uses and development. Numerous voluntary programs are also available to 

address habitat conservation. In addition, some areas receive special protection through 

designation, such as Wild and Scenic River reaches, primitive areas, and wildlife refuges.

NOAA Fisheries and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Section 7 Consultations

Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal action agencies to consult with NOAA’s NMFS and 

the USFWS to ensure that all Federal actions/projects will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions 

include not only direct Federal actions, but also actions funded with Federal dollars. A 

Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation is usually developed and submitted to 

NMFS for review prior to implementation of any project. The reader can find additional 

information regarding the consultation process at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonHarvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/Sec-7-USFWS-Columbia.cfm (accessed April 19, 2012).

Clean Water Act

The Federal Clean Water Act addresses the development and implementation of water 

quality standards, the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), filling of 

wetlands, point source permitting, the regulation of stormwater, and other provisions related 

to protection of U.S. waters. The Clean Water Act is administered in the State of 

Washington by the WDOE with oversight by the EPA. State water quality standards are set 

to protect beneficial uses, which include several categories of salmonid use. Ecology has a 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-2

water quality certification program under which it reviews projects that will discharge 

dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. and issues certifications that the proposed 

action meets State water quality standards and other aquatic protection regulations, if 

appropriate. Ecology also issues National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits, and develops water quality cleanup plans TMDL to address water quality limited 

streams. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the probable impacts of their proposed activities, 

programs, and projects (including funding of state, local, and private actions) on the quality 

of the human environment. NEPA reviews help agencies decide whether to undertake a 

proposed action. In most cases, the NEPA review requires the development of an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that addresses the 

probable effects of a project and its alternatives on various elements of the environment, 

including soils, geology, landscapes, atmospheric conditions, vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

and cultural resources. Many Federal funding programs are covered under a general NEPA 

review completed when the funding program was developed. 

Watershed Planning Act

In 1998 chapter 90.82 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) was amended with the passage 

of Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514. This law is also known as the Watershed 

Planning Act. The Watershed Planning Act was established to address the diminishing water 

availability and quality, and the loss of habitat for fish in the State of Washington. The 

Watershed Planning Act provides a framework for local citizens, tribes, and state and local 

agencies to work together to develop and implement Watershed Management Plans for entire 

watersheds. 

As part of the planning process, a watershed assessment is completed for each Water 

Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) to evaluate water supply and use. Once the watershed 

assessment is complete, a management plan, followed by a detailed implementation plan, is 

developed to address water quantity, water quality, and fish habitat issues identified in the 

assessment. The White Salmon River lies within WRIA 29b. Watershed planning activities 

are currently on hold due to the state’s current budget shortfall. 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

SEPA regulations require an environmental review of actions taken by the state and local 

agencies, including funding and permitting. Some actions, such as the construction of singlefamily dwellings, minor road repair, and issuance of business licenses, are exempt. A SEPA 

review evaluates the probable environmental effects of a proposed project. This information 

is used to determine if the action should be taken as proposed, if mitigation is necessary, or if 

the proposal should be rejected.

Forest & Fish Regulations (Washington State)

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 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-3

& 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 

non-point source silvicultural practices. Changes to the law included: 

• Updates of the stream typing system in the state to improve mapping of fish-bearing 

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

• Establishment of a small landowner office to assist non-industrial landowners

Additional information regarding the Forest Practices rules can be found at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/ForestPractices/Pages/Home.aspx (accessed April 

19, 2012).

The Washington Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the State of Washington, 

submitted applications to NMFS and the USFWS for incidental take permits under section 10 

of the ESA. Issuance of these permits would provide assurances that all forest practices 

activities in compliance with the state forest practices rules and administrative program will 

satisfy ESA requirements for aquatic species. The two services released the final HCP 

(habitat conservation plan), the final EIS, 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

In 1971 the Washington State Legislature passed the Washington Shoreline Management 

Act, adopted by public referendum in 1972. The purpose of the Act is “to prevent the 

inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines” by 

requiring every county and many cities to develop a Shoreline Master Plan to govern 

development in shoreline area http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

(accessed April 19, 2012). Klickitat County’s Shorelines Master Plan (SMP) was first 

adopted in 1975 and has been updated periodically since then. The SMP and brochure on the 

shorelines permit program can be accessed from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s 

website: http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788

(accessed April 19, 2012).
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-4

The Klickitat County’s SMP regulates “development” within the “shorelines” of the White 

Salmon River 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; all 

wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams and lakes. The SMP applies to the 

shorelines of the mainstem of the White Salmon River as well as the shorelines of all 

tributaries with a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or more.

The SMP designates various shorelines of the White Salmon River and its tributaries as 

“environments”, which determine the level of protection that is warranted. Much of the 

White Salmon River is designated either “Natural Environment” which prohibits most 

development within its shorelines or “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 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 (CUP) are required for development types that warrant conditions to 

ensure consistency with the SMP; and Variances 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.

Existing structures and developments that were established prior to adoption of the SMP are 

considered legally established “non-conforming” uses. Since adoption of the SMP, the 

County and WDOE have reviewed all developments within shorelines, including 

modifications to non-conforming uses, to ensure compliance with the goals and requirements 

of the SMP.

The WDOE reviews the County’s permit decisions and has final authority to approve or deny 

CUPs 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 WDFW, Community Trade and Economic Development, and Ecology, 

amended it in 2004. The CAO extends beyond the geographical scope of the County’s SMP 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-5

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 salmonid habitat functions and values. As with the SMP, 

developments and uses that existed prior to the adoption of the CAO are considered legally 

established “non-conforming” uses. The CAO and brochures land use permit programs can 

be accessed from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s website: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788 (accessed 

April 19, 2012)

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 one 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 does not meet the specific criteria in the 

ordinance for development in these areas, to protect public health and safety, will be denied. 

The FPO and brochures land use permit programs can be accessed from the Klickitat County 

Planning Department’s website: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788 (accessed 

April 19, 2012).

Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance

The Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance (CZO) was adopted in 1979 and has been amended 

over time. Much of the White Salmon River 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. The CZO and brochures land use permit 

programs can be accessed from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s website: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788 (accessed 

April 19, 2012).

Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO)

The Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO) was adopted pursuant to the 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 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-6

adverse environmental impacts. If a project has probable significant adverse impacts, and an 

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 Washington Administrative Code, 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. 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 White Salmon River 

watershed 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 

(Washington SRFB 2003) that was developed 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 regulates the onsite 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, 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 of 

Washington. The law requires hydraulic project approvals from the WDFW, 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. 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-7

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. The WDOE 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 levees, 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. 

Yakama Reservation Forest Management Plan

The YN has a variety of protective land use regulations in effect on reservation lands. One of 

these is the FMP. Under the 1993-2002 FMP, the Yakama Administrative Forest was

divided into 11 Land Use Management Areas (LUMA). Each LUMA was managed for 

multiple uses with emphasis on dominant resource features and objectives. The draft FMP 

soon to be ratified changes the designation of LUMAs to Management Emphasis Areas 

(MEA), which will be managed within the forest habitat types (BIA and YN 2004). The 

forestry program is using historical species composition and stand densities as references for 

the desired future stand conditions. Just as with the health of aquatic systems, forest health 

describes the ability of a forest ecosystem to remain productive, to maintain a diversity of 

plants and animals, aesthetic appeal, and resource sustainability, and to withstand 

disturbances over time. In addition, a healthy forest is resilient to periodic disturbances such 

as drought, insects, diseases, fires, climatic change, and management practices.

The FMP prescribes the number of miles and density of roads allowed to be built for the 

purpose of harvesting timber from the Administrative Forest, and forest treatments such as 

thinning and prescribed burns are being put into place to move the forest vegetation more 

toward the historical condition of seral stands rather than dense, late successional forest 

cover. Streams are classified according to their flow, use for domestic purposes and use by 

fish for spawning, rearing and migration, and buffers and harvest restrictions are set 

accordingly. The objectives are the preservation of stream bank and riparian cover, water 

quality and flow maintenance and soil stabilization (BIA and YN 2004).

Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

Recent policy changes will reduce potential harvest impacts. A Fisheries Management and 

Evaluation Plan (FMEP) for tributary fisheries in the Washington portion of the LCR 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-8

Chinook salmon, steelhead, and chum salmon ESUs (WDFW 2002) has been approved by 

NMFS. WDFW has also requested NMFS approval on a proposed supplement to the FMEP 

that covers tributary fisheries impacts on listed LCR coho salmon. The agency has also 

submitted a FMEP for MCR steelhead to NMFS that includes management for recreational 

fisheries in the White Salmon River. The FMEP minimizes harvest impacts to listed 

steelhead through the use of selective fisheries that target marked hatchery steelhead and 

requires the release of all unmarked steelhead. The FMEP also includes management actions 

that limit impacts to juvenile steelhead through fishing seasons, area closures, and gear 

restrictions. NMFS is currently reviewing the FMEP to determine if it can be approved 

under the 4(d) rule limit 4 for MCR steelhead.

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 

The USFWS submitted HGMPs to NMFS for approval under section 7 of the ESA. NMFS 

issued a section 7 Biological Opinion on November 27, 2007 for these hatchery programs 

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/Sec-7-USFWSColumbia.cfm) (accessed April 19, 2012). . Many actions and measures in the HGMPs have 

already been implemented. These HGMPs cover programs that release fish into the LWS

River and at the Spring Creek NFH. WDFW has also submitted an HGMP to NMFS for the 

releases of summer and winter steelhead into the White Salmon River. These programs may 

adversely affect listed populations in the White Salmon River and are being evaluated in a

Biological Opinion. All of these programs are funded in whole or partially through the 

Mitchell Act, which is administered by NMFS. An EIS for NMFS’ funding of the Mitchell 

Act and its hatchery programs is being drafted and will include evaluation of the programs 

listed above.

Special Land Use Areas

Several areas in the White Salmon drainage have received special Federal protection.

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

“The National Scenic Area was created to protect and enhance the scenic, natural, cultural 

and recreational resources of the CR Gorge while encouraging economic development” 

(www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/). The White Salmon River downstream of Condit Dam, RM 

3.3-mouth, is within the boundaries of the Gorge National Scenic Area. All new 

development and land uses must be reviewed in the National Scenic Area to determine if 

they are consistent with the Act and the implementing land-use ordinances. The 

development guidelines of the management plan are implemented through land-use 

ordinances that must be consistent with the management plan.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was created by Congress to preserve in a free-flowing 

condition selected rivers of the nation which, with their immediate environments, possess 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, 

or other similar values. The nine-mile reach from confluence of Gilmer Creek near BZ 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AII-9

Corner to Buck Creek is a Federal Wild and Scenic River. A twenty-mile stretch of the 

upper White Salmon and Cascade Creek received Senate approval for Wild and Scenic 

designation and awaiting presidential approval. The Act restricts the construction of any dam 

or other water resource project on or directly affecting a designated river or that would have a 

direct and adverse effect on the values for which such a river was established, such as its 

free-flowing nature. The Act directed the Forest Service to develop management plans for 

these portions. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on the White Salmon River does not 

supersede local Shoreline Management Plans.

References

BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) and YN (Yakama Nation). 2004. Yakama Nation. Draft 

2005-2014 Forest Management Plan.

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board. 2003. Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy 

for Habitat Restoration and Acquisition Projects. Draft. Available at: 

www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/other_pubs.shtml (accessed 13 July 2010).

WDFW 2002. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salmonid Stock Inventory

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ (accessed April 19, 2012). 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIII-1

Appendix III. Jewett Creek

Jewett Creek is a small creek located 2 miles to the east of the mouth of the White Salmon 

River. Geographically, the creek is located within the ICTRT-identified Klickitat 

independent population spatial distribution boundary, and is, therefore, within the Klickitat 

River recovery planning area. Jewett Creek is discussed here since it was not considered in 

the Klickitat Recovery Plan. Any steelhead found in Jewett Creek are most likely hatchery 

strays or strays from the Klickitat or other independent steelhead populations.

Jewett Creek does not meet the minimum criteria for consideration in the ICTRT’s 

assessment of intrinsic habitat potential (ICTRT 2008) and is not considered a major or 

minor spawning area for the Klickitat independent population of the MCR Steelhead DPS. 

The creek does not have sufficient habitat to support a viable population, and the population 

has not been identified as contributing to the viability of the middle Columbia steelhead DPS

(ICTRT 2004).

The lower portion of the creek runs through roughly 100 yards of pipe located under an 

existing industrial plant. The Bonneville Pool may back up water within the pipe. The creek 

daylights for approximately 0.9 miles between the railroad and Highway 14, and then passes 

under the highway. Another 0.8 miles of habitat is available upstream of the Highway. The 

gradient of the creek becomes impassable at the Gorge bluffs, located at roughly river-mile 

0.35.

Local residents have indicated that fish have been seen up to the gorge bluffs. The entire 

area of stream, which is accessible to anadromous fish, is within the Bingen City limits. No 

information is available regarding the quality of the 1.7 miles of available habitat; however, 

monitoring and evaluation actions have been proposed to identify anadromous fish usage and 

habitat conditions. The ICTRT determined that at least 9.3 miles (15 km) of habitat is 

necessary to support a viable population of 500 fish (ICTRT 2004). 

References

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2004. Preliminary Guidelines for 

Population-level Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Structure, and Diversity 

Supporting Viable Salmonid Populations: An Update. December 13, 2005. Interior 

Columbia Technical Recovery Team. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, 

Washington.

ICTRT. 2008. Current status reviews: Interior Columbia basin salmon and steelhead ESUs. 

Volume III: MCR Steelhead DPS. May 2008 Draft.
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-1

Appendix IV. White Salmon River Implementation 

Schedule: Summary of Actions and Potential Costs to 

Restore White Salmon River Anadromous Fish 

Populations and Their Habitat 

The following table lists the recovery actions identified by the Washington Gorge Implementation 

Team to address salmon and steelhead recovery in the White Salmon River watershed. Actions 

addressing implementation of PacifiCorp’s decommissioning plans, restoration of the reaches affected 

by the former Northwestern Lake and the former Condit Dam, and harvest practices potentially 

affecting the rate of recovery are priority actions. 
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-2

Detailed cost breakdown by specific action.

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

ChinookSteelheadCohoChum

Species 

Reintroductions

x x x Restore populations Implement 

reintroduction plan for 

White Salmon salmonids

White Salmon 

Working Group

$0 $0

RM&E x x x x Baseline Habitat 

Data Collection

Gather information 

needed to identify and 

prioritize habitat actions 

that will provide the 

greatest opportunity to 

contribute to recovery

PacifCorp, 

White Salmon 

Working Group

$131,000 $0

x x x x Population 

Monitoring: 

- Monitor 

population 

abundance and 

productivity

- Monitor 

proportion and 

origin of hatchery 

salmon and 

steelhead on the 

spawning grounds 

Install & maintain large 

multiplexing PIT-tag 

detectors in the lower 

White Salmon 

mainstem, & in Buck & 

lower Rattlesnake 

Creeks. Report findings.

White Salmon 

Working Group

$176,000 $176,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-3

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

proportion and 

origin of hatchery 

salmon and 

steelhead on the 

spawning grounds

- Assess the 

resident trout 

contribution to 

smolts below 

Condit Dam; 

assess change in 

resident 

population after 

steelhead recolonization/reintroduction

Implement population 

monitoring in the White 

Salmon River & 

Rattlesnake Creek. 

White Salmon 

Working Group

$300,000 $300,000

Install two small 

stationary in-stream PITtag detectors in the 

lower most portion of 

Spring Creek. 

USGS $20,000 $20,000

Pit-Tag 3,000 juvenile 

salmonid each year 

above & below Condit 

Dam to track individual 

movement & seasonal 

growth rates.

USGS $10,000 $10,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-4

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Conduct adult spawning 

ground surveys and 

monitor. 

WDFW $351,000 $351,000

Create and maintain fish 

counts & biological 

database.

WDFW $9,000 $9,000

Mark adults for markrecapture population 

estimates.

WDFW $72,000 $72,000

Derive estimates of 

salmonid population 

abundance & complete 

reporting

USGS & 

WDFW

$400,000 $400,000

Population 

Monitoring: 

Genetic analses

Compare adult & smolt 

genetic analyses to 

ongoing adult salmon 

escapement estimates of 

WDFW & smolt 

outmigration estimates 

of USGS studies in the 

White Salmon River.

USFWS $70,000 $70,000

Habitat x x x Restore channel, 

stabilize banks, 

replant banks, and 

restore habitat in 

inundated area 

currently occupied 

by the reservoir and 

habitats 

downstream of 

Implement PacifiCorp's 

Decommissioning 

Management Plans.

PacifiCorp $895,000 to 

1,100,000+

$895,000 

to 

1,100,000+

$0
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-5

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Restore channel 

mainstream above 

Condit Dam.

YN, WDFW, 

UCD

$400,000-

600,000

$400,000-

600,000

$0

Restore riparian 

condition.

UCD $260,000 $260,000

Condit dam 

impacted by dam 

removal

Dredge mouth of River 

if needed

ACOE TBA TBA

Protect existing habitat 

from future degradation 

though existing 

regulatory structure

Federal, state, 

county, and 

local 

governments 

x x x x Protect and $0

conserve existing 

natural ecological 

processes

Protect existing habitat 

from future degradation 

though land 

management plans, 

conservation easements, 

acquisitions, 

reclassification of lands 

as natural areas 

UCD, NRCS, 

Counties, Land 

Trusts, 

landowners

$260,000 $10,000 $250,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-6

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

x x x Restore vegetation 

along stream 

sections that exceed 

state standards for 

temperature

Identify stream segments 

that are excessively 

warm; within those 

areas, work with willing 

landowners to 

implement actions to 

increase density of 

riparian vegetation 

where sparse; implement

programs to protect 

existing riparian 

vegetation, reduce 

sediment inputs to 

streams.

YN, WDFW, 

UCD, MidColumbia 

Regional 

Fishery 

Enhancement 

Group 

(MCRFEG), 

Klickitat Co.

$260,000 $260,000

In cooperation with 

irrigation district and 

others, remove or 

replace barriers 

inhibiting upstream 

passage including dikes, 

culverts and irrigation 

structures, 

provide/upgrade 

screening of irrigation 

diversions.

YN, USFWS, 

WDNR, 

WDOT, Private 

landowners, 

USFS, UCD, or 

others

x x Restore passage and $700,000 $700,000

connectivity's to 

habitats blocked or 

impaired by 

artificial barriers

Indian Creek culvert 

replacement.

UCD, USFWS, 

YN, Counties

$368,000 $118,000 $250,000

x x x x Reduce nutrient 

inputs

Reduce runoff of 

nutrients from septic 

tanks, dairies, 

agricultural lands, and 

other sources.

UCD, WDOE, 

NRCS, 

landowners, 

Counties

$1,111,000 $10,000 $450,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-7

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

x x x Improve LWD 

abundance and 

recruitment

In cooperation with 

landowners plan, design 

and install stable wood 

and other large debris in 

steambeds and develop 

approaches to ensuring 

long-term LWD 

recruitment.

UCD, 

MCRFEG, YN, 

FS, WDFW, 

landowners

$715,000 $0 $715,000

In cooperation with 

landowners develop 

grazing strategies that 

promote riparian 

recovery.

UCD, 

landowners

$80,000 $0 $80,000

Eradicate invasive plant 

species from riparian 

areas.

County weed 

control board, 

USFS, 

landowners

$120,000 Unknown $120,000

Restore channel With willing 

landowners, stabilize 

streambanks, restore 

natural channel form, 

reduce sediment inputs 

as needed from roads

UCD, 

landowners, 

MCRFEG, YN, 

USFWS, USFS, 

WDNR

80,000-

120,000

$0 80,000-

120,000

Reduce 

anthropogenic 

effects on stream 

flow

Quantify anthropogenic 

effects on stream flow 

and identify priority 

actions

Counties $200,000 $0 $200,000

With willing 

landowners, Implement 

water conservation 

measures

Counties, UCD, 

WDOE

$1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-8

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Improve irrigation 

conveyance and 

efficiency

UCD, 

landowners

$3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000

Employ BMPs with 

willing landowners

Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners, 

UCD

$400,000 $0 $400,000

Protect/restore springs 

with willing landowners

Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners, 

UCD, 

MCRFEG

$450,000 $0 $450,000

Increase pool habitat Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners, 

MCRFEG

$900,000 $0 $900,000

With willing landowners 

restore wetlands

Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners, 

UCD, 

MCRFEG

$600,000 $0 $600,000

Hydrologically 

disconnect roads from 

streams.

Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners

$1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-9

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Control road/stream 

interactions by reducing 

erosion potential

Counties, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFS, 

landowners

500,000-

700,000 

$0 500,000-

700,000 

x x x x Public Awareness Public Awareness 

regarding restoration 

projects and importance 

of wood in streams and 

riparian areas 

UCD, 

MCRFEG, 

WDFW, YN, 

USFWS,

30,000 to 

40,000

$0 30,000 to 

40,000

Harvest x x x x Harvest 

Management

Manage harvest for low 

impact fisheries and 

rapid population growth

PFMC, U.S. v. 

Oregon Parties

TBD $0 $0

x x x x Harvest 

Management

Adjust tributary harvest 

regulations in areas 

where harvest 

significantly impacts 

salmon and steelhead 

population growth

WDFW, YN, 

Co-managers

$50,000 $0 $0

Hatcheries x x x x Reintroduction -

hatchery production

Rehabilitate White 

Salmon Ponds and 

update intake screen

Co-managers

USFWS

$450,000 $0 $450,000

Hydrosystem and 

Mainstem 

Predation

x x x x Maintain or 

improve 

hydropower 

operations and 

facilities at 

Bonneville Dam to 

enhance salmon and 

steelhead survival

Decrease water travel 

time during smolt 

outmigration

BPA, ACOE Costs 

addressed in 

MiddleColumbia 

River roll-up 

plan
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-10

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Hydrosystem and 

Mainstem 

Predation

x x x x Maintain or 

improve 

hydropower 

operations and 

facilities at 

Bonneville Dam to 

enhance salmon and 

steelhead survival

Improve operation of 

adult passage, maintain 

high standards of adult 

fish passage at 

Bonneville Dam

BPA, ACOE Costs 

addressed in 

MiddleColumbia 

River roll-up 

plan

Hydrosystem and 

Mainstem 

Predation

x x x x Reduce predation 

on salmonids

Reduce predation by 

pinnipeds, piscivores, 

cornorants, and Caspian 

terns

BPA, ACOE Costs 

addressed in 

MiddleColumbia 

River roll-up 

plan

Jewett Creek

RM&E x x Baseline data 

collection

Determine spatial 

distribution of salmonids 

in Jewett Creek.

MCFEG, YN, 

WDFW

$1,000

RM&E x x Baseline data 

collection

Complete gathering 

information on existing 

salmonid stocks: 

determine the status, life 

histories and genetic 

composition of fish in

Jewett Creek

MCFEG, YN, 

WDFW, 

$2,000

RM&E x x Baseline data 

collection

Assess fish passage and 

habitat conditions in 

lower Jewett Creek

MCFEG, YN, 

WDFW, 

landowners,

$5,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013

AIV-11

Recovery 

Strategies as 

Prioritized in 

Recovery Plan

Applicable Species Action Type Specific Action(s)

Potential 

Implementing 

Entity(s)

Total 

Estimated 

Cost ($)

Total Cost 

Secured

Funds 

Needed

Habitat x x Restore riparian areas 

based on habitat 

assessment

MCFEG, YN, 

WDFW, 

landowners,

$75,000

$16,781,000 $1,873,000 $13,993,000
 ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed – June 2013