Conservation and Recovery Plan 

for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

 February 2010 
Richard W. Carmichael 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and 

Barbara J. Taylor 

Planner – Editor 

With contributions from: Tim Bailey, Ron Boyce, Paula Burgess, Will Cameron, 

Tom Cooney, Rod French, Rosemary Furfey, Mike Gauvin, Erin Gilbert, Richard 

Graves, Jerry Grant, Brett Hodgson, Scott Hoefer, Damon Holzer, Sue Knapp, Larry 

Lestelle, Kathryn Kostow, Don Matheson, Mark Plummer, Kathy Ramsey, Tom Rien, 

Jeff Rodgers, Jim Ruzycki, Jesse Schwartz, Eric Tinus, Rich Turner, Randy Tweten, 

Tim Unterwegner, Gary Wade 
i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Oregon Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan represents three years of intense 

effort by many people from multiple disciplines. There are far too many contributors to 

acknowledge and thank individually; however, special recognition is deserved for the Oregon 

Mid-Columbia Steelhead Sounding Board who provided excellent guidance, input and support 

throughout the planning process. The Mid-Columbia Planning Team and Management Action 

teams were instrumental in providing a solid science foundation for the plan and sound future 

management actions that will contribute greatly to steelhead recovery in Oregon. The MidColumbia Expert Panel provided a valuable report on limiting factors and threats, a key element 

of the plan. Members of each of these groups are identified in Appendix A. 

We thank Larry Lestelle who led the difficult and innovative effort to model the biological 

effectiveness of the management actions and Erin Gilbert for his masterful GIS mapping. This 

plan would never have come together without the efforts of Trish Bell. We thank Trish who 

contributed so much to logistics and coordination of the teams, and was instrumental in 

processing, compiling, and distributing the document. 

Our hope is that this plan will serve as a roadmap and a vehicle to facilitate the continuation of 

the sound work already underway as well as accelerate improvement in habitat conditions and 

steelhead management. Successful plan implementation will lead to abundant, diverse, and 

productive steelhead populations that provide significant ecological, social, and cultural benefits. 
 

ii 

CONTENTS 

 Page

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... i 

Contents .............................................................................................................................. ii 

Figures ................................................................................................................................. viii 

Tables .................................................................................................................................. xix 

Appendices List................................................................................................................... xxxi 

Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................. xxxii 

Section 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................ 1-1 

 1.1 Background and Regional Context ........................................................................ 1-2 

 1.2 A Cooperative Effort.............................................................................................. 1-4 

 1.3 Delisting the DPS ................................................................................................... 1-6 

 1.4 DPS Structure – A Hierarchical Steelhead Organization....................................... 1-8 

 1.5 Desired Status – Delisting and Broad Sense Recovery.......................................... 1-11 

 1.6 Current Population Status....................................................................................... 1-20 

 1.7 Gap Analysis .......................................................................................................... 1-22 

 1.8 Limiting Factors and Threats ................................................................................. 1-23 

 1.9 Recovery Strategies and Actions............................................................................ 1-28 

 1.10 Management Action Effectiveness......................................................................... 1-33 

 1.11 Time and Cost Estimates........................................................................................ 1-37 

 1.12 Implementation Plan and Adaptive Management Framework............................... 1-38 

 1.13 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation................................................................... 1-39 

 1.14 Population Summaries............................................................................................ 1-42 

 

Section 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 

 2.1 Species Recovery under ESA................................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2 State of Oregon Recovery Planning ....................................................................... 2-2 

 2.3 Tribal Treaty/Trust Obligations ............................................................................. 2-4 

Section 3 Background and Regional Context..................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Context of Plan Development ................................................................................ 3-1 

 3.1.1 NMFS’s Regional Process .............................................................................. 3-1 

 3.1.2 State of Oregon Recovery Planning Process .................................................. 3-3 

 3.2 Overview of Recovery Goals ................................................................................. 3-4 

 3.3 Description and Taxonomy .................................................................................... 3-8 

 3.4 Life History ............................................................................................................ 3-11 

 3.5 Critical Habitat ....................................................................................................... 3-12 

Section 4 DPS Structure ..................................................................................................... 4-1 

 4.1 Steelhead Population Structure: A Biologically-Based Hierarchy ........................ 4-1 

 4.1.1 Population Structure Adopted for Recovery Planning.................................... 4-2 

Section 5 Desired Status—Delisting and Broad Sense Recovery ...................................... 5-1 

 5.1 Delisting Goal and Criteria .................................................................................... 5-1 
 

iii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page

 5.1.1 Overall Approach ........................................................................................ 5-1

 5.1.2 Independent Population-level Viability Criteria .......................................... 5-3 

 5.1.3 Major Population Group Viability Criteria.................................................. 5-13 

 5.1.4 DPS Viability Criteria.................................................................................. 5-17 

 5.2 Broad Sense Recovery Goal and Objectives.......................................................... 5-17 

 

Section 6 Current Status—Viability Assessments .............................................................. 6-1 

 6.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead Population.................................................... 6-1 

 6.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead Population...................................... 6-2 

 6.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead Population..................................... 6-3 

 6.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population......................... 6-5 

 6.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population .................................. 6-6 

 6.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population ................................ 6-7 

 6.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population .................................. 6-9 

 6.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population ......................... 6-10 

 6.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead Population....................................................... 6-11 

 6.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead Population ................................................ 6-13 

 6.11 Major Population Groups Viability Assessments .................................................. 6-14 

 6.12 DPS Viability Assessment ..................................................................................... 6-15 

Section 7 Viability Gaps..................................................................................................... 7-1 

 7.1 Gaps Approach....................................................................................................... 7-1 

 7.2 Population Specific Viability Gaps ........................................................................ 7-3 

 7.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Population Gaps............................................................. 7-3 

 7.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Population Gaps................................................. 7-4 

 7.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Population Gaps................................................ 7-5 

 7.2.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Population Gaps .................................... 7-5 

 7.2.5 North Fork John Day River Population Gaps.............................................. 7-6 

 7.2.6 Middle Fork John Day River Population Gaps ........................................... 7-6 

 7.2.7 South Fork John Day River Population Gaps.............................................. 7-7 

 7.2.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Population Gaps .................................... 7-7 

 7.2.9 Umatilla River Population Gaps.................................................................. 7-8 

 7.2.10 Walla Walla River Population Gaps............................................................ 7-9 

Section 8 Limiting Factors and Threats.............................................................................. 8-1 

 8.1 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats Across and Within Populations................. 8-1 

 8.1.1 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats Across Populations......................... 8-2 

 8.1.2 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats Within Populations......................... 8-6 

 8.2 Tributary Habitat .................................................................................................... 8-17

 8.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-21 

 8.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-25 
 

iv 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page

 8.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-31 

 8.2.4 Crooked River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ................ 8-36 

 8.2.5 Lower Mainstem John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ........................................................................................................ 8-41 

 8.2.6 North Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-46 

 8.2.7 Middle Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-51 

 8.2.8 South Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting 

 Factors ......................................................................................................... 8-56 

 8.2.9 Upper Mainstem John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat 

 Limiting Factors .......................................................................................... 8-59 

 8.2.10 Umatilla River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ................. 8-63 

 8.2.11 Walla Walla River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ........... 8-73 

 8.3 Mainstem and Tributary Hydrosystems ................................................................. 8-78 

 8.3.1 Mainstem Hydropower Configurations and Operations.............................. 8-79 

 8.3.2 Tributary Hydropower Configurations and Operations .............................. 8-98 

 8.4 Estuarine and Plume Habitat .................................................................................. 8-100

 8.4.1 Changes in Plume Habitat ........................................................................... 8-101 

 8.4.2 Predation...................................................................................................... 8-101 

 8.5 Harvest ................................................................................................................... 8-102 

 8.5.1 Fisheries Management – Historically to Present ......................................... 8-102 

 8.5.2 Allowed Harvest Impacts under NOAA Biological Opinions .................... 8-105 

 8.5.3 Actual Recent Harvest Impacts ................................................................... 8-106 

 8.5.4 Tributary Fishery Impacts ........................................................................... 8-111 

 8.6 Hatchery Practices and Releases ............................................................................8-124 

 8.6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 8-124 

 8.6.2 Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead........................................................................ 8-125 

 8.6.3 Deschutes River Steelhead .......................................................................... 8-125 

 8.6.4 John Day River Steelhead ........................................................................... 8-131 

 8.6.5 Umatilla River Steelhead............................................................................. 8-135 

 8.6.6 Walla Walla River Steelhead....................................................................... 8-143 

 8.7 Predation and Competition..................................................................................... 8-145 

 8.7.1 Predation by Pinnipeds, Birds and Piscivorous Fish ................................... 8-146 

 8.7.2 Intra-Species Interactions ............................................................................ 8-147 

 8.8 Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 8-148

 8.8.1 Steelhead Habitat Impacts ........................................................................... 8-148 

 8.8.2 Potential Life Stage Specific Impacts.......................................................... 8-148 

 8.8.3 Potential Vulnerability Risk to Climate Change ......................................... 8-151 

Section 9 Recovery Strategies and Management Actions.................................................. 9-1 

 9.1 Strategic Guidance for Management Actions ........................................................ 9-1 

 9.1.1 Prioritization Considerations ....................................................................... 9-3 
 

v 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page

 9.2 An Integrated Approach ......................................................................................... 9-4 

 9.2.1 Building on Current Efforts......................................................................... 9-7 

 9.3 Tributary Habitat Strategies and Actions ............................................................... 9-8 

 9.3.1 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead 

 Population.................................................................................................... 9-12 

 9.3.2 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Deschutes River Eastside 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-28 

 9.3.3 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Deschutes River Westside 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-45 

 9.3.4 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Crooked River Steelhead Population ... 9-61 

 9.3.5 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Lower Mainstem John Day River 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-78 

 9.3.6 Habitat Strategies and Actions for North Fork John Day River 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-95 

 9.3.7 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Middle Fork John Day River 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-111 

 9.3.8 Habitat Strategies and Actions for South Fork John Day River 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-127 

 9.3.9 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Upper Mainstem John Day River 

 Steelhead Population ................................................................................... 9-142 

 9.3.10 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Umatilla River Steelhead Population... 9-159 

 9.3.11 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Walla Walla River Steelhead 

 Population.................................................................................................... 9-178 

 9.4 Hydrosystem Strategies and Actions...................................................................... 9-198 

 9.4.1 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Operations and 

 Configurations ............................................................................................. 9-198 

 9.4.2 Tributary Hydropower Operations and Configurations .............................. 9-200 

 9.5 Estuarine and Plume Habitat Strategies and Actions ............................................. 9-203 

 9.6 Harvest Strategies and Actions ..............................................................................9-204 

 9.6.1 Mainstem Harvest........................................................................................ 9-204 

 9.6.2 Tributary Harvest......................................................................................... 9-205 

 9.7 Hatchery Strategies and Actions ............................................................................9-206 

 9.7.1 Overall Hatchery Strategy and Actions....................................................... 9-206 

 9.7.2 Tributary Hatchery Strategies and Actions .................................................9-207 

 9.8 Predation and Competition Strategies and Actions................................................ 9-219 

 9.8.1 Predation Strategies and Actions................................................................. 9-219 

 9.8.2 Competition Strategies and Actions ............................................................ 9-221 

 Section 10 Management Action Effectiveness.................................................................. 10-1 

 10.1 Methods ................................................................................................................ 10-1 

 10.1.1 Approach ..................................................................................................... 10-1 

 10.1.2 Tributary Habitat Effectiveness................................................................... 10-8 

 10.1.3 All-H Integration Across Life Cycle. .......................................................... 10-18

 10.2 Analysis of Tributary Habitat Action Effectiveness............................................. 10-21 
 

vi 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page

 10.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead ........................................................... 10-22 

 10.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead ............................................. 10-28 

 10.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead ............................................ 10-34 

 10.2.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead ................................ 10-41 

 10.2.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead .......................................... 10-47 

 10.2.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead........................................ 10-53 

 10.2.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead .......................................... 10-59 

 10.2.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead................................. 10-65 

 10.2.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead .............................................................. 10-71 

 10.2.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead ........................................................10-77 

 10.3 All-H Integration Analysis .................................................................................. 10-83 

 10.3.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance .............................................................................. 10-84 

 10.3.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance .............................................................................. 10-87 

 10.3.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance .............................................................................. 10-91 

10.3.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes 

 to Population Performance .......................................................................... 10-97 

 10.3.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance. .............................................................................10-100 

 10.3.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance ..............................................................................10-103 

 10.3.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance ..............................................................................10-106 

10.3.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes 

 to Population Performance ..........................................................................10-109 

 10.3.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

 Population Performance ..............................................................................10-112 

10.3.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

Population Performance ..............................................................................10-115 

 10.4 All-H Management Action Effectiveness Analyses for Spatial Structure/ 

 Diversity ..............................................................................................................10-120 

 

Section 11 Time and Cost Estimates .................................................................................. 11-1 

 11.1 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... 11-1

 11.2 Time Estimates ..................................................................................................... 11-5 

Section 12 Implementation and Adaptive Management .................................................... 12-1 

 12.1 Implementation.................................................................................................... 12-1 

 12.2 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 12-6 

 12.2.1 Tributary Habitat ......................................................................................... 12-7 

 12.2.2 Mainstem Hydrosystem............................................................................... 12-9 

 12.2.3 Harvest......................................................................................................... 12-11 
 

vii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page

 12.2.4 Hatcheries.................................................................................................... 12-14 

 12.2.5 Implementation Progress and Status Check-ins .......................................... 12-15 

Section 13 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ............................................................. 13-1 

 13.1 Types of Monitoring Efforts................................................................................. 13-2 

 13.2 John Day River MPG ........................................................................................... 13-3

 13.2.1 Lower Mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, Upper 

 Mainstem John Day Rivers Populations...................................................... 13-5 

 13.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG...................................................................... 13-14 

 13.3.1 Umatilla River Population........................................................................... 13-15 

 13.3.2 Walla Walla River Population..................................................................... 13-35 

 13.4 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG............................................................ 13-48 

 13.4.1 Fifteenmile Creek Population...................................................................... 13-49 

 13.4.2 Eastside and Westside Deschutes River Populations .................................. 13-56 

Section 14 Literature Cited................................................................................................. 14-1 
 

viii 

FIGURES 

Number Page

 1-1 The Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. Areas marked as extirpated 

 Represent absence of only the anadromous form of O. mykiss ............................. 1-3 

 1-2 Oregon populations in the Mid-C Steelhead DPS. ................................................ 1-4 

 1-3 Mid-C Steelhead DPS major population groups and independent populations..... 1-9 

 1-4 Example of Abundance/Productivity viability curve............................................. 1-15 

 1-5 Matrix used to integrate Viable Salmonid Population parameter risk ratings and 

 determine overall viability level. ........................................................................... 1-17 

 3-1 NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. ........ 3-2 

 3-2 Geographic boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS................ 3-9 

 3-3 Interior Columbia River Basin steelhead populations including populations 

 in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (ICTRT 2003) .............................. 3-10 

 3-4 Critical habitat designated for salmon and steelhead in Oregon............................ 3-13 

 4-1 Hierarchical population structure within ESA-listed ESUs/DPSs, as 

 identified by the TRTs. .......................................................................................... 4-2 

 4-2 Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS major population groups and 

 populations............................................................................................................. 4-4 

 4-3 Major Population Groups and populations of the Middle Columbia River 

 Steelhead DPS........................................................................................................ 4-4 

 4-4 Independent populations within the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS....... 4-5 

 5-1 Example of Abundance/Productivity viability curves including Fifteenmile 

 Creek current abundance productivity point estimate with standard error 

 elipse and adjusted standard error bounds. ............................................................ 5-10 

 5-2 Viable salmonid population spatial structure and diversity guidelines 

 (McElhany et al. 2000). . ....................................................................................... 5-11 

 5-3 Assessing population viability across VSP criteria (ICTRT 2007). ...................... 5-13 

 5-4 MPG-level viability criteria identified by the ICTRT (ICTRT 2007). ................. 5-14 
 

ix 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 5-5 DPS-level viability criteria identified by the ICTRT (ICTRT 2007). .................. 5-17 

 6-1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

 compared to the DPS viability curve. .................................................................... 6-1 

 6-2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ................................... 6-2 

 6-3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ................................... 6-4 

 6-4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population abundance 

 and productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ............................. 6-5 

 6-5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ................................... 6-6 

 6-6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ................................... 6-8 

 6-7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ................................... 6-9 

 6-8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population abundance 

 and productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ............................ 6-10 

 6-9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

 compared to the viability curve for the DPS. ........................................................ 6-12 

 6-10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

 productivity compared to the viability curve for the DPS. .................................... 6-13 

 8-1 Areas within Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations that have significantly 

 altered fire regimes and vegetative attributes that are altered from the historical 

 condition (USFS condition class 3). ...................................................................... 8-18 

 8-2 Geographic areas used in the EDT analysis for the Umatilla River Subbasin 

 (NPCC 2004c)........................................................................................................ 8-71 
 

x 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-3 Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for PIT-tagged steelhead 

 detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 1999 to 2005 

 plotted with average spill percent at John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville 

 dams. ...................................................................................................................... 8-87 

 8-4 Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for Pit-tagged steelhead 

 detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 1999 to 2005 

 plotted with average water transit time for the reach McNary Dam to 

 Bonneville Dam. .................................................................................................... 8-87 

 8-5 Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for PIT-tagged 

 steelhead detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 

 1999 to 2005 plotted with average water temperature(C) measured at tailwater 

 TDGS monitors for the reach McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam. ......................... 8-88 

 8-6 Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day 

 Dam in 2001........................................................................................................... 8-90 

 8-7 Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day 

 Dam in 2002........................................................................................................... 8-91 

 8-8 Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day 

 Dam in 2003........................................................................................................... 8-91 

 8-9 Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day 

 Dam in 2004........................................................................................................... 8-92 

 8-10 Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day 

 Dam in 2005........................................................................................................... 8-92 

 8-11 Average escapement for adult spring/summer Chinook salmon, fall Chinook 

 salmon, and steelhead through the Federal Columbia River Power System, 

 adjusted for known commercial and sport harvests .............................................. 8-95 

 8-12 Number of steelhead harvested each year in Mainstem Columbia River fisheries 

 (1866-1936) (Craig and Hacker 1940)...................................................................8-104 

 8-13 Commercial harvest rates on steelhead, 1938-2002 (WDFW and ODFW 2002). 

 Non-tribal commercial harvest was discontinued in 1975.....................................8-104 
 

xi 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 8-14 Recreational harvest rates on steelhead in the mainstem below Bonneville Dam, 

 1964-2002 (WDFW and ODFW 2002). Blue is summer steelhead while pink is 

 winter steelhead. All Mainstem fisheries became catch-and-release in 1992 and 

 the impacts since that year were calculated by the encounter rate and an 

 estimated release mortality. ...................................................................................8-105 

 8-15 Run timing at Bonneville Dam of steelhead and other species that are targeted 

 in Mainstem commercial fisheries.........................................................................8-109 

 8-16 Number of steelhead released per number of Chinook landed by mesh size, as 

 observed during monitoring and test fishing in 2003-2005 spring Chinook 

 fisheries..................................................................................................................8-111 

 8-17 Relationship of Bonneville Dam wild Group A steelhead counts to estimated 

 escapement above Nursery Bridge Dam, Oregon for run years 1993-1994 

 through 1996-2000.................................................................................................8-123 

 8-18 Proportion of steelhead that are Round Butte Hatchery and out-of-subbasin 

 hatchery origin by trapping facility: (a) Sherars Falls, (b) Pelton Trap, 

 (c) WSNFH. ...........................................................................................................8-127 

 8-19 Migration timing of natural and hatchery summer steelhead smolts counted at 

 Three Mile Falls Dam. The percentages were from weekly totals of fish 

 divided by the respective total for the out-migration period. Daily Flow data at 

 the lower Umatilla River gauge (RM 2.1) was averaged on a weekly interval 

 (from Chess et al. 2003a).......................................................................................8-141 

 8-20 Percent change in springtime water availability (March-May) from baseline 

 conditions (1971-2000) to future conditions (2040s) and projected future 

 relative risk to Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units)...........8-160 

 8-21 Modeled current summer (July 21-August 3) stream temperatures and 

 growth zone characterization for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field 

 hydrologic units) ....................................................................................................8-161 

 8-22 Modeled future (2080) summer (July 21-August 3) stream temperatures and 

 growth zone characterization for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field 

 hydrologic units) ....................................................................................................8-162 
 

xii 

 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 8-23 Projected future relative risk to Mid-Columbia River steelhead habitat (6th

 field hydrologic units) due to changes in summer (July 21-August 3) stream 

 temperatures from current (2010) to future (2080) conditions ..............................8-163 

 8-24 Precipitation coefficient of variation for the period (1971-2007) and relative 

 risk for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units) ......................8-164 

 8-25 Integrated climate change potential vulnerability risk for Mid-Columbia River 

 steelhead (6th field hydrologic units) .....................................................................8-165 

 9-1 Flow chart illustrating the process for development of tributary habitat 

 strategies, actions, and programs and their characteristics .................................... 9-10 

 10-1 Use of EDT and AHA modeling platforms for different segments of steelhead 

 life cycle. The EDT model covers the life stages from adults to subbasin 

 through smolt emigration and AHA covers smolt passage through adult entry.... 10-3 

 

 10-2 Action integration components.............................................................................. 10-6 

 10-3 Action effectiveness elements................................................................................10-13 

 10-4 Change in fitness in relation to proportion of strays used in AHA modeling........10-20 

 10-5 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Fifteenmile Creek 

 winter steelhead due to tributary habitat actions....................................................10-24 

 10-6 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead .......................................................................10-25 

 10-7 Map of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

 proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from 

 high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches...................10-26 

 10-8 Map of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

 management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, 

 moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and 

 priority 2) proposed restoration actions .................................................................10-27 
 

xiii 

FIGURES (continued) 

 Number Page

 10-9 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River 

 Eastside summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions...................................10-30 

 10-10 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead .........................................................10-31 

 10-11 Map of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population showing geographic 

 areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

 proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from 

 high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches...................10-32 

 10-12 Map of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population showing geographic 

 areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed 

 protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, 

 moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and 

 priority 2) proposed restoration actions .................................................................10-33 

 10-13 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River 

 Westside summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions with and without 

 passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex.........................................................10-37 

 10-14 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead........................................................10-38 

 

 10-15 Map of the Deschutes River Westside steelhead population showing geographic 

 areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

 proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from 

 high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches...................10-39 

 10-16 Map of the Deschutes River Westside steelhead population showing geographic 

 areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed 

 protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, 

 moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and 

 priority 2) proposed restoration actions .................................................................10-40 

 10-17 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Lower Mainstem 

 John Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................10-43 
 

xiv 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 10-18 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead ............................................10-44 

 10-19 Map of the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

 Geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as 

 high priority for proposed protection management actions, and relative 

 restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions 

 for all reaches.........................................................................................................10-45

 10-20 Map of the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for 

 proposed protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and 

 reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all 

 (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions.........................................10-46 

 10-21 Estimated percent changes in population performance of North Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-49 

 10-22 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 North Fork John Day River summer steelhead......................................................10-50 

 10-23 Map of the North Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as 

 high priority for proposed protection management actions, and relative 

 restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions 

 for all reaches.........................................................................................................10-51

 10-24 Map of the North Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for 

 proposed protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and 

 reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all 

 (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions.........................................10-52 

 10-25 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Middle Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-55 

 10-26 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead....................................................10-56 
 

xv 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 10-27 Map of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as 

 high priority for proposed protection management actions, and relative 

 restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions 

 for all reaches.........................................................................................................10-57

 10-28 Map of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for 

 proposed protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and 

 reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all 

 (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions.........................................10-58 

 10-29 Estimated percent changes in population performance of South Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-61 

 10-30 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 South Fork John Day River summer steelhead......................................................10-62 

 10-31 Map of the South Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as 

 high priority for proposed protection management actions, and relative 

 restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions 

 for all reaches.........................................................................................................10-63

 10-32 Map of the South Fork John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for 

 proposed protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and 

 reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all 

 (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions.........................................10-64 

 10-33 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Upper Mainstem 

 John Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................10-67 

 10-34 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead.............................................10-68 
 

xvi 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 10-35 Map of the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as 

 high priority for proposed protection management actions, and relative 

 restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions 

 for all reaches.........................................................................................................10-69

 10-36 Map of the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

 geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for 

 proposed protection management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and 

 reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all 

 (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions.........................................10-70 

 10-37 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Umatilla River 

 summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.................................................10-73 

 10-38 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Umatilla River summer steelhead..........................................................................10-74 

 10-39 Map of the Umatilla River steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

 proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from 

 high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches...................10-75 

 10-40 Map of the Umatilla River steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

 management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, 

 moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and 

 priority 2) proposed restoration actions .................................................................10-76 

 10-41 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Walla Walla River 

 summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.................................................10-79 

 10-42 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Walla Walla River summer steelhead....................................................................10-80 

 10-43 Map of the Walla Walla River steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

 proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from 

 high priority (priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches...................10-81 
 

xvii 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 10-44 Map of the Walla Walla River steelhead population showing geographic areas 

 that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

 management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, 

 moderate, low and very low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and 

 priority 2) proposed restoration actions .................................................................10-82 

 10-45 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead associated with combinations of 

 tributary and out-of-subbasin actions.....................................................................10-86 

 10-46 Estimated population productivity of Deschutes River Eastside summer 

 steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin 

 actions ....................................................................................................................10-89 

 10-47 Estimated population equilibrium abundance of Deschutes River Eastside 

 summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of- 

 subbasin actions .....................................................................................................10-90 

10-48 Estimated population productivity of Deschutes River Westside summer 

 steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions 

 and no passage at Pelton-Round Butte...................................................................10-94 

 10-49 Estimated population equilibrium abundance of Deschutes River Westside 

 summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of- 

 subbasin actions and no passage at Pelton-Round Butte ..................................... 10-95 

10-50 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions and with passage at 

 Pelton-Round Butte Complex.............................................................................. 10-96 

10-51 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated 

 with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions................................ 10-99 

10-52 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of North Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-102 

10-53 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-105 
 

xviii 

FIGURES (continued) 

Number Page

10-54 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of South Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-108 

10-55 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated 

 with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions................................ 10-111 

10-56 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Umatilla River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

 of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. ............................................................. 10-114 

10-57 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-118 

10-58 Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

 abundance) of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of basin subbasin actions. Results are 

 shown for actions performed on just Oregon lands and with actions 

 combined on Oregon and Washington lands. ...................................................... 10-120 

 12-1 Implementation and adaptive management organizational chart for Oregon’s 

 Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan............................................................................12-4 

 12-2 Implementation and adaptive management organizational chart for the 

 Mid-C DPS Steelhead Recovery Plan including the Oregon components ............12-5 

 13-1 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework...........................................................13-2 
 

xix 

TABLES 

Number Page

 1-1 Population characteristics and minimum abundance and productivity (at the 

 threshold abundance level) values that represent levels needed to achieve a 

 95% probability of persistence over 100 years for Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

 populations............................................................................................................. 1-15

 1-2 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Cascades 

 Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. ............................................................................ 1-21 

 1-3 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the John Day 

 River MPG............................................................................................................. 1-21 

 1-4 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Umatilla/ 

 Walla Walla Rivers MPG. ..................................................................................... 1-22 

 1-5 Integrated approach to address all factors limiting recovery of Oregon’s 

 Mid-C steelhead populations. ................................................................................ 1-29 

 1-6 Summary of Recovery Information for Fifteenmile Creek Population. ................ 1-43 

 1-7 Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes River Eastside Population...... 1-44 

 1-8 Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes River Westside Population. ... 1-45 

 1-9 Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes/Crooked River Population..... 1-47 

 

1-10 Summary of Recovery Information for Lower Mainstem John Day River 

 Population. ............................................................................................................. 1-48 

 

 1-11 Summary of Recovery Information for North Fork John Day River Population .. 1-50 

 1-12 Summary of Recovery Information for Middle Fork John Day River Population 1-52 

 1-13 Summary of Recovery Information for South Fork John Day River Population .. 1-53 

 1-14 Summary of Recovery Information for Upper Mainstem John Day River 

 Population. ............................................................................................................. 1-55

 

 1-15 Summary of Recovery Information for Umatilla River Population. ..................... 1-56 

 1-16 Summary of Recovery Information for Walla Walla River Population. ............... 1-58 
 

xx 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 3-1 Types of sites and essential physical and biological features designated 

 as PCEs, and the life stage each PCE supports...................................................... 3-13 

 5-1 Mid-Columbia River steelhead population viability curves in tabular format 

 (return per spawner and population growth rate versions)a

. (ICTRT 2007)......... 5-4 

 5-2 Habitat classes showing spawning potential by steelhead and Chinook. .............. 5-6 

 5-3 Population characteristics and minimum abundance and productivity (at the 

 threshold abundance level) values that represent levels needed to achieve a 

 95% probability of persistence over 100 years for Mid-Columbia steelhead 

 populations in Oregon............................................................................................ 5-8 

 5-4 Organization of goals, mechanisms, factors and metrics for spatial structure 

 and diversity risk rating (ICTRT 2007). ................................................................ 5-12 

 5-5 Characteristics of steelhead populations in Cascades Eastern Slope 

 Tributaries MPG. ................................................................................................... 5-14 

 5-6 Characteristics of steelhead populations in the John Day River MPG. ................. 5-15 

 5-7 Characteristics of steelhead populations in Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers 

 MPG....................................................................................................................... 5-16 

 6-1 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the 

 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. ............................................................ 6-14 

 

 6-2 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the John 

 Day River MPG. .................................................................................................... 6-15 

 6-3 Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the 

 Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG. ...................................................................... 6-15 

 7-1 Abundance/Productivity statistics, risk ratings, and observed and 

 uncertainty gaps for Oregon Mid-C Steelhead populations................................... 7-4 

 8-1 Ranges of proportional reduction in survival for human-induced mortality 

 factors that influence Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River steelhead. Negative 

 values are truncated to zero (Step 4 Report 2006)................................................. 8-5 

 8-2 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead 

 population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................................. 8-6 
 

xxi 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-3 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Deschutes River Eastside 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-7 

 8-4 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Deschutes River Westside 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-8 

 8-5 Key and secondary threats to viability of the extinct Deschutes Crooked River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-10 

 8-6 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-11 

 8-7 Key and secondary threats to viability of the North Fork John Day River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-12 

 8-8 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Middle Fork John Day River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-13 

 8-9 Key and secondary threats to viability of the South Fork John Day River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-14 

 8-10 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

 steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................. 8-15 

 8-11 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Umatilla River steelhead 

 population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................................. 8-16 

 8-12 Key and secondary threats to viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead 

 population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006).................................................................. 8-17 

 8-13 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead (NPCC 2004a). ...................................... 8-24 

 8-14 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-25

 8-15 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population (NPCC 2004b). ..................... 8-28 

 8-16 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-30
 

xxii 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 8-17 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for Deschutes River Westside steelhead population (NPCC 2004b)..................... 8-34 

 

 8-18 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Deschutes River Westside steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-35

 8-19 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Crooked River steelhead population .... 8-40 

 8-20 Lower John Day watershed 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters of 

 concern (ODEQ 2002 cited in NPCC 2005).......................................................... 8-43 

 8-21 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population (NPCC 2005). .... 8-44 

 8-22 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

 steelhead population............................................................................................... 8-45 

 8-23 North Fork John Day River subbasin 303(d) listed stream segments and water 

 quality parameters of concern (ODEQ 2002 cited in NPCC 2005)....................... 8-48 

 8-24 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for North Fork John Day Steelhead (NPCC 2005). ............................................... 8-48 

 8-25 Habitat limiting factors summary for the North Fork John Day River steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-50

 8-26 Middle Fork John Day River subbasin 303(d) listed stream segments and 

 parameters of concern in 1998 and 2002 (ODEQ 2002) ....................................... 8-53 

 

 8-27 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for Middle Fork John Day River steelhead............................................................ 8-54 

 8-28 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-55

 8-29 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for South Fork John Day River steelhead population............................................ 8-58 

 8-30 Habitat limiting factors summary for the South Fork John Day River steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-59
 

xxiii 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-31 Upper John Day River watershed 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters 

 of concern (ODEQ 2002)....................................................................................... 8-61 

 8-32 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population............................. 8-62 

 8-33 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

 steelhead population............................................................................................... 8-63 

 8-34 Impaired stream reaches from the 1998 303(d) list and used for development 

 of the 2001 Umatilla Subbasin TMDL (ODEQ et al. 2001).................................. 8-67 

 8-35 Barriers to upstream passage on streams in the Umatilla River Subbasin............. 8-69 

 8-36 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for Umatilla River summer steelhead population. ................................................. 8-70 

 8-37 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Umatilla River steelhead population.... 8-72 

 8-38 Barriers to Upstream Passage on Streams in the Walla Walla Subbasin within 

 the Area Inhabited by the Walla Walla River steelhead population. This list is 

 based on a combination of archived records and field observation....................... 8-75 

 8-39 Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

 for the Walla Walla River steelhead population.................................................... 8-77 

 8-40 Habitat limiting factors summary for the Walla Walla River steelhead 

 population. ............................................................................................................. 8-78

 8-41 Smolt-to-adult return of Umatilla River wild summer steelhead at Three Mile 

 Falls Dam for 1995-2002 migration years (White et al. 2007). Data are 

 incomplete for 2001 and 2002 migration years. .................................................... 8-83 

 8-42 Smolt-to-adult return (hatchery release to Three Mile Falls Dam) of Umatilla 

 Hatchery steelhead 1987-97 broods (Rowan 1998; Chess et al. 2005). ................ 8-83 

 8-43 Combined estimates of wild summer and winter steelhead subbasin smolt 

 production, escapement to the mouth of the Hood River, and smolt-to-adult 

 survival rate. Estimates are by year of migration. (Olsen 2005). ......................... 8-84 

 
 

xxiv 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-44 Estimates of Foster and Hood River stock hatchery summer steelhead subbasin 

 smolt production releases, adult escapements to the mouth of the Hood River, 

 smolt-to-adult survival rate, and percent difference from the wild smolt-to-adult 

 survival rate. Estimates are by year of migration. (Olsen 2005). ......................... 8-85 

 8-45 Estimates of Hood River stock hatchery winter steelhead subbasin smolt 

 production releases, adult escapements to the mouth of the Hood River, smolt- 

 to-adult survival rate, and percent difference from the wild smolt-to-adult 

 survival rate. Estimates are by year of migration. (Olsen 2005). ......................... 8-86 

 8-46 Pearson correlation matrix for Snake River steelhead survival relationships........ 8-88 

 8-47 Estimated survival from McNary Dam tailrace to Bonneville Dam tailrace for 

 hatchery and wild steelhead (pooled) PIT tagged from the Snake River (from 

 Williams et al. 2005).............................................................................................. 8-89 

 8-48 SURPH generated survival and capture probabilities for natural summer 

 steelhead tagged and released into the Umatilla River, 1999-2005 

 (White et al. 2007). ................................................................................................ 8-89 

 8-49 Estimated impacts (percent of run) on winter steelhead in winter and spring 

 mainstem fisheries (2003-2005). ...........................................................................8-107 

 8-50 Estimated impacts (percent of run) on summer steelhead in summer and fall 

 Zone 6 fisheries. Fish numbers include hatchery and wild steelhead, and 

 impact rates are calculated based on the Bonneville Dam escapement.................8-108 

 8-51 Estimated size selectivity of the 2004 Zone 6 fishery. The size breakout is that 

 “Small” fish are less than 78 cm, while “Large” fish are equal to or greater than 

 78 cm. Estimated impact rates are based on the abundance of each group at 

 Bonneville Dam. ....................................................................................................8-108 

 8-52 Characteristics of commercial fisheries in the Columbia River below Bonneville 

 Dam........................................................................................................................8-110 

 8-53 Deschutes River expanded summer steelhead tribal harvest estimates for 

 Sherars Falls, by run year (June 16-October 31). Harvest estimates are for the 

 dip net and hook and line fisheries combined (ODFW/CTWSRO Creel Data). ...8-115 

 8-54 Results of PVA simulations of estimated probability of extinction in 50 years 

 for Umatilla steelhead under 16 different adult mortality rates.............................8-120 
 

xxv 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-55 Number of steelhead by origin in the Deschutes River by year and trapping 

 facility, 1977-2004.................................................................................................8-128 

 8-56 Proportions of steelhead by origin in the Deschutes River by year and trapping 

 facility, 1977-2004.................................................................................................8-129 

 8-57 Proportion of hatchery-origin fish by location in the lower Deschutes Subbasin 

 (for N > 9). .............................................................................................................8-130 

 8-58 Year, run (W-winter, S-summer, U-unknown), number, tributary and subbasin 

 of release for all known hatchery steelhead released into the John Day River 

 Subbasin from 1925-1969......................................................................................8-130 

 8-59 Summary of all known stock records for hatchery salmonids released into the 

 John Day River Subbasin from 1925-1997. Species include rainbow trout 

 (RbT), steelhead of unknown run (Sthd), winter steelhead (StW), summer 

 steelhead (StS), brook trout (BkT), and west slope cuttroat trout (WcT)..............8-132 

 8-60 Hatchery source, stock, number recovered, recovery period, and release agency 

 for hatchery steelhead with coded wire tags in the John Day River arm 

 (Tumwater Falls upstream to Cottonwood Bridge) from 1996-2003. Data were 

 compiled from the Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission Regional Mark 

 Information System................................................................................................8-134 

 8-61 Hatchery source, release location, recovery location, number recovered, and 

 recovery year for hatchery steelhead with coded wire tags in the John Day 

 River above Cottonwood Bridge (RM 40) from 1988-2003. ................................8-134 

 8-62 Releases of summer steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin prior to the 

 current program at Umatilla Fish Hatchery (Chess et al. 2003a). .........................8-137 

 8-63 Percent of Umatilla and non-endemic hatchery returns to Three Mile Falls 

 Dam........................................................................................................................8-138 

 8-64 Percent of Umatilla and non-endemic hatchery returns available to spawn in 

 nature......................................................................................................................8-138 

 8-65 Adult summer steelhead collected at the fish trip on Birch Creek (T. Bailey, 

 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication, 

 January 2001).........................................................................................................8-139 
 

xxvi 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 8-66 Visual observations of natural and hatchery summer steelhead during spawning 

 ground surveys (from Schwartz et al. 2005)..........................................................8-139 

 8-67 Release of LFH, Wallowa, Wells and Ringold stock steelhead smolts into the 

 Walla Walla River, 1983-2005 release years.........................................................8-144 

 8-68 Estimated numbers of adult hatchery- and natural-origin summer steelhead 

 passing upstream of Nursery Bridge Dam from brood years 1993-2005. .............8-145 

 8-69 Criteria for considering springtime water availability change ( SWAC ), summer 

 temperature change (STC), and historical precipitation variation (HPV) climate 

 change risk metrics into an integrated potential climate change vulnerability 

 index.......................................................................................................................8-157 

 

 9-1 Integrated approach to address threats and factors limiting recovery of 

 Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River steelhead populations .......................................... 9-5 

 9-2 Umatilla Subbasin Geographic Areas....................................................................9-177 

 9-3 Restoration Priority Geographic Areas from the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan 

 (NPCC 2004). ........................................................................................................9-196 

 9-4 Protection Priority Geographic Areas from the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan 

 (NPCC 2004). ........................................................................................................9-196 

 9-5 Walla Walla Subbasin Geographic Areas..............................................................9-196 

9-6 Initial estimates of annual releases of summer steelhead to occur within 

 specific areas of the drainage basin upstream of the Pelton-Round Butte 

 Complex as the reintroduction effort moves forward............................................9-213 

 10-1 Combinations of actions and effects modeled for each steelhead population 

 using the AHA model ............................................................................................ 10-8 

 10-2 Tributary habitat actions modeled in each subbasin..............................................10-10 

 

 10-3 Potential effectiveness levels assigned to actions..................................................10-14 

 10-4 Intensity levels assigned to actions........................................................................10-15 

 10-5 Out-of-subbasin survival improvements for Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

 populations.............................................................................................................10-21
 

xxvii 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 10-6 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action 

 effectiveness values applied to the Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead 

 population ..............................................................................................................10-22 

 

 10-7 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Fifteenmile Creek 

 winter steelhead due to tributary habitat actions....................................................10-23 

 10-8 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead .......................................................................10-23 

 10-9 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population.....10-28 

 10-10 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River 

 Eastside summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions...................................10-29 

 10-11 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead. ........................................................10-29 

 

 10-12 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population....10-34 

 10-13 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River 

 Westside summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions .................................10-35 

 10-14 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Deschutes Westside summer steelhead..................................................................10-36 

 10-15 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead 

 population ..............................................................................................................10-41

 10-16 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Lower Mainstem 

 John Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................10-42 

 10-17 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead. ...........................................10-42 
 

xxviii 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 10-18 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population..10-47 

 10-19 Estimated percent changes in population performance of North Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-48 

 10-20 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 North Fork John Day River summer steelhead......................................................10-48 

 10-21 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

 population ..............................................................................................................10-53

 10-22 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Middle Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-54 

 10-23 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead....................................................10-54 

 10-24 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population..10-59 

 10-25 Estimated percent changes in population performance of South Fork John Day 

 River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................................10-60 

 10-26 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 South Fork John Day River summer steelhead......................................................10-60 

 10-27 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead 

 population ..............................................................................................................10-65

 10-28 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Upper Mainstem 

 John Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.......................10-66 

 10-29 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead.............................................10-66 
 

xxix 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

 

 10-30 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Umatilla River summer steelhead population......................10-71 

 10-31 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Umatilla River 

 summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions............................................... 10-72 

 10-32 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Umatilla River summer steelhead........................................................................ 10-72 

 10-33 Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

 values applied to the Walla Walla River summer steelhead population.............. 10-77 

 10-34 Estimated percent changes in population performance of Walla Walla River 

 summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions............................................... 10-78 

 10-35 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

 performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to 

 Walla Walla River summer steelhead.................................................................. 10-78 

 10-36 Abbreviations used in tables reporting All-H integration results ........................ 10-83 

10-37 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

 Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

 and out-of-subbasin actions ................................................................................. 10-85 

 10-38 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

 Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

 tributary and out-of-subbasin actions................................................................... 10-88 

 10-39 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

 Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

 tributary and out-of-subbasin actions................................................................... 10-92 

10-40 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-98 

10-41 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of North Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

 of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. ............................................................. 10-101 
 

xxx 

TABLES (continued) 

Number Page

10-42 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

 of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. ............................................................. 10-104 

10-43 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of South Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

 of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. ............................................................. 10-107 

10-44 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with 

 combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions........................................ 10-110 

10-45 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Umatilla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

 and out-of-subbasin actions. ................................................................................ 10-113 

10-46 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

 tributary and out-of-subbasin actions................................................................... 10-117 

10-47 Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) 

 of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

 tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. Results are shown for actions performed 

 on just Oregon lands (P12Ore) and with actions combined on Oregon and 

 Washington lands (P12OreWa) ........................................................................... 10-119 

 

 11-1 Recovery Costs Summary Table.......................................................................... 11-2 
 

xxxi 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: Participants—Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Populations Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

APPENDIX B: Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead Viability Assessments 

APPENDIX C: Summary of Habitat Projects Completed within Oregon’s Mid-Columbia 

 River Steelhead Populations on Private and Public Lands from 1995-2005 

 (Data provided by OWEB, USFS, BLM and Watershed Councils) 

APPENDIX D: Hydropower Configuration and Operational Improvements Implemented 

 in Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to Oregon’s Mid-C 

 Steelhead Populations, and Estuary Improvements Implemented in 

 Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to Oregon’s Mid-C 

 Steelhead Populations 

APPENDIX E: Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Programs in Support of 

 Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Sufficiency Assessment 

APPENDIX F: Habitat Programs Implemented by Oregon State Agencies to Address 

 Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Listed Anadromous 

 Salmon and Steelhead 

APPENDIX G: Culverts that need to be improved or replaced 

APPENDIX H: Management Actions Effectiveness Model Data and Assumptions 

APPENDIX I: Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions 

APPENDIX J: Fuels Treatment as an Action Contributing to Recovery of ESA-listed 

 Anadromous Salmonids 
 

xxxii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AHA All-H analyzer

A/P Abundance/productivity 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

AgWQM Agricultural water quality 

management 

BACI Before-after-control-impact 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BiOp Biological opinion 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best management practices 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CAFO Confined animal feeding 

operations 

CBFWA Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Authority 

CCRP Continuous Conservation Reserve 

Program

CDs Conservation districts 

CHART Critical Habitat Assessment 

Review Team 

CI Confidence interval

CREP Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program 

CRFPO Columbia River Fisheries 

Program Office 

CRITFC Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish 

Commission

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSMEP Collaborative Systemwide 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Project

CSP Conservation Security Program 

CSS Comparative survival study

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

CTWSRO Confederated Tribes of the Warms 

Springs Reservation of Oregon 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWT Coded-wire tag 

DART Data access in real time

DBLT Deschutes Basin Land Trust 

DSL Oregon Department of State 

Lands 

DPS Distinct population segment

DRC Deschutes River Conservancy 

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and 

Treatment

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EMAP Environmental monitoring and 

assessment protocol 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQUIP Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power 

System

FEIS Final environmental impact 

statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FMEP Fisheries Management and 

Evaluation Plan 

FPC Fish Passage Center 

FPP Fish per pound 

FS Forest Service 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FWC Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission 

FY Fiscal year 

GFID Gardena Farms Irrigation District 

#13 

GM Geometric mean 

GMA Growth Management Act

GRP Grassland Reserve Program 

HBDIC Hudson Bay District Improvement 

Company

HFRP Healthy Forest Reserve Program 

HGMP Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plan 

HID Hermiston Irrigation District 

HPV Historical Precipitation Variation 

HUC Hydrologic unit code 

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team 

IFIM Instream flow incremental 

methodology

IFP Integrated fruit production 

IHNV Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis 

Virus 

IMW Intensively monitored watershed 
 

xxxiii 

IRMP Integrated Resource Management 

Plan 

ISRP Independent Scientific Review 

Panel 

LBC Lake Billy Chinook 

LCREP Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership 

LIDAR Light detecting and ranging

LFH Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

LWD Large woody debris 

MaSA Major spawning area 

MiSA Minor spawning area 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MNF Malheur National Forest

MOA Memorandum of agreement 

MPG Major population group 

MU Management unit 

NBD Nursery Bridge Dam 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act 

NFCP Native Fish Conservation Policy 

NGO Non-government agency 

NHD National Hydrography Dataset 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries 

NPMP Northern Pikeminnow 

Management Program

NPCC Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit 

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan 

ODA Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

ODOT Oregon Department of 

Transportation 

ODEQ Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

OHV Off highway vehicle 

OPSW Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds 

ORV Outstandingly remarkable values 

OSU Oregon State University 

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board 

OWRD Oregon Water Resources 

Department 

PACFISH Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy 

PCEs Primary constituent elements 

PCR Polymerase chain reaction

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery 

Fund 

PGE Portland General Electric 

PIT Passive integrated transponder 

PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic 

Monitoring Partnership 

PRBC Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

PTAGIS PIT Tag Information System

PVA Population viability analysis 

QAR Quantitative analytical report 

RBH Round Butte Hatchery 

RC&D Resource conservation and 

development 

RHCAs Riparian habitat conservation 

areas 

RIOG Regional Implementation and 

Oversight Group

RM River-mile 

RMEF Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

RPA Reasonable and prudent 

alternative 

RSTs Rotary screw traps 

RSW Removable spillway weir 

SAR Smolt-to-adult return

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act 

SID Stanfield Irrigation District 

SLEDs Sea lion excluder devices 

SMP Shorelines Master Plan 

SMU Species Management Units 

SNPs Single nucleotide polymorphisms

SS/D Spatial structure/diversity

SSB Substitute Senate Bill 

STC Summer temperature change 

SURPH Survival under proportional 

hazards 

SWAC Springtime water availability 

change

SWCD Soil and water conservation 

district 

SWW Selective water withdrawal 

TDG Total dissolved gas 

TDGS Total dissolved gas 

supersaturation 
 

xxxiv 

TIR Thermal infrared

TMDL Total maximum daily loads 

TMFD Three Mile Falls Dam 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

TSID Three Sisters Irrigation District 

TSS Tri-State Steelheaders 

UBWC Umatilla Basin Watershed 

Council 

UNF Umatilla National Forest 

UPA Updated proposed action 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFS U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UWCIG University of Washington Climate 

Impact Group

VARs Variances

VSP Viable salmonid population

WAC Washington administrative code

WCC Washington Conservation 

Commission 

WDOE Washington Department of 

Ecology 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of 

Natural Resources 

WEID West Extension Irrigation District

WHP Wellhead Protection Program 

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive 

Program 

WID Westland Irrigation District 

W/LC TRT Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team 

WSNFH Warm Springs National Fish 

Hatchery

WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program 

WWBWC Walla Walla Basin Watershed 

Council 

WY Water years

YN Yakama Nation
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-1 

Section 1 Executive Summary 

This plan serves as a blueprint for the recovery of ten Middle Columbia River (Mid-C) steelhead 

populations that occupy Oregon tributaries to the Columbia River. The steelhead populations 

spawn and rear in the Fifteenmile Creek, Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla river 

basins and are part of the Mid-C steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS). The DPS, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

includes all steelhead populations in Oregon and Washington tributaries to the Columbia River 

upstream of the Hood and Wind river systems, up to and including the Yakima River. 

The plan seeks to remove or minimize threats to the long-term persistence of Oregon’s Mid-C 

steelhead populations and improve their viability to levels that will allow removal of the DPS 

from the threatened and endangered species list. The long-term goals, however, reach well 

beyond achieving DPS delisting. They aim to recover the populations and their habitats to levels 

that are not only viable, but also provide sustainable fisheries and other ecological, cultural, 

social and economic benefits for future generations. 

Improving the status of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations is critical to DPS recovery. The 

populations play essential roles in achieving viability for three of four major population groups 

within the DPS. Status of most of the populations needs to improve to achieve viability criteria. 

The plan’s recovery strategies and actions seek to remove threats to the long-term persistence of 

the populations and improve biological status so the populations meet viability requirements and 

support DPS recovery. Strategies and actions focus primarily on addressing threats to the 

populations posed by tributary habitat degradation, out-of-DPS hatchery strays, and hydrosystem 

development and operations ― considered the main obstacles to recovery. 

The plan provides information required by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

to satisfy the requirements of section 4(f) of the ESA and the State of Oregon’s Conservation 

Plan requirements. It describes: 1) recovery goals and objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, will result in a determination that the species be removed from the threatened and 

endangered species list; 2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan’s 

goals; 3) estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the actions needed to achieve the 

plan’s goals; and 4) direction for monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management to finetune our course towards recovery when needed. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-2 

Still, the plan is not a regulatory document. The ESA does not require any agency or entity to 

implement the recovery strategies or specific actions in the recovery plan unless otherwise 

legally mandated (NMFS 2006a). It depends on the social and regulatory structure that currently 

exists for habitat, hydropower, harvest, hatchery and predation management and models the 

existing and expected changes for these important factors in the future. The plan identifies 

actions deemed necessary to achieve recovery goals, focusing on where changes can be 

accomplished that build upon and adapt from the existing social and regulatory programs. This 

approach acknowledges the policy choices that have been made in the past to maintain 

hydropower in the Columbia Region as well as other choices to sustain social and economic 

interests, while identifying actions necessary to reach recovery goals. If and when there are 

major changes in the underlying policy choices, this plan will need to be updated to clearly 

reflect these changes. While this plan identifies needed actions and priority locations, it also 

gives implementing agencies and citizens the flexibility to design creative, yet scientifically 

sound approaches that reflect site-specific conditions and support local interests. 

This conservation and recovery plan will be considered a “living document.” As new 

information becomes available, such as the outcome of the Federal Columbia River Power 

System Biological Opinion process, or as new information reveals the need for adaptive change, 

revised and additional actions will be added to the plan. 

1.1 Background and Regional Context 

Historically, Mid-C steelhead spawned and reared throughout central Oregon and south-central 

Washington. They occupied nine major Columbia River tributaries draining the east side of the 

Cascades Mountains, as well as numerous smaller systems. Major river systems include the 

White Salmon, Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Yakima rivers and 

Fifteenmile, Rock, and Willow creeks (Figure 1-1). 

The document contains: 

• The institutional framework and rationale for recovery plans 

• How NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service expects to use the plan 

• The regional context within which recovery plans in the Columbia Basin are written 

• The relation of this plan to other planning processes and other ESA mandates 

• Desired status—delisting and broad sense recovery goals; viability criteria 

• The current status of listed Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations 

• Gaps between current status and viable status 

• Limiting factors and threats 

• Recovery strategies and actions for the Oregon portion of the Mid-C steelhead DPS 

• Management action effectiveness and expected outcomes 

• Cost analysis 

• A framework for implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-3 

Figure 1-1. The Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. Areas marked as extirpated represent 

absence of only the anadromous form of O. mykiss. 

By the late 1900s, Mid-C steelhead populations had experienced significant declines in 

abundance as a result of loss, damage or change to their natural environment. On March 25, 

1999, NMFS listed Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act as part of the Middle Columbia River steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

(ESU) (69 FR 33101). The ESU included both anadromous and resident forms of the biological 

species Oncorhynchus mykiss (O.mykiss). Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations 

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

population segments” (DPS). NMFS listed the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as 

threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The DPS consists of all historical steelhead 

populations in Oregon and Washington tributaries of the Columbia River upstream of the Hood 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-4 

and Wind river systems, up to and including the Yakima River. It is one of 17 ESUs and DPSs 

of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest listed under the ESA. 

The populations remain highly valued by Native Americans and many other people in the Pacific 

Northwest. The steelhead populations have long had important tribal subsistence, ceremonial 

and commercial values for Native Americans, including the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

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

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Native Americans continue to 

maintain strong cultural values for steelhead and salmon species. Northwest Indian tribes hold 

legally enforceable treaty rights reserving to them a share of the salmon harvest. Local 

communities and others in the region also treasure the steelhead populations and their habitats as 

important resources, and want to see them rebuilt to sustainable, harvestable levels. All of these 

rights and expectations will not necessarily be fully met by achieving only the basic purpose of 

the ESA and delisting of the species, although it will lead to major improvements in the current 

situation. The recovery plan’s broad sense goals and objectives address these and other issues. 

1.2 A Cooperative Effort 

This conservation and recovery plan is one piece of a larger, integrated recovery plan for the 

entire DPS. It addresses factors limiting the viability of Mid-C steelhead populations within the 

State of Oregon (Figure 1-2). The DPS-level recovery plan also includes individual recovery 

plans for the other areas in the DPS. 

 

 Figure 1-2. Oregon populations in the Mid-C Steelhead DPS. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-5 

State of Oregon Recovery Planning 

The State of Oregon led the development of this recovery plan for Oregon Mid-C steelhead in 

partnership with NMFS, other natural resource agencies, the tribes, and local communities. The 

State’s approach to recovery planning is grounded in an understanding that the challenges of 

steelhead recovery are immense—particularly in the face of growing human populations and 

demands for clean water and other precious resources. The recovery plan was developed to 

parallel and build from the Oregon Plan and the Oregon Conservation Strategy. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife facilitated the plan’s development through a 

collaborative process with broad technical, stakeholder and public involvement. We have 

involved critical players at each stage in the decision-making process. Oregon’s recovery 

planning forums include the Middle Columbia Sounding Board, the Mid-Columbia Recovery 

Planning Team, and Management Action Teams. We are relying heavily on these different 

players to make sure that our recovery strategy for Oregon Mid-C steelhead in scientifically 

sound and defendable. This involvement is vital for the plan’s successful implementation. 

• Middle Columbia Sounding Board (MCSB). The MCSB consists of representatives of 

local communities, agricultural and timber interests, land managers, governing bodies, 

tribes, and industry and environmental interests. The MCSB provides policy guidance in 

the development of all aspects of the plan and ensures selection of locally appropriate and 

locally supported recovery actions needed to achieve species recovery goals. The MCSB 

was particularly instrumental in the development of broad sense recovery goals, recovery 

scenarios, recovery strategies, strategic guidance for development and prioritization of 

management actions, and implementation planning. 

• Mid-Columbia Recovery Planning Team. The recovery planning team includes state, 

Federal, Tribal, and watershed council technical representatives across the DPS. The 

team provided technical guidance and writing for all aspects of the plan. 

• Management Action Teams. The three management action teams include local experts 

representing state and federal natural resource agencies, the tribes, watershed councils 

and Portland General Electric. The teams developed management actions for the ten 

steelhead populations. 

Oregon recovery planners also incorporated findings from groups with broader areas of 

responsibility than the Mid-Columbia, including the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery 

Team and the Oregon Expert Panel. 

• Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). The ICTRT, appointed by NMFS, 

provides geographic and species expertise for the entire Interior Columbia domain. The 

team includes biologists from NMFS, state, tribal and local entities, academic 

institutions, and private consulting firms. The ICTRT plays an important role in recovery 

planning, including developing ESU/DPS and population viability criteria that will be 

used, along with threats-based criteria, to determine whether a species has recovered 

sufficiently to be downlisted to threatened (if endangered) or delisted. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-6 

• Oregon Expert Panel. The Expert Panel was created by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife for purposes of recovery planning and consisted of biologists with 

significant knowledge of the limiting factors and threats influencing Oregon’s listed 

salmon and steelhead populations. Panelists identified common key and secondary threat 

themes for the populations. 

Involvement by these different entities helps ensure that recovery goals and actions are 

consistent and compatible with the goals and direction adopted in related efforts. This integrated 

approach establishes partnerships that allow actions to be implemented effectively and 

efficiently. 

1.3 Delisting the DPS 

The overarching aim of this recovery plan is removal of the Middle Columbia River steelhead 

DPS from the threatened and endangered species list. Section 4(a) (1) of the ESA and NMFS 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) establish procedures for listing species. According 

to this direction, the Secretary of Commerce must determine if a species is endangered or 

threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors: (1) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

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

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Listing Factors 

In its initial determination to list the species, NMFS found (1996, 1997) that all five listing 

factors had played a role in the decline of the West Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs. These 

factors may or may not still be limiting recovery in the future when NMFS reevaluates the status 

of the species to determine whether the protections of the ESA are no longer warranted and the 

species may be “delisted.” Findings leading to the listing of West Coast salmon and steelhead, 

including Mid-C steelhead, include: 

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range. Salmon and steelhead have experienced declines in abundance over the past 

several decades as a result of loss, damage or change to their natural environment. Water 

diversions, forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have eliminated, degraded, 

simplified, and fragmented habitat. Hydroelectric development on the mainstem 

Columbia River modified natural flow regimes and impaired fish passage. Tributary 

obstructions also restrict or block salmon and steelhead access to historical habitats. 

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

Overfishing in the early days of European settlement led to the depletion of many 

salmonid stocks before extensive modifications and degradation of natural habitats, and 

exploitation rates following the degradation of many aquatic and riparian ecosystems 

were higher than many populations could sustain. Today, steelhead harvest continues on 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-7 

the Columbia River, tributaries and Pacific Ocean; however, fishery impacts have 

declined significantly because of changes in fishery management. 

3. Disease or predation. Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous rivers. Predators on adult and 

juvenile steelhead include seabirds, such as Caspian terns, walleye and California sea 

lions. 

4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Various federal, state, county and tribal 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to reduce habitat loss and degradation caused by 

human use and development. Many of these mechanisms have been improved over the 

years to slow the habitat degradation and destruction. Protective efforts directed toward 

addressing the many factors that adversely impact Mid-C steelhead and habitat—water 

quality and quantity, safe migration, riparian vegetation, food, predation dynamics and 

complex stream channels, and floodplain connectivity—will aid in improving these 

factors. 

5. Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. Variability in 

ocean and freshwater conditions can have profound impacts on the productivity of 

salmonid populations and, at different times, have exacerbated or mitigated the problems 

associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. 

NMFS listed the Middle Columbia River ESU in response to a biological review that concluded 

that summer steelhead in the ESU were “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future” 

(NMFS 1999). Prominent features leading NMFS to list the ESU included: (1) declines in 

abundance of wild steelhead populations, (2) levels of abundance well below historical levels, 

(3) large numbers of hatchery-origin steelhead entering the Deschutes River basin, and a lack of 

information regarding this phenomenon, (4) large numbers of hatchery steelhead relative to wild 

steelhead and a general lack of information regarding the impacts of hatchery steelhead on wild 

steelhead populations throughout the region, (5) a lack of information regarding the interactions 

between resident rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead, and (6) habitat alterations in the 

region resulting in a loss of spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead, including habitat changes 

that have exterminated some steelhead runs (Busby et al. 1996; NMFS 1999). 

Critical Habitat 

NMFS designated critical habitat for Mid-C steelhead and 12 other ESUs of salmon and 

steelhead in a final rule that took effect on January 2, 2006. Essential features of designated 

critical habitat include substrate, water quality, water quantity, water temperature, food, riparian 

vegetation, access, water, velocity, space, and safe passage. The Critical Habitat Assessment 

Review Team (CHART) has rated the conservation value of all 5th-field HUCs supporting 

populations of Mid-C steelhead. Section 3 of the draft recovery plan discusses the physical and 

biological primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified as essential to the conservation of the 

species and shows streams designated critical habitat for Mid-C steelhead. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-8 

1.4 DPS Structure — A Hierarchical Steelhead Organization 

Our approach to recovery recognizes that a hierarchical steelhead organization structure exists in 

the DPS. This hierarchical structure extends from the DPS level to a level below the 

independent population, with individual steelhead in the DPS often sharing more genetic and life 

history similarities with their closest neighbors than with steelhead from other parts of the DPS. 

The homing propensity, distribution across the landscape, and the diverse genetic, life history 

and morphological characteristics that evolve contribute significantly to this hierarchical 

structure and the species long-term persistence. 

The ICTRT has identified three levels in this hierarchy that reflect genetic, geographic 

(hydrographic) and habitat considerations in the DPS (ICTRT 2003). The State of Oregon 

adopted this biological hierarchy for purposes of Mid-C steelhead recovery planning. 

• Evolutionarily Significant Units and Distinct Population Segments listed under the ESA 

must be substantially reproductively isolated from other nonspecific units, and represent 

an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species (Waples 1991). 

• Major Population Groups (MPGs) are independent populations in an ESU or DPS that 

share similar genetic, geographic (hydrographic and ecoregion), and/or habitat 

characteristics (ICTRT 2003). The ICTRT defined a grouping as a Major Population 

Group (MPG), which is analogous to “strata” as defined by the Lower Columbia-Upper 

Willamette TRT and “geographic region” described by the Puget Sound TRT. 

• Independent Population as defined by McElhany et al. (2000) is “a group of fish of the 

same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular 

season and which, to a substantial degree, does not interbreed with fish from any other 

group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a different season. For our 

purposes, not interbreeding to a ‘substantial degree’ means that two groups are 

considered to be independent populations if they are isolated to such an extent that 

exchanges of individuals among the populations do not substantially affect the population 

dynamics or extinction risk of the independent populations over a 100-year time frame.” 

The ICTRT divided the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS into four major population groups: 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, Yakima River MPG, John Day River MPG and 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG (Figure 1-3). Three of these MPGs contain Mid-C steelhead 

from Oregon tributaries. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-9 

Figure 1-3. Mid-C Steelhead DPS major population groups and independent populations. 

Major Population Groups and Oregon Populations 

 

The three MPGs that support Oregon Mid-C steelhead, and the Oregon populations within them, 

are the focus of this recovery plan and are discussed below. Independent populations are the 

units that will be combined to form alternative recovery scenarios for MPG and DPS viability. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG contains five extant populations (Fifteenmile 

Creek, Deschutes River Westside, Deschutes River Eastside, Klickitat and Rock Creek) and two 

extinct populations (White Salmon and Crooked River). Populations in this MPG are united 

primarily by geographic proximity. The Columbia River tributaries that support them generally 

drain the eastern slope of the Cascades and the dry Columbia Plateau, and display varied habitat 

conditions. The MPG supports summer and winter run life history forms of steelhead. It contains 

three extant and one extinct Oregon populations: 

1. The Fifteenmile Creek population occupies Fifteenmile Creek and its tributaries, 

Fivemile, Eightmile and Ramsey creeks. It also includes five drainages outside of the 

Fifteenmile Creek watershed, Threemile, Mill, Chenoweth, Mosier, and Rock creeks, that 

flow directly into the Columbia River. Fifteenmile Creek steelhead are exclusively 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-10 

winter run fish and are considered the easternmost distribution of winter steelhead in the 

Columbia basin. 

2. The Deschutes River Eastside population encompasses the mainstem Deschutes River 

from its mouth to the confluence of Trout Creek and the tributaries entering the 

Deschutes from the east, including Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, and Trout creeks. Steelhead 

in this population are exclusively summer run fish. 

3. The Deschutes River Westside population covers the mainstem Deschutes River upstream 

from the mouth of Trout Creek and tributaries entering the Deschutes from the west. 

Current steelhead access extends from Trout Creek to the Pelton Re-regulating Dam on 

the mainstem Deschutes and into the Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek and several 

smaller tributaries. Pelton Dam, a hydroelectric dam at RM 100 on the Deschutes River, 

blocks all anadromous fish passage to historical habitat above the dam, including areas in 

the Metolius River and Whychus Creek. The population is a summer run. It is separated 

from the eastside tributary population based on habitat and life history characteristics. 

4. The Deschutes Crooked River population once occupied the Crooked River drainage, a 

major watershed in the Deschutes basin. The population is now extinct because of the 

lack of passage above Pelton Dam. A current management agreement and plan aim to reestablish steelhead production within the population’s boundaries. 

John Day River MPG 

The John Day River MPG covers Oregon’s John Day River drainage. The MPG contains five 

extant populations (Lower Mainstem John Day, North Fork John Day, Middle Fork John Day, 

South Fork John Day and Upper Mainstem John Day). Steelhead in these populations are 

exclusively summer steelhead. The MPG is one of the few remaining summer steelhead groups 

in the Interior Columbia basin that has had no intentional influence from introduced hatchery 

steelhead and that has recently been classified as strong or healthy (Lee et al. 1997; Huntington 

et al. 1994). Spawning is widely distributed across tributary and mainstem habitats. 

1. The Lower Mainstem John Day River population includes tributaries to the John Day 

River downstream of the South Fork John Day River. This widespread population is the 

most differentiated ecologically from other populations, occupying the lower, drier, 

Columbia Plateau ecoregion. 

2. The North Fork John Day River population occupies the highest elevation, wettest area 

in the John Day basin. Population boundaries include the main stem and tributaries of 

the North Fork John Day River. The population was defined based on habitat 

characteristics, basin topography, and demographic patterns. 

3. The Middle Fork John Day River population resides in the Middle Fork John Day and all 

its tributaries. Spawning areas in the Middle Fork John Day River are separated 

substantially from all other spawning areas; except for those in the North Fork John Day, 

that exhibit different habitat characteristics. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-11 

4. The South Fork John Day River population occupies the South Fork John Day River 

drainage. The independent population was defined based on genetic information and 

basin topography. 

5. The Upper Mainstem John Day River population includes the mainstem John Day River 

and tributaries upstream from the South Fork. It is separated from the lower mainstem 

based on habitat differences and from the South Fork because of topography. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

This major group includes three extant populations (Umatilla River, Walla Walla River and the 

Touchet River, a tributary of the Walla Walla River in Washington State) and one extinct 

population (Willow Creek). The Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers drain the northwestern slopes 

of the Blue Mountains, with lower reaches in the warmer, drier habitats of the Columbia Plateau. 

Genetic information, distance between spawning aggregates and ecoregional classifications 

contributed to ICTRT population delineations within this major group. The entire Umatilla 

drainage and part of the Walla Walla lie within the State of Oregon’s borders and are addressed 

in this plan. 

1. The Umatilla River population spawns and rears in the Umatilla watershed and several 

small tributaries to the Columbia River in eastern Washington State. The population is 

separated from the Walla Walla River based on genetic analysis and distance. 

2. The Walla Walla River population occupies much of the Walla Walla drainage. One 

major tributary to the Walla Walla River, the Touchet River, is considered a separate 

population based on genetic analyses. 

3. The Willow Creek population is extinct. It was designated as an independent population 

based on geographic distance from other populations and capacity sufficient to support an 

independent population. 

1.5 Desired Status — Delisting and Broad Sense Recovery 

The desired status for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations is two-tiered. First, the populations 

must reach desired levels of biological viability to support removal of the DPS from the 

threatened and endangered species list. Second, the State of Oregon and the Middle Columbia 

Sounding Board seek to rebuild the populations to provide for sustainable fisheries and other 

ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits. The recovery goals, viability criteria and 

potential recovery scenarios described in the plan are summarized below. 

 Delisting Goal 

Our primary goal is to support removal of the Mid-C steelhead DPS from the threatened and 

endangered species list. This requires that the populations must reach the levels of biological 

viability defined by the ICTRT and adopted by the State of Oregon in this plan as delisting 

criteria. In the context of recovery, delisting criteria and viability criteria are considered 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-12 

synonymous. Achieving ICTRT biological viability status at the population and MPG levels is 

needed before the DPS can be considered at low risk of extinction and a candidate for delisting. 

To attain viability at the MPG level, the populations included in the viable MPG-level scenarios 

must be at or above viable status as defined by the ICTRT’s viability criteria (ICTRT 2006). In 

addition, the criteria require that other extant populations within a MPG must be maintained at 

sufficient levels to provide for ecological functions and to preserve options for DPS recovery so 

that overall MPG productivity does not fall below replacement. Further, this plan recommends a 

staged, adaptive approach to recovery planning and implementation. Such an approach gives 

highest priory initially to implementing actions within currently occupied areas and, thus, to 

improving the status of extant populations and MPGs. 

Broad Sense Recovery Goal 

After achieving steelhead recovery under the ESA, the State of Oregon aims to rebuild Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead populations to levels that will provide for sustainable fisheries and other 

ecological, cultural and social benefits consistent with achievement of the goals of the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Although broader than the definition of delisting provided by 

the ESA, these broad sense goals incorporate many of the traditional uses, as well as rural and 

Native American values, deemed important in the Pacific Northwest. 

Oregon’s broad sense recovery goal for Mid-C steelhead is founded on a belief that citizens 

throughout the region value and enjoy the substantial ecological, cultural, social, and economic 

benefits that are derived from having healthy, diverse populations of steelhead. The Middle 

Columbia Sounding Board (2006) identified the following broad sense recovery goal: 

Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River natural steelhead populations are sufficiently abundant, 

productive, and diverse (in terms of life histories and geographic distribution) so that 

they provide significant ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits. 

Recovery of Mid-Columbia steelhead populations will require actions that preserve, enhance and 

restore healthy watershed conditions where ecosystem functions, processes and dynamics are 

intact, including instream conditions, riparian habitat diversity and complexity, and upland 

watershed health, in concert with complementary management of harvest, hatcheries and 

hydropower. Recovery is a process that leads to steelhead populations that are not only viable, 

but that also provide a harvestable surplus for the treaty tribes and for all other citizens of the 

region. 

This vision for broad-sense recovery incorporates ESA delisting goals in the sense that delisting 

would be achieved first during an extended and stepwise process of achieving broad sense 

recovery goals. ESA delisting criteria are entirely science-based and establish the biologicallybased standards required to sustain the DPS. In contrast, broad-sense recovery represents a level 

of population and DPS performance that will considerably exceed the delisting level. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-13 

Recovery Objectives 

By the year 2050, proponents of Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan intend 

to achieve the following objectives: 

1. Middle Columbia steelhead are viable throughout the historical range and no longer need 

protection under the ESA; 

2. All currently extant Middle Columbia steelhead populations are highly viable; 

3. Extirpated populations (e.g. Willow Creek, Crooked River) are restored in a manner that 

engages landowner cooperation and does not subject landowners to ESA regulation based 

on the presence of previously extirpated populations until the introduced populations are 

self-sustaining and become part of the listed DPS; 

4. All extant populations of Middle Columbia steelhead are capable of contributing 

ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits on a regular and sustainable basis; 

5. Working in concert with existing agreements and collaboratively with landowners and 

resource managers NOAA will define a suite of additional land and water resource 

management principles and practices that when followed will alleviate liability for 

possible ESA regulatory consequences to landowners and resource managers; 

6. Out-of-basin limiting factors are addressed equitably and in concert with in-basin limiting 

factors; 

7. Landowners, land managers and agencies are provided with guidance on the protection 

and management of habitats to promote the recovery of Mid-C steelhead; and, 

8. Land and resource managers work with communities and other interests in a coordinated 

manner to achieve broad sense recovery through a shared vision of conservation where 

options and choices are preserved for future generations.

Viability Criteria and Approach 

The ICTRT’s biologically based viability criteria provided the stepping stones for assessing the 

status of populations in the DPS and identifying future conditions that, when met, would describe 

viable populations. The State of Oregon adopted the ICTRT’s viability criteria as its delisting 

criteria. 

Under the approach, viability assessments are first conducted for the independent populations. 

The population-level assessments provide the basis for evaluating viability at the next 

hierarchical level, the MPG. The MPGs then need to meet viability criteria for the DPS to be 

rated as viable. This approach is consistent with the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) 

guidelines (McElhany et al. 2000), as well as related applications by the Puget Sound and 

Willamette/Lower Columbia TRTs and the Upper Columbia QAR, and information reviewed for 

listed Interior Columbia ESU and DPS populations. Section 5.1 describes the ICTRT’s viability 

criteria that address these abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity considerations. 

The ICTRT recommends that the criteria be met to remove the DPS from its listed status under 

the ESA. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-14 

Population-level Viability Criteria 

According to McElhany et al. (2000): “A viable population should be large enough to: 1) have 

high probability of surviving environmental variation observed in the past and expected in the 

future; 2) be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances; 3) maintain genetic 

diversity; and, 4) support/provide ecosystem functions.” 

The viability criteria address four VSP parameters at the population level: 

• Abundance – the average number of spawners in a population over a generation or more, 

• Productivity – the performance of a population over time in terms of recruits produced 

per spawner, 

• Spatial Structure – a population’s geographic distribution and the processes that affect 

that distribution, and 

• Diversity – the distribution of genetic, life history and phenotypic variation within and 

among populations. 

The ICTRT grouped these parameters into two categories: 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 VSP parameters. 

 

Population Abundance and Productivity Parameters 

The ICTRT’s objective for abundance and productivity criteria 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; and, 3) subpopulation 

structure is maintained (e.g., multiple spawning tributaries, spawning patches, life history 

patterns) (ICTRT 2007). 

The ICTRT used the viability curve concept (e.g., LC/W TRT 2003) as a framework for defining 

population-specific abundance and productivity levels to meet the objective. A viability curve 

shows the extinction risks posed by different combinations of abundance and productivity. The 

ICTRT generated viability curves for each population to identify the combinations of abundance 

and productivity corresponding to a range of extinction risks―1% (very low), 5% (low), and 

25% (moderate) over a 100-year period (Figure 1-4). It targeted population level recovery 

strategies to achieve less than a 5% (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). 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-15 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Fifteenmile

Figure 1-4. Example of Abundance/Productivity viability curve. 

The ICTRT established a minimum abundance threshold of 500 individuals for a Basic size 

population based on its determination that abundance levels below 500 individuals for any 

population would pose unacceptable risk for inbreeding depression and other genetic concerns. 

It established higher minimum abundance thresholds incrementally for the three larger 

population sizes ― Intermediate (1,000 spawners), Large (1,500 spawners) and Very Large 

(2,250 spawners). Viability curves for all four size categories were truncated at the minimum 

abundance threshold level. The ICTRT also categorized the populations by historical spatial 

distribution pattern and complexity (Table 1-1). 

Table 1-1. Population characteristics and minimum abundance and productivity (at the threshold 

abundance level) values that represent levels needed to achieve a 95% probability of persistence 

over 100 years for Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. 

Population Extant/ 

Extinct 

Life 

History Size Spatial Category 

Threshold 

Abundance 

Minimum 

Productivity 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

Fifteenmile Creek Extant Winter Basic C-Trellis 500 1.56 

Deschutes River E. Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Deschutes River W. Extant Summer Large (Inter.) a B-Dendritic 1,500 (1,000) 1.35 

Deschutes/Crooked Extinct Summer Very Large B-Dendritic 2,250 1.19 

John Day River MPG 

L. Main John Day R. Extant Summer Very Large B-Dendritic 2,250 1.19 

NF John Day R. Extant Summer Large B-Dendritic 1,500 1.26 

MF John Day R. Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

SF John Day R. Extant Summer Basic B-Dendritic 500 1.56 

U. Main John Day R. Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

Willow Creek Extinct Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Umatilla River Extant Summer Large B-Dendritic 1,500 1.26 

Walla Walla River Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

a Large size category is for historically accessible area; intermediate size category is for currently accessible area. 

Example Viability Curve

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Basic

Low

 Risk High

 Risk

(> 25%)

Very Low

Risk (<1%)

Productivity Measure

 (Example - geomean Return/Spawner)

Spawners
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-16 

Spatial Structure and Diversity Parameters 

The ICTRT identified two primary goals that spatial structure and diversity criteria should 

address: 1) maintain natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes, and 2) maintain 

natural patterns of variation. It also identified mechanisms, factors and metrics for assessing a 

population’s spatial structure and diversity. Mechanisms are biological or ecological processes 

that contribute to achieving the goals, factors are characteristics of a population or its 

environment that influence mechanisms, and metrics are conditions that can be measured and 

assessed at regular intervals to determine whether a population has achieved goals or to evaluate 

its current risk level. 

Goal 1: Maintain natural rates and levels of spatially-mediated processes. 

Metrics: 

a. Number and distribution of spawning areas 

b. Spatial extent and range relative to historical 

c. Changes in gaps between spawning areas 

Goal 2: Maintain natural levels of variation.

Metrics: 

a. Changes and loss of major life history strategies 

b. Variation and loss of phenotypic traits, run timing 

c. Genetic variation 

d. Spawner composition, proportion and origin of natural spawning hatchery fish 

e. Changes in use of major habitat types (ecoregions) 

f. Selective mortality factors: Hydrosystem, Hatcheries, Harvest, Habitat 

Section 5.1 provides a more detailed discussion of these goals and the mechanisms, factors and 

metrics for rating spatial structure and diversity risks. 

Integrating the Four Parameters 

The ICTRT’s population level criteria allowed us to identify populations performing at Viable or 

Highly Viable levels. We identified these populations by using a simple matrix approach that 

integrates all four viable salmonid population parameters. The abundance/productivity (A/P) 

risk level combines the abundance and productivity criteria using a viability curve. The spatial 

structure/diversity (SS/D) risk level integrates across the measures of spatial structure and 

diversity. 

Under this approach, Viable and Highly Viable populations are rated directly as specific 

combinations of A/P and SS/D risk ratings (Figure 1-5). Populations with a Very Low rating for 

A/P and at least a Low rating for SS/D are considered to be Highly Viable. Population rated at 

Moderate or High risk for A/P, or High risk for SS/D have a risk of extinction greater than 5% 

and are not considered Viable. These individual population ratings are then integrated to 

determine viability at the MPG level. ICTRT criteria require a minimum number of populations 

within an MPG to be at or above viable status, with additional MPG populations maintained at 

sufficient levels to provide for ecological functions and to preserve options for DPS recovery. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-17 

Figure 1-5. Matrix used to integrate Viable Salmonid Population parameter risk ratings and 

determine overall viability level. 

DPS and MPG-level Viability Criteria 

The ICTRT framed its ESU/DPS and MPG-level viability criteria to ensure preservation of basic 

historical metapopulation processes within the DPS, including 1) genetic exchange across 

populations over a long time frame; 2) the opportunity for neighboring populations to serve as 

source areas in the event of local population extirpations; 3) population distribution so that they 

are not all susceptible to a specific localized catastrophic event (ICTRT 2007). Its ESU/DPSlevel viability criterion recognizes that MPGs within the DPS likely functioned historically as 

metapopulations. 

DPS-level viability criteria 

The ICTRT provided the following criterion to describe the biological characteristics of a viable 

ESU or DPS: 

All extant MPGs and any extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU or DPS 

should be at low risk.

MPG-level viability criteria 

The ICTRT defined five criteria that a MPG must meet to be regarded as at low risk: 

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

populations) must meet viability standards. 

2. At least one population must be categorized as being “Highly Viable.” 

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

historical intrinsic potential) as “Very Large”, “Large” or “Intermediate” generally 

High high risk

maintained M 

Low (<5%) viable

maintained

highly viable Very Low 

(<1%)

Very Low Low Moderate

High high risk

maintained Moderate 

(<25%)

Low (<5%) viable

maintained

highly viable Very Low 

(<1%)

A/P rating

Very Low Low Moderate High

SS/D rating
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-18 

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

and Large populations should be at or above their composite historical fraction within 

each MPG. 

4. Populations not meeting viability standards should be maintained with a) sufficient 

productivity so the overall MPG productivity does not fall below replacement, and b) 

sufficient spatial structure and diversity demonstrated by achieving Maintained standards. 

5. All major life history strategies (e.g., summer and winter run-timing) that were present 

historically within the MPG must be represented in populations meeting viability 

requirements. 

The population level assessments provide the basis for evaluating viability at the MPG level and, 

in turn, the DPS as a whole. The combined effects of requiring each MPG to sustain a minimum 

number of viable populations, a representation of larger size classes of populations and major life 

history patterns, and the maintenance requirement provide for a network of populations that 

would sustain the DPS. Revisiting population delineation and viability criteria when new 

information becomes available is considered an essential element of the adaptive management 

plan that guides implementation. 

Threats Criteria 

The listing factor (threats) criteria are the measures that NMFS will use to reevaluate the status 

of the Mid-C steelhead DPS. They are based on the features that were evaluated under section 

4(a)(1) when the initial determination was made to list the species for protection under the ESA. 

Recovery plans are required to contain these criteria. At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS 

will use the criteria to determine whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been adequately 

addressed, i.e., whether the underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated and 

are not likely to re-emerge. The listing factor (threats) criteria, which will be used to reevaluate 

the status of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead, are included in the DPS-level recovery plan for Mid-C 

steelhead and are not repeated in this plan. Threats criteria are described in detail in NOAA’s 

Mid-C DPS Recovery Plan. 

Potential MPG-level Recovery Scenarios 

Several scenarios or combinations of populations would satisfy the MPG level viability criteria 

for the three MPGs containing Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. The populations included 

in each of these scenarios were selected based on unique characteristics (e.g. run timing, 

population size, genetic characteristics), major production areas in the MPG, and spatial 

distribution of the populations. 

The State of Oregon aims to improve more than the minimum number of populations identified 

in the recovery scenarios for viability. We acknowledge that targeting only the minimum 

number of populations would likely result in failure to achieve our goals. There is considerable 

uncertainty in the management actions and how effective they will be in improving population 

viability. This uncertainty will result in some targeted populations not achieving the desired 

status. To hedge against this uncertainty, more than the minimum number of populations must 

be targeted for viable status. Therefore, we also seek to improve all extant Oregon populations 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-19 

in the MPGs to be maintained at sufficient levels to provide for ecological functions and to 

preserve options for DPS recovery. This is consistent with ICTRT criteria that recommend that 

more than the minimum number of populations be improved to a viable status. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The following recovery scenario exists for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG: 

Population Characteristics: 

Independent Populations Size Category Life History Type 

White Salmon (extirpated) Basic Unknown 

Klickitat River Intermediate Summer/winter 

Deschutes River Eastside Intermediate Summer 

Deschutes River Westside Large Summer 

Crooked River (extirpated) Very Large Summer 

Fifteenmile Creek Basic Winter 

Rock Creek Basic summer 

Recovery Scenario:

• Four populations must meet viability criteria, one of which must meet highly viable 

criteria. 

• Fifteenmile Creek is the only winter population and thus must meet viability criteria. 

• One Large or Very Large population must meet viability criteria. Deschutes River 

Westside is the only extant population that can meet this criterion. 

• Two Intermediate populations must meet viability criteria. Deschutes River Eastside and 

Klickitat River are the only populations that can meet this criterion. 

 

Recommendations: To achieve viable status in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, the 

Fifteenmile Creek, Deschutes River Eastside, Deschutes River Westside, and Klickitat 

populations must all achieve viable status. One of these populations must be highly viable. The 

Rock Creek population must be maintained. 

John Day River MPG 

Recovery scenarios for the John Day River MPG are presented below: 

Population Characteristics: 

Independent Populations Size Category Life History Type 

Lower Mainstem John Day River Very Large Summer 

South Fork John Day River Basic Summer 

Middle Fork John Day River Intermediate Summer 

North Fork John Day River Large Summer 

Upper Mainstem John Day River Intermediate Summer 

Recovery Scenario:

• Three populations must meet viability criteria, one of which must meet highly viable 

criteria. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-20 

• Two Large or Very Large populations must meet viability criteria. Lower John Day and 

North Fork John Day are the only populations that can meet this criterion. 

• One Intermediate population must meet viability criteria. The Upper Mainstem John Day 

or Middle Fork John Day populations could meet this criterion. 

 

Recommendations: To achieve viable status in the John Day River MPG, the Lower Mainstem 

John Day River, North Fork John Day River, and either the Middle Fork John Day River or 

Upper Mainstem John Day River populations must achieve viable status. One of these 

populations must be highly viable. The South Fork John Day River population must be 

maintained. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

The following recovery scenarios exist for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG: 

Population Characteristics: 

Independent Populations Size Category Life History Type 

Willow Creek (extirpated) 

Umatilla River Large Summer 

Walla Walla River Intermediate Summer 

Touchet River Intermediate Summer 

Recovery Scenario:

• Two populations must meet viability criteria, one of which must meet highly viable 

criteria. 

• One Large or Very Large population must meet viability criteria. The Umatilla River is 

the only population that can meet this criterion. 

Recommendations: To achieve viable status in the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG, the 

Umatilla River population and either the Walla Walla River or Touchet River population must 

achieve viable status. One of these populations must be highly viable. All remaining extant 

populations must be maintained. 

1.6 Current Population Status 

Assessing the current status of the populations according to the viability criteria is a critical first 

step in determining a path towards MPG and DPS viability. Following ICTRT guidelines, we 

completed viability assessments for Oregon’s ten extant Mid-C steelhead populations. The 

assessments describe the current status of the populations relative to the abundance/productivity 

and spatial structure/diversity viability criteria. 

Overall, the viability assessments show that only three of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations 

currently meet the viability criteria. The North Fork John Day population is highly viable and 

the Fifteenmile Creek and Deschutes River Eastside populations are viable. The remaining 

populations rated as either maintained or extinct. Assessment findings are provided for each of 

the ten populations in the population summaries (later in this section-1.14) and in Section 6 of 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-21 

the recovery plan. Appendix B contains the detailed individual population viability assessments, 

including population-specific data sources and methods used to estimate abundance. 

We also completed viability assessments for the three MPGs containing the Oregon populations. 

The assessment findings indicate that the three MPGs are currently below viable status based on 

the status of the constituent populations. These findings are shown below in Tables 1-2 through 

1-4. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

Findings: The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG is currently below viable status. The 

Fifteenmile Creek and the Deschutes River Eastside are viable. The Deschutes River Westside 

population does not meet viability criteria. The Deschutes Crooked River population is extinct. 

Table 1-2. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries MPG. 

 

 Abundance___ Productivity___ 

 

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population 

Extant/ 

Extinct Mean 

Lower 

90% CI Mean 

Lower 

90% CI 

A/P 

Risk 

Processes 

Risk 

Diversity 

Risk 

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability 

Rating 

Fifteenmile 

Creek 

Extant 703 481 1.82 1.23 Low Very Low Low Low Viable 

Deschutes River 

Eastside Extant 1,599 896 1.89 1.10 Low Low Moderate Moderate Viable 

Deschutes River 

Westside Extant 456 306 1.05 0.76 High Low Moderate Moderate High Risk 

Deschutes 

Crooked River Extinct 0 NA 0 NA Extinct NA NA NA Extinct 

John Day River MPG 

Findings: The John Day River MPG is currently below viable status. The North Fork population 

is highly viable; however, all of the other John Day River populations were below viable status. 

Table 1-3. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the John Day River 

MPG. 

 

 Abundance___ Productivity___ 

 

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population 

Extant/ 

Extinct Mean 

Lower 

90% CI Mean 

Lower 

90% CI 

A/P 

Risk 

Processes 

Risk 

Diversity 

Risk 

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability Rating 

Lower Mainstem 

John Day River Extant 1,800 1,065 2.99 1.91 Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 

North Fork John 

Day River Extant 1,740 1,375 2.41 1.62 Very Low Very Low Low Low Highly Viable 

Middle Fork 

John Day River Extant 756 508 2.45 1.81 Moderate Low Low Low Maintained 

South Fork John 

Day River Extant 259 168 2.06 1.26 Moderate Very Low Low Low Maintained 

Upper Mainstem 

John Day River Extant 524 399 2.14 1.15 Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-22 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

Findings: The Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG is currently below viable status because the 

Umatilla and Walla Walla populations do not meet viability criteria. 

Table 1-4. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Umatilla/Walla 

Walla Rivers MPG. 

 Abundance Productivity

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population Extant/ 

Extinct 

Mean Lower 

90% CI 

Mean Lower 

90% CI

A/P Risk Processes 

Risk

Diversity 

Risk

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability Rating

 

Willow Creek Extinct 0 NA 0 NA Extinct NA NA NA Extinct 

Umatilla River Extant 1,472 988 1.50 1.11 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Maintained 

Walla Walla 

River Extant 650 459 1.34 1.05 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 

1.7 Gap Analysis 

The viability assessment results were used to determine the “gap” between the current status and 

the status required to meet the viability criteria. The gap analysis addresses the four VSP 

parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. This analysis allowed us to 

identify viability impairments at the population level and inform development of appropriate 

actions to address impairments and, thus, “close the gaps.” 

 

 The ICTRT conducted the abundance/productivity gap analyses for Mid-Columbia steelhead 

populations. The ICTRT defined the abundance/productivity gap as the quantitative relative 

amount of change in survival or capacity that is required for a population to improve from 

current status to a specific viability level. The gap analysis provides estimates of the magnitude 

of survival or capacity change that are needed to reach viability criteria for 25%, 5% and 1% 

probability of extinction over a 100-year timeframe as defined by the viability curves. 

Our recovery planners performed the spatial structure/diversity gap analyses for the Oregon 

populations. The analyses included several steps: 1) for each population, we identified all spatial 

structure and diversity metrics with ratings of moderate or high risk; 2) for the metrics rated 

moderate, we determined if the rating was a result of changed status from intrinsic conditions or 

if the rating was a result of an intrinsic moderate risk for the metric; and 3) we characterized 

spatial structure and diversity gaps for each population as those metrics that rated high risk and 

those metrics that rated moderate risk because the current status is impaired relative to the 

intrinsic condition. 

Gap analysis results for individual populations are provided in the population summaries (later in 

this section-1.14) and in Section 7. 

 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-23 

1.8 Limiting Factors and Threats 

Section 8 describes limiting factors and threats to the viability of Mid-C steelhead in Oregon. 

The findings were identified based on many sources of information, including the Mid-C 

steelhead Expert Panel’s report, subbasin plans, ODEQ reports, ICTRT reports, NOAA’s 

limiting factors modules, ODFW reports, hydrosystem biological opinion remand documents, 

and numerous other sources. The limiting factors and threats analyses serve as an essential 

foundation for the development and prioritization of management actions across the entire 

lifecycle. We used the following definitions of limiting factors and threats for our assessment. 

Limiting Factors: The physical, biological, or chemical conditions of the environment and 

associated ecological processes and interactions (e.g., habitat connectivity, water quality, 

physical habitat quality, etc.) that influence Mid-C steelhead viable salmonid population 

parameters, including abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Threats: Threats are human actions (e.g., fishing, operation of hatcheries, operation of 

hydrosystem, land use practices, etc.) or natural events (e.g., flood, drought, volcano, etc.) 

that cause or contribute to limiting factors. Threats may influence one or multiple life stages 

and may occur in the present or future or have occurred in the past. 

Key findings are summarized below and population-specific limiting factors and threats are 

identified in the population summaries in Section 1.14. Section 8.1 provides a broad level 

perspective of the primary limiting factors and threats across and within Oregon’s Mid-C 

steelhead populations. This broader look is followed by more detailed, in-depth discussions of 

limiting factors and threats in Section 8.2 (Tributary Habitat), 8.3 (Hydrosystem), 8.4 (Estuarine 

and Plume Habitat), 8.5 (Harvest), 8.6 (Hatchery), and 8.7 (Predation and Competition). 

 

Land Use 

Tributary habitat degradation from past and/or present land use remains a key concern for all 

populations. Steelhead have been adversely affected by modified and reduced streamflows, 

impaired water quality due to elevated water temperatures and agricultural chemicals, impaired 

upstream and downstream fish passage, degraded channel structure and complexity (including 

riffles, pools and large woody debris), loss of riparian vegetation, reduced floodplain 

connectivity, and excessive levels of fine sediments caused by altered sediment routing. Threats 

contributing to these factors include agricultural, forestry and grazing practices that negatively 

impact steelhead growth and survival, dams and other barriers, water withdrawals, roads and 

channel manipulations. The Mid-C Expert Panel identified land use as having the most key 

concerns of any of the threat categories because, for most populations, the greatest impairment to 

viability has resulted from changes to the tributary spawning, rearing, and migration habitats. 

We examined seven general types of tributary habitat limiting factors during our analysis. The 

factors are often interrelated. 

• Degraded floodplain connectivity and function: Loss, impairment or degradation of 

floodplain connectivity; access to previously available habitats (seasonal wetlands, off-
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-24 

channel habitat, side channels); and a connected and functional hypotheic zone. Includes 

reduced overwinter habitat and channel habitat. Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt 

survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

• Degraded channel structure and complexity: Loss, impairment or degradation of 

channels; a suitable distribution of riffles and functional pools; functional amounts and 

sizes of large woody debris or other channel structure. Includes reduced summer rearing 

habitat, degraded spawning habitat, reduced diversity and structure (wood, boulders, 

etc.), inadequate quantity or depth of pools, loss of side and braided channels. Life stages 

affected: egg-to-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

• Degraded riparian areas and LWD recruitment: Loss, degradation or impairment of 

riparian conditions important for production of food organisms and organic material, 

shading, bank stabilizing by roots, nutrient and chemical mediation, control of surface 

erosion, and production of large-sized woody material. Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt 

survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

• Altered hydrology: Changes in the hydrograph that alter the natural pattern of flows over 

the seasons, causing inadequate flow, scouring flow, or other flow conditions that inhibit 

the development and survival of salmonids. Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt survival, 

smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

• Degraded water quality: Degraded or impaired water quality due to abnormal 

temperature, or levels of suspended fine sediment, dissolved oxygen, nutrients from 

agricultural runoff, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and other contaminants (toxics). 

Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, prespawning. 

• Altered sediment routing: Altered sediment routing leading to an overabundance of finegrained sediments, excess of course-grained sediments, inadequate course-grained 

sediments and/or contaminated sediment. Includes excessive fine sediment that reduces 

spawning gravel or increases embeddedness. Life stages affected: egg-to-parr survival. 

• Impaired fish passage: The total or partial human-caused blockage to previously 

accessible habitat that eliminates or decreases migration ability or alters the range of 

conditions under which migration is possible. This may include seasonal or periodic total 

migration blockage. Includes dams, culverts, seasonal push up dams, unscreened 

diversions, and entrainment in irrigation diversions. Life stages affected: smolt migration, 

adult migration, juvenile upstream migration due to thermal blockage or water 

availability. 

Climate change is expected to increase the loss and degradation of steelhead habitat. Many of 

the environmental attributes that will be influenced by climate change (temperature and 

hydrograph) are those that have already been influenced significantly by past land use and are 

currently considered key limiting factors. Environmental changes associated with climate 

change that pose particular threats to salmonid viability include: increased air and stream 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-25 

temperatures; reduced snow pack and a shift in precipitation from snow to rain; altered 

hydrographs with earlier and higher peak flows, and lower summer-fall flows; more frequent 

extreme storm events; increased periods of drought; changing ocean temperatures and current 

patterns; and more frequent and severe fire events (O’Neal 2002; Mote et al. 2003; ISAB 2007a; 

Michael and O’Brien 2008). Such environmental changes will impact all life stages of Oregon’s 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead. The magnitude of environmental change will vary considerable 

across ecoregions; however, habitats at lower elevations east of the Cascade Mountains in the 

southern portion of the Columbia River basin will generally experience the greatest level of 

change (ISAB 2007a). 

Hydrosystem 

The mainstem Columbia River hydrosystem is considered a primary threat to the viability of 

Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. Specific viability concerns identified by the Mid-C 

Expert Panel related primarily to effects of delayed upstream passage (adults), direct and indirect 

mortality on downstream migrants (juveniles), alteration of the hydrograph (mainstem and 

estuary flow regime), depletion of historically available nutrients, and degraded rearing and food 

resources for both presmolts and smolts in the Columbia River. 

Results of the BiOp Framework Work Group support this conclusion. NMFS created the work 

group to provide scientific expertise during development of its Biological Opinion (BiOp) 

evaluating effects of operations of the FCRPS ― including estimating the relative magnitude of 

human-caused mortality factors influencing Mid-C steelhead and other Interior Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead populations. During this evaluation, the work group found that the FCRPS 

hydrosystem had the greatest relative impact on the Mid-C steelhead populations compared with 

other human-induced mortality effects (Step 4 Report 2006) (Table 8-1). The ICTRT reached a 

similar conclusion in September 2006, when members rated the mainstem Columbia River 

hydrosystem as a major limiting factor for all populations in the DPS. Oregon’s recovery 

planning team also determined that the mainstem hydropower system represents a primary threat 

to the viability of Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. The Expert Panel’s findings were 

generally consistent with the BiOp Framework Work Group’s findings on magnitude of humaninduced mortality, however, the Expert Panel considered the mainstem Columbia hydrosystem a 

threat of moderate concern to the populations and generally considered legacy and current land 

use as a greater threat than the hydrosystem. 

Impacts from the mainstem Columbia River hydrosystem increase somewhat for each of the 

populations in direct relation to the number of dams the fish must pass during their migration to 

and from the Pacific Ocean. Mid-Columbia steelhead populations pass one to four Columbia 

River dams: the Fifteenmile Creek population passes one dam; Deschutes River populations pass 

two dams; John Day River and Umatilla River populations pass three dams; and the Walla Walla 

River population passes four dams. 

Several hydroelectric dams on Columbia River tributaries also pose significant threats to the 

viability of specific populations. The Pelton-Round Butte Complex on the Deschutes River at 

RM 100 significantly affects the Deschutes Westside population and to a lesser extent the 

Deschutes Eastside population. It blocks all passage to historical habitat above the dam, 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-26 

particularly in Whychus Creek, Metolius River and Crooked River. The Boyd Hydro Project on 

the Umatilla River and Twin Reservoirs Hydro Project on Mill Creek, a tributary to the Walla 

Walla River affect the Umatilla and Walla Walla steelhead populations. 

 

Estuarine and Plume Habitat 

The Columbia River estuary and plume have changed considerably over the last 200 years. The 

estuary tidal prism is now about 20% smaller, due mostly to dike and filling practices used to 

convert the floodplain to agricultural, industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Instream 

flows entering the estuary also have changed dramatically—there has been a 44% decrease in 

spring freshets or floods, and the annual timing, magnitude, and duration of flows no longer 

resemble those of the historical hydrograph in the Columbia River (Jay and Kukulka 2002). 

Scientists generally believe that steelhead and other stream-type salmonids are particularly 

affected by changes in plume habitat conditions and by predation in the estuary and plume 

(Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) 2006). The plume is believed to function 

as habitat, as a transitional saltwater area, and as refugia for juvenile salmonids as they prepare 

for ocean life (Fresh et al. 2005; LCREP 2006). Changes in the Columbia River hydrograph alter 

both the size and structure of the plume during the spring and summer months (NPCC 2000). 

Changes in the hydrograph also affect plume habitat by reducing fine-sediment inputs leaving 

the estuary. 

Harvest 

Steelhead are affected by harvest during several life stages from pre-smolts taken in trout 

fisheries to adults taken in commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries primarily in the mainstem 

Columbia River and tributaries. However, given current management regulations for mainstem 

Columbia River and tributary fisheries, harvest is not considered a primary or secondary threat 

due to the low impact on viability. The ICTRT identified harvest-related effects as a secondary 

level limiting factor and the Mid-C Expert Panel did not identify harvest as either a key or 

secondary concern for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. The panel, however, did express 

concerns over the impact that mortality associated with catch and release fisheries have on 

Westside and Eastside Deschutes populations. 

Hatcheries 

Out-of-DPS hatchery strays pose significant risk to many of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead 

populations, particularly to the Eastside and Westside Deschutes and John Day populations. 

Viability assessments, summarized in Section 6 of this document and presented in Appendix B, 

identified that a significant proportion of spawners in the Deschutes River and John Day River 

populations were out-of-DPS strays. In addition, these populations were rated at high risk for 

spawner composition due to the abundance of strays. Biologists remain especially concerned 

regarding the continuing detrimental impact of stray out-of-DPS hatchery fish in natural 

spawning areas on the genetic traits and productivity of these natural populations. Hatchery 

programs operated within the Mid-C steelhead DPS ― including the Umatilla, Walla Walla and 

Westside Deschutes subbasins ― also create some risks. The Mid-C Expert Panel ranked the 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-27 

impact of hatchery strays as a key concern to the Eastside and Westside Deschutes and Lower 

John Day populations, and as a secondary concern to the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations. 

Predation 

The Expert Panel listed predation is a primary concern for juvenile and adult steelhead in the 

Columbia River estuary and plume. Estuary habitat modifications have increased the number 

and/or predation effectiveness of Caspian terns, cormorants, and gull species (Fresh et al. 2005). 

The increasing abundance of native pinnipeds has resulted in increased predation on adult 

salmonids to a point of concern. Panelists identified predation by non-native piscivorous fish on 

pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia as a secondary concern for all Mid-C steelhead 

populations. 

Climate Change

Climate change will alter environmental conditions across the entire life cycle for all life stages 

of Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River steelhead. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding 

the magnitude of loss and degradation of salmonid habitat in the Columbia Basin that will result 

from climate change. The magnitude of environmental change will vary considerable across 

ecoregions and thus will have different impacts on viability of steelhead populations within the 

Mid-C DPS. In general, habitats at lower elevations east of the Cascade Mountains in the 

southern portion of the Columbia River basin, which encompasses the Oregon Mid-C area, will 

experience the greatest level of change (ISAB 2007a). 

Many of the environmental attributes that will be influenced by climate change (temperature and 

hydrograph) are those that have already been influenced significantly by past land use and are 

currently considered key limiting factors. The degree to which climate change will impact a 

given population is partially dependent on the degree to which natural processes have already 

been altered. A number of reviews have recently been completed that characterize potential 

climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest (O’Neal 2002; Mote et al. 2003; ISAB 2007a; 

Michael and O’Brien 2008). The environmental changes most often described as significant 

threats to salmonid viability include: 

• Increased air and stream temperatures 

• Reduced snow pack and a shift in precipitation from snow to rain 

• Altered hydrographs with earlier and higher peak flows, and lower summer-fall flows 

• More frequent extreme storm events 

• Increased periods of drought 

• Changing ocean temperatures and current patterns 

• More frequent and severe fire events 

We conducted an analysis to assess population-specific vulnerability to climate change impacts. 

We developed a climate change potential vulnerability risk index based on projected future 

springtime water availability, projected future stream temperatures, and historical variation in 

precipitation. Our analysis indicates that few of the HUC6s in Oregon’s Mid-C populations are 

at low or very low risk. Many populations have the entire geographic area within the population 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-28 

boundaries rated as moderate or high risk. The combination of environmental characteristics that 

are forecasted to change under future climate scenarios will threaten capacity, productivity, 

diversity, and spatial structure from both lower elevations upward and higher elevations 

downward. Temperature changes will influence lower elevation areas significantly while higher 

elevation areas will be influenced most by hydrograph changes. 

1.9 Recovery Strategies and Actions 

Achieving recovery for the DPS will depend on restoring the viability of extant populations in 

major population groups to levels that support the proper functioning of the DPS. Recovery 

strategies for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations involve substantial reductions in the threats 

across all categories (tributary habitat, hydrosystem, estuary and plume habitat, harvest, 

hatcheries, and predation and competition). 

An Integrated Approach 

The delisting and broad sense recovery goals, assessments of current status and viability gaps, 

and limiting factors and threats analysis served as essential building blocks for identifying 

recovery strategies and actions. The plan’s strategies and actions address the multiple limiting 

factors and threats that affect steelhead viability throughout their life cycle: 

• Tributary habitat strategies and actions (Section 9.3) call for the protection of the highest 

quality habitats, maintenance of existing unimpaired habitats and ecosystem functions 

that support population viability, and habitat restoration through passive and active 

measures. Restoration strategies are linked directly to the limiting factors and aim to 

improve tributary spawning, rearing and migration conditions by restoring instream, 

riparian and upland habitat conditions, providing passage and floodplain connectivity, 

and addressing water quality and flow concerns. Actions identified under each strategy 

define the specific work needed to fill the gap between current conditions and what is 

needed in the long term to fully achieve the strategy. Actions differ from strategies in 

that they address specific needs for a specified geographic area, program deficiencies, as 

well as biophysical habitat impairments and threats. Together, the strategies and actions 

represent a complete list of needs, somewhat unconstrained by logistic and financial 

concerns. 

• Hydrosystem strategies and actions (Section 9.4) primarily address configurations and 

operations of the Columbia River hydropower system. They range from improving 

juvenile and adult steelhead passage and survival at particular dams to addressing flow 

and temperature issues. These strategies and actions may be revised before completion of 

the final recovery plan to be consistent with adopted revisions of the 2004 FCRPS BiOp 

Remand. 

The section also identifies strategies and actions to adjust hydropower operations and 

facilities in the Umatilla and Walla Walla river systems, and to increase the quantity of 

spawning and rearing habitat available to Deschutes River Westside steelhead, and to a 

lesser extent Deschutes River Eastside steelhead, by restoring passage to historical 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-29 

habitats in the middle and upper Deschutes drainage. Strategies and actions will also 

restore steelhead access to blocked historical habitats in the Crooked River area.

• Estuarine and plume habitat strategies and actions (Section 9.5) improve steelhead 

rearing conditions and survival in the Columbia River estuary and plume by restoring 

estuarine riparian conditions, removing dikes and protecting off-channel habitats. 

• Harvest strategies and actions (Section 9.6) protect steelhead in the ocean, mainstem 

Columbia River and tributaries by maintaining low impact fisheries and attempting to 

increase harvest of stray hatchery spawners, thus reducing abundance of out-of-DPS 

hatchery strays.

• Hatchery strategies and actions (Section 9.7) address ecological and genetic effects on 

Oregon Mid-C steelhead from hatchery management programs in and outside the DPS. 

They include reducing the abundance and proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays 

spawning naturally in Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. They also help restore 

natural production in historically utilized habitats of the Deschutes Westside, Crooked 

River, and Umatilla River population areas.

• Predation and competition strategies and actions (Section 9.8) seek to reduce predation 

by pinnipeds, birds, and piscivorous fish on salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River 

estuary and mainstem. 

Together, the strategies and actions are framed to close viability gaps, reach delisting status, and 

progress toward broad sense recovery goals. Table 1-5 shows the strategies and types of actions 

that will be implemented to address all factors limiting recovery of Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations throughout their lifecycle. The highest priority tributary-level strategies, actions and 

priority areas are also identified for each population (later in this section-1.14). 

 Table 1-5. Integrated approach to address all factors limiting recovery of Oregon’s Mid-C 

 steelhead populations. 

Strategies Populations 

Addressed Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes that 

support the viability of 

populations and their primary 

life history strategies 

throughout their life cycle. 

All populations Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition 

and conservation. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements. 

Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes. 

Degradation of tributary habitatforming processes and functions 

(loss of channel structure, 

floodplain connectivity, riparian 

vegetation, and LWD recruitment) 

Restore passage and 

connectivity to habitats 

blocked or impaired by 

artificial barriers and maintain 

properly functioning passage 

and connectivity. 

All populations Provide passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such 

as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures. 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions. 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Loss of historical habitat because 

of blocked or impaired fish 

passage (dams, culverts, 

unscreened diversions) 

Maintain and restore 

floodplain connectivity and 

function. 

All populations Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to 

stream channels. 

Restore wet meadows. 

Reconnect floodplain to channel. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity 

and function (loss of off-channel 

habitat, side channels, connected 

hypotheic zone) 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-30 

Strategies Populations 

Addressed Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats Addressed 

Restore degraded and 

maintain properly functioning 

channel structure and 

complexity. 

All populations Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

Stabilize streambanks. 

Restore natural channel form. 

Degraded channel structure and 

complexity (loss of spawning and 

rearing habitat, LWD, pools) 

Restore riparian condition and 

LWD recruitment and maintain 

properly functioning 

conditions. 

All populations Restore natural riparian vegetative communities. 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian 

recovery. 

Degraded riparian condition 

(native riparian vegetative 

communities, LWD recruitment) 

Restore natural hydrograph to 

provide sufficient flow during 

critical periods 

All populations Implement agricultural water conservation 

measures. 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to 

instream. 

Altered hydrology (low flow, 

scouring peak flows due to 

degraded watershed conditions, 

streamflow alterations and/or 

withdrawals for irrigation and other 

uses) 

Improve degraded water 

quality and maintain 

unimpaired water quality 

All populations Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations. 

Restore natural functions and processes through 

above remediation actions. 

Degraded water quality (high 

temperatures, nutrients, pesticides 

and other chemicals) 

Restore degraded and 

maintain properly functioning 

upland processes to minimize 

unnatural rates of erosion and 

runoff. 

All populations Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming. 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads. 

Restore native upland plant communities. 

Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, 

road management and agricultural practices. 

Altered sediment routing and 

runoff patterns due to upland 

management activities. 

Estuarine and Plume Habitat 

Restore degraded estuarine 

and plume habitats and 

associated ecological 

processes. 

All populations Protect/restore riparian areas 

Remove pile dikes 

Protect remaining high-quality off-channel habitat 

Breach or lower dikes and levees 

Identify and reduce sources of pollutants 

Monitor and restore contaminated sites 

Degraded estuarine and nearshore 

marine habitat reduces refugia 

available to juvenile steelhead in 

Columbia River estuary and plume 

as they prepare for ocean life. 

Hydropower Systems 

Operate the FCRPS to more 

closely approximate the shape 

of the natural hydrograph to 

enhance flows and water 

quality to improve juvenile and 

adult fish survival. 

All populations Draft storage reservoirs (Libby, Hungry Horse, 

Grand Coulee, and Dworshak) in attempt to meet 

seasonal and weekly flow objectives in the lower 

Columbia River during July and August. 

Pursue negotiations with Canada to provide 1 

million acre feet of storage to augment summer 

flows. 

Meet Non-Treaty storage refill responsibilities and 

pursue a new long-term agreement on use of 

non-treaty space in Canadian reservoirs. 

Implement drafts and other measures to improve 

flows during the lowest 20th percentile years. 

Implement Water Quality Plan for Total Dissolved 

Gas and Water Temperature in the Mainstem 

Columbia and Snake rivers. 

Altered steelhead migration 

conditions and delayed passage 

due to hydrosystem development 

and operations in mainstem 

Columbia River. 

Modify Columbia and Snake 

River dams to maximize 

juvenile and adult survival. 

All populations. Implement project specific configurations and 

operations at the eight mainstem dams on the 

lower Snake and Columbia rivers. 

Altered juvenile and adult 

steelhead migration conditions due 

to mainstem Columbia River 

hydrosystem. 

Implement spill and juvenile 

transportation improvements 

at Columbia and Snake rivers 

dams. 

All populations. Provide spill to improve juvenile fish passage. 

Implement interim transportation program to 

improve survival of transported fish. 

Altered juvenile and adult 

steelhead migration conditions due 

to mainstem Columbia River 

hydrosystem. 

Operate and maintain juvenile 

and adult fish passage 

facilities at Corps mainstem 

projects to maintain biological 

performance. 

All populations. Corps will operate juvenile and adult passage 

facilities year around with the regionally 

coordinate Fish Passage Plan. 

Altered juvenile and adult 

steelhead migration conditions due 

to mainstem Columbia River 

hydrosystem. 

Restore sustainable natural 

steelhead production to 

Deschutes Westside 

Deschutes Eastside 

Develop downstream collection and passage 

through Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Tributary hydrosystem operations 

and configurations block access 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-31 

Strategies Populations 

Addressed Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats Addressed 

blocked habitats in the 

Deschutes River Westside, 

Deschutes River Eastside and 

extinct Crooked River 

populations. 

Crooked River Improve flow patterns through reservoir for juvenile 

migration. 

Modify hydro operations to restore water quality. 

to historical habitats and alter 

habitat conditions. 

Improve hydrosystem 

operations and facilities to 

enhance steelhead survival 

and viability. 

Umatilla River 

Walla Walla River 

Modify bypass flows at Boyd Project as needed to 

mimic instream water right. 

Modify fish passage facilities at Boyd Project to 

meet current standards. 

Remove weir panels from diversion dam at Boyd 

Project during non-operation. 

Maintain trash racks at Boyd Project. 

Modify fishway at Twin Reservoirs Project to meet 

juvenile fish passage standards. 

Tributary hydrosystem operations 

and configurations impair 

passage and alter habitat 

conditions. 

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current 

low impact fisheries and 

reduce harvest-related 

adverse effects in those 

fisheries that have significant 

impacts. 

All populations Maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce 

harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries 

that have significant impacts. 

Commercial, recreational and tribal 

fisheries in ocean, mainstem 

Columbia River and tributaries 

Utilize tributary harvest to 

reduce abundance and 

proportion of stray hatchery 

spawners. 

Deschutes Westside 

Deschutes Eastside 

John Day MPG 

Develop educational outreach program to promote 

use of selective recreational fisheries to reduce 

the number of out-of-basin hatchery strays. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery 

spawners into tributary spawning 

grounds. 

Reduce catch and release 

mortality on natural-origin fish 

in John Day Basin. 

John Day MPG Promote voluntary curtailment of fishing at higher 

water temperatures (above 21°C) to reduce hookand-release mortality 

Adverse effects of tributary harvest 

on natural steelhead. 

Improve quality of harvest 

information and impacts on 

natural-origin fish in John Day 

Basin. 

John Day MPG Expand the creel surveys to monitor fisheries effort 

and catch. 

Adverse effects of tributary harvest 

on natural steelhead. 

Hatchery 

Reduce uncertainty of origin 

of hatchery strays and 

increase ability to recognize 

hatchery-origin fish. 

Potential risk for all 

populations. 

Significant risk for 

Deschutes Eastside, 

Deschutes Westside 

and Lower John Day 

populations. 

Implement representative coded-wire-tagging 

program so all hatchery stocks have adequate 

CWT groups released annually. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery 

fish into natural spawning 

grounds. 

Reduce uncertainty in 

abundance and proportion of 

hatchery strays spawning 

naturally. 

Fifteenmile Creek 

Deschutes Eastside 

All John Day 

populations 

Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish 

on spawning grounds through additional stream 

surveys and other methods. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery 

fish into natural spawning areas. 

Reduce abundance and 

proportion of stray hatchery 

fish that spawn naturally. 

Deschutes Eastside 

Deschutes Westside 

Umatilla River 

Walla Walla River 

Construct, improve trapping facilities and expand 

operations to remove strays. 

Eliminate adult hatchery strays above Nursery 

Bridge Dam. 

Recommend development of alternative 

broodstocks to reduce stray rates for programs 

that contribute significantly to stray problem. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery 

fish into natural spawning areas. 

Reduce genetic risks 

associated with Round Butte 

Hatchery Program. 

Deschutes Westside Investigate opportunities and risks associated with 

incorporating naturally produced Deschutes River 

summer steelhead into RBH broodstock. 

Inside-DPS hatchery genetic risks 

Restore natural production 

into historically utilized 

habitats. 

Deschutes Westside 

Crooked River 

Umatilla River 

Develop plan for steelhead reintroduction into 

historical habitat above Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex when passage is restored. 

Re-establish natural production in Little Butter and 

Butter creeks and some minor spawning areas. 

Risks related to steelhead 

reintroductions to historical habitat 

using inside-DPS hatchery fish. 

Reduce genetic influence of 

hatchery fish in hatchery 

Umatilla River Eliminate use of hatchery produced adults in the 

broodstock. 

Potential divergence in genetic 

and phenotypic traits between 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-32 

Strategies Populations 

Addressed Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats Addressed 

broodstock. hatchery and natural-origin 

steelhead. 

Reduce interactions between 

residual hatchery steelhead 

and natural steelhead. 

Umatilla River Assess degree of impact. Risk of hatchery fish competing 

with and preying on natural 

steelhead juveniles 

Reduce potential negative 

ecological interactions 

between coho salmon and 

natural steelhead. 

Umatilla River Reduce number of hatchery coho released in 

Umatilla River and relocate releases downstream 

to areas not currently important to steelhead 

production. 

Potential for coho smolts to 

compete with juvenile steelhead 

for prey resources and space 

Predation and Competition 

Reduce predation and 

competition in the Columbia 

River mainstem, estuary and 

plume. 

All populations Reduce predation by pinnipeds 

Redistribute Caspian terms 

Redistribute cormorants 

Increased predation on steelhead 

due to degraded estuarine and 

plume habitats, and to 

hydrosystem development and 

operations in mainstem Columbia 

River. 

 

Building on Current Efforts 

We recognize that reversing the decline of populations, life histories and habitats requires use of 

well-formulated, scientifically sound approaches. In many areas, effective steps have already 

been taken or are currently underway that will improve the status of different Oregon Mid-C 

steelhead populations. In tributary watersheds state and federal natural resource managers, 

tribes, local governments, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, non-profit 

organizations, local land owners and others continue to improve stream conditions to enhance 

steelhead populations throughout their freshwater life stages. They are also improving land use 

practices on uplands and floodplains that are allowing natural ecosystem functions and processes 

to recover. 

Similar efforts are underway to address other threats. In the Columbia River estuary, various 

parties are working to improve estuarine and plume habitat conditions and reduce predation. In 

the mainstem Columbia River, hydrosystem managers and fish resource managers continue to 

refine hydropower system operations to address some needs for survival and recovery of the 

Mid-C steelhead DPS and other ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Hatchery programs operated 

within the DPS have also been modified over the past 10 years to reduce threats and improve 

contribution to recovery. In addition, extensive harvest management changes in both the 

mainstem and tributaries have been implemented to reduce the impacts of fisheries. 

This plan is designed to build on these past and current efforts. Section 9 identifies many of 

these efforts along with their sufficiency and areas in need of improvement so that future actions 

expand from and improve their effectiveness. Spreading the responsibility among a range of 

parties lessens the cost to any one group, increases the certainty of success, and compounds the 

benefits of moderate improvements in each factor. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-33 

Strategic Guidance and Prioritization Considerations for Plan Implementation 

Achieving recovery for the Mid-C steelhead DPS will require intensive effort by individuals at 

the regional, watershed and local levels. Many recovery efforts will need to be conducted in 

concert to address overlapping causes that impair population viability and disrupt ecosystem 

functions. 

Unfortunately, all of the management actions needed to reach recovery goals cannot be 

implemented at the same time due to various constraints. In addition, setting priorities can often 

be difficult because of the scientific complexity and diverse policy strategies. Although priorities 

must be science based, they are ultimately policy choices. Section 9.1 provides guidance for the 

development and implementation of management strategies and actions to recover Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead populations. This guidance was adopted by Oregon’s Middle Columbia 

Sounding Board. The characteristics of highest priority actions are identified below. Section 9.1 

identifies other high priority actions, though less than highest, as well as other prioritization 

considerations. 

Highest Priority Actions 

• Provide long-term protection of habitat conditions and conservation of natural ecological 

processes that support the viability of priority extant populations and their primary life 

history strategies throughout their entire life cycle. A population is considered a priority 

if it is critical for MPG or DPS viability. 

• Protect or enhance viability of multiple steelhead populations. 

• Support conservation of unique and rare functioning habitats, habitat diversity, life 

histories and genetic attributes. 

• Target the key limiting factors and that contribute the most to closing the gap between 

current status and desired future status of priority populations. 

• Provide critical information needed for assessing success and making adaptive 

management decisions. 

1.10 Management Action Effectiveness 

Section 10 presents an analysis of the effects of the proposed actions on the performance of 

Oregon populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. The analysis was performed in 

sequential steps, first by projecting outcomes for tributary actions alone, then sequentially adding 

in hatchery fish genetic effects, then types of out-of-subbasin actions, and finally actions to 

manage stray hatchery fish. The results at each step provided a means for comparing relative 

benefits of the proposed actions. 

Approach 

The analysis of action effectiveness was performed using two modeling platforms, Ecosystem 

Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and the All-H-Analyzer (AHA), that address different types of 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-34 

limiting factors affecting salmonid population performance during the life cycle. Linking the 

two models provided a way of projecting benefits measured at the end of the life cycle for a wide 

range of potential actions, regardless of what life stage an action affects. We made a number of 

changes to both models to improve the application to our analyses. 

Modified EDT Model 

The EDT model was used to analyze the potential benefits of tributary habitat actions. The model 

is designed to estimate salmonid population performance based on characteristics of the aquatic 

habitat. Four scenarios were modeled using the EDT model, reflecting two priorities for where 

actions would be implemented at two future times: 1) High priority actions and locations only at 

25 years in the future; 2) High priority actions and locations only at 100 years in the future; 3) 

All actions and locations at 25 years in the future; and 4) All actions and locations at 100 years in 

the future. In addition, the Deschutes Westside population was modeled with and without 

passage/reintroduction at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex to illustrate the added benefit of 

providing passage. 

A two-part process was used to determine action effectiveness. Part 1 asked the question: What 

stream reaches would be affected by each of the actions? This was answered by linking stream 

reaches in each of the five subbasins to the actions. Part 2 consisted of explicitly defining 

distinct elements—or factors—that are used to compose the overall effectiveness value applied 

in the analysis. Five elements of action effectiveness were recognized, each acting as a scalar to 

determine how effective an action would be in moving an attribute’s current baseline rating back 

toward the undeveloped state: Effect, the potential effectiveness of action; Intensity, the scale at 

which an action is to be applied; Lag, how much of the potential effectiveness of an action will 

be achieved at a time in the future (25 or 100 years in the future); Schedule, an implementation 

schedule effect, i.e., whether implementation is delayed to some point in the future, whereby the 

amount of the potential effectiveness of an action would be reduced at a time in the future; and 

Attribute, the potential effectiveness of an action due to an attribute effect. 

Modified AHA Model 

The AHA model linked the analyses of tributary habitat actions to prospective recovery actions 

involving hatchery fish and the mainstem Columbia River; integrating the effects of various 

types of actions over the full life cycle. A set of scenarios was modeled using AHA, representing 

baseline conditions, current conditions, and combinations of actions aimed at tributary habitat, 

mainstem Columbia River factors, and hatchery fish management. AHA scenarios were run in a 

stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current condition, then adding in actions 

sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. 

Importantly, the AHA model allowed incorporation of potential effects of hatchery programs on 

the genetic fitness of the natural populations. The model incorporates key concepts and 

assumptions about the effects of genetic interactions between hatchery and natural fish built on 

the work of Lynch and O’Hely (2001) and Ford (2002), with further development of those ideas 

by geneticists working with the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG)( Mobrand – Jones & 

Stokes 2005). Fitness is computed in the model using Ford’s (2002) modeling equations. It was 

used to evaluate potential genetic effects on the natural populations due to interactions between 

out-of-DPS stray hatchery fish and from the Umatilla supplementation hatchery program. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-35 

Several prospective actions to be taken in the mainstem Columbia River were also modeled 

using AHA, including: predator management – aimed at reducing predation rates caused by terns 

and northern pikeminnow; downstream juvenile passage improvements – measures to improve 

survival at each of the mainstem dams; Columbia estuary habitat improvements – measures to 

enhance habitat conditions within the Columbia estuary; and harvest – regulatory measures to 

reduce or hold harvest impacts in the mainstem Columbia River to current levels. We used 

survival improvement estimates provided in the recent BiOp (NOAA Fisheries 2007a) for 

predation, hydrosystem, and estuary actions. The use of these values in no way implies 

endorsement of the validity of the estimates or the adequacy of the actions. At this time, these 

are the only estimates available for the proposed actions. 

The output from AHA, also expressed as Beverton-Holt population parameters, represents the 

expectation for population performance when all actions are integrated together. These 

parameters were then converted to the percent change in each parameter value compared to 

baseline conditions and multiplied by the ICTRT’s baseline population measures to compute 

expected ICTRT-equivalent parameter values reflecting the effects of all actions. 

Summary of Findings 

Overall, analysis results show that population performance, as measured by both productivity 

and spawner abundance, increases markedly for all populations under the recovery action 

scenarios. 

Results of All-H integration analysis are summarized below for each population and presented in 

Section 10. Changes in performance measures associated with each action scenario are 

presented for intrinsic productivity and equilibrium spawner abundance. The results are 

comparable to population metrics presented in Section 6 for baseline performance, as derived 

empirically by the ICTRT, and to minimum productivity (at the threshold abundance level) and 

abundance viability thresholds at the 5% risk level. 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. By far, 

the largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions. 

Relatively small increases are attributable to mainstem actions. Viability thresholds are exceeded 

for all scenarios. 

Deschutes River Eastside Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Very substantial benefits to 

both population productivity and natural-origin spawner abundance also occur as a result of 

reducing the number of stray hatchery fish spawning with natural-origin fish. Viability 

thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-36 

Deschutes River Westside Population 

The largest increases in population performance associated with the range of scenario 

combinations analyzed occur as a result of decreasing the number of stray hatchery fish and/or 

by providing passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex (includes passage at Whychus Creek 

barriers). In the absence of the removal of strays or passage, benefits are much reduced. For 

those scenario combinations lacking removal of strays and passage, beneficial effects of tributary 

actions are greatest, though beneficial cumulative effects of adding in mainstem actions are 

clearly evident. The viability threshold for productivity is exceeded for all action scenarios. The 

minimum abundance threshold was not achieved for any scenario. 

Lower Mainstem John Day River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Viability thresholds are 

exceeded for all scenarios. 

North Fork John Day River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Viability thresholds are 

exceeded for all scenarios. 

Middle Fork John Day River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Viability thresholds are 

exceeded for all scenarios. 

South Fork John Day River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. The viability threshold for 

productivity is exceeded for all action scenarios. The abundance threshold is reached in about 

30% of the action scenarios. 

Upper Mainstem John Day River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements result from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Viability thresholds are 

exceeded for all scenarios. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-37 

Umatilla River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The 

largest contribution to performance improvements results from tributary habitat actions, with 

greatest benefits accruing for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions 

are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. Viability thresholds are 

exceeded for all scenarios. 

Walla Walla River Population 

Population performance is increased markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. Relatively 

small differences exist between scenario results at 25 and 100 years. The largest contribution to 

performance improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions. Benefits associated 

with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios. 

1.11 Time and Cost Estimates 

Section 11 summarizes the time and partial costs expected for recovery of Oregon Mid-C 

steelhead populations. Appendix I discusses the costs of implementing the various actions 

identified in Section 9 in more detail. 

Currently, we estimate the overall total cost for implementation of proposed actions that we were 

able to estimate for all ten Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations at $512,843,328. This estimate 

reflects preliminary summary partial costs for recovery of the populations based on 

implementation of identified management actions, where available information was sufficient to 

do so. The draft cost estimates (Table I-1) were prepared by a NMFS economist at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle using a regional recovery cost database, together 

with input and review from ODFW, regional experts, and the Mid-Columbia Sounding Board in 

2007. The total cost will increase when unit cost estimates, scale of projects, and costs for all 

actions are determined. Costs for some of the expensive actions like land acquisition, flow 

enhancement, land leases, and RM&E have yet to be determined. 

Estimated costs for different projects range widely from relatively less expensive fish passage 

projects to more expensive projects, such as restoring stream channel structure and complexity. 

The Lower John Day ($116,192,806) and Deschutes River Westside ($114,110,501) populations 

have the most expensive estimated total project costs, while the South Fork John Day 

($8,656,103) and Fifteenmile ($28,358,906) populations have the smallest total costs. These 

total cost differences may be due to many factors such as size of the population, extent to which 

current conditions need to be improved, scale of projects, number of projects identified, and the 

availability of recovery action cost information by population at this time. 

NMFS estimates that implementation of the recovery actions for the Mid-Columbia steelhead 

DPS, like recovery for most of the ESA-listed Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead, could 

take 50 to 100 years. While this recovery plan contains an extensive list of actions that need to be 

undertaken to recover Oregon’s Mid-Columbia steelhead populations, there are many 

uncertainties involved in predicting the course of recovery and in estimating total costs. These 

include uncertainties regarding biological and ecosystem responses to recovery actions, as well 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-38 

as uncertainties regarding long-term and future funding. Given the uncertainties in developing 

recovery cost estimates, Oregon is not able to estimate total or 10-year implementation costs to 

recover Oregon’s populations in the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. Table I-2 in Appendix I, 

however, provides current average expenditures on habitat projects expected during the next 

five-year period. These projected five-year habitat project expenditures total approximately 

$102 million. 

In early 2008, Oregon, NOAA, and other partners will develop a plan for recovery project 

implementation that will include project cost estimates. The implementation plan will identify 

what entity or individual will carry out the recovery actions and the timeline for implementation. 

Recovery costs will be revised in the future as specific project budgets are completed. 

1.12 Implementation Plan and Adaptive Management Framework 

The successful implementation of the Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead Conservation and 

Recovery Plan recovery actions, research, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management 

process will require significant funds and the coordinated work of ODFW, State agencies, tribes, 

counties, irrigation districts, agriculture and private forest land managers, NMFS, U.S. Forest 

Service, BLM, other Federal agencies, local residents, citizen groups, utilities, other agencies, 

and individuals. ODFW, in coordination with the Oregon Governor’s Office and NMFS, has 

taken the lead in developing this recovery plan; all will continue to be instrumental in its 

implementation. 

Oregon’s recovery plan implementation framework is intended to provide a collaborative 

approach to implementation, science guidance and policy direction, as well as facilitate 

information exchange and coordination from local-level action entities to upper level decision 

makers and provide linkage to state, DPS and regional forums. Existing forums, groups, 

partnerships and involved citizens make this implementation structure possible, but additional 

resources and funding will be needed to make it work effectively and successfully. The basic 

components of Oregon’s implementation framework include a Recovery Team, an 

Implementation Coordinator, an Implementation Team, a Technical Team, and Watershed 

Teams. These teams will interface with and potentially strengthen the various state agency 

teams associated with the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds that provide for policy, 

management, and monitoring of interagency Oregon Plan programs for the conservation and 

restoration of habitat, water quality, and salmon. In addition, these teams will function to 

coordinate within the DPS implementation and adaptive management framework. The 

implementation framework will adapt and change as necessary to adjust to funding, available 

resources, and implementation needs. 

Mid-C steelhead have a complex life cycle that traverses habitats from high elevation tributaries 

to the open ocean. Life history strategies and life stage specific habitat requirements are 

complex. There are many limiting factors and threats that influence the viability of Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead at all life stages. The suite of proposed management actions to address primary 

limiting factors and threats across the entire life cycle is extensive and diverse. Although the 

limiting factors and threats, as well as the management actions, have been developed based on 

the best available science, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the outcomes and 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-39 

effectiveness of the proposed management actions as well as the status of the populations. It is 

this uncertainty which generates the essential need for an effective adaptive management 

process. 

A successful adaptive management process requires that we understand how and why steelhead 

and their associated habitats respond to the management actions we take to address key limiting 

factors and threats. In addition, success requires a decision framework and process which 

considers new information in the development and implementation of future management 

actions. 

One of the great challenges facing the development and implementation of an effective adaptive 

management strategy for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead is the extensive number of organizations that 

implement management actions, as well as the complexity in jurisdictional and management 

decision authority. There are many different organizations including state agencies, tribes, 

counties, irrigation districts, agriculture and private forest land managers, NOAA, U.S. Forest 

Service, BLM, other federal agencies, local residents, citizen groups, utilities and others that 

implement management actions. 

Along with this implementation complexity is a parallel level of jurisdictional, management 

decision authority, and process complexity. There is no one single decision body that holds 

decision authority for management actions across all the H’s. Decision authority for 

management actions resides across many entities including state, tribal, federal, county as well as 

others. Those diverse decision frameworks and processes, many independent of others, create 

coordination and collaboration challenges. We acknowledge that it is unreasonable to expect 

centralization and integration of all authorities and decision processes into a single decision 

framework. Our approach is to develop a collaboration and coordination process that uses the 

implementation structures and allows for sharing of information and decisions that influence 

recovery of Mid-C steelhead. 

1.13 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Section 13 presents a detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan that covers the Oregon 

portion of the Mid-C steelhead DPS. It describes the types of monitoring approaches that are 

used, current efforts underway, and additional M&E recommended for assessing the status and 

trends in population viability and for evaluating the success of management actions implemented 

to recover these steelhead populations. Logistical and monetary limitations are understood to 

exist; however, a comprehensive M&E plan should help to focus efforts towards the common 

goal of assessing success in population and DPS recovery. 

The M&E plan is based in part on principles and concepts laid out in the NMFS guidance 

document, Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision 

Framework and Monitoring Guidance (May 1, 2007) http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. It also borrows from 

RM&E plans that were developed for Mid-Columbia subbasins and other Columbia Basin 

regions. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-40 

The plan also follows the principles of adaptive management, the process of adjusting 

management actions and/or directions based on new information. Adaptive management is 

considered crucial for salmonid recovery programs because of the length and complexity of the 

salmonid life cycle, and the uncertainties involved in improving salmonid survival and status. 

The plan addresses adaptive management by linking monitoring and evaluation to biological and 

physical responses, and using these results to better design and implement of management 

actions. 

Types of Monitoring Programs 

Several types of monitoring are needed to support adaptive management and to allow managers 

to make sound decisions: 

• Status and Trends Monitoring. Status monitoring includes measures of the current 

state or condition of the population at any given time. Trend monitoring tracks these 

conditions to provide a measure of the increasing, decreasing, or steady state of a status 

measure through time. Status and trends monitoring includes the collection of 

standardized basic information used to monitor broad-scale trends over time in the status 

of fish populations, habitat conditions, and other ecosystem factors affecting fish. This 

information is the basis for evaluating the cumulative effects of management actions on 

fish and the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem. 

• Action Effectiveness Monitoring. Action effectiveness monitoring involves projectscale monitoring of local conditions to determine if implemented actions were effective 

in creating the desired proximate change. Action effectiveness monitoring typically is 

used to determine whether project- or program-specific goals were met. This type of 

monitoring also includes post-project monitoring to see whether the actions continue to 

function as they were designed or intended. Note that status and trend monitoring may be 

appropriate for fulfilling these needs but that project effectiveness monitoring generally 

requires focused evaluations of more specific parameters directly associated with actions. 

Specific indicators and metrics need to be developed in plans for each category of action. 

Specific plans will include measurable variables or parameters to address each objective, 

study design (spatial and temporal scale, tests and controls, statistical criteria, etc.), data 

collection methods and reference examples, and analyses and decisions in response to 

results. 

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring. Implementation and compliance 

monitoring involves monitoring of management actions to determine if they were 

implemented as planned and meet established benchmarks. This monitoring is typically 

conducted by the groups implementing the management and restoration actions. 

• Uncertainties Research. Uncertainties research includes scientific investigations of 

critical assumptions and unknowns that constrain effective recovery plan implementation. 

Uncertainties include unavailable pieces of information required for informed decision 

making as well as studies to establish or verify cause-and-effect and identification and 

analysis of limiting factors. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-41 

Population-Specific Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Needs 

The plan addresses each major population group separately. In some cases, specific objectives 

are provided at the population scale to characterize unique monitoring needs. Specific 

approaches are presented that address each objective. A brief sampling design, including the 

spatial and temporal scale of application, is provided for each objective. Measurement variables 

protocols and a description of the analysis are presented. Existing and potential funding sources 

are identified and finally, implementation and coordination details are discussed. The techniques 

described for each population are not necessarily exhaustive, but are meant to be representative 

of those actions considered to have potential while recognizing logistical and monetary 

constraints. 

In general, population research, monitoring and evaluation activities are designed to gain 

information needed to improve knowledge of population viability. They examine status and 

trends in abundance and productivity of natural spawners; status of spatial structure based on 

current and historically utilized habitat; status and trend in condition of current and historically 

utilized habitat; freshwater and full life cycle productivity, and primary factors limiting 

freshwater production; current status, and change in future status of population life history and 

phenotypic diversity; effect of disease and predation on population abundance, productivity, 

diversity, and distribution; effect of harvest on population abundance, productivity, and diversity; 

effect of hydropower on population abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution; and 

effect of habitat degradation and habitat restoration activities on population abundance, 

productivity, and distribution. 

Following are specific research, monitoring and evaluation needs for each population in addition 

to the general types of activities described above: 

Fifteenmile Creek population 

• Improved estimates of abundance of stray hatchery fish 

• Determine life history characteristics 

Deschutes River Eastside and Westside populations 

• Effectiveness of passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

• Effectiveness of reintroduction into Whychus Creek and the Crooked River population 

• Extent of mainstem spawning 

• Impact of Snake River strays on viability 

• Fall back rate of natural and hatchery fish that pass Sherars Falls 

• Spawning distribution of hatchery-origin strays 

• Genetic characteristics of natural populations and the degree of introgression of hatchery 

strays 

• Steelhead-resident rainbow relationship in Westside population and impact on steelhead 

capacity 

Crooked River population 

• Assess the success of restoring natural production within the Crooked River population 

boundaries 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-42 

John Day River populations 

• Improved estimates of abundance of hatchery-origin strays 

• Spawning distribution of hatchery-origin strays 

 

Umatilla River population 

• Hatchery supplementation effectiveness 

• Relative reproductive success of hatchery fish 

• Spawning distribution of hatchery-origin fish 

• Effectiveness of major flow enhancement actions (Phase 3) 

Walla Walla River population 

• Improved estimates of abundance of hatchery-origin strays 

• Spawning distribution of hatchery-origin strays 

• Proportion of population spawning below Nursery Bridge 

• Effectiveness of major flow enhancement and passage improvement actions 

Out of Basin Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Needs 

The following types of RM&E actions are needed to support assessment of recovery of the 

Mid-C steelhead DPS and its Oregon populations: 

• Survival improvements from hydrosystem actions 

• Survival improvements from predator control actions 

• Survival improvements from estuary actions 

• Population specific mainstem harvest rates 

• Marine survival estimates and variation through time 

• Influence of transportation on Snake River hatchery steelhead straying 

1.14 Population Summaries 

Tables 1-6 through 1-16 summarize vital information related to the recovery of each of Oregon’s 

ten Mid-C steelhead populations. For each population, the summaries identify: key population 

attributes, minimum viability levels for a low risk recovery scenario, viability assessment results, 

the viability gap, major limiting factors and threats, and the highest priority tributary habitat 

strategies and actions. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-43 

Table 1-6. Summary of Recovery Information for Fifteenmile Creek Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the entire Fifteenmile Subbasin and several smaller subbasins—including the Rock, Mosier, 

Chenoweth, Mill, and Threemile watersheds—which enter the Columbia River directly downstream from Fifteenmile 

Creek. Current spawning distribution is similar to historical with major production areas in Fifteenmile, Ramsey, 

Eightmile, and Fivemile creeks. 

Recent year natural spawners include only natural-origin fish. Hatchery strays in the Fifteenmile Creek population have 

rarely been documented. 

The population contains three MaSAs, all located in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed: Upper Fifteenmile, Eightmile and 

Fivemile. It also contains five MiSAs: Mill, Chenoweth, Threemile, Mosier and Lower Fifteenmile. 

It is the only Mid-C steelhead population that is classified as an entirely winter run life history type. It is part of the 

Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. 

The population is considered a Basic size population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 500 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 500 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.56 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance. 

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: Population is at low risk based on current abundance and productivity. The 

Abundance/Productivity point estimate resides above the 1% risk curve, but the population is not considered to be at 

very low risk because of uncertainty criteria, the 98% confidence interval (CI) extends below the 25% risk curve. These 

A/P results should be viewed with caution, as abundance and productivity estimates for the Fifteenmile population are 

based on 15 years of spawner/recruit data. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is low risk for the population. There has been little change in 

distribution relative to the historical distribution. The absence of major reductions in distribution resulted in a rating of 

very low risk for spatial structure metrics. There have likely been minor reductions in life history diversity and 

phenotypic variation, but these changes are not severe enough to raise risk levels to moderate. There are few hatchery 

fish in the population resulting in low risk for spawner composition. 

Overall Viability Rating: Population currently meets viability criteria because both A/P and SS/D are rated at low risk. A 

relatively small increase in productivity is required to move this population into “highly viable” status. Monitoring should 

be continued to allow analysis of a longer data time series. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 703 exceeds the minimum threshold 

abundance of 500. The current productivity estimate of 1.82 recruits per spawner resides between the 5% and 1% risk 

curves. There is no observed gap or uncertainty gap for the 5% risk level. The observed and uncertainty gaps for the 

1% risk level are 0.03 and 0.09 respectively. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: There are no gaps for SS/D since all the SS/D metrics rated very low or low risk. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: low flows, high water temperatures, degraded riparian condition, sediment 

routing, degraded floodplain, degraded channel structure (channel confinement and overall habitat diversity); Hydro: 

mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Current land use practices (including roads, residential development, and agricultural and forest 

practices) and the Columbia River mainstem hydrosystem. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-44 

conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, riparian 

fencing. 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, and stabilize streambanks. 

High Priority Areas for all strategies: Fifteenmile Cr - Mouth to FS boundary; Ramsey Cr - Mouth to new FS boundary; 

Eightmile Cr - Hwy 197 to FS boundary; Fivemile Cr - Mouth to FS boundary. 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Manage harvest to maintain current low impact fisheries. Key actions: Maintain current low impact fisheries. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions: 

increased monitoring of hatchery fish on spawning grounds. 

Table 1-7. Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes River Eastside Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The Deschutes River Eastside population occupies the Deschutes River from its mouth to Trout Creek and all tributaries 

flowing in from the east side, including Willow Creek above Pelton Dam. 

Spawners in the population include natural-origin returns, hatchery returns from Deschutes River-origin fish produced at 

Round Butte Hatchery and out-of-DPS hatchery strays primarily from the Snake River Basin. Hatchery-origin fish 

comprise a significant proportion of the natural spawners. 

The population contains six MaSAs: Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, Ward/Antelope/Cold, Lower Trout, Upper Trout and Willow. 

It contains two MiSAs: Jones Canyon and Campbell. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. 

The ICTRT considers it an Intermediate population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.35 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance. 

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at low risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point estimate 

on the viability curve resides above the 1% curve, but the population is not considered to be at very low risk since the 

99% CI extends below the 25% risk curve. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is moderate risk for the population. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was low risk. However, the population’s spawning distribution 

is reduced from the historical distribution, primarily from loss of spawning in the Willow Creek drainage. The population 

remains broadly distributed with little changes in gaps and good continuity within the current accessible habitat. The 

rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. Habitat changes in key tributary production 

areas have likely resulted in limitations to life history diversity and reduction in phenotypic expression. Also, a significant

proportion of natural spawners are out-of-DPS strays which resulted in a high risk rating for spawner composition. 

Overall Viability Rating: The Deschutes River Eastside population currently meets the recommendation for viable status. 

The SS/D rating is moderate risk primarily because of the influence of habitat changes on life history and phenotypic 

expression, as well as out-of-DPS hatchery spawners.

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,599 substantially exceeds the 

minimum threshold abundance of 1,000. The current productivity estimate of 1.89 resides in the very low risk zone and 

thus there are no observed abundance/productivity gaps. The lower end of the productivity 99% confidence interval is 

below the 25% risk curve resulting in a 0.05 gap to meet uncertainty criteria for 1% risk level. The 

abundance/productivity dataset is a relatively short time series which results in a larger 90% CI than is typical of most 

other Oregon Mid-C populations. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-45 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Spatial structure/diversity gaps were identified for the following metrics: Phenotypic variation: 

moderate risk due to likely reduction in juvenile and adult migration patterns resulting from flow and temperature 

changes in tributary production areas; Spawner composition: Out-of-DPS spawners rated high risk due to the high 

proportion of Snake River strays spawning naturally in the population. Out-of-population within MPG spawners rated 

moderate risk due to the proportion of Round Butte Hatchery fish spawning naturally in the population. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded riparian condition, low flows, high water temperatures, degraded 

channel structure/complexity and floodplain connectivity, impaired fish passage. Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning 

stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery production which results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (grazing, roads, residences, forestry and agricultural practices that simplify habitats and 

irrigation withdrawals); the Columbia River mainstem hydrosystem. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Spawners, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: Bakeoven Cr (mouth to Deep Cr), Buck Hollow Cr (mouth to Macken Canyon), Trout Cr (Little Trout Cr. 

to headwaters) 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove/replace barriers, adequate screening of irrigation 

diversions. Priority areas: Bakeoven Cr, Mud Springs Cr., Hay Cr 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Priority areas: Trout Cr (mouth to Clover Cr), 

Antelope Cr 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Trout Cr (Little 

Trout Cr to Clover Cr, sections from mouth to Antelope Cr), Antelope Cr, Hay Cr 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, and stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: same as for riparian strategy. 

Hydrosystem Strategies

Strategy: Improve flow patterns through Pelton-Round Butte Complex (PRBC), restore water quality below PRBC. Priority 

areas: Deschutes R. (at and below PRBC). 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty regarding hatchery strays and reduce abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish 

spawning naturally. Key actions: coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks for programs 

contributing strays, increased monitoring on spawning grounds and trap and removal of strays. 

Table 1-8. Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes River Westside Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The Deschutes River Westside population occupies the mainstem Deschutes River from Trout Creek to the Pelton-Round 

Butte Complex (PRBC) at RM 100 and tributaries joining the Deschutes from the Westside, including the Warm Springs 

River and Shitike Creek below the hydroelectric complex and the Metolius River and Whychus Creek drainages above 

the complex. The Warm Springs watershed and Shitike Creek currently provide most spawning habitat. Whychus Creek 

was once a major steelhead producer for the population. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, strays from the Deschutes 

Subbasin Round Butte Hatchery program, and a significant number of out-of-DPS hatchery strays from the Snake 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-46 

River. Natural-origin spawners have comprised an average of 82% of natural spawning fish since 1978. 

The population contains six MaSAs: Upper Warm Springs, Whychus, Upper Metolius, Mill, Beaver and Shitike; and nine 

MiSAs. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. 

The ICTRT considers it a ‘large’ population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners. Access to a 

considerable amount of historical habitat is blocked by PRBC, with current spawning only below the barrier. The 

minimum abundance threshold is 1,000 spawners for currently available habitat. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners (1,000 for currently accessible habitat). 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.35 recruits per spawner at the threshold level.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: Population is at high risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point estimate on 

the viability curve resides below the 25% risk curve. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is high risk for the population. It rates at 

moderate risk for two of the spatial distribution metrics because the current distribution is substantially reduced from the 

historical intrinsic distribution due to blocked passages to areas above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Ratings for 

two metrics related to Goal B “maintaining natural patterns of variation” resulted in a moderate rating for Goal B and the 

overall moderate rating. Genetic variation rated moderate due to limited data and the lack of differentiation between the 

Deschutes samples and outside-basin hatchery samples. Samples collected in 2005-2007 will better inform the risk 

associated with genetic variation. The proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays resulted in a high risk rating for 

spawner composition. Most of these strays originate from the Snake River Basin. 

Overall Viability Rating: The Deschutes River Westside population does not currently meet recommendations for viability 

and is below maintained status. However, it is the only extant Large or Very Large population in the MPG and should 

be recovered to meet the viability criteria. A substantial increase in productivity will be required to raise the A/P values 

to the low risk level. Genetics information presently being collected will better inform the genetics variation risk level in 

the future. A reduction in the out-of-ESU hatchery stray proportion will be needed to reduce the risk rating for the 

spawner composition metric. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 456 is well below the abundance 

threshold of 1,000, the threshold abundance for currently available habitat. The current productivity estimate of 1.05 

recruits per spawner is well below the minimum of 1.35 required at the threshold abundance. The observed gaps, 

which are greater than uncertainty gaps, for the 5% and 1% risk levels are 0.78 and 0.92 respectively. This gap is by 

far the largest observed gap of all the Oregon Mid-C populations. The large gap results from the substantial difference 

in the equilibrium abundance (448) and the threshold abundance, as well as the low productivity. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Spatial structure/diversity gaps were identified for the following metrics: Spatial extent and 

range of population: moderate risk because spawner distribution is substantially reduced from historical due to blocked 

access to Whychus Creek and the Metolius River; Genetic variation: moderate risk because there are limited genetics 

data available and the samples that have been analyzed show similarity to out-of-DPS hatchery strays; Spawner 

composition: Out-of-DPS spawners rated high risk because out-of-DPS strays have comprised a significant proportion 

of the natural spawners in this population for many generations. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and complexity, altered sediment routing, high 

water temperature, low flows and lack of fish passage over PRBC; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray 

hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage and tributary passage to blocked areas above Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery production that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (grazing, roads, residences, forestry and agricultural practices that simplify habitats and 

irrigation withdrawals); the Columbia River mainstem hydrosystem, Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Spawners, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-47 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies 

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: Spawning areas in mainstem Deschutes R. below PRBC. 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Restore passage at PRBC, remove/replace barriers, adequate 

screening of irrigation diversions. Priority areas: Deschutes R. (RM 100), Warm Springs R, Shitike Cr, Beaver Cr. 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Priority areas: Whychus Cr. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Deschutes R. 

(Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr), Deschutes R (Trout Cr to PBR), Warm Springs R., Shitike Cr., Beaver Cr., Whychus Cr. 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, and stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr), 

Deschutes R. (Trout Cr to PBRC), Warm Springs R. (mouth to Badger Cr), Shitike Cr. (mouth to road crossing), Beaver 

Cr. (mouth to Robinson Park Bridge) 

Hydrosystem Strategies

Strategy: Restore steelhead production in historical habitats. Key actions: develop juvenile collection and passage through 

PRBC, improve flow patterns through PRBC, restore water quality below PRBC. Priority areas: Deschutes R. (at and 

below PRBC). 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty regarding hatchery strays and reduce abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish 

spawning naturally. Key actions: coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks, increased 

monitoring on spawning grounds and trap and removal of strays. 

Strategy: Reduce genetic risks associated with Round Butte Hatchery Program. Key actions: investigate incorporating 

naturally produced local steelhead into RBH broodstock. 

Strategy: Restore natural production in historically utilized habitats. Key actions: develop plan for steelhead 

reintroductions above PRBC. Priority areas: Metolius R, Whychus Cr, Deschutes R. 

Table 1-9. Summary of Recovery Information for Deschutes/Crooked River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The Deschutes/Crooked River population once occupied the Crooked River drainage, a major watershed in the 

Deschutes basin. 

The population is now extinct because of the lack of passage above Pelton Dam. 

The population exhibited a summer life history strategy and is part of the Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. 

The ICTRT considers it a very large population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 2,250 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 2,250 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.19 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance. 

Viability Assessment Results 

The ICTRT did not complete a viability assessment for the population because it is currently extinct. 

Overall Viability Rating: The Deschutes/Crooked River population is currently considered extinct. 

Viability Gap 

A gaps analysis was not completed for the Deschutes/Crooked River population because it is currently extinct. 

Limiting Factors and Threats
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-48 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and complexity and floodplain connectivity, 

degraded riparian condition, high water temperature, low flows, altered hydrology sediment routing, and lack of fish 

passage; Hydro: Impaired upstream and downstream migration. 

Primary Threats: grazing and agricultural practices, urban development, off highway vehicle (OHV) use, irrigation 

withdrawal, dams, lack of floodplain connectivity; Pelton-Round Butte Complex on the mainstem Deschutes blocks fish 

passage. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: All life stages. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: Crooked River (RM 6-14, RM 55-70), McKay Cr, Ochoco Cr (below Ochoco Dam) 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove/replace barriers including dams, road culverts, 

irrigation structures, infiltration galleries; provide adequate screening of irrigation diversions. Priority areas: Rice 

Baldwin Dam, Stearns Dam, Seamus Dam, Parga Dam, Peoples irrigation diversion 

Strategy: Restore floodplain connectivity and function. Key actions: Reconnect floodplain and side channels to channel. 

Priority areas: Crooked River (RM 31-51), McKay Cr 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency, lease/purchase water rights and convert to 

instream. Priority areas: Crooked River (RM 14-55), McKay Cr, Allen Cr, Ochoco Cr (below Ochoco Dam) 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Crooked River (RM 

14-55), McKay Cr, Ochoco Cr (below Ochoco Dam), Allen Cr 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, and stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Crooked River (RM 31-51), McKay Cr. 

Hydrosystem Strategies

Strategy: Restore steelhead production in historical habitats. Key actions: develop juvenile collection and passage through 

PRBC, improve flow patterns through PRBC, restore water quality below PRBC. Priority areas: Deschutes R. (at and 

below PRBC). 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Restore natural production to blocked areas above PRBC. Key actions: Develop and implement a 

comprehensive plan for the reintroduction of steelhead into the Crooked River population area. 

Table 1-10. Summary of Recovery Information for Lower Mainstem John Day River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the Lower John Day watershed below the mouth of the South Fork John Day River and the town 

of Dayville. Steelhead in this population spawn in tributary streams connected to the lower John Day River including 

Bridge, Butte, Thirtymile, Hay and Rock creeks. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a small fraction of strays 

from the Snake River and Columbia River hatchery programs. 

The population contains 11 MaSAs and 19 MiSAs. Major spawning areas include Bridge, Mountain, Cottonwood, Hay, 

Middle Rock, Upper Rock, Pine Hollow, Long Rock (Lower John Day) Thirtymile, Butte, and Grass Valley. All 11 

MaSAs are currently occupied and 11 of the 19 MiSAs are occupied. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the John Day River MPG. 

It is considered a Very Large population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 2,250 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 2,250 spawners. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-49 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.19 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk based on current A/P. The productivity is very low risk 

because the point estimate is above very low risk and the lower end of the adjusted standard error is above the 5% risk 

level. The abundance is moderate risk because it resides between the 5% and 25% risk levels. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated rating is moderate risk for the population. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and level of spatially mediated processes” was very low. The current spawner distribution is similar to 

historical with all MaSAs occupied. The MiSAs that are currently unoccupied have little influence on gaps and 

continuity, and spawners are spread over a very broad geographic area. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural 

levels of variation” was moderate risk. This rating was a result of moderate risk for life history and genetic variation and 

high risk for spawner composition out-of-DPS hatchery strays. The magnitude and trend in out-of-DPS hatchery strays 

are of significant concern. Analysis of genetics information will yield considerable insight into the genetic variation and 

characteristics of this population. 

Overall Viability Rating: The Lower Mainstem John Day River population does not currently meet recommendations for 

viability, although it does meet criteria for a “maintained” population. To achieve a viable rating, this population must 

improve in both A/P and SS/D. Out-of-DPS origin spawners are the most influential factor on diversity risk. Additional 

population specific data are needed to better quantify the spawner composition in this population to reduce the 

uncertainty associated with this risk metric.

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,800 is 72% of the threshold 

abundance of 2,250 natural spawners. The current productivity of 2.99 recruits per spawner is well above the minimum 

required to meet the 1% risk level. The lower end of the 99% CI also resides above the minimum needed to meet the 

1% risk level. The observed abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.11. This gap is a 

result of the difference in the equilibrium abundance (2,019) and the threshold abundance. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Gaps were identified for the following spatial structure/diversity metrics: Major life history 

strategies: moderate risk because habitat changes have resulted in reduced juvenile life history diversity and restricted 

summer rearing distribution. Genetic variation: moderate risk because there are no genetics data and due to potential 

genetic effects of the high proportion of out-of-DPS spawners. Spawner composition: Out-of-DPS spawners rated high 

risk due to high proportion and increasing trend of out-of-DPS spawners. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), 

altered sediment routing, water temperature, and altered hydrology. Impaired fish passage is also a high priority limiting 

factor in Bridge, Butte, Kahler, Muddy, Rock, and Thirtymile creeks. Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray 

hatchery fish on viability. Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery production that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (agricultural and grazing practices, removal of overstory trees and bank vegetation from the 

riparian corridor, water withdrawals, wetland draining and conversion, and stream channelization and diking; the 

Columbia River mainstem hydro system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, egg incubation, egg-to-fry, fry-to-smolt, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: Pine, Bridge, Cottonwood creeks. 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove/replace barriers, adequate screening of irrigation 

diversions. Priority areas: Rock, Upper Rock, Middle Rock, Lone Rock, Thirtymile, Butte, and Bridge creeks. 

Strategy Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Rock, Middle Rock, Thirtymile and Butte 

creeks. 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-50 

conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Priority areas: Rock, Bridge, Rock Mountain, 

lower Parrish and Kahler creeks 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Lone Rock, 

Mountain Cr (Wheeler Co), Parrish Cr, Cherry Cr, Kahler Cr, Bridge Cr, Thirtymile Cr, Butte Cr, and upper reaches of 

Pine Hollow Canyon Cr. 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity: Key actions: Remove or minimize use of push up dams; remove or replace 

barriers blocking passage; provide screening at all irrigation diversions; replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Priority areas: Rock, Upper Rock, Middle Rock, Lone Rock, Thirtymile, Butte, and Bridge creeks. 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Strategy: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural steelhead spawner. Key actions: voluntary curtailment of fishing 

at higher water temperatures. 

Strategy: Improve quality of harvest information. Key actions: expand creel surveys. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions:

increased monitoring on spawning grounds and possibly trapping. 

Table 1-11. Summary of Recovery Information for North Fork John Day River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the North Fork John Day watershed excluding the Middle Fork drainage. The North Fork John 

Day is the largest tributary to the John Day River, draining approximately 1,800 mi2. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a small fraction of strays 

from the Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. 

The population contains 8 MaSAs (Lower North Fork John Day, Potamus, Big Wall, Big, Upper North Fork John Day, 

Desolation, Granite, and Owens) and seven MiSAs (Bridge, Meadow Brook, two Cabins, Fivemile, Meadow and 

Ditch). 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the John Day River MPG. 

The population is considered a Large population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.26 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The North Fork John Day River population is at very low risk based on current abundance and 

productivity. The point estimate for abundance and productivity resides above the 1% risk curve and the 99% 

confidence interval for productivity is above the 25% risk curve. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The combined integrated SS/D rating is low risk for the population. The rating for Goal A 

“allowing natural rates and level of spatially mediated processes” was very low. Current spawner distribution mimics 

the intrinsic distribution. The population is distributed broadly across the landscape in numerous MaSAs and MiSAs. 

Good continuity exists between spawning areas and current gaps between spawning areas are similar to historical 

gaps. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” was low risk. However, there remains considerable 

uncertainty about the ratings for genetic variation and out-of-DPS hatchery strays in the natural spawners. Additional 

genetic analyses and interpretation is needed to determine if the genetic variation is similar to historical conditions and 

to examine evidence for degree of stray hatchery fish introgression. The metric for out-of-DPS hatchery strays rated 

very high. The data used for this rating are a composite from four John Day populations. Additional population specific 

spawner composition data are needed to improve the certainty of the out-of-DPS stray hatchery risk rating. If there is 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-51 

significant hatchery introgression that is affecting the genetic variation through time then the risk rating for “genetic 

variation” will increase and the overall risk rating for Goal B and SS/D will also increase. 

Overall Viability Rating: The overall viability rating for the North Fork John Day steelhead population is considered highly 

viable as a result of the A/P rating of very low risk, and the SS/D rating of low risk. There remains considerable 

uncertainty regarding the genetic effect of out-of-DPS strays, as well as the actual proportion of natural spawners that 

are hatchery strays. Enhanced monitoring efforts should be undertaken to develop better estimates of the composition 

of North Fork John Day spawners. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,740 exceeds the threshold 

abundance of 1,500. The current productivity of 2.41 recruits per spawner is well above the value needed to meet the 

1% risk level. The lower end of the 90% CI resides above the 1% risk level. No abundance/productivity gaps exist for 

the 5% or 1% risk levels. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: All metrics rated very low or low risk except for the following: Spawner composition: Out-ofDPS spawners rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of Snake River hatchery strays within this 

population. There is also considerable uncertainty regarding the hatchery fraction estimates for this population. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure 

and complexity (key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, channel stability), altered sediment routing, water temperature, 

and low flows; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road 

building, irrigation withdrawals, mining and dredging); the Columbia River mainstem hydro system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Parr-to-smolt survival, egg-to-fry survival, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: tributaries within the NF John Day Wilderness, NF John Day River (Big Cr to headwaters), SF 

Desolation Cr, upper Clear Cr 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Cottonwood Cr 

below Fox Cr, Camas Cr above Wilkins Cr 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Camas Cr (Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr), Clear 

Cr below Ruby Cr, Olive Cr below Beaver Cr, Bull Run Cr, Cottonwood Cr below EF Cottonwood 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures; improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Priority areas: Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, Camas 

Cr above Wilkins Cr 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Strategy: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural steelhead spawner. Key actions: voluntary curtailment of fishing 

at higher water temperatures. 

Strategy: Improve quality of harvest information. Key actions: expand creel surveys. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

coded-wire-tagging program, marking of all hatchery steelhead in Columbia River Basin, development of alternative 

broodstocks, reduced transport of hatchery smolts from Snake River. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions:

increased monitoring on spawning grounds and possibly trapping. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-52 

Table 1-12. Summary of Recovery Information for Middle Fork John Day River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the Middle Fork drainage, which contains five watersheds, all used by steelhead. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a small fraction of strays 

from the Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. 

Two MaSAs exist in the Middle Fork John Day River population, including Middle Fork John Day and Long Creek, and no 

MiSAs. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the John Day River MPG. 

It is considered an Intermediate population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.35 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point 

estimate is between 5% and 25% risk curves. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is low risk for the population. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was between very low and low risk. Current spawner 

distribution mimics the intrinsic distribution. The population is distributed broadly across the landscape, in multiple 

MaSAs with adequate gaps and good continuity between spawning areas. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural 

levels of variation” was low risk; however, additional genetics analyses are needed to better assess genetic variation 

and hatchery introgression. The population rated high risk for proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays based on a 

limited time series of composite John Day population data. Better population specific spawner composition data are 

needed to better understand the out-of-DPS hatchery stray influence. If significant hatchery introgression affects 

genetic variation through time, then the risk rating will increase, thus raising the overall risk rating for Goal B and the 

overall SS/D rating. 

Overall Viability Rating: The population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria, although it does meet 

criteria for a “maintained” population. Increased annual abundance would allow this population to achieve a risk rating 

of low for A/P and raise the overall viability rating to viable. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 756 is 75.6% of the threshold 

abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 2.45 recruits per spawner is above the minimum needed at threshold 

abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI is well above the 25% risk level. The observed abundance/productivity gap 

to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.08. This gap is a result of the difference in equilibrium abundance (928) and 

the threshold abundance. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: All metrics rated very low or low risk except for the following: Spawner composition: Out-ofDPS spawners rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of out-of-DPS strays within this population. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), 

degraded floodplain function and connectivity, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water temperature; 

Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road 

building, passage barriers, irrigation withdrawals, mining and dredging); the Columbia River mainstem hydro system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry-to-smolt, egg incubation; egg-to-parr, smolts, adult spawning. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-53 

Priority areas: Upper reaches of Big, Big Boulder, and Granite Boulder creeks that originate in the Vinegar Hill-Indian 

Rock Scenic Area. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Mainstem Middle 

Fork John Day (Crawford to Bridge Cr, Horse to Camp Cr, Long Cr, Camp Cr). 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Middle Fork from mouth of Granite Boulder 

Cr to Ragged Cr, between Big Boulder Cr and Camp Cr, and near the mouth of Mosquito Cr 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures; improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. Priority areas: Long Cr and tributaries 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Strategy: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural steelhead spawner. Key actions: voluntary curtailment of fishing 

at higher water temperatures. 

Strategy: Improve quality of harvest. Key actions: expand creel surveys. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions:

increased monitoring on spawning grounds and possibly trapping. 

Table 1-13. Summary of Recovery Information for South Fork John Day River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the South Fork drainage in the John Day River Basin. Steelhead spawn and rear through the 

lower South Fork John Day up to Izee Falls at RM 28.5 and in Murderers Creek and other South Fork tributaries. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a small fraction of strays 

from the Snake River and Columbia River hatchery programs. 

The population includes three MaSAs: Upper South Fork, Lower South Fork and Murderers Creek. 

It exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the John Day River MPG. 

The population is considered a Basic population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 500 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 500 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.56 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point 

estimate resides between the 25% and 5% viability curves. The lower bound of the adjusted standard error for both 

the productivity and abundance extend below the 25% risk level. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is low risk for the population. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” rated midway between very low and low risk. Although the 

current spawner distribution mimics the intrinsic distribution, only three MaSAs exist within the population. Good 

continuity exists between spawning areas and gaps between areas have remained relatively unchanged. The rating 

for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” is low risk. As is the case for all John Day steelhead populations, 

there is uncertainty in ratings of metrics “genetic variation” and “proportion of spawners that are out-of-DPS strays.” 

Limited genetics data for South Fork steelhead restrict efforts to determine if the current population variation is similar 

to historical conditions and to examine the degree of hatchery fish introgression. The metric for proportion of out-ofDPS strays rated as high risk. However, the analyses relied on composite data from four John Day populations. 

Additional population specific spawner composition data are needed to better inform the risk rating and to reduce the 

associated uncertainty. 

Overall Viability Rating: The population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria, although it does meet 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-54 

criteria for a “maintained” population. Improvement in abundance will allow this population to achieve viable status. 

However, while the population received a SS/D rating of low risk, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the 

spawner composition data. Enhanced monitoring of the hatchery-wild ratios on the South Fork spawning grounds 

should be conducted to improve the hatchery fraction estimate and reduce the degree of uncertainty. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 259 is 51.8% of the threshold 

abundance of 500. The current productivity of 2.00 recruits per spawner is greater than the minimum required at the 

abundance threshold. The lower end of the 90% CI extends well below the 25% risk level. The observed 

abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.22. The uncertainty gap for the 1% risk level is 

0.23. The gaps are primarily a result of the difference between the equilibrium abundance (409) and the threshold 

abundance. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: All metrics rated very low or low risk except the following: Spawner composition: Out-of-DPS 

spawners rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of out-of-DPS strays within this population. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: altered sediment routing, degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat 

quantity and diversity), altered hydrology and low flow, water temperature, and impaired fish passage; Hatchery: 

effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road 

building, fish passage barriers (culverts, and other seasonal barriers), and irrigation withdrawals); the Columbia River 

mainstem hydro system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, adult spawning, egg incubation, egg-to-parr survival, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: Lower Murderers Cr tributaries draining the south side of Aldrich Mountain. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Upper South Fork 

River above Izee Falls, SF Murderers Cr, Deer Cr 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: same as for riparian strategy. 

Strategy: Restore degraded floodplain connectivity and function. Key actions: Reconnect floodplain to channel, 

reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats, restore wet meadows. Priority areas: SF Murderers Cr, Deer Cr, 

Upper South Fork River above Izee Falls. 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures; improve irrigation conveyance/efficiency. Priority areas: SF Murderers Cr, Deer Cr, Upper 

South Fork River above Izee Falls. 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Strategy: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural steelhead spawner. Key actions: voluntary curtailment of fishing 

at higher water temperatures. 

Strategy: Improve quality of harvest information. Key actions: expand creel surveys. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

enhance coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstock. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions:

increased monitoring on spawning grounds and trapping. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-55 

Table 1-14. Summary of Recovery Information for Upper Mainstem John Day River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The population occupies the John Day River drainage above the town of Dayville and the mouth of the South Fork John 

Day River. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents and a small fraction of strays 

from the Snake River and Columbia River hatchery programs. 

The population includes five MaSAs, Upper John Day, Upper Middle Mainstem John Day, Laycock, Beech and Canyon, 

and no MiSAs. The MaSAs are located primarily in the upper portions of the population boundaries. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the John Day River MPG. 

It is considered an Intermediate population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.35 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point 

estimate for abundance and productivity resides between the 5% and 25% risk curves. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is moderate risk for the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was very low 

because the current distribution is nearly identical to the historical distribution. The rating for Goal B “maintaining 

natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. This risk rating was a result of a moderate rating for changes in major 

life history strategies. Additional genetics information needs to be assessed to determine current genetic variation and 

to examine for the degree of introgression of hatchery fish. The population was rated as high risk for out-of-DPS 

hatchery strays based on a limited time series of composite John Day population hatchery fish observation data. 

Better population specific spawner composition data are needed to better determine the out-of-DPS hatchery fraction. 

If there is significant hatchery introgression that affects the genetic variation of this population through time, then the 

risk rating for Goal B will increase, and the overall risk rating for SS/D will increase. 

Overall Viability Rating: The population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria, although it does meet 

criteria for a “maintained” population. An increase in abundance is needed for this population to achieve viable A/P 

criteria. In addition, the SS/D rating was moderate due to loss in life history diversity and high risk for spawner 

composition. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 524 is only 52.4% of the threshold 

abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 2.14 recruits per spawner is well above the minimum required at the 

threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI resides above the 25% risk level. The observed A/P gap to reach 

the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.37. The uncertainty gaps are less than the observed gaps. The gap is primarily a result 

of the difference in the equilibrium abundance (730) and the threshold abundance. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Gaps were identified for the following SS/D metrics: Major life history strategies: moderate 

risk due to reduced opportunities for juvenile movement patterns and reduced summer rearing distribution that has 

resulted from altered mainstem and tributary habitats. Spawner composition: Out-of-DPS spawners rated high risk due 

to the high proportion of out-of-DPS strays and uncertainty in the estimates of hatchery fraction. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), 

degraded riparian areas and LWD recruitment, altered sediment routing, water temperatures, altered hydrology and 

degraded floodplain function and connectivity. Impaired fish passage is also a priority limiting factor in Beech and 

Laycock creeks. Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability. Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery production that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices (agricultural practices, livestock overgrazing, removal of large trees from the riparian 

corridor, wetland draining/conversion, stream channelization/diking); the Columbia River mainstem hydro system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, egg incubation, egg-to-parr survival, smolts, adult spawning. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-56 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: EF and Middle Fork of Canyon Cr, John Day River above Blue Mt. Hot Springs. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Upper mainstem 

John Day River, Beech Cr, Bear Cr, lower reaches of Fields Cr, Belshaw Cr and Riley Cr. 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Mainstem John Day River (Dayville to Blue 

Mt. Hot Springs), Indian Cr, Pine Cr, lower Beech Cr, middle Canyon Cr, lower Strawberry Cr 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement water 

conservation measures; improve irrigation conveyance/efficiency. Priority areas: Fields, Indian, Pine, Beech, 

Strawberry and Laycock creeks, John Day River (Dayville to Mt. Vernon). 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove or minimize use of push up dams, remove or replace 

culverts and/or other passage barriers. Priority areas: Beech, Canyon, Strawberry, Dixie, and Reynolds creeks. 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Use harvest to reduce stray hatchery spawners. Key actions: selective fisheries. 

Strategy: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural steelhead spawner. Key actions: voluntary curtailment of fishing 

at higher water temperatures. 

Strategy: Improve quality of harvest information. Key actions: expand creel surveys. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

enhance coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions:

increased monitoring on spawning grounds and trapping. 

Table 1-15. Summary of Recovery Information for Umatilla River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The Umatilla River steelhead population occupies the Umatilla watershed and a few smaller streams in Washington 

State that flow directly into the Columbia River. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, Umatilla River hatchery-origin 

fish and out-of-DPS strays, primarily from the Snake River Basin. 

The ICTRT has identified 13 MaSAs for this steelhead population. Eleven of the MaSAs are within the Umatilla drainage 

in Oregon: Butter, East Birch, McKay, Meacham, Middle Umatilla, Upper Umatilla, Lower Middle Umatilla, Lower Birch, 

Lower Umatilla, Wildhorse and West Birch. The population also has three MiSAs: Alkali, Fourmile Canyon, and 

Cottonwood. Two of the MaSAs, Alder Creek and Glade Creek, are included in the Umatilla population, but are direct 

tributaries to the Columbia River on the Washington side. Currently only eight of the 13 MaSAs are occupied. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG. 

 It is considered a Large population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.26 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance.

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk. The productivity is at low risk because the point estimate is 

above 5% risk level and the adjusted standard error is above the 25% risk level. Abundance is moderate because the 

point estimate is slightly below the 5% risk level. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-57 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating is moderate risk for the population. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in 

spawner distribution relative to intrinsic potential distribution. This reduction has caused significant increases in gaps 

between spawning areas as well as disrupted continuity. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” 

was moderate risk. Habitat changes have been significant in the Umatilla Basin resulting in changes to flow profiles 

and elevated temperatures. These changes have resulted in impacts to life history diversity and phenotypic trait 

variation. The out-of-DPS strays in combination with local origin hatchery fish spawning naturally put the population at 

high risk for spawner composition. Within basin habitat changes have likely resulted in selective mortality of specific 

components of juvenile and adult life stages resulting in a moderate risk rating. 

Overall Viability Rating: The population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria because A/P and 

SS/D risks ratings are both moderate. It does meet criteria for a “maintained” population. Improvement in many of the 

SS/D metrics and a small increase in the average abundance will raise the population to viable status. 

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,472 is 98.1% of the threshold 

abundance of 1,500. The current productivity of 1.50 recruits per spawner is above the minimum of 1.26 required at 

the threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI resides slightly above the 25% risk level. The observed A/P 

gap for the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.09. The uncertainty gap for the 1% risk level is less than the observed gap. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Gaps were identified for the following SS/D metrics: Spatial Extent or Range of Population: 

moderate risk because the current spawner distribution is substantially reduced from the historical distribution. Loss of 

spawning in the Butter and McKay watersheds has resulted in the reduced distribution. Increase or decrease in gaps 

and continuities: moderate risk because of the increased gaps and changed continuity resulting from losses of 

occupancy in the Butter and McKay watersheds. Major life history strategies: moderate risk as a result of reduced 

opportunity for life history expression for juvenile and adult life stages. This reduced opportunity has resulted from 

significant habitat changes in the Umatilla Basin. Phenotypic variation: moderate risk due to effects of flow and 

temperature on adult and juvenile migration characteristics. Spawner composition: Overall rating is high risk due to two 

moderate ratings for the component metrics. Out-of-DPS spawners rated as moderate risk due to the estimated level 

of strays observed at Three-mile Falls Dam over the last three generations. Within-population spawners rated 

moderate risk due to the proportion and duration of Umatilla Hatchery fish spawning in the basin. Selective change in 

Natural Processes-Habitat: moderate risk due to the selective effects of temperature and flow changes on juvenile 

and adult characteristics. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: high water temperature, sediment routing, impaired fish passage, degraded 

channel structure and complexity and low flows; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; 

Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery production that results in high proportions of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices that reduce habitat quality, quantity and disrupt ecosystem functions; the Columbia River 

mainstem hydrosystem. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: North Fork Umatilla R, Umatilla R (Meacham Cr. to forks), Buck Cr, NF Meacham Cr, E. Meacham Cr, 

Thomas Cr, W. Birch Cr (Bear Cr to headwaters), E. Birch Cr (California Gulch to headwaters), SF Umatilla R (mouth 

to Thomas Cr). 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove or replace culverts and/or other passage barriers, 

construct ladders over existing dams, provide adequate screening at all irrigation diversions. Priority areas: Birch Cr, 

W. Birch Cr, Bridge Cr, and diversions within current steelhead distribution. 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Umatilla R 

(Mission Br to forks), Meacham Cr (mouth to headwaters), Birch Cr, West Birch Cr ( mouth to Gorge), East Birch Cr, 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-58 

Bear Cr, Iskuulpa Cr. 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, stabilize streambanks. Priority areas: Umatilla R (Mission Br. to forks), Meacham 

Cr, NF Meacham Cr, Birch Cr, West Birch Cr ( mouth to Gorge), East Birch Cr, Bear Cr. 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Implement Umatilla 

Basin Project Phases I-IIII, implement water conservation measures, improve irrigation conveyance/efficiency. Priority 

areas: Umatilla R (mouth to Thornhollow), Birch C, West Birch Cr (mouth to Gorge), East Birch Cr, Bear Cr. 

Hydrosystem Strategies

Strategy: Improve hydrosystem operations and facilities at Boyd Project to enhance steelhead survival and viability. Key 

actions: Modify bypass flows at Project if possible to mimic instream water right, modify fish passage facilities to meet 

current standards, remove weir panels from diversion dam during non-operation, maintain trash racks. Priority areas:

At and below Boyd Project.

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Manage harvest to maintain current low impact fisheries. Key actions: Maintain current low impact fisheries. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks for the hatchery programs that produce the 

strays. 

Strategy: Reduce abundance and proportion of out-of-basin stray hatchery fish spawning naturally. Key actions: no 

consensus actions. 

Strategy: Re-establish natural production in historically utilized areas. Key actions: re-establish natural production in Little 

Butter and Butter creeks and some MiSAs through adult outplanting and juvenile releases. 

Strategy: Reduce genetic influence of hatchery fish in broodstock. Key actions: Eliminate use of hatchery produced 

adults in broodstock. 

Strategy: Reduce interactions between residual hatchery steelhead and natural steelhead. Key actions: no consensus 

actions. 

 Strategy: Reduce potential ecological interactions between coho and natural steelhead. Key actions: reduce number of 

hatchery coho released in Umatilla R. and relocate releases downstream of areas important to steelhead production. 

Table 1-16. Summary of Recovery Information for Walla Walla River Population. 

Key Population Attributes 

The Walla Walla River steelhead population occupies the Walla Walla watershed, with the exception of the Touchet 

River drainage, which is considered a separate independent steelhead population. The main tributaries of the Walla 

Walla River are the North and South forks and Couse, Pine, Birch, Cottonwood and Mill creeks. The North and South 

forks and Couse Creek are entirely within Oregon, but the remaining tributaries span the state line. Two small 

watersheds that empty directly into the Columbia River below the Walla Walla River confluence are included in the 

Walla Walla population boundaries. 

Recent years natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning adults and from outside-DPS strays 

that originate from Lyons Ferry Hatchery releases in the lower Walla Walla River. 

The population is comprised of three MaSAs (Mill, Pine, and Walla Walla) and two MiSAs (Dry and Switzler). Currently 

two of three MaSAs are occupied, including Walla Walla and Mill. Spawning and rearing occur in the lower reaches of 

the Pine Creek MaSA. 

The population exhibits a summer life history strategy and is part of the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG. 

It is considered an Intermediate size population with a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Minimum Viability Levels For Low Risk Recovery Scenario (5% extinction risk) 

Abundance: Minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners. 

Productivity: Minimum productivity level of 1.35 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-59 

Viability Assessment Results 

Abundance/Productivity: The population is at moderate risk based on current abundance and productivity. The point 

estimate falls between the 5% and 25% risk curves. The risk rating should be viewed with caution given two 

considerations. First, the time series is short, with only eight complete brood years. Second, there is considerable 

uncertainty associated with the amount of spawning and production that occurs within the population outside of the 

area above Nursery Bridge Dam, particularly in Mill Creek. Better information relating abundance above Nursery 

Bridge Dam to the remaining area in the population is needed to reduce these data uncertainties. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: The integrated SS/D rating for the population is moderate risk. The rating for Goal A “allowing 

natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in 

spawner distribution which has resulted in increased gaps and loss of continuity within the population, as well as 

between the Walla Walla population and other Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. The rating for Goal B “maintaining 

natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. Water temperature and hydrograph changes, as well as barriers have 

likely influenced life history diversity and phenotypic expression. Out-of-DPS strays have put the population in the 

moderate risk category for the spawner composition metric. Within basin habitat changes have likely resulted in 

selective mortality at multiple life stages resulting in a moderate risk rating. 

Overall Viability Rating: The population does not currently meet the recommended viability criteria, although it does meet 

criteria for a “maintained” population. The A/P values are at moderate risk and the time series is short resulting in 

considerable uncertainty. Additional brood years are needed to demonstrate sustained recruits per spawner and 

abundance values above the low risk criteria level. Significant improvements to spatial structure and diversity are 

needed to improve the risk level.

Viability Gap 

Abundance/Productivity: The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 650 is well below the threshold 

abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 1.34 recruits per spawner is slightly less than the minimum of 1.35 

required at the threshold abundance. The lower end of the 95% CI extends well below the 25% risk level. The 

observed gaps for A/P at the 5% and 1% risk levels were 0.34 and 0.45 respectively. The uncertainty gaps at the 5% 

and 1% risk levels were less than the observed gaps. These gaps should be viewed cautiously because there is only 

a short data series available to estimate productivity. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity: Gaps were identified for the following SS/D metrics: Major life history strategies: moderate 

risk due to changes in juvenile and adult movement patterns as well as reduced juvenile rearing distribution relative to 

historical opportunities. The reduced life history strategies have resulted from significant flow and temperature 

changes within the basin. Phenotypic variation: moderate risk due to the effect of flow and temperature changes on 

phenotypic variation. Adult and juvenile migration patterns have been significantly altered due to these habitat 

changes. Spawner composition: Out-of-DPS spawners rated moderate risk due to the proportion and duration of outof-DPS spawners in the population. Selective change in Natural Processes-Habitat: moderate risk due primarily flow 

and temperature effects on migration, movement and rearing patterns. 

Limiting Factors and Threats

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: high water temperature, sediment routing, impaired fish passage, degraded 

channel structure and complexity, degraded floodplain connectivity and function, and low flow; Hatchery: effects of 

naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; 

current land use practices that reduce habitat quality, quantity and disrupt ecosystem functions; the Columbia River 

mainstem hydrosystem. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

Tributary Management Strategies and Actions (Highest Priority) 

Habitat Strategies

Strategy: Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Key actions: Protect highest quality habitats; apply BMPs. 

Priority areas: SF Walla Walla (Elbow to headwaters), SF Walla Walla Tribs, NF Walla Walla (Little Meadows to 

headwaters). 

Strategy: Restore passage and connectivity. Key actions: Remove or replace culverts and/or other passage barriers, 

construct ladders over existing dams, provide adequate screening at all irrigation diversions. Priority areas: Mill Cr., 

Birch Cr, Couse Cr, and unscreened irrigation diversions within current steelhead distribution. 
Section 1, Executive Summary 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

1-60 

Strategy: Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. Key actions: restore natural plant communities, maintain 

fencing, adjust grazing strategies (new fencing may be part of an adjusted strategy). Priority areas: Walla Walla R 

(Mill Cr. to forks), SF Walla Walla (mouth to Elbow Cr), NF Walla Walla R (mouth to Little Meadows Cyn). 

Strategy: Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. Key actions: restore 

natural channel form, increase LWD, and stabilize streambanks. Priority Areas: Walla Walla R (Mill Cr. to forks), SF 

Walla Walla (mouth to Elbow Cr), NF Walla Walla R (mouth to Little Meadows Cyn). 

Strategy: Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Key actions: Investigate feasibility 

of water storage or exchange, implement water conservation measures, and improve irrigation conveyance/efficiency. 

Priority Areas: Walla Walla R (mouth to Little Walla Walla diversion), Walla Walla R. (Mill Cr to forks), NF Walla Walla 

R (mouth to Little Meadows Cyn). 

Hydrosystem Strategies

Strategy: Improve hydro operations and facilities at Twin Reservoirs Project. Key actions: Conduct assessment of 

fishway and modify to meet juvenile fish passage standards. 

Harvest Strategies

Strategy: Manage harvest to maintain current low impact fisheries. Key actions: Maintain current low impact fisheries. 

Hatchery Strategies

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize hatchery fish. Key actions: 

enhance coded-wire-tagging program, development of alternative broodstocks for the hatchery programs producing 

strays. 

Strategy: Reduce abundance and proportion of hatchery strays spawning naturally. Key actions: no consensus actions. 
Section 2, Introduction 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

2-1 

Section 2 Introduction 

This plan provides a framework and roadmap for the conservation and recovery of Middle 

Columbia River (Mid-C) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the State of Oregon. Mid-C 

steelhead currently occupy habitat in five major Oregon subbasins: Fifteenmile Creek and the 

Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers, as well as a number of small tributaries 

that flow directly into the Columbia River. The plan focuses on the recovery of Mid-C steelhead 

populations in these subbasins. 

 

Oregon Mid-C steelhead were originally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as part of the Middle Columbia River steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) on 

March 25, 1999 (69 FR 33101). After NOAA Fisheries’ National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead, Mid-C steelhead 

populations were listed as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) as the Middle Columbia 

River steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). The DPS includes all steelhead populations 

in Oregon and Washington tributaries of the Columbia River upstream of the Hood and Wind 

River systems, up to and including the Yakima River. The Snake River is not part of the DPS. 

The draft recovery plan describes a process to remove or minimize the threats to the long-term 

survival and recovery of Mid-C steelhead and improve the viability to the level that protection 

under the ESA is not required. 

The document describes: 

• The institutional framework and rationale for recovery plans 

• How NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service expects to use the plan 

• The regional domains of the Columbia Basin within which the recovery plans are written 

• The relation of this plan to other planning processes and other ESA mandates 

• Desired status--delisting (viability) criteria and broad sense recovery goals 

• The current status of listed Mid-C steelhead 

• Gaps between current status and viable status 

• Limiting factors and threats 

• Recovery strategies, management strategies and actions 

• Management action effectiveness 

• Cost analysis 

• Research, monitoring and evaluation 

• A framework for implementation and adaptive management 

2.1 Species Recovery under ESA 

Section 4(f) of the ESA requires NMFS to develop and implement recovery plans for species 

listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. These plans must, at a minimum, contain (1) a 

description of site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the 

conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would 

result in a determination that the species be removed from the list; and, (3) estimates of the time 
Section 2, Introduction 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

2-2 

required and cost to carry out the measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve 

intermediate steps toward that goal. Recovery plans are guidance and not regulatory documents, 

thus no agency or entity is required by the ESA to implement the recovery strategies or actions in 

the plans unless otherwise legally mandated (NMFS 2006a). Although not regulatory, the 

authors of the ESA clearly saw recovery plans as a central guiding vehicle for the recovery of 

listed species. 

NMFS is the agency responsible for recovery planning for salmon and steelhead, and also for 

decisions to list and delist marine species as endangered or threatened. Nevertheless, NMFS 

recognizes that local support of recovery plans is essential to their successful implementation. It 

is committed to involving local citizens and groups ― those whose activities directly affect the 

listed species, and whose activities are most affected by recovery requirements ― in 

development of the plans. The State of Oregon has taken the lead, in collaboration with NMFS 

and many other agencies, in developing the recovery plan for Oregon Mid-C steelhead. This 

plan fulfills the initial ESA recovery planning requirements for Mid-C steelhead, and represents 

the participation and leadership of tribal and non-tribal citizen groups. 

As a template for listed species recovery, a recovery plan describes a process to remove the 

threats to long-term survival and persistence by reversing the decline of a listed species and its 

habitat so that they initially become viable and eventually achieve their historical role in the 

natural-cultural system of the Columbia Basin. A recovery plan provides the necessary 

information that Federal agencies (NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)) 

have determined will lead to recovery of listed species and their associated habitats. The plan 

describes the current species status, the ‘gap’ that needs addressing to reach recovery, as well as 

ongoing or proposed actions designed to aid in the recovery of the species. The plan also 

provides estimated timeframe and costs for the overall effort. The final recovery plan will be 

considered a “living document.” As new information becomes available, such as the outcome of 

the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion process, better understanding of 

climate change, or as monitoring and adaptive management reveal the need for change, revised 

and additional actions will be added to the plan. 

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

the ESA requires the monitoring of the species for a period of not less than five years to ensure 

that it retains its recovered status and does not decline to such a state that requires the need to 

again list it as either a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. 

2.2 State of Oregon Recovery Planning 

The State of Oregon considers this plan its conservation plan for the Oregon portion of the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. The plan supports the State of Oregon’s Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan) and meets the requirements of Oregon’s Native Fish 

Conservation Policy (NFCP) (OAR 635-007-0502 to 0509). The Oregon Plan is a 

comprehensive partnership between government, communities, private landowners, industry and 

citizens funded by the Oregon Legislature. The Oregon Plan mission is: 
Section 2, Introduction 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

2-3 

To restore the watersheds of Oregon and to recover the fish and wildlife 

populations of those watersheds to productive and sustainable levels in a manner 

that provides substantial environmental, cultural and economic benefits. 

The Native Fish Conservation Policy, adopted in 2002 by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, provides refined policy to support implementation of the Oregon Plan. The NFCP 

is Oregon’s policy for managing native fish and determining restoration priorities that improve 

the effectiveness of conservation efforts under the Oregon Plan. The NFCP focuses on the 

conservation of naturally produced fish because they are the basis for Federal ESA listings and 

are the foundation for productive fisheries programs. 

The NFCP uses conservation plans as a means to identify and implement strategies and actions 

to restore and maintain native fish in Oregon. The conservation plans describe commitments by 

the State of Oregon that will conserve the sustainability of ESUs/DPSs and restore biological 

attributes necessary to achieve desired status goals that will provide significant ecological, 

economic and cultural benefits for all Oregonians. The plans are developed through a sequential 

process, nearly identical to the one used for this recovery planning effort: 

1. Determine the management unit, ESU or DPS 

2. Determine its current status 

3. Define a desired status (viability and broad sense goals) 

4. Determine any gap between the two and the factors causing the gap (limiting factors) 

5. Identify strategies and actions that address the limiting factors 

6. Monitor and evaluate the ESU (or DPS) status and actions implemented and use adaptive 

management to make adjustments. 

Status assessments conducted under the NFCP resemble assessments for ESA recovery in that 

they focus on groups of populations from a common geographic area with similar genetic and 

life history traits called Species Management Units (SMUs). Oregon, however, believes there are 

ecological and adaptive differences between summer and winter forms of steelhead and separates 

them into different SMUs. Populations delineated within Oregon’s Mid-C summer steelhead 

SMU are similar to those defined for the Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, except that the 

Deschutes Eastside and Westside populations are combined into a single population and the 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population is included in the Lower Columbia winter 

steelhead SMU. Oregon currently considers both SMUs as “At Risk” (ODFW 2005d). We 

chose to use the ICTRT population delineations because they were developed based on more 

recent information. We do not believe that the delisting criteria or management actions would 

differ if the Oregon NFCP populations or SMU boundaries were used because of the close 

similarity to the ICTRT boundaries. 

As a conservation plan under the NFCP, this plan for Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations goes 

beyond achieving ESA recovery requirements. Its desired status includes achievement of ‘broad 

sense goals’, including meeting social and cultural benefits. This approach to species recovery 

includes development of goals for harvestable population levels viewed essential by all the 

parties involved. Although somewhat broader than the definition of recovery provided by the 
Section 2, Introduction 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

2-4 

ESA, these broad sense recovery goals incorporate many of the traditional uses as well as rural 

and Native American values deemed important in Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

Consistent with the Oregon Plan and NFCP — as well as the ESA — this plan provides structure 

and guidance to efforts to protect and restore Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead and their habitats, 

while providing flexibility for actions to be determined by appropriate parties. It is designed to 

support and build on the existing conservation network across Oregon’s portion of the DPS. This 

partnership of regulatory and non-regulatory entities, private landowners, and others represents 

an effective means for achieving viability targets and broader recovery goals. 

This Recovery Plan was developed to parallel and build from the Oregon Conservation Strategy. 

The Oregon Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) was developed by ODFW in 

response to a national effort guided by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to encourage states to develop comprehensive wildlife conservation plans. The Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission approved the Conservation Strategy in August 2005 and the strategy was 

approved by the USFWS in March 2006. The Conservation Strategy provides a long-term, big 

picture “blueprint” for conserving Oregon’s natural resources. The strategy is designed to 

maintain and improve environmental health for today and future generations. The principle goal 

is to “maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations by maintaining and restoring functioning 

habitats, prevent declines of at-risk species, and reverse declines in these resources where 

possible.” Like the Recovery Plan, the Conservation Strategy is not a regulatory document and 

relies on voluntary conservation actions. Mid-Columbia River steelhead are identified as a 

“Strategy Species” that are distributed throughout three ecoregions specified as critical for 

achieving the goals of the Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy identifies six key 

issues for which specific goals and actions are presented. All of the actions identified within this 

Recovery Plan align with the key issues and goals identified in the Conservation Strategy. The 

limiting factors and management actions described in this Recovery Plan are more spatially and 

temporally explicit than the actions in the Conservation Strategy. In addition, this plan addresses 

a wider array of issues such as hydrosystem, harvest, hatcheries and predation. 

 

2.3 Tribal Treaty/Trust Obligations 

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

salmon harvest, and they are “co-managers” with state and federal agencies in regulating salmon 

harvest. These rights and expectations may not necessarily be fully met by achieving the basic 

purposes of the ESA and delisting of the species, although it will lead to major improvements in 

the current situation. 

Historically, Mid-C steelhead were found throughout central Oregon and south-central 

Washington. Mid-C steelhead were important to Native Americans of the interior west, 

including the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes 

and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation. Native Americans throughout the Pacific Northwest maintain strong cultural values 

for steelhead and salmon species. These fish have long had important tribal subsistence, 

ceremonial and commercial value. Steelhead have also been, and continue to be, of importance 

to the recreational fishing industry of the region. 
Section 2, Introduction 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

2-5 

Several treaty tribes exist within the area considered the range of Mid-C steelhead; the Yakama, 

Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Warm Springs tribes. The Treaty of June 9, 1855 was between the 

United States and the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Tribes, now the Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). In 1855 the Warm Springs and Wasco tribes signed 

with the United States in the Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes of Oregon. The 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (CTWSRO) consists of the Warm Springs, Wasco and 

Paiute tribes. The Confederated Tribes of the Yakama represent 14 bands and tribes that were a 

party of the 1855 Treaty with the Yakamas and United States. 

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

element in fulfilling treaty rights. NMFS is committed to meeting Federal treaty and trust 

obligations to the tribes. These obligations are described in a July 21, 1998 letter from Terry D. 

Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Dept of Commerce, to Mr. Ted 

Strong, Executive Director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. This letter 

states that recovery “...must achieve two goals; 1) the recovery and delisting of salmonids listed 

under the provisions of the ESA; and 2) the restoration of salmonid populations over time, to a 

level to provide a sustainable harvest sufficient to allow for the meaningful exercise of tribal 

fishing rights.” Thus it is appropriate for recovery plans to take these conditions into account 

and plan for a recovery strategy that includes harvest. 

The 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 river, harvest, 

and land management improvements for the long term. Furthermore, ESA delisting cannot occur 

until both biological objectives and the listing factors are considered and NMFS determines, 

based on an evaluation of the listing factors, that the DPS is no longer likely to require the 

protection of the Act. Therefore, NMFS will make no delisting decision until it is clear that the 

threats to the DPS have been addressed and that the status and trends of both the fish and their 

habitats will be healthy and sustainable in the long term. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-1 

Section 3 Background and Regional Context 

Section 3 describes the context of Oregon’s recovery plan for Mid-C steelhead within the 

framework of NMFS’s larger recovery planning efforts. It also describes the State of Oregon’s 

process led by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a scientifically sound, 

realistic road map for recovery through broad technical, stakeholder, and public involvement. In 

addition it identifies the recovery goals for the DPS, discusses the listing of Mid-C steelhead, and 

provides a short description of the population’s life history characteristics and critical habitat. 

3.1 Context of Plan Development 

This recovery plan is one piece of a larger recovery planning effort for listed species across the 

Pacific Northwest, as well as in other parts of the Mid-C DPS. It is also part of a broader 

planning effort by the State of Oregon to conserve and rebuild Oregon’s native salmon and 

steelhead runs. These overlapping processes are discussed in this section. 

3.1.1 NMFS’s Regional Process 

Currently, 17 ESUs and DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest are listed 

under the ESA. NMFS has designated five geographically-based recovery domains for preparing 

recovery plans for the listed species. The Mid-C steelhead DPS falls within the Interior 

Columbia domain (which is divided into three sub-domains: the Snake River, Mid-Columbia, 

and Upper Columbia). The other domains are the Willamette-Lower Columbia; Puget Sound and 

Washington Coast; Oregon Coast; and the Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coast domains. 

Opportunities exist for technical and stakeholder involvement in each domain. 

Technical Recovery Team 

For each domain, NMFS appointed an independent Technical Recovery Team (TRT) that has 

geographic and species expertise for the domain and can provide a solid scientific foundation for 

recovery plans. The charge of each TRT is to define ESU/DPS structures, develop 

recommendations on biological viability criteria for ESUs/DPSs and populations, to provide 

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

evaluations of recovery plans. The TRTs include biologists from NMFS, state, tribal, and local 

entities, agencies, academic institutions, and private consulting groups. All the TRTs operate 

from a common scientific foundation. Each TRT has used the same biological principles for 

developing its recommended ESU/DPS and population viability criteria ― criteria that will be 

used, along with threats-based criteria, to determine whether a species has recovered sufficiently 

to be downlisted to threatened (if endangered) or delisted ― although they have developed 

regionally specific approaches to these criteria. Each TRT’s recommendations are assessed using 

the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) framework, with viability criteria expressed in terms of 

abundance, productivity (population growth rate), spatial distribution, and diversity (McElhany 

et al. 2000).
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-2 

Planning Forums 

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

develop planning forums appropriate to the domain, which builds to the extent possible on 

ongoing, locally led efforts. NMFS separated the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS into four 

management units (Figure 3-1) that reflect its diverse human and physical landscape: the Oregon 

Unit, Yakima Unit, Columbia Gorge Unit (Klickitat/White Salmon/Rock Creek), and 

Southeastern Washington Unit (Touchet and the Washington portion of the Walla Walla River). 

Individual recovery plans developed by local forums for the four management units form the 

foundation of the DPS-level recovery plan. This recovery plan is for the Oregon management 

unit. The State of Washington took responsibility for recovery planning for the portion of the 

Mid-Columbia DPS within its borders. The State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act 

established six regional boards that are comprised of government and tribal representatives, 

landowners, and private citizens. With substantial funding from Washington’s Salmon Recovery 

Board and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), these groups produced the 

June 2005 Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington, and the October 2005 

Draft Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan that address the drainages within the State of 

Washington regarding Mid-C steelhead. NMFS and representatives from the four management 

units worked together to develop DPS-level direction that identified the viability scenarios for 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries and Umatilla/Walla Walla MPGs that overlap parts of 

Oregon and Washington states. 

Figure 3-1. NMFS Management Units for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-3 

For more information about NMFS, the domains, and the TRTs, see the following Internet site: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm. 

3.1.2 State of Oregon Recovery Planning Process 

The State of Oregon developed this plan in partnership with other state and Federal natural 

resources agencies, the tribes, and local communities. The plan took shape through a 

collaborative process with broad technical, stakeholder and public involvement. The planning 

process drew on direction developed through related planning processes, included the NPCC 

subbasin plans, the Oregon Plan and Native Fish Conservation Policy planning. ODFW took the 

lead in drafting the Oregon Mid-C steelhead recovery plan with the assistance of a cadre of other 

entities. Members of ODFW, NMFS, Tribes, and many other contributors compiled the 

information for the Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia River basin from multiple sources, 

including federal, state, tribal, private, and local watershed organizations that are involved in 

salmon recovery. 

ODFW has involved critical players in the plan’s development at each stage in the decisionmaking process. The plan reflects substantial the review, discussion, critique and 

recommendations of four primary forums: a State-level Expert Panel, a diverse public sounding 

board, a recovery planning team, and population-specific management action teams. Appendix A 

lists the members of each of these groups. The Interior Columbia TRT was also involved in the 

process. This involvement is vital to the plan’s success and will help ensure that it is both 

scientifically and technically sound and supported by various stakeholders and private 

landowners. 

• Oregon Mid-Columbia Expert Panel. The Expert Panel was created by the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife for purposes of recovery planning and consisted of 

biologists with significant knowledge of the limiting factors and threats influencing 

Oregon’s listed salmon and steelhead populations. Panelists identified common key and 

secondary threat themes and limiting factors for the populations. 

• Mid-Columbia Sounding Board. The Mid-Columbia Sounding Board (MCSB) consists 

of representatives of local communities, agricultural and timber interests, water users, 

land managers, governing bodies, tribes, and industry and environmental interests. The 

MCSB provides policy guidance in the development of all aspects of the plan and ensures 

locally appropriate and locally supported recovery actions needed to achieve species 

recovery goals. The MCSB was particularly instrumental in the development of broad 

sense recovery goals, recovery scenarios, recovery strategies, and strategic guidance for 

development and prioritization of management actions. 

 

• Mid-Columbia Recovery Planning Team. The recovery planning team includes state, 

Federal, Tribal, and watershed council technical representatives across the DPS. The 

team provided technical guidance and assisted in writing different aspects of the plan. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-4 

• Management Action Teams. The three management action teams include local experts 

representing state and federal natural resource agencies, the tribes, watershed councils 

and Portland General Electric. The teams developed management actions for the ten 

steelhead populations. 

Involvement by these different entities helps ensure that recovery goals and actions are 

consistent and compatible with the goals and direction adopted in related efforts. This integrated 

approach establishes partnerships that allow actions to be implemented effectively and 

efficiently. 

Plan Review, Revision, Adoption and Implementation 

Drafts of the Oregon Mid-C steelhead recovery plan were posted on the NMFS Web site to 

provide an opportunity for informal public response during the development phase. The initial 

2005 draft was a framework and progress report intended to keep the interested reader abreast of 

the development of the draft plan. The 2007 draft was the first complete draft available for 

review. 

This is the second complete draft of the recovery plan. It will be refined following extensive 

review, including a formal period of public comment through Federal and State processes, by 

public agencies, environmental organizations, landowners, interested public and other 

stakeholders. In spring 2009 the draft recovery plan will be revised and published in final form 

for public reference and use. 

Once this recovery plan is approved, all federal and nonfederal funding entities should develop a 

coordinated, prioritized, and accountable funding strategy. To facilitate implementation, NMFS 

intends to provide streamlined regulatory assurances for actions that are undertaken to implement 

recovery. Adaptive management including a comprehensive monitoring, evaluation and research 

component will be a high priority during the recovery effort. Adjustments to on the ground 

actions in response to new information will be incorporated as we learn from our successes and 

failures. The challenges of salmon recovery are immense, particularly in the face of increasing 

human populations and heavy demand for precious resources such as sufficient clean water. It 

will be important to monitor the benefits and costs of completed actions and to work in a 

collaborative forum to tackle the hard issues to come. 

3.2 Overview of Recovery Goals 

A simplified way of looking at species recovery includes addressing those factors that lead to the 

species being listed. Section 4(a) (1) of the ESA and NMFS’ implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must 

determine, through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or threatened because of 

any one or a combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. NMFS has previously detailed the impacts of various factors contributing 

to the decline of Pacific salmon and O. mykiss (e.g., citations for ESU listing determinations; 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-5 

NMFS 1997c, ‘‘Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook Salmon—An Addendum to the 

1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for Decline Report;’’ NMFS 1996a, ‘‘Factors for Decline—

A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead Under the Endangered 

Species Act’’). The Federal Register notices and technical reports concluded that all of the 

factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the decline of West Coast 

salmon and O. mykiss ESUs/DPSs. The Federal Register notices and technical reports provide a 

more detailed treatment of the relevant factors for decline for specific ESUs/DPSs. The 

following discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding the principal factors for decline 

across the range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. While these factors are treated in general 

terms, it is important to underscore that impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific 

ESUs/DPSs. 

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range: West Coast salmon and O. mykiss have experienced declines in abundance over 

the past several decades as a result of loss, damage or change to their natural 

environment. Water diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower 

purposes have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible habitat and degraded 

remaining habitat. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded, 

simplified, and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate that in most western states, about 80 

to 90 percent of the historical riparian habitat has been eliminated (Botkin et al. 1995). 

The destruction or modification of estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important 

rearing and migration habitats. Losses of habitat complexity and habitat fragmentation 

have also contributed to the decline of West Coast salmonids. Sedimentation from 

extensive and intensive land use activities (e.g., forest practices, roads, livestock grazing, 

and urbanization) is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation throughout the 

range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss.

Water quality impairment that affects spawning, migration and rearing is a problem in 

many areas that were historically suitable rearing and spawning habitat. Summer stream 

temperature is the primary water quality problem for Mid-C steelhead, and many stream 

reaches are listed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list for water temperature. 

Contaminants such as insecticides and herbicides from agricultural run-off and heavy 

metals from mine waste are common in some areas of designated critical habitat for this 

DPS. 

Low summer streamflows are also a common characteristic affecting spawning, rearing, 

and migration. Withdrawal and storage of natural streamflow—and land use practices 

that reduced water storage on uplands, floodplains and riparian areas—have altered the 

natural pattern of flows over the seasons and caused inadequate flow, scouring flows, or 

other flow conditions that inhibit steelhead distribution and survival. Many stream 

reaches are over-appropriated under state water law at low summer flow, with more 

allocated water rights than existing streamflow conditions can support. 

 Depending upon their natal watershed, adult and out-migrating juvenile steelhead from 

the Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia River DPS encounter between one and four 

mainstem Columbia River dams migrating to and from the ocean. Hydroelectric 

development has modified natural flow regimes resulting in higher water temperatures, 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-6 

changes in fish community structure, and increased travel time for migrating adults and 

juvenile salmonids. Physical features of dams such as turbines also kill migrating fish. 

The only substantial habitat blockages at present in this DPS are Pelton Dam on the 

Deschutes River and Condit Dam on the White Salmon River. However, smaller dams, 

impassable culverts, irrigation dams, and other small passage barriers occur throughout 

the region. 

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes: 

Historically, salmon and O. mykiss were abundant in many western coastal and interior 

waters of the United States. These species have supported, and continue to support, 

important tribal, commercial and recreational fisheries throughout their range, 

contributing millions of dollars to numerous local economies, as well as providing 

important cultural and subsistence needs for Native Americans. Overfishing in the early 

days of European settlement led to the depletion of many stocks of salmonids, prior to 

extensive modifications and degradation of natural habitats. However, following the 

degradation of many west coast aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were 

higher than many populations could sustain. Therefore, harvest may have contributed to 

the further decline of some populations.

 Steelhead harvest or fishery impact occurs in Columbia River and tributaries sport 

fisheries, Columbia River Treaty Indian gillnet fisheries, Columbia River Treaty Indian 

subsistence fisheries, and tributary Treaty Indian subsistence fisheries. Landing records 

and coded wire tag analyses indicate that steelhead are not taken in significant numbers in 

any ocean fishery, apparently because of an offshore, high-seas distribution pattern. 

Non-Indian commercial fisheries for steelhead in the Columbia River have been 

prohibited beginning in 1975 and incidental impacts of non-Indian commercial fisheries 

for other species are minimal because no significant fisheries occur in the group A (see 

Life History section below) migration time frame. 

 Columbia River sport fisheries above and below Bonneville Dam keep only marked 

(hatchery) fish since the late 1970’s. Significant sport fisheries for steelhead between 

Bonneville Dam and the Deschutes River occur primarily from July through September 

when fish seek refuge from warm Columbia River temperatures in cool tributary mouths, 

primarily in Bonneville Reservoir. Steelhead are taken by treaty Indian fisheries in the 

Columbia River mainstem primarily in fall gillnet fisheries that target Chinook salmon 

from late August through October. Current steelhead harvest rates in fall treaty Indian 

fisheries are limited in number and through the use of large mesh gillnets, which target 

the larger fall Chinook. Small numbers of steelhead are also taken in various ceremonial 

and subsistence fisheries during the remainder of the year. These fisheries primarily 

occur by hook-and-line or from platforms with dip nets. Treaty Indian fisheries occur 

from Bonneville to McNary dams, but most of the effort is between Bonneville Dam and 

the Deschutes River mouth. 

 Steelhead harvest or fishery impact also occurs in the Deschutes Basin sport and tribal 

dipnet fisheries (which occurs immediately below Sherars Falls in years when fall salmon 

runs are significant). The required release of wild fish, catch of many non-local fish, and 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-7 

the reliance on catch record card data for catches above Sherars Falls make estimation of 

fishery impacts on natural-origin Deschutes River steelhead difficult. 

3. Disease or predation: Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous rivers and lakes. Predation by 

seabirds can influence the survival of juvenile salmon and O. mykiss in some locations. 

For example, it is estimated that Caspian terns (Sterna caspia) in the lower Columbia 

River and estuary consume approximately 13 percent of the outmigrating smolts reaching 

the estuary in some years (Collis et al. 2001). Other mainstem predation occurs from 

walleye (Stizostedion Vitreum) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) of 

juveniles and adults, respectively. 

 Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult and juvenile salmon and 

O. mykiss survival. In general, very little current or historical information exists to 

quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable to these diseases. 

Native O. mykiss populations have co-evolved with specific communities of these 

organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has introduced exotic 

organisms not historically present in a particular watershed. Habitat conditions such as 

low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate susceptibility to infectious 

diseases. 

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: The ESA listings of salmon ESUs 

and O. mykiss DPSs have provided the incentive for numerous protective efforts. While 

many causes of decline in salmon ESUs and O. mykiss DPSs are being addressed (e.g., 

providing fish passage above artificial barriers), habitat degradation and destruction have 

been slowed but not prevented. The protective efforts are directed toward addressing the 

numerous factors that adversely impact Mid-C steelhead and its habitat — water quality 

and quantity, safe migration, riparian vegetation, food, predation dynamics and complex 

stream channels, and floodplain connectivity. These actions all will aid in improving 

these factors within the area of each project. The recovery planning process addresses 

the cumulative effects of these and other protective efforts, and any additional measures 

necessary to address the species’ factors for decline and extinction risk.

5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence: Variability in ocean 

and freshwater conditions can have profound impacts on the productivity of salmon and 

O. mykiss populations. Natural climatic conditions have at different times exacerbated or 

mitigated the problems associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine 

habitats. 

Widespread presence of hatchery fish throughout the DPS was also identified as 

contributing to declines in population abundance. Extensive hatchery programs have 

been implemented throughout the range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. The 

Umatilla and Deschutes river systems have ongoing hatchery production programs based 

on locally derived broodstock. The straying of hatchery steelhead from out-of-DPS 

production programs poses a significant threat to several steelhead populations in the 

DPS. Straying of out-of-basin hatchery fish into the Deschutes River has been identified 

as a chronic occurrence. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-8 

3.3 Description and Taxonomy 

The March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517) listing of Mid-Columbia River steelhead was developed in 

response to a biological review that concluded that summer steelhead in the Mid-Columbia River 

ESU were “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future” (NMFS 1999). Protective 

regulations for Mid-C steelhead were issued under section 4(d) of the ESA on July 10, 2000 (65 

FR 42422). 

 

The most prominent factors leading to NMFS’ conclusion that Mid-C steelhead were threatened 

included: (1) declines in abundance of wild steelhead populations, (2) levels of abundance well 

below historical levels, (3) large numbers of hatchery-origin steelhead entering the Deschutes 

River basin, and a lack of information regarding this phenomenon, (4) large numbers of hatchery 

steelhead relative to wild steelhead, and a general lack of information regarding the impacts of 

hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead populations throughout the region, (5) a lack of information 

regarding the interactions between resident rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead, and (6) 

habitat alterations in the region resulting in a loss of spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead, 

including habitat changes that have exterminated some steelhead runs (Busby et al. 1996; NMFS 

1999). 

The Mid-Columbia River steelhead ESU included all natural populations of steelhead in streams 

within the Columbia River basin from above the Wind River in Washington and the Hood River 

in Oregon upstream to, and including, the Yakima River in Washington, excluding steelhead 

from the Snake River Basin. It also included resident trout populations of O. mykiss below 

impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occurred with anadromous population in the 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead ESU (69 FR 33101 June 14, 2004). However, in January 2006, 

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

steelhead-only Distinct Population Segments (DPSs). NMFS listed the Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The Federal Register Notice 

contains a more complete explanation of this listing decision. 

This recovery plan focuses on the anadromous from of O. mykiss. However, the strategic focus 

to restore natural ecological processes throughout the subbasins through habitat restoration and 

protection will provide productivity and capacity benefits for all O. mykiss life history forms. 

Protection and restoration of natural ecological processes will contribute significantly to 

restoring a natural balance among O. mykiss resident and anadromous life history forms. 

Mid-C steelhead historically occupied nine major river systems within the states of Oregon and 

Washington on the east side of the Cascades Mountains (Figure 3-2) and numerous minor 

systems. These major tributaries to the Columbia River include the White Salmon, Fifteenmile 

Creek, Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Rock Creek, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Yakima River 

systems. The John Day River of central Oregon probably represents the largest naturally 

spawning, native group of steelhead in the region. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-9 

Figure 3-2. Geographic boundaries of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 

The Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT 2003) identified historical 

populations throughout the Interior Columbia River Basin (Figure 3-3). There are 17 extant 

populations. There are two extinct populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope Major Population 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-10 

Group (MPG): the White Salmon River and Deschutes Crooked River above Pelton Dam, and 

one extinct population in the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG: Willow Creek. 

 

Figure 3-3. Interior Columbia River Basin steelhead populations including populations in the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (ICTRT 2003). 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-11 

Hatchery programs propagate steelhead in three populations and improve kelt (post spawned 

adult) survival in one population. No artificial programs produce the winter-run life history in 

the Klickitat River and Fifteenmile Creek populations. All of the DPS hatchery programs are 

designed to produce fish for harvest, although two are also implemented to augment the naturally 

spawning populations in the basins where the fish are released. 

3.4 Life History 

‘Steelhead’ is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological species O. 

mykiss. The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, 

and down to southern California (NMFS 1999c), although the historical range of O. mykiss

extended at least to the Mexico border (Busby et al. 1996). O. mykiss exhibit perhaps the most 

complex suite of life history traits of any species of Pacific salmonid. They can be anadromous 

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

Those that are anadromous can spend up to seven years in fresh water before smoltification, and 

then spend up to three years in salt water before first spawning. This species can also spawn 

more than once (iteroparous), whereas all other species of Oncorhynchus except cutthroat trout 

(O. clarki) spawn once and then die (semelparous). The anadromous form of O. mykiss is 

presently under NMFS jurisdiction, while the resident freshwater forms, usually called 

“rainbow” or “redband” trout, are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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

seasonal peaks of activity. In a given river basin there may be one or more peaks in migration 

activity; since these “runs” are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs, some 

rivers may have runs known as winter, spring, summer, or fall steelhead. For example, large 

rivers, such as the Columbia, Rogue, and Klamath rivers, have migrating adult steelhead at all 

times of the year. There are local variations in the names used to identify the seasonal runs of 

steelhead; in Northern California, some biologists have retained the use of the terms spring and 

fall steelhead to describe what others would call summer steelhead. 

Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes, based on the state of sexual 

maturity at the time of river entry, and duration of spawning migration (Burgner et al. 1992). 

The “stream-maturing” type (summer steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and Northern 

California) enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition between May and October and 

requires several months to mature and spawn. The “ocean-maturing” type (winter steelhead in 

the Pacific Northwest and Northern California) enters fresh water between November and April 

with well-developed gonads and spawns shortly thereafter. In basins with both summer and 

winter steelhead runs, it appears that the summer run occurs where habitat is not fully utilized by 

the winter run or a seasonal hydrologic barrier, such as a waterfall, separates them. Summer 

steelhead usually spawn farther upstream than winter steelhead (Withler 1966, Roelofs 1983, 

Behnke 1992). Coastal streams are dominated by winter steelhead, whereas inland steelhead of 

the Columbia River Basin are almost exclusively summer steelhead. Winter steelhead may have 

been excluded from inland areas of the Columbia River Basin by Celilo Falls or by the 

considerable migration distance from the ocean. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin may 

have historically had multiple runs of steelhead that probably included both ocean-maturing and 

stream-maturing stocks (CDFG 1995, McEwan and Jackson 1996). These steelhead are referred 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-12 

to as winter steelhead by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); however, some 

biologists call them fall steelhead (Cramer et. al 1995). Fifteenmile Creek and the Klickitat 

River support the populations of winter steelhead that are furthest inland in the Columbia Basin. 

Inland summer steelhead of the Columbia River Basin, especially the Snake River Subbasin, are 

commonly referred to as either “A-run” or “B-run.” These designations are based on a bimodal 

migration of adult steelhead at Bonneville Dam (235 km from the mouth of the Columbia River), 

and differences in age (1 versus 2 years in the ocean) and adult size observed among Snake River 

steelhead. It is unclear, however, to what degree the life history and body size differences 

observed upstream are correlated back to the groups forming the bimodal migration observed at 

Bonneville Dam. A-run steelhead are believed to occur throughout the steelhead-bearing 

streams of the Snake River Basin and the inland Columbia River. B-run steelhead are thought to 

be produced only in the Clearwater, Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon rivers (IDFG 

1994). 

Life history characteristics for Mid-C steelhead are similar to those of other inland steelhead 

DPSs. Most fish smolt at two years and spend one to two years in salt water before reentering 

freshwater, where they may remain up to a year before spawning. All steelhead upstream of The 

Dalles Dam are summer-run fish that enter the Columbia River from June to August. Adult 

steelhead ascend mainstem rivers and their tributaries throughout the winter, spawning in the late 

winter and early spring. Fry emergence typically occurs between May and the end of June. A 

nonanadromous form of O. mykiss co-occurs with the anadromous form in this DPS; information 

suggests that the two forms may not be isolated reproductively. 

3.5 Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat was designated on February 16, 2000 [65 FR 7764], but vacated (undesignated) 

by court order on April 30, 2002. On September 2, 2005, NMFS published a final rule (70 FR 

52630) to designate critical habitat for Mid-C steelhead and 12 other ESUs/DPSs of salmon and 

steelhead. The final rule took effect on January 2, 2006. The Critical Habitat Assessment 

Review Team (CHART) (NMFS 2004c) rated the conservation value of all 5th-field HUCs 

supporting populations of Mid-C steelhead. 

Essential features of designated critical habitat include substrate, water quality, water quantity, 

water temperature, food, riparian vegetation, access, water, velocity, space, and safe passage. 

These features also describe the habitat factors associated with viability for all ESUs and DPSs. 

The specific habitat requirements for each ESU or DPS differ by life history type and life stage. 

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) consist of the physical and biological elements identified as 

essential to the conservation of the species in the documents identifying critical habitat (Table 3-

1). Figure 3-4 depicts those streams designated critical habitat for Mid-C steelhead. 
Section 3, Background and Regional Context 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

3-13 

Table 3-1. Types of sites and essential physical and biological features designated as PCEs, and 

the life stage each PCE supports. 

Site Essential Physical and Biological 

Features 

ESU Life Stage 

Freshwater spawning Water quality, water quantity, and 

substrate 

Spawning, incubation, and larval 

development 

Water quantity and floodplain 

connectivity 

Juvenile growth and mobility 

Water quality and forage Juvenile development 

Freshwater rearing 

Natural covera Juvenile mobility and survival 

Freshwater migration Free of artificial obstructions, water 

quality and quantity, and natural coverb

Juvenile and adult mobility and 

survival 

Free of obstruction, water quality and 

quantity, and salinity 

Juvenile and adult physiological 

transitions between salt and 

freshwater 

Estuarine areas 

Natural cover,a

 forage,b and water 

quantity 

Growth and maturation 

Nearshore marine areas Free of obstruction, water quality and 

quantity, natural cover,a

 and forageb

Growth and maturation, survival 

Offshore marine areas Water quality and forageb Growth and maturation 

a Natural cover includes shade, large wood, log jams, beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, 

side channels, and undercut banks.

b Forage includes aquatic invertebrate and fish species that support growth and maturation. 

 Figure 3-4. Critical habitat designated for salmon and steelhead in Oregon.
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-1 

Section 4 DPS Structure 

This section describes the biological hierarchical organization for the Mid-Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS, including major population groups and independent populations. It also 

discusses the characteristics that define the Mid-C steelhead populations in Oregon subbasins. 

4.1 Steelhead Population Structure: A Biologically-Based Hierarchy 

Steelhead organizational structure is hierarchical from the species level to a level below the 

population. The homing propensity, distribution across the landscape, and the diverse genetic, 

life history and morphological characteristics that evolve contribute significantly to the 

hierarchical structure and long-term persistence. 

Recovery planning efforts focus on this biologically based hierarchy that spans DPSs, major 

groups, populations and substructure within populations, and reflects the apparent degree of 

connectivity between the fish in each of these hierarchical levels (Figure 4-1). Two levels in this 

hierarchy, the ESU or DPS and population, were formally defined for listing, delisting, and 

recovery planning purposes. The ICTRT identified an additional level in the hierarchy between 

the population and ESU levels. These three levels in the hierarchy are described below. 

• Evolutionarily Significant Unit or Distinct Population Segment: Two criteria define a 

salmon ESU or steelhead DPS listed under the ESA: 1) it must be substantially 

reproductively isolated from other nonspecific units, and 2) it must represent an 

important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species (Waples 1991). ESUs and 

DPSs may contain multiple populations that are connected by some degree of migration, 

and hence may have broad geographic areas, transcending political borders. 

• Major Population Groups: Within ESUs and DPSs, independent populations can be 

grouped into larger aggregates that share similar genetic, geographic (hydrographic and 

ecoregion), and/or habitat characteristics (ICTRT 2003). These "major groupings" are 

groups of populations that are isolated from one another over a longer time scale than that 

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

than that between ESUs or DPSs. The ICTRT defines this level in the hierarchy as Major 

Population Groups. These MPGs are analogous to “strata” as defined by the Lower 

Columbia-Upper Willamette TRT and “geographic regions” described by the Puget 

Sound TRT. 

 

• Independent Populations: 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. For our purposes, not interbreeding to a ‘substantial degree’ 

means that two groups are considered to be independent populations if they are isolated 

to such an extent that exchanges of individuals among the populations do not 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-2 

substantially affect the population dynamics or extinction risk of the independent 

populations over a 100-year time frame.” 

Independent populations are the units that will be combined to form alternative recovery 

scenarios for MPG and DPS viability. Ultimately, the populations are the primary units 

of recovery actions. 

Hierarchy in Salmonid Population Structure 

Figure 4-1. Hierarchical population structure within ESA-listed ESUs/DPSs, as identified by the 

TRTs. 

4.1.1 Population Structure Adopted for Recovery Planning 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has adopted the DPS, Major Population Groups 

and population structure defined by the ICTRT for purposes of Mid-C steelhead recovery 

planning. These groups were defined based on genetic, geographic (hydrographic) and habitat 

considerations (ICTRT 2003) with guidance provided by the Viable Salmonid Populations 

document (McElhany et al. 2000). 

Population Identification 

As one of its first tasks in recovery planning, the ICTRT delineated independent populations 

within the listed ESUs in the Interior Columbia Basin, including those in the Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead DPS. This delineation of population boundaries is critical for effective 

conservation planning, since incorrect lumping or splitting of populations (or portions of 

populations) can provide an inaccurate picture of population status. Over- or underestimating the 

true status (Abundance/Productivity, Spatial Structure/Diversity) may lead to failed recovery 

efforts. Similarly, if two “true” populations are treated as a single unit, the status of one may 

mask the other, potentially leading to the loss of one of the populations (ICTRT 2003). 

Population 

Attributes 

Populations 

Major Population Group/ 

Stratum/Geographic Unit 

ESU/DPS ESU

MPG 1 MPG 2 MPG 3 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-3 

The ICTRT assessed a variety of information sources to delineate independent populations 

(ICTRT 2003). It initially classified major groups of populations within ESUs, and then 

identified independent populations within major groups. It used a variety of data types to define 

MPGs and independent populations; however, in no case was the entire array of desired 

information available to inform its decision process. It relied heavily on genetic information, 

distances between spawning areas related to dispersal (straying distance) as evidence of 

reproductive isolation, and habitat characteristics. Phenotypic (life history and morphological) 

characteristics were also considered for distinction at the population level. In addition, it 

considered two demographic factors. First, because the goal was to identify demographically 

independent populations, it examined the correlation in abundance time series between areas. 

Second, it considered historical population size in determining potential population capacity 

(ICTRT 2003). 

Mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Populations 

The Mid-Columbia River steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) DPS includes all natural steelhead 

populations in streams within the Columbia River basin from above the Wind River in 

Washington and the Hood River in Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima 

River in Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake River basin (71 FR 834 January 5, 

2006; 64 FR 14517 March 25, 1999). Stream systems in the DPS include Rock Creek and the 

White Salmon, Klickitat, and Yakima rivers on the northern side of the Columbia and 

Fifteenmile Creek, and the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers and Willow 

Creek on the southern side (Figure 4-2). 

The ICTRT identified four Major Population Groups in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS 

─ Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries, Yakima River, John Day River and Umatilla/Walla Walla 

Rivers (ICTRT 2003). Figure 4-3 shows these major population groups. Three of these major 

population groups contain Mid-C steelhead from Oregon tributaries and are addressed in this 

recovery plan. 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-4 

Figure 4-2. Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS major population groups and populations. 

Figure 4-3. Major Population Groups and populations of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

DPS. 

Yakima River Group 

Satus Cr. 

Toppenish Cr. 

Naches R. 

Upper Yakima R. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Group 

Willow Cr. (extinct) 

Umatilla R. 

Walla Walla R. 

Touchet R. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Group 

Fifteenmile Cr. 

Deschutes Eastside 

Deschutes Westside 

Deschutes Crooked R. (extinct) 

Klickitat R. 

Rock Cr. 

White Salmon (extinct) 

John Day River Group 

Lower John Day 

North Fork John Day 

Middle Fork John Day 

South Fork John Day 

Upper John Day 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-5 

Together, the four major population groups in the DPS contain 17 extant and 3 extinct 

independent populations (ICTRT 2003). Subbasins on the Oregon side of the Columbia River 

historically supported 12 of the 20 populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. 

These 12 populations, the subject of this plan, include 10 extant populations: Fifteenmile Creek, 

Deschutes River Westside, Deschutes River Eastside, Lower Mainstem John Day, North Fork 

John Day, Upper Mainstem John Day, Middle Fork John Day, South Fork John Day, Umatilla 

River, and Walla Walla River; and 2 extinct populations: Deschutes/Crooked River and Willow 

Creek. Five extant populations and one extinct population of Mid-C steelhead reside on the 

Washington side of the Columbia River and are addressed in other recovery plans. Figure 4-4 

shows the independent steelhead populations in the DPS. 

Figure 4-4. Independent populations within the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-6 

The three major population groups that contain independent Mid-Columbia steelhead 

populations in Oregon subbasins are described below. These MPGs include the Cascades 

Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, John Day River MPG and Walla Walla and Umatilla rivers 

MPG. Descriptions of the MPGs and independent populations summarize information provided 

in the ICTRT report Independent Populations of Chinook, Steelhead, and Sockeye for Listed 

Evolutionarily Significant Units within the Interior Columbia River Domain (ICTRT 2003) and 

the updated population delineation in the interior Columbia Basin memorandum (ICTRT May 

11, 2005). Mid-C steelhead populations from Washington tributaries are not discussed in this 

document. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG contains five extant populations and two extinct 

populations. Oregon subbasins support three of the extant populations ─ Deschutes River 

Westside, Deschutes River Eastside, and Fifteenmile Creek ― and historically supported the 

extinct Deschutes/Crooked River. Populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

are united primarily by geographic proximity. The habitats they occupy are diverse, but the 

constituent rivers generally drain the eastern slope of the Cascades and the dry Columbia 

Plateau. The MPG supports summer and winter run life history forms of steelhead. 

1. Fifteenmile Creek: This population occupies Fifteenmile Creek and its tributaries, 

Fivemile, Eightmile and Ramsey creeks. It also includes five drainages outside of the 

Fifteenmile Creek watershed ― Threemile, Mill, Chenoweth, Mosier, and Rock creeks 

― that flow directly into the Columbia River. The population is moderately segregated 

from other populations (22 km from the Klickitat and 37 km from the nearest spawning 

in the Deschutes River), and occupies somewhat different habitat. Fifteenmile Creek 

steelhead are exclusively winter run fish and are considered the easternmost distribution 

of winter steelhead in the Columbia basin. These characteristics, coupled with genetic 

differentiation and capacity, lead to designation as an independent population. 

2. Deschutes River Eastside: The Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population 

occupies the mainstem Deschutes River from its mouth to the confluence of Trout Creek, 

and the tributaries entering the Deschutes from the east: Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, and 

Trout Creeks. Because of uncertainty concerning the relationship of mainstem spawners 

in the Deschutes River and tributaries, mainstem reaches were grouped with their 

respective tributary population. The population is separated from the Fifteenmile Creek 

population by geographic distance (37 km) and run timing (Fifteenmile steelhead are 

exclusively winter run fish), and from the Deschutes River Westside population because 

of significant habitat and life history differences. Eastside tributaries drain drier, lower 

elevation areas than the Westside tributaries, resulting in quite different flow and 

temperature patterns. 

3. Deschutes River Westside: The Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population 

boundaries encompass the mainstem Deschutes River from the mouth of Trout Creek 

upstream to Big Falls (current upstream barrier to anadromous fish), and tributaries 

entering the Deschutes from the west, including the Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek, 

Whychus Creek and the Metolius River. The current occupied area only includes the 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-7 

mainstem from the mouth of Trout Creek upstream to Pelton Dam, the Warm Springs 

River, and Shitike Creek. The remaining area is blocked by the Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex. The population is separated from the eastside population based on habitat and 

life history characteristics. Nearly 50% of the habitat resides in the Ponderosa PineBitterbrush Woodland ecoregion. None of the habitat in the Eastside population resides 

in this ecoregion. 

4. Deschutes Crooked River: This historical population once occupied the Crooked River 

drainage, a major watershed in the Deschutes basin. The populations is now extinct as 

Pelton Dam, a hydroelectric dam at RM 100 on the Deschutes River, blocks all 

anadromous fish passage. The population boundaries include Crooked River and its 

tributaries. The population was designated based on historical capacity and distance from 

other populations. Ochoco Dam built on Ochoco Creek (RM 10) in 1922 and Bowman 

Dam built on the Crooked River mainstem in 1961 (RM 70) without passage facilities 

blocked migration to the upper portion of the Basin (Nehlsen 1995). Passage was 

abandoned at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex in 1968, and anadromous fish passage is 

now blocked at the Pelton Reregulating Dam (RM 100). There is a current management 

agreement and plan to re-establish steelhead production within the Crooked River 

population boundaries up to Ochoco and Bowman dams. 

There is currently (March 2007) a barrier at Opal Springs Dam on the Crooked River 

immediately upstream from Lake Billy Chinook (LBC) that will need to have safe 

upstream passage before any production of steelhead is possible within the Crooked 

River Basin. Opal Springs Dam is not scheduled for federal relicensing for many years. 

However, state and federal biologists are currently working with the licensee, Deschutes 

Valley Water District, to work out a plan to provide upstream passage. 

John Day River MPG 

The ICTRT defined the John Day River MPG as a major grouping based primarily on basin 

topography and distance from other MPGs. The MPG covers Oregon’s John Day River 

drainage. It is one of the few remaining summer steelhead groups in the Interior Columbia Basin 

that has had no intentional influence from introduced hatchery steelhead and that has recently 

been classified as strong or healthy (Huntington et al.1994, Lee et al.1997). The ICTRT 

identified five populations in this MPG based on genetic information, demographic correlations, 

and habitat/ecoregion data. Spawning areas are widely distributed across tributary and mainstem 

habitats. 

1. Lower Mainstem John Day River: This summer steelhead population includes tributaries 

to the John Day River downstream of the South Fork John Day River. This widespread 

population is the most differentiated ecologically from other populations, occupying the 

lower, drier Columbia Plateau ecoregion. Habitat divergence and distance to other 

populations are the primary factors in delineating this population. 

2. North Fork John Day River: The North Fork summer steelhead population occupies the 

highest elevation, wettest area in the John Day basin. Population boundaries include the 

main stem and tributaries of the North Fork John Day River. The ICTRT defined the 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-8 

population based on habitat characteristics, basin topography, and demographic patterns. 

The population also encompasses sufficient habitat to support an independent population. 

Chilcote (2001) found that the upper North Fork index count was the most divergent of 

the John Day stocks, indicating demographic independence. 

3. Middle Fork John Day River: This summer steelhead population occupies the Middle 

Fork John Day River and all its tributaries. Spawning areas in the Middle Fork John Day 

River are separated substantially from all other spawning areas, except for those in the 

North Fork John Day. The distance between spawning habitat in this population and 

others combined with habitat differences between this population and the North Fork 

population, as well as general basin topography, led to independent population 

designation. 

4. South Fork John Day River: This summer steelhead population occupies the South Fork 

John Day River drainage. Genetic data from South Fork John Day River O. mykiss

samples, which likely includes the anadromous form, indicate that the population is 

differentiated from those in other parts of the John Day (Currens et al. 1985). This 

independent population was defined based on genetic information and basin topography. 

5. Upper Mainstem John Day River: The Upper Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population includes the mainstem John Day River and tributaries upstream 

from the South Fork. It is separated from the lower mainstem based on habitat 

differences, and from the South Fork because of topography. 

Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers MPG 

The Walla Walla and Umatilla rivers form a major grouping based on shared ecological 

characteristics and geographic proximity. They both drain the northwestern slopes of the Blue 

Mountains, with lower reaches in the warmer, drier habitats of the Columbia Plateau. Within 

this major group, genetic information, distance between spawning aggregates and ecoregional 

classifications contributed to ICTRT population delineations. 

1. Umatilla River: The Umatilla River and its tributaries are considered an independent 

population. Both genetic analysis (Narum and Powell 2002) and distance from other 

populations supports separation of this subbasin from the Walla Walla River. There is 

little genetic differentiation between areas within the Umatilla River subbasin and 

substantial connectivity between spawning areas in the subbasin. 

2. Walla Walla River: The Walla Walla River and its tributaries (except the Touchet River) 

are designated as an independent population. One major tributary to the Walla Walla 

River, the Touchet River, was identified as a separate population. Several genetic 

analyses indicate that O. mykiss in the Touchet River are genetically distinct from other 

O. mykiss in the Walla Walla basin (Currens 1985, Currens 1997, Narum et al. 2004, 

Kassler et al. in review). In addition, spawners in the mainstem Walla Walla River and 

its tributaries are geographically distant (101 km) from those in the Touchet and those in 

the Umatilla River. 
Section 4, DPS Structure 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

4-9 

3. Touchet River: The ICTRT identified the Touchet River, which flows into the Walla 

Walla River, as an independent population based on genetic and geographic separation. 

4. Willow Creek: Willow Creek is an extinct population. It was designated as an 

independent population based on geographic distance from other populations and 

capacity sufficient to support an independent population. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-1 

Section 5 Desired Status 

Delisting and Broad Sense Recovery 

Under the ESA, a species no longer requires protection when it is no longer in danger of 

extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future based on evaluation of 

the listing factors specified in ESA Section 4(a)(1). To remove the Mid-Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS from the Federal ESA list, NMFS must determine that the DPS, as evaluated 

under the ESA listing factors, is no longer likely to become endangered. Any new factors 

identified since listing must also be addressed to ensure that the species no longer requires 

protection as a threatened species. 

The desired status for Oregon’s steelhead populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS 

is two-fold. First, the populations must reach desired levels of biological viability to support 

removal of the DPS from the threatened and endangered species list. Second, the State of 

Oregon and the Mid-C Sounding Board seek to rebuild the populations to provide for sustainable 

fisheries and other ecological, cultural and social benefits. Broader than the definition of 

delisting provided by the ESA, these broad sense goals incorporate many of the traditional uses, 

as well as rural and Native American values, deemed important in the Pacific Northwest. 

This section identifies the biological viability levels and criteria Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations need to achieve to support delisting of the DPS. It discusses the approach used by 

the ICTRT (2007) to define these levels and the viability criteria that we applied to assess 

viability characteristics for each population, MPG, and the DPS. It also describes our broad 

sense recovery goal and objectives for the Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

DPS. 

 

5.1 Delisting Goal and Criteria 

Our primary goal is to support removal of the Mid-C steelhead DPS from the threatened and 

endangered species list. This requires that the populations must reach the levels of biological 

viability defined by the ICTRT and adopted by the State of Oregon in this plan as delisting 

criteria. In the context of recovery, delisting criteria and viability criteria are considered 

synonymous. Achieving ICTRT biological viability status at the population and MPG levels is 

needed before the DPS can be considered at low risk of extinction and a candidate for delisting. 

5.1.1 Overall Approach 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate objective, 

measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in accordance with the 

provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The recovery criteria comprise the 

core standards that NMFS believes will lead to conditions upon which the decision to de-list a 

species will be based. The ESA’s listing factors, and not the recovery plan, are the legal basis 

for making de-listing decisions. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-2 

One of the main tasks assigned to the NMFS’s technical recovery teams for recovery planning 

was to recommend biologically based viability criteria for application to salmon and steelhead 

ESUs/DPSs listed under the ESA. Viability criteria identify characteristics and conditions that, 

when met, would describe viable populations and a viable ESU or DPS that no longer warrants 

listing. Viability criteria identify the metrics and thresholds that will be used to determine the 

status of a population and the viability risk. 

The ICTRT’s approach to recovery is based 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 and component population levels. Viable salmonid population (VSP) 

guidelines provided by McElhany et al. (2000) address four major considerations: abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure and diversity. ESU or DPS level viability criteria consider the 

appropriate distribution and characteristics of component populations to maintain a viable ESU 

or DPS in the face of longer-term ecological and evolutionary processes. The Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB 2007b) recently reviewed the ICTRT criteria and concluded 

“The proposed criteria are based on a well-reasoned and well-supported set of scientific 

principles and are laid out in a relatively transparent fashion with clear guidelines and examples 

of their application. The general approach employed by the ICTRT and the underlying 

understanding of conservation biology and salmon biology are scientifically defensible with no 

apparent conceptual gaps that might negate the defensibility of the approach.” 

The ICTRT’s approach is consistent with related applications by the Puget Sound and Lower 

Columbia/Willamette TRTs and the Upper Columbia QAR, and the review of specific 

information for listed Interior Columbia ESU and DPS populations. The general approach 

identified for viability criteria has five essential elements: 

Stratified Approach: Life history and ecological complexity that historically existed should 

have a high probability of persistence. The ICTRT stratified the Mid-Columbia River 

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 ICTRT defined high 

persistence probability based on the presence of at least two or one-half of historical 

populations, whichever is greater, with a negligible risk of extinction. 

Representative Populations: Representative populations need to achieve viability criteria or 

be maintained, 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 DPS recovery is 

assured, and all extant populations must be maintained. The ICTRT provided specific 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-3 

criteria for maintained population status. Current populations and subpopulation structure 

must be preserved. Recovery measures will be needed in most areas to stop further decline 

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 DPS viability because not all attempts will be successful. 

Recovery efforts should target all populations, and more than the minimum population 

viability levels thought to ensure viability. Some populations should be highly viable. 

During recovery planning, the ICTRT defined biological viability objectives at the DPS, MPG, 

and component population levels (McClure et al. 2003). Assessments of viability at these 

different levels follow guidelines and approaches recommended by the ICTRT. The ICTRT’s 

ESU/DPS-level viability criteria are designed to assess risk for Abundance/Productivity and 

Spatial Structure/Diversity at the population level. Assessments are then rolled-up to the MPG 

and ESU levels.

5.1.2 Independent Population-level Viability Criteria 

Guidelines for population-level viability (McElhany et al. 2000) state that a viable population 

should be large enough to: 

1. have high probability of surviving environmental variation observed in the past and 

expected in the future; 

2. be resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances; 

3. maintain genetic diversity; and, 

4. support/provide ecosystem functions. 

To address these guidelines, the ICTRT grouped specific population level criteria into two 

categories: measures addressing abundance and productivity, and measures addressing spatial 

structure/diversity considerations. It also developed a framework for compiling an aggregate 

risk score for a population based on the results of applying the individual criteria. 

Population Abundance and Productivity 

These two population performance characteristics are linked to drive extinction risk. Abundance 

refers to the average number of spawners in a population over a generation or more. 

Productivity, or population growth rate, refers to the performance of the population over time in 

terms of recruits produced per spawner. 

Viable populations should demonstrate sufficient productivity to support a net replacement rate 

of 1:1 or higher at abundance levels established as long-term targets. Productivity rates at 

relatively low numbers of spawners should, on average, be sufficiently greater that 1.0 to allow 

the population to rapidly return to abundance target levels. Following guidelines from McElhany 

et al. (2000), the ICTRT identified the following objective for population abundance and 

productivity: 

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 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-4 

environmental variability; 2) compensatory processes provide resilience to the effects of 

short-term perturbations; and, 3) subpopulation structure is maintained (e.g., multiple 

spawning tributaries, spawning patches, life history patterns). 

The ICTRT used the Viability Curve concept (McElhaney et al. 2003) as a framework for 

defining population specific abundance and productivity criteria. A viability curve describes 

those combinations of abundance and productivity that yield a particular extinction risk 

threshold. The two parameters are linked relative to extinction risks associated with 

environmental variability. This approach recognizes that relatively large populations are more 

resilient in the face of year-to-year variability in overall survival rates than smaller populations. 

Populations with relatively high intrinsic productivity ─ the expected ratio of spawners to their 

parent spawners at low levels of spawner abundance ─ are also more robust at a given level of 

abundance than populations with lower intrinsic productivity. Combinations of abundance and 

productivity are characterized by viability curves that represent specific extinction risks. Table 

5-1 shows combinations of abundance and productivity that represent the 5% extinction risk 

viability curves for Mid-C steelhead (ICTRT 2007). 

Table 5-1. Mid-Columbia River steelhead population viability curves in tabular format (return 

per spawner and population growth rate versions)a

 (ICTRT 2007). 

Basic Intermediate Large Basic Intermediate Large

1.1 5650 5650 5650 5650 1.02 48000 48000 48000 48000

1.125 4200 4200 4200 4200 1.04 15400 15400 15400 15400

1.13 3900 3900 3900 3900 1.06 6600 6600 6600 6600

1.15 3300 3300 3300 3300 1.08 3950 3950 3950 3950

1.175 2500 2500 2500 2500 1.1 2300 2300 2300 2300

1.2 2050 2050 2050 2250 1.104 2000 2000 2000 2250

1.25 1550 1550 1550 2250 1.12 1400 1400 1500 2250

1.3 1200 1200 1500 2250 1.14 1050 1050 1500 2250

1.35 1000 1000 1500 2250 1.145 1000 1000 1500 2250

1.4 800 1000 1500 2250 1.16 830 1000 1500 2250

1.45 660 1000 1500 2250 1.18 580 1000 1500 2250

1.5 570 1000 1500 2250 1.2 510 1000 1500 2250

1.55 520 1000 1500 2250 1.21 500 1000 1500 2250

1.6 500 1000 1500 2250 1.22 500 1000 1500 2250

1.65 500 1000 1500 2250 1.24 500 1000 1500 2250

1.7 500 1000 1500 2250 1.26 500 1000 1500 2250

1.75 500 1000 1500 2250 1.28 500 1000 1500 2250

1.8 500 1000 1500 2250 1.3 500 1000 1500 2250

1.9 500 1000 1500 2250

2 500 1000 1500 2250

2.1 500 1000 1500 2250

Middle 

Columbia 

Steelhead 

Growth Rate 

(S/S)

Spawner to Spawner Measure Population Growth Rate (Lambda) Measure

Minimum Abundance by 

Population Size Categories

Minimum Abundance by 

Population Size Categories

Very 

Large

Population 

Growth Rate

Very 

Large

 a Combinations of abundance and productivity exceeding these combinations would have a projected extinction 

risk of less than 5% in 100 years, assuming continuation of recent (1978-present) variation in return rates. 

Spawner to spawner estimates generated using Hockey-Stick recruitment function and average variance (0.18), 

autocorrelation (0.74) and age structure (0.03 age 3; 0.46 age 4; 0.43 age 5; 0.04 age 6) for populations in the 

ESU. Population growth rate based estimates generated using average running sums based variance (0.17) for 

ESU populations. 

Methodology and Analysis 

The ICTRT developed viability curves representing 1%, 5%, and 25% extinction risk. 

Populations were grouped into four size categories ― Basic, Intermediate, Large or Very Large 

― based on historical capacity, represented by the weighted intrinsic potential area within the 

population boundaries. The team developed a model to calculate the intrinsic spawning habitat 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-5 

potential within defined populations. This approach quantified potential habitat based on the 

relationship of spawning use, landscape characteristics, and stream structure. A Geographic 

Information System (GIS) was used to compile ecological data, and for model development and 

output. Datasets describing spawning distribution, geomorphological features and instream 

habitat characteristics were crucial in developing the relationships. After spatial data acquisition, 

model parameters were formulated by comparing mapped salmon and steelhead spawning 

distribution to stream physiography and adjacent landforms. 

In general, the ICTRT used spawning and habitat surveys to describe a species spatial structure 

by locality and density. Additionally, where site specific spawning locations were not available, 

we used general salmonid distributional GIS data produced by state agencies. The team then 

evaluated the mapped distributions against stream attributes and spatially coincident landscape 

features calculated from common spatial data themes. These included United States Geological 

Service (USGS) digital elevation models, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), soil data 

from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and climatic data from the National 

Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The 1:100,000 scale NHD layer was subdivided into a 

continuous series of 200-meter reaches, and this became the basic analysis unit. Using 

information modeled from the digital elevation models, NCDC precipitation grids, and NHD 

data, the ICTRT computed stream gradient, wetted and bankful width, and channel confinement, 

and then assigned this information to each 200-meter segment within the stream network. These 

attributes were concentrated into groups representing all observed combinations, which included 

4 width classes, 6 gradient classes, and 3 confinement classes. Each discrete category was 

assessed by using statistical methods to compare the relative density of spawners observed 

within each group. Each habitat class was then assigned a rating of “high”, “moderate”, “low”, 

or “none” in regards to spawning habitat potential (Table 5-2). 

Two additional modifiers were applied to the habitat classes described in Table 5-2. First, there 

were some instances where stream width did not adequately address flow conditions. We found 

that certain streams that met general size requirements did not have appropriate flow parameters. 

Therefore, we assigned NHD stream velocities to our reach level data (200-meter segments) and 

compared these values to salmon and steelhead distributions. Where velocities fell below or 

above values observed within spawning locations we dropped intrinsic habitat ratings to “low.” 

Our second qualifier incorporated sedimentation. Again, we observed streams where “moderate” 

or “high” intrinsic reaches (those with preferred widths, gradients, and confinement) were 

limited by natural environmental features. Soil erodibility was found to exhibit a negative 

relationship with spawning preferences. Generally, low gradient reaches within highly erodible 

soil complexes contain a greater potential for fine particle deposition, and hence poor spawning 

substrates. We identified low gradient reaches from our reach coverage and highly erodible soils 

from NRCS soils data. Calculations were also developed to assign mean soil erodibility to each 

200-meter segment for the contributing watershed. From these assessments, we dropped low 

gradient reaches within highly erodible soils to a “low” intrinsic spawning potential. From the 

analyses described above , the ICTRT generated similar categories for all stream segments 

within the Interior Columbia ESUs/DPSs and assigned their corresponding habitat ratings. 

Reach length and width values were used to compute habitat area for all streams and we 

weighted the values by intrinsic spawning potential, so that “good” = (area * 1.0), “moderate” = 

(area * 0.5), “low” = (area * 0.25), and “none” = (area * 0.0). The ICTRT identified areas above 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-6 

natural barriers and assigned these reaches a rating of “none.” Natural barriers were identified 

through surveys from field biologists and gradient breaks computed from the DEM. Once 

calculated, the ICTRT summarized the weighted stream area for each population and generated 

size categories based on these values. 

The ICTRT analyzed how weighted habitat was aggregated within populations, and labeled 

reaches with continuous high and moderate ratings as spawning branches. A spawning branch 

was defined as a stream reach with enough habitat to support 50 spawners. The accumulation of 

branches within populations then became the basis for defining major spawning areas (MaSAs). 

It also developed a process for aggregating MaSAs by evaluating the continuity of branch habitat 

and the spatial composition of stream junctions. A MaSA was required to have enough weighted 

habitat to support 500 spawners. MaSAs are an important habitat unit for assessing ecological 

complexity within populations, and for the spatial structure/diversity viability assessment. 

Table 5-2. Habitat classes showing spawning potential by steelhead and Chinook. BF=Bankfull 

Width. 

Habitat Factors 

Stream Width Gradient Valley Width 

 Rating

Steelhead

Rating 

Chinook 

 

<3.7 m (chin) WETTED 0 to .5 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

<3.8 m (sthd) BANKFULL 20x > BF > 4x None None 

 > 20x BF None None

 

 .5 to 1.5 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None

 

 1.5 to 4.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None

 

 4.0 to 7.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None

 

 7.0 to 15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None 

 >15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None 

 

3.8 to 25 m 0 to .5 confined (<= 4x BF) None Medium 

 20x > BF > 4x Medium High 

> 20x BF Medium High

 

.5 to 1.5 confined (<= 4x BF) Low Low 

 20x > BF > 4x High Medium 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-7 

Habitat Factors 

Stream Width Gradient Valley Width 

 Rating

Steelhead

Rating 

Chinook 

 > 20x BF High High

 

1.5 to 4.0 confined (<= 4x BF) Low Low 

 20x > BF > 4x High Low 

> 20x BF High Medium

4.0 to 7.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x Low Low 

> 20x BF Low Low 

 7.0 to 15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None 

>15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

> 20x BF None None 

 

25 to 50m 0 to .5 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

 > 4x BF Medium Medium 

.5 to 1.5 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

> 4x BF Medium None 

1.5 to 4.0 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

 20x > BF > 4x Medium None 

4.0 to 7.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

> 4x BF None None 

7.0 to 15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

> 4x BF None None 

>15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 > 4x BF None None 

 

greater than 50m 0 to .5 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

wetted 20x > BF > 4x None None 

.5 to 1.5 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

1.5 to 4.0 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

4.0 to 7.0 confined (<= 4x BF) Low None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

7.0 to 15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-8 

Habitat Factors 

Stream Width Gradient Valley Width 

 Rating

Steelhead

Rating 

Chinook 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

>15.0 confined (<= 4x BF) None None 

 20x > BF > 4x None None 

The ICTRT determined that abundance levels below 500 individuals for any population would 

pose unacceptable risk for inbreeding depression and other genetic concerns (ICTRT 2007), and 

established a minimum abundance threshold of 500 individuals for the basic size populations. 

Higher spawning threshold sizes were established incrementally for the three larger population 

sizes. Viability curves for all four size categories were truncated at the minimum abundance 

threshold level. Table 5-1 shows the combination of abundance and productivity values for all 

four size categories that yield a 5% risk of extinction. Populations were also categorized by their 

historical spatial distribution pattern and complexity. Table 5-3 shows population 

characteristics, spatial complexity designation, minimum abundance thresholds, and minimum 

productivity at threshold escapement needed to achieve a 95% probability of persistence over 

100 years. 

Table 5-3. Population characteristics and minimum abundance and productivity (at the threshold 

abundance level) values that represent levels needed to achieve a 95% probability of persistence 

over 100 years for Mid-Columbia steelhead populations in Oregon. 

Population Extant/ 

Extinct 

Life 

History 

Size Spatial 

Category 

Thresholda

Abundance 

Minimum 

Productivity 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

Fifteenmile 

Creek 

Extant Winter Basic C-Trellis 500 1.56 

Deschutes River 

Eastside 

Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Deschutes River 

Westside 

Extant Summer Large (Inter.) b B-Dendritic 1,500 (1,000) 1.26 (1.35) 

Deschutes 

Crooked River 

Extinct Summer Very Large B-Dendritic 2,250 1.19 

John Day River MPG 

Lower Mainstem 

John Day River 

Extant Summer Very Large B-Dendritic 2,250 1.19 

North Fork 

John Day River 

Extant Summer Large B-Dendritic 1,500 1.26 

Middle Fork 

John Day River 

Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

South Fork 

John Day River 

Extant Summer Basic B-Dendritic 500 1.56 

Upper Mainstem 

John Day River 

Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

Willow Creek Extinct Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

Umatilla River Extant Summer Large B-Dendritic 1,500 1.26 

Walla Walla 

River 

Extant Summer Intermediate B-Dendritic 1,000 1.35 

a

Threshold abundance is the minimum abundance criteria to achieve a 5% or less risk of extinction at the minimum 

 productivity. 

b Large size category is for historically accessible area; intermediate size category is for currently accessible area. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-9 

The ICTRT also developed specific guidance for assessing current status relative to the 

Abundance/Productivity viability risk curves (ICTRT 2006). Using this guidance, mean 

abundance and standard error were calculated as the most recent 10-year geometric mean of 

natural-origin spawners. Productivity was calculated as recruits per spawner (spawner to 

spawner) from the 20 most recent completed brood years (less if only that was available). Only 

natural-origin fish were counted as recruits, and both natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish 

spawning naturally were counted as parents. No relative reproductive success factors were 

applied to hatchery parents. The team determined low abundance/productivity by limiting the 

data series to only include the low abundance parent population sizes. This delimiting was 

conducted to address the influence of density on recruits-per-spawner. It determined the median 

parent abundance level, and used the values equal to or less than the median in most cases. In 

those cases where the median was not used, it censused at 75% of the threshold. In most cases, 

this resulted in ten recruits-per-spawner data points. To further increase the accuracy and 

precision of the productivity estimate, the recruits-per-spawner values were adjusted to represent 

average smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR), thus reducing the variation resulting from variable 

smolt out-migration and marine survival. The ICTRT calculated a geometric mean and standard 

error from the censused, SAR adjusted recruits per spawner dataset. It used an aggregate SAR 

developed from Deschutes, Umatilla, Snake, and Columbia rivers SAR data sets. 

The Oregon technical team used the following approach to consider uncertainty in the risk rating. 

The approach we selected was one of three options presented by the ICTRT (2007). Under this 

approach, a lower 90% confidence interval bounds was determined to compare against the 

viability curves. When the lower end of the 90% CI for productivity resides above the 25% risk 

curve, there is a 95% probability that the true value is above the 25% risk level. To be 

considered low risk, the point estimate must reside above the 5% risk level for abundance and 

productivity and the lower 90% CI bound for productivity must reside above the 25% risk level. 

To be considered very low risk, the point estimate for abundance and productivity must reside 

above the 1% risk level and there must be less than 1 in 100 chance (the lower end of the 98% CI 

resides above the 25% risk curve) that the true productivity value is below the 25% risk level. If 

the point estimate for abundance and productivity falls between the 5% and 25% risk level, then 

the population is considered at moderate risk regardless of where the 90% CI resides, which 

equates to a minimum of 50% probability that the true value is above the 25% risk level. Figure 

5-1 provides an example of an Abundance/Productivity viability curve. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-10 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Fifteenmile

Figure 5-1. Example of Abundance/Productivity viability curves including Fifteenmile Creek 

current abundance productivity point estimate with standard error elipse and adjusted standard 

error bounds. 

Population Spatial Structure and Diversity 

Spatial structure and diversity considerations are combined in the evaluation because they are 

closely integrated. Spatial structure concerns a population’s geographic distribution and the 

processes that affect that distribution. Diversity refers to the distribution of genetic, life history 

and phenotypic variation within and among populations. 

Distribution influences a population’s viability because populations with restricted distribution 

and few spawning areas are at a higher risk of extinction due to catastrophic environmental 

events than are populations with more widespread and complex spatial structures. A population 

with a complex spatial structure, including multiple spawning areas, may experience more 

opportunity for gene flow, developmental substructure, and life history diversity. 

Population-level diversity is similarly important for long-term persistence. Populations 

exhibiting greater diversity are generally more resilient to short-term and long-term 

environmental changes. Phenotypic and life history diversity allow populations to use a wider 

array of environments and protect populations against short-term temporal and spatial 

environmental changes. Underlying diversity provides the ability to survive long-term 

environmental changes. 

McElhany et al. (2000) provide a number of guidelines for the spatial structure and diversity of 

viable salmonid populations that consider these principles (Figure 5-2). 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-11 

Figure 5-2. Viable salmonid population spatial structure and diversity guidelines (McElhany et 

al. 2000). 

The ICTRT identified two primary goals that spatial structure and diversity criteria should 

address: 

1. maintain natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes, and 

2. maintain natural patterns of variation. 

The ICTRT also provided a format outlining guidelines for achieving these goals. The format 

identifies mechanisms, factors and metrics appropriate for assessing population status. 

Mechanisms are biological or ecological processes that contribute to achieving the goals (e.g., 

gene flow patterns affect the distribution of genotypic and phenotypic variation in a population.) 

Factors are characteristics of a population or its environment that influence mechanisms (e.g., 

gaps in spawning distribution affect patterns in gene flow.) Metrics are measured and assessed at 

regular intervals to determine whether a population has achieved goals or to evaluate its current 

risk level. Some viability metrics include variable criteria that are dependent on the spatial 

complexity designation of the population. Table 5-4 summarizes the associations between these 

goals, mechanisms, factors and metrics. Spatial complexity designations are also presented in 

Table 5-4. 

Spatial Structure 

1. Habitat patches should not be destroyed faster than they are naturally 

created. 

2. Natural rates of straying among subpopulations should not be substantially 

increased or decreased by human actions. 

3. Some habitat patches should be maintained that appear to be suitable or 

marginally suitable, but currently contain no fish. 

4. Source subpopulations should be maintained. 

5. Analyses of population spatial processes should take uncertainty into 

account. 

Diversity 

1. Human-caused factors such as habitat changes, harvest pressures, artificial 

propagation, and exotic species introduction should not substantially alter 

variation in traits such as run timing, age structure, size, fecundity, 

morphology, behavior, and molecular genetic characteristics. 

2. Natural processes of dispersal should be maintained. Human-caused factors 

should not substantially alter the rate of gene flow among populations. 

3. Natural processes that cause ecological variation should be maintained. 

4. Population status evaluations should take uncertainty about requisite levels 

of diversity into account. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-12 

Table 5-4. Organization of goals, mechanisms, factors and metrics for spatial structure and 

diversity risk rating (ICTRT 2007). 

Goal Mechanism Factor Metrics 

a. Number and spatial 

arrangement of spawning areas.

Number of MaSAs, distribution of MaSAs, 

and quantity of habitat outside MaSAs. 

b. Spatial extent or range of 

population. 

Proportion of historical range occupied and A. Allowing natural rates presence/absence of spawners in MaSAs. and levels of spatiallymediated processes. 

1. Maintain natural 

distribution of spawning 

areas. 

c. Increase or decrease gaps or 

continuities between spawning 

areas. 

Change in occupancy of MaSAs that affects 

connectivity within the population. 

a. Major life history strategies. Distribution of major life history expression 

within a population. 

b. Phenotypic variation. Reduction in variability of traits, shift in mean 

value of trait, loss of traits. 

1. Maintain natural 

patterns of phenotypic 

and genotypic expression.

c. Genetic variation. Analysis addressing within and between 

population genetic variation. 

(1) Proportion of natural spawners that are 

unnatural out-of ESU spawners. 

(2) Proportion of natural spawners that are 

unnatural out-of MPG spawners. 

(3) Proportion of hatchery origin natural 

spawners derived from a within MPG brood 

stock program, or within population (not best 

practices) program. 

2. Maintain natural 

patterns of gene flow. a. Spawner composition. 

(4) Proportion of hatchery origin natural 

spawners derived from a local (within 

population) broodstock program using best 

management practices. 

3. Maintain occupancy in 

a natural variety of 

available habitat types. 

a. Distribution of population 

across habitat types. 

Change in occupancy across ecoregion 

types. 

B. Maintaining natural 

levels of variation. 

4. Maintain integrity of 

natural systems. 

a. Selective change in natural 

processes or impacts. 

Ongoing anthropogenic activities inducing 

selective mortality or habitat change withinor out-of-population boundary. 

Integrating the Four VSP Parameters 

These abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity considerations form the centerpiece 

of the ICTRT’s framework for assessing ESU viability (ICTRT 2007). The approach is based on 

guidelines in McElhany et al. (2000), the results of previous applications (i.e., Puget Sound and 

Lower Columbia/Willamette TRTs and Upper Columbia Qualitative Analysis Review), and a 

review of specific information available relative to listed Interior Columbia ESU populations. 

The ICTRT integrates all four VSP parameters using a simple matrix approach (Figure 5-3). The 

abundance/productivity (A/P) risk level combines the abundance and productivity VSP criteria 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-13 

using a viability curve. The spatial structure/diversity (SS/D) risk level integrates across 12 

measures of spatial structure and diversity. The overall diversity viability rating for any 

population is determined using two guiding principles. First, the VSP concept (McElhany et al. 

2000) provides a 5% risk criterion to define a viable population. Therefore, any population 

scored moderate or high risk in the abundance/productivity criteria would not meet the 

recommended viable standards. In addition, any population that is high risk in SS/D would not 

be considered viable. Second, populations with a very low rating for A/P and at least a low 

rating for SS/D are considered to be “Highly Viable.” Populations with a low rating for A/P and 

a very low, low, or moderate rating for SS/D are considered “Viable.” In addition, populations 

with a very low risk rating for A/P and a moderate rating for SS/D are also considered “Viable.” 

This integration approach places greater emphasis on the abundance/productivity criteria. These 

individual ratings are then integrated to determine the viability of major population groups. The 

assessments of individual MPGs are aggregated to assess the DPS as a whole (ICTRT 2007). 

Figure 5-3. Assessing population viability across VSP criteria (ICTRT 2007). 

Percentages for abundance and productivity scores represent the probability of extinction in a 

100-year time period. The ICTRT used the analysis approach discussed in this section to 

examine the viability of independent populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. 

5.1.3 Major Population Group Viability Criteria 

The ICTRT recommended MPG-level risk criteria that assess the level of risk associated with its 

component populations. While individual populations meeting viability criteria are expected to 

have low risk of extinction, these additional MPG-level criteria ensure robust functioning of the 

population group and provide resilience to catastrophic loss of one or more populations. In 

developing these criteria, the ICTRT assumed that catastrophes do not increase dramatically in 

frequency, that populations are not lost permanently (due to catastrophe or anthropogenic 

High high risk

maintained M 

Low (<5%) viable

maintained 

highly viable Very Low 

(<1%) 

Very Low Low Moderate

High high risk 

Moderate maintained

(<25%) 

Low (<5%) viable

highly viable maintained 

Very Low 

(<1%) 

Very Low Low Moderate High 

SS/D rating

highly viable 

viable viable

viable 

maintained

maintained 

maintained

high risk high risk high risk

A/P 

high risk 

rating
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-14 

impacts) and that permanent reductions in productivity, including long-term, gradual reductions 

in productivity do not occur (ICTRT 2007). Figure 5-4 shows MPG-level viability criteria 

identified by the ICTRT. 

Figure 5-4. MPG-level viability criteria identified by the ICTRT (ICTRT 2007). 

MPG Recovery Scenarios Options 

We identified the following options for the three MPGs containing Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations. The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries and the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPGs 

contain populations that reside in Oregon and Washington. Although this recovery plan deals 

specifically with Oregon populations, we present MPG recovery scenarios considering all 

populations within each MPG. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries Major Population Group 

This MPG contains seven populations, including four Oregon populations, shown in Table 5-5. 

Table 5-5. Characteristics of steelhead populations in Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG. 

Population Extant/Extinct Life History Size Category 

Fifteenmile Creek Extant Winter Run Basic 

Deschutes River Eastside Extant Summer Run Intermediate 

Deschutes River Westside Extant Summer Run Large 

Deschutes Crooked River Extinct Summer Run Very Large 

Klickitat River Extant Winter/Summer Run Intermediate 

White Salmon Extinct Summer Run Intermediate 

Rock Creek Extant Summer Run Basic 

MPG Viability Criteria (ICTRT 2007) 

The following six criteria must be met for an MPG to be regarded as low risk (viable): 

1. One-half of the populations historically within the MPG (with a minimum of two populations) must 

meet at least minimum viability standards. 

2. At least one population must be categorized as being “Highly Viable”. 

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

intrinsic potential) as “Very Large,” or “Large,” and “Intermediate” in the same proportion as were 

present within the MPG historically. 

4. Populations not meeting viability standards should be maintained with sufficient productivity that the 

overall MPG productivity does not fall below replacement (i.e., these areas should not serve as 

significant population sinks). 

5. Where possible, given other MPG viability requirements, some populations meeting viability 

standards should be contiguous AND some populations meeting viability standards should be disjunct 

from each other. 

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

within the MPG must be represented in populations meeting at least the minimum viability 

requirements. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-15 

The following ICTRT criteria are recommended for this MPG to be regarded as viable: 

1. Four of the seven historical populations in the MPG meet viable criteria standards. 

2. One very large/large and two intermediate size populations must be included for the 

MPG to have proportional representation of the Very Large/Large and Intermediate sizes. 

The fourth population can be any size from basic to very large. 

3. At least one summer run, one winter run, and one population with winter/summer 

combination must be included for all of the historical major life history strategies to be 

represented. 

4. One of the four viable populations must be highly viable. 

5. All populations that do not meet viable status have to meet maintained status. 

Given the above criteria, the only viability scenario for this MPG must include the following 

populations: 

• Fifteenmile Creek—represents a winter run requirement and small size. 

• Deschutes River Eastside—represents a summer run and intermediate size

requirement. 

• Deschutes River Westside—represents a summer run and large size requirement. 

• Klickitat River—represents a winter/summer run and an intermediate size

requirement. 

• Rock Creek—must be maintained. 

John Day River Major Population Group 

This MPG contains five populations. Their characteristics are described in Table 5-6. 

Table 5-6. Characteristics of steelhead populations in the John Day River MPG. 

Population Extant/Extinct Life History Size Category 

Lower Mainstem John Day Extant Summer Run Very Large 

North Fork John Day Extant Summer Run Large 

Middle Fork John Day Extant Summer Run Intermediate 

South Fork John Day Extant Summer Run Basic 

Upper Mainstem John Day Extant Summer Run Intermediate 

The following ICTRT criteria are recommended for this MPG to be regarded as viable: 

1. Three of the five historical populations in the MPG must meet viable criteria standards. 

2. Viable populations within the MPG must include two very large/large and one 

intermediate size population to have proportional representation of the population sizes. 

3. All major life history strategies present historically must be represented. There are only 

summer-run life histories. 

4. One of the three viable populations must be highly viable. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-16 

5. All populations that do not meet viable status must be maintained. 

Given the above criteria, a viability scenario for this MPG must include the following 

populations: 

• Lower Mainstem John Day—represents the only population that meets the very 

large size requirement. 

• North Fork John Day—represents a highly viable population and a large size

requirement. 

• Middle Fork John Day or Upper Mainstem John Day—either population could 

meet the second intermediate size requirement. 

• South Fork John Day—must be maintained. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers Major Population Group 

This MPG contains four populations, including three Oregon populations, shown in Table 5-7. 

Table 5-7. Characteristics of steelhead populations in Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG. 

Population Extant/Extinct Life History Size Category 

Willow Creek Extinct Summer Run Intermediate 

Umatilla River Extant Summer Run Large 

Walla Walla River Extant Summer Run Intermediate 

Touchet River Extant Summer Run Intermediate 

The following ICTRT criteria are recommended for this MPG to be regarded as viable: 

1. Two of the four historical populations in the MPG must meet viable criteria standards. 

2. Viable populations within the MPG must include one large and one intermediate size 

populations. 

3. All major life history strategies present historically must be represented. There are only 

summer-run life histories. 

4. One of the two viable populations must be highly viable. 

5. All populations that do not meet viable status must be maintained. 

Given the above criteria, the following two viability scenarios are options: 

• Umatilla River—this population is required to meet the large size requirement 

because it is the only large size population. 

• Walla Walla River or Touchet River—either population could meet the second 

population requirement at intermediate size. 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-17 

5.1.4 DPS Viability Criteria 

The ICTRT determined that, because MPGs are geographically and genetically cohesive groups 

of populations, they are critical components of ESU/DPS-level spatial structure and diversity. 

Having all MPGs within the DPS at low risk provides the greatest probability of persistence for 

the DPS. Figure 5-5 shows DPS-level viability criteria defined by the ICTRT. 

 

Figure 5-5. DPS-level viability criteria identified by the ICTRT (ICTRT 2007). 

5.2 Broad Sense Recovery Goal and Objectives 

After achieving steelhead recovery under the ESA, the State of Oregon aims to rebuild Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead populations to levels that will provide for sustainable fisheries and other 

ecological, cultural and social benefits. Although broader than the definition of delisting 

provided by the ESA, these broad sense goals incorporate many of the traditional uses, as well as 

rural and Native American values, deemed important in the Pacific Northwest. 

During the recovery planning effort, the Oregon Middle Columbia Steelhead Sounding Board led 

the development of broad sense recovery goals for the region. The Sounding Board included 

citizens from all Oregon subbasins within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. During the process, 

the board members worked with recovery planners to identify goals and objectives that would 

provide abundance, productivity, and diversity well above delisting levels to allow for 

sustainable fisheries and other cultural uses. The Sounding Board (2006) identified the 

following broad sense recovery goal and objectives. 

Broad Sense Recovery Goal 

Oregon’s broad sense recovery goal for the Mid-C Steelhead is founded on a belief that citizens 

throughout the region value and enjoy the substantial ecological, cultural, social, and economic 

benefits that are derived from having healthy, diverse populations of steelhead. 

DPS-Level Viability Criteria (from Cooney et al. 2005) 

1. All extant MPGs and any extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the DPS must be at low risk. 

2. DPSs that contained only one MPG historically or that include only one MPG critical for proper function 

 must meet the following criteria: 

a. The single MPG must meet all the requirements to be at low risk (see above). In addition: 

b. Two-thirds or more of the populations within the MPG historically must meet minimum viability 

standards; AND 

c. At least two populations must meet the criteria to be “Highly Viable.” 

These extirpated areas will be evaluated to determine whether extirpated MPGs are critical for proper functioning 

of the DPS using the following considerations: 

• Likely demographic (abundance and productivity) contribution of the MPG and its component 

populations to the DPS. 

• Spatial role of the MPG in the DPS (e.g. does the extirpated MPG create a gap in the distribution of the 

DPS?) 

• Likely contribution to overall DPS diversity (e.g. does the extirpated MPG occupy habitats that are 

substantially different from other habitats currently occupied in the DPS?) 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-18 

Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River natural steelhead populations are sufficiently abundant, 

productive, and diverse (in terms of life histories and geographic distribution) so that 

they provide significant ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits. 

To achieve these benefits for current and future generations, this recovery plan aims to restore 

Mid-C steelhead in Oregon subbasins to the point where their protection under the ESA is no 

longer needed and a range of societal benefits are met. Recovery of Mid-Columbia steelhead 

populations will require actions that preserve, enhance and restore healthy watershed conditions 

where ecosystem functions, processes and dynamics are intact ─ including instream conditions, 

riparian habitat diversity and complexity, and upland watershed health in concert with 

complementary management of harvest, hatcheries and hydropower. Recovery is a process that 

leads to steelhead populations that are not only viable, but that also provide a harvestable surplus 

for the treaty tribes and for all other citizens of the region. 

 This vision for broad-sense recovery incorporates ESA delisting goals in the sense that delisting 

would be achieved first during an extended and stepwise process of achieving broad sense 

recovery goals. ESA delisting criteria are entirely science-based and establish the biologicallybased standards required to sustain the DPS. In contrast, broad-sense recovery represents a level 

of population performance that will considerably exceed the delisting level. 

 

Recovery Objectives 

By the year 2050, proponents of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan intend to 

achieve the following objectives: 

1. Middle Columbia steelhead are viable throughout the historical range and no longer need 

protection under the ESA; 

2. All currently extant Middle Columbia steelhead populations are highly viable; 

3. Extirpated populations (e.g. Willow Creek, Crooked River) are restored in a manner that 

engages landowner cooperation and does not subject landowners to ESA regulation based 

on the presence of previously extirpated populations until the introduced populations are 

self-sustaining and become part of the listed DPS; 

4. All extant populations of Middle Columbia steelhead are capable of contributing 

ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits on a regular and sustainable basis; 

5. Working in concert with existing agreements and collaboratively with landowners and 

resource managers NOAA will define a suite of additional land and water resource 

management principles and practices that when followed will alleviate liability for 

possible ESA regulatory consequences to landowners and resource managers; 

6. Out-of-basin limiting factors are addressed equitably and in concert with in-basin limiting 

factors; 
Section 5, Desired Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

5-19 

7. Landowners, land managers and agencies are provided with guidance on the protection 

and management of habitats to promote the recovery of Mid-C steelhead; and, 

8. Land and resource managers work with communities and other interests in a coordinated 

manner to achieve broad sense recovery through a shared vision of conservation where 

options and choices are preserved for future generations. 

 

A number of actions are needed to accomplish the goal and objectives: 

1. Collaborative management processes and approaches, including both volunteer and 

incentive-based programs, encourage restoration of habitat. 

2. Management actions are based on a strategic priority framework that recognizes the 

importance of protection, enhancement, and restoration throughout the life cycle of the 

species. 

3. Agencies and residents employ a diversity of management approaches across the DPS 

that meet both social and biological objectives. 

4. Landowners and resource managers are provided with information and assistance on how 

to accomplish recovery goals and objectives. 

5. A coordinated research, monitoring, and evaluation program is in place that will facilitate 

periodic assessments of implementation effectiveness, population status, habitat status, 

and advise the need, if any, to modify future recovery management actions within an 

adaptive management framework. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-1 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

95% CI

99% CI

Section 6 Current Status — Viability Assessments 

This section summarizes the current status of Oregon’s ten independent populations of Mid-C 

steelhead based on viability assessment results. It also describes the role of each population in 

achieving viable status at the MPG level. Detailed individual population viability assessments 

are presented in Appendix B. Section 5 describes the ICTRT’s approach and criteria for 

assessing population viability. All error bars shown represent 90% confidence intervals (CI) 

unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where 98% CIs are shown is for the purpose of 

determining if uncertainty criteria for highly viable status has been met. 

6.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead Population 

The Fifteenmile Creek population occupies the Fifteenmile watershed and several smaller 

drainages — Rock, Mosier, Chenoweth, Mill, and Threemile — outside the Fifteenmile 

watershed. The population contains three MaSAs, located in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed: 

Upper Fifteenmile, Eightmile, and Fivemile. It also occupies five MiSAs: lower Fifteenmile, 

Threemile, Mill, Chenoweth, and Mosier. 

The Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead population is at low risk based on current abundance 

and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately variable; the most 

recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 703. During the period 1985-

1999, returns per spawner in the Fifteenmile Creek population ranged from 0.37 (1987) to 5.58 

(1998). The most recent 15-year (1985-1999) SAR adjusted and delimited geomean of returns 

per spawner was 1.82 (Appendix B). 

Figure 6-1 shows the viability curve for 

the Fifteenmile Creek population. The 

Abundance/Productivity (A/P) point 

estimate resides above the 1% risk 

curve, but the population is not 

considered to be at very low risk 

because of uncertainty criteria, the 98% 

confidence interval (CI) extends below 

the 25% risk curve. However, since the 

90% CI is above the 25% risk curve, the 

population is rated at low risk. These 

A/P results should be viewed with 

caution, as abundance and productivity 

estimates for the population are based 

on 15 years of spawner/recruit data. 

Figure 6-1. Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead 

population abundance and productivity compared to 

the DPS viability curve. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-2 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

95% CI

99% CI

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity (SS/D) rating is low risk for the Fifteenmile 

population. There has been little change in distribution relative to the historical distribution. 

The absence of major reductions in distribution resulted in a rating of very low risk for the 

spatial structure metrics. We hypothesize that there have been minor reductions in life history 

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

moderate. There are few hatchery fish in the population resulting in low risk for spawner 

composition. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Fifteenmile Creek population currently meets criteria for viable status because both 

Abundance/Productivity and Spatial Structure/Diversity are rated at low risk. The productivity 

value of 1.82 is above the minimum 1.65 required at the threshold abundance, and the 10-year 

geomean of natural-origin spawners is well above the viable threshold of 500 for a “basic” size 

population. A relatively small increase in productivity and reduction in the CI are required to 

move this population into “highly viable” status. Additional data points will likely decrease the 

standard error and move the 98% confidence interval out of the high risk region. Monitoring 

should be continued to allow analysis of a longer data time series. 

6.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Deschutes River Eastside population includes the mainstem Deschutes River from the mouth 

to above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex at RM 100, and tributaries joining the Deschutes from 

the Eastside. Areas above the complex, including Willow Creek, are currently inaccessible. The 

population contains six MaSAs: Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, Ward/Antelope/Cold/Carp, Lower 

Trout, Upper Trout and Willow. It contains two MiSAs: Jones Canyon and Campbell. The 

Willow Creek MaSA and Campbell MiSA are in the inaccessible area above the complex. 

The Deschutes River Eastside Summer 

Steelhead population is at low risk 

based on current abundance and 

productivity. Spawner abundance in 

recent years has been moderately 

variable; the most recent 10-year 

geomean number of natural-origin 

spawners was 1,599. During the period 

1990-1999, returns per spawner for 

steelhead in the Deschutes River 

Eastside ranged from 0.24 (1991) to 

3.97 (1996). The most recent 10-year 

(1990-1999) geomean of returns per 

spawner SAR adjusted and median 

delimited was 1.89 (Appendix B). 

Figure 6-2. Deschutes River Eastside Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-3 

The current point estimate for productivity on the viability curve for the Deschutes River 

Eastside Summer Steelhead population resides above the 1% curve, but the population is not 

considered to be at very low risk since the 98% CI extends below the 25% risk curve (Figure 6-

2). Since the 90% CI is above the 25% risk curve, the population is rated at low risk. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is moderate risk for the Deschutes Eastside 

population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated 

processes” was low risk. Although the overall rating for this goal was low, spawning 

distribution is reduced significantly from the historical distribution with loss of spawning in the 

Willow Creek drainage being the primary factor. The population remains broadly distributed 

with little change in gaps and good continuity within the currently accessible habitat. 

The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. Habitat 

changes in key tributary production areas have likely resulted in limitations to life history 

diversity and reduction in phenotypic expression. In addition, a significant proportion of natural 

spawners are out-of-DPS strays that resulted in a high risk rating for the spawner composition 

metric. Additional genetics information is needed to assess within and between population 

differentiations, and to improve our understanding of the degree of introgression of out-of-DPS 

strays. The ongoing genetics work of the USFWS and co-managers will provide the information 

needed to better assess the genetic health of this population. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Deschutes River Eastside population currently meets the ICTRT recommendation for viable 

status. The 10-year geomean of natural fish abundance of 1,599 is well above the threshold of 

1,000. The point estimate of productivity (1.89) puts the population into the very low risk 

region; however the 90% CI extends well below the 25% risk level. This wide standard error 

results in a low risk level for abundance/productivity. The spatial structure/diversity rating is 

moderate risk, primarily because of the influence of habitat changes on life history and 

phenotypic expression as well as out-of-DPS hatchery spawners. 

6.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Deschutes River Westside population includes the mainstem Deschutes River from Trout 

Creek to the Pelton-Round Butte Complex at RM 100, and tributaries joining the Deschutes from 

the Westside. Current distribution is reduced significantly from the historical distribution 

because of loss of accessibility to the Metolius River and Whychus Creek drainages. Spawning 

is currently concentrated in the Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek, and in the mainstem 

Deschutes River between Trout Creek and Pelton Dam. The population contains six MaSAs 

(Upper Warm Springs, Mill, Beaver, Shitike, Upper Metolius and Whychus) and nine MiSAs 

(Lower Warm Springs, Oak Canyon, Seekseekqua, Wapinitia, Lower Warm Springs Tribs, 

Trahan, Eagle, Skookum, and Dry) in the historically accessible habitat. 

The Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead population is at high risk based on current 

abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately variable; 

the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 456, which is below the 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 spawners for an “intermediate” size population. During 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-4 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Intermediate

Large

the period 1980-1999, returns per spawner for steelhead in the Deschutes River Westside 

population ranged from 0.24 (1987) to 3.72 (1996). The most recent 20-year (1979-1998) 

geomean of returns per spawner SAR adjusted and delimited at 75% of threshold was 1.05 

(Appendix B). 

The current point estimate for 

Abundance/Productivity on the viability 

curve for the Deschutes River Westside 

Summer Steelhead population resides 

below the 25% risk curve (Figure 6-3). 

Figure 6-3. Deschutes River Westside Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is high risk for the Deschutes River Westside 

population. The population rates at moderate risk for two of the spatial distribution metrics 

because the current distribution is substantially reduced from the historical intrinsic distribution 

due to blocked passages to areas above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Ratings for two 

metrics related to Goal B “maintaining natural patterns of variation” resulted in a moderate rating 

for Goal B and the overall moderate rating. Genetic variation rated moderate due to limited data 

and the lack of differentiation between the Deschutes samples and outside-basin hatchery 

samples. Samples collected in 2005-2006 will better inform the risk associated with genetic 

variation. The proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays resulted in a high risk rating for 

spawner composition. Most of these strays originate from the Snake River Basin. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Deschutes River Westside steelhead population does not currently meet the ICTRT 

recommended viability criteria and is currently high risk status because the 

Abundance/Productivity is rated at high risk, and the Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is 

moderate risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance of 456 is well below the minimum 

threshold of 1,000 required for an intermediate size population. The abundance of 456 is slightly 

below the minimum 500 recommended by the ICTRT for maintained status. A substantial 

increase in productivity will be required to raise the abundance/productivity values to the low 

risk level. The genetics information that is presently being collected will better inform the 

genetics variation risk level in the future. A reduction in the out-of-ESU hatchery stray 

proportion will be needed to reduce the risk rating for the spawner composition metric. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-5 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

6.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Lower Mainstem John Day River population occupies the Lower John Day watershed below 

the town of Dayville at the mouth of the South Fork John Day River. Steelhead in the Lower 

Mainstem John Day River population spawn in tributary streams connected by the lower John 

Day River, including Bridge, Butte, Thirtymile, Service, Mountain and Rock creeks. Multiple 

smaller drainages also support production. The population contains 11 MaSAs and 19 MiSAs. 

MaSAs include: Bridge, Mountain, Cottonwood, Middle Rock, Upper Rock, Pine Hollow, Lone 

Rock, Thirtymile, Butte, Hay, and Grass Valley. MiSAs include: Esau Canyon, Kahler, 

Jackknife, Pine (John Day), Service, Ferry, Rhodes Canyon, Rowe, Currant, Johnson (John Day), 

Shoofly, Girds, Cherry, Bologna, Buckhorn, Cottonwood Canyon, Lower Rock 1, Lower Rock 2, 

and Haystack. 

The Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been highly 

variable; the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 1,800. 

During the period 1975-1997, returns per spawner for steelhead in the population ranged from 

0.14 (1987) to 17.5 (1979). The most recent 19-year (1980-1998) SAR adjusted and delimited 

geomean of returns per spawner was 2.99 (Appendix B). 

The population’s productivity is at very 

low risk. The current point estimate for 

productivity on the viability curve is 

above very low risk and the lower end of 

the adjusted standard error is above the 

5% risk level. The abundance is 

moderate risk because it resides between 

the 5% and 25% risk levels (Figure 6-4). 

Figure 6-4. Lower Mainstem John Day River 

Summer Steelhead population abundance and 

productivity compared to the viability curve for 

the DPS. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is moderate risk for the Lower Mainstem John 

Day River population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and level of spatially 

mediated processes” was very low. The current spawner distribution is similar to historical with 

all MaSAs occupied. The MiSAs that are currently unoccupied have little influence on gaps and 

continuity, and spawners are spread over a very broad geographic area. The rating for Goal B 

“maintaining natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. This rating was a result of moderate 

risk for life history and genetic variation, and high risk for spawner composition out-of-DPS 

hatchery strays. The magnitude and trend in out-of-DPS hatchery strays are of significant 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-6 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

concern. Analysis of genetics information will yield considerable insight into the population’s 

genetic variation and characteristics. Examining genetics data for evidence of hatchery 

introgression will be useful for future spatial structure/diversity risk assessments. 

Overall Risk Rating 

With a moderate rating for Abundance/Productivity and a moderate rating for Spatial 

Structure/Diversity, the Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population does not 

currently achieve an overall rating of viable according to ICTRT criteria, although it does meet 

the criteria for a “maintained” population with abundance well above the 500 minimum 

recommended by the ICTRT for maintained status. To achieve a viable rating, this population 

must improve in both Abundance/Productivity and Spatial Structure/Diversity. Out-of-DPS 

origin spawners are the most influential factor on Diversity Risk. Additional population specific 

data are needed to better quantify the spawner composition in this population to reduce the 

uncertainty associated with this risk metric. 

6.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The North Fork John Day is the largest tributary to the John Day River. The North Fork John 

Day River population contains eight MaSAs: Lower North Fork John Day, Potamus, Big Wall, 

Big, Upper North Fork John Day, Desolation, Granite and Owens. It contains seven MiSAs: 

Meadow Brook, Fivemile (North Fork), Ditch, Cabin, Meadow (North Fork), Cabin (North Fork) 

and Bridge (North Fork). Spawning is distributed broadly throughout the population boundaries 

including mainstem areas of Cottonwood, Camas, Desolation, and Granite creeks, and the Upper 

North Fork John Day River, as well as in many tributaries. 

The North Fork John Day River 

Summer Steelhead population is at very 

low risk based on current abundance 

and productivity. Spawner abundance 

in recent years has been moderately 

variable; the most recent 10-year 

geomean number of natural-origin 

spawners was 1,740 (1,898 total 

spawners). During the period 1973-

1997, returns per spawner for steelhead 

in the North Fork John Day River 

ranged from 0.10 (1985) to 3.07 (1991). 

The most recent 20-year (1978-1997) 

SAR adjusted and delimited geomean of 

returns per spawner was 2.41 (Appendix 

B). 

Figure 6-5. North Fork John Day River Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-7 

The current point estimate for Abundance/Productivity on the viability curve for the population 

resides above the 1% risk curve and the 98% confidence interval for productivity is above the 

25% risk curve (Figure 6-5). The productivity value of 2.41 is well above the minimum needed 

at threshold abundance, and the abundance of 1,740 is above the 1,500 threshold for a “large” 

size population. 

The combined integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is low risk for the North Fork John 

Day population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and level of spatially mediated 

processes” was very low. The current spawner distribution mimics the intrinsic distribution. 

The population is distributed broadly across the landscape in numerous MaSAs and MiSAs. 

Good continuity exists between spawning areas and current gaps between spawning areas are 

similar to historical gaps. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” was 

low risk. However, there remains considerable uncertainty about the ratings for genetic variation 

and out-of-DPS hatchery strays in the natural spawners. Additional genetic analyses and 

interpretation is needed to determine if the genetic variation is similar to historical conditions and 

to examine evidence for degree of stray hatchery fish introgression. We rated the metric for outof-DPS hatchery strays as very high. The data used for this rating are a composite from four 

John Day populations. Additional population specific spawner composition data are needed to 

improve the certainty of the out-of-DPS stray hatchery risk rating. If there is significant hatchery 

introgression that is affecting the genetic variation through time, the risk rating for “genetic 

variation” will increase and the overall risk rating for Goal B and Spatial Structure/Diversity will 

also increase. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The overall viability rating for the North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population is 

highly viable as a result of the Abundance/Productivity rating of very low risk, and the Spatial 

Structure/Diversity rating of low risk. The productivity value of 2.41 is well above the minimum 

needed at threshold abundance, and the abundance of 1,740 is above the minimum of 1,500 

natural-origin spawners for a large size population. The Spatial Structure/Diversity metric 

ratings for genetic variation and out-of-DPS hatchery-origin spawner composition were the most 

influential on the overall Spatial Structure/Diversity assessment. There is considerable 

uncertainty regarding the genetic effect of out-of-DPS strays as well as the actual proportion of 

natural spawners that are hatchery strays. Enhanced monitoring efforts should be undertaken to 

develop better estimates of the composition of North Fork John Day spawners. 

6.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Middle Fork John Day population contains two MaSAs, Middle Fork John Day and Long 

Creek; it does not contain any MiSAs. Spawning is distributed broadly throughout the population 

boundaries, including mainstem areas in the lower and upper Middle Fork John Day and Long 

Creek. There are numerous tributary spawning streams distributed from the lower end of the 

population boundary to the uppermost reaches. 

The Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately 

variable; the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 756. During 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-8 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

the period 1969-1998, returns per spawner for steelhead in the Middle Fork John Day River 

ranged from 0.17 (1992) to 3.84 (1997). The most recent 20-year (1979-1998) geomean of 

returns per spawner SAR adjusted and delimited was 2.45 (Appendix B). 

The current point estimate for 

Abundance/Productivity on the viability 

curve for the Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead population is 

between 5% and 25% risk curves. This 

productivity is well above the minimum 

required at threshold abundance; 

however, abundance is below the 

threshold (Figure 6-6). 

Figure 6-6. Middle Fork John Day River Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is low risk for the Middle Fork population. The 

rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was 

between very low and low risk. The current spawner distribution of the Middle Fork population 

mimics the intrinsic distribution. The population is distributed broadly across the landscape, in 

both MaSAs with adequate gaps and good continuity between spawning areas. The rating for 

Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” was low risk. However, additional genetics 

analyses are needed to better assess genetic variation and hatchery introgression. This 

population was rated high risk for proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays based on a limited 

time series of composite John Day population data. Better population specific spawner 

composition data are needed to better understand the out-of-DPS hatchery stray influence. If 

there is significant hatchery introgression that affects genetic variation through time, then the risk 

rating will increase, thus raising the overall risk rating for Goal B and the overall rating for 

Spatial Structure/Diversity. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead population does not currently meet the 

ICTRT criteria for viable status, although it does meet the criteria for a “maintained” population 

because the abundance is well above the minimum of 500 natural-origin spawners for maintained 

status. The productivity point estimate of 2.45, as well as the lower end of the adjusted standard 

error, met the low risk criteria. The abundance of 756 is only 75.6% of the minimum threshold 

criteria of 1,000 natural-origin spawners for an intermediate size population. Increased annual 

abundance would allow this population to achieve a risk rating of low for 

abundance/productivity and raise the overall viability rating to viable. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-9 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

6.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

Steelhead spawn, rear, and migrate through the lower South Fork John Day River up to Izee 

Falls, a natural barrier at RM 28.5, and into Murderers Creek, Canyon Creek and other 

tributaries. The population contains three MaSAs (Upper South Fork John Day, Lower South 

Fork John Day and Murderers Creek) and no MiSAs. 

The South Fork John Day River Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on current 

abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately variable; 

the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 259. During the period 

1961-1998, returns per spawner for steelhead in the South Fork John Day River ranged from 

0.20 (1987) to 13.54 (1968). The most recent 20-year (1979-1998) geomean of returns per 

spawner, adjusted for marine survival and delimited, was 2.06 (Appendix B). 

The current point estimate for 

Abundance/Productivity on the 

viability curve for the South Fork John 

Day River summer steelhead 

population resides between the 25% 

and 5% viability curves. The lower 

bound of the adjusted standard error 

for both the productivity and 

abundance extend below the 25% risk 

level (Figure 6-7). 

Figure 6-7. South Fork John Day River Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is low risk for the South Fork John Day River 

population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated 

processes” rated midway between very low and low risk. Although the current spawner 

distribution mimics the intrinsic distribution, only three MaSAs exist within the population. 

Good continuity exists between spawning areas and gaps between areas have remained relatively 

unchanged. The rating for Goal B “maintaining natural levels of variation” is low risk. As is the 

case for all John Day steelhead populations there is uncertainty in ratings of metrics “genetic 

variation” and “proportion of spawners that are out-of-DPS strays.” We have limited genetics 

data for South Fork steelhead to determine if the current population variation is similar to 

historical conditions and to examine the degree of hatchery fish introgression. The metric for 

proportion of out-of-DPS strays rated as high risk. However, the analyses relied on composite 

data from four John Day populations. Additional population specific spawner composition data 

are needed to better inform the risk rating and to reduce the associated uncertainty. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-10 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

current

5% risk

25% risk

Overall Risk Rating 

The South Fork John Day River steelhead population does not currently meet the ICTRT criteria 

for viable status. The population does meet criteria for a “maintained” population because the 

abundance exceeds the minimum of 250 natural-origin spawners for maintained status. The 

recent 10-year geomean abundance of 259 is only 52% of the minimum goal of 500 for viable 

status of a “basic” size population. The 20-year delimited recruit per spawner point estimate 

resides above the minimum value required at a 500 abundance level; however, the lower end of 

the adjusted standard error is below the 25% risk level. Increased productivity in combination 

with abundance will allow this population to achieve viable status as the Spatial 

Structure/Diversity criteria achieved a low risk rating. While the population received a Spatial 

Structure/Diversity rating of low risk, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the spawner 

composition data. Enhanced monitoring of the hatchery-wild ratios on the South Fork spawning 

grounds will improve the hatchery fraction estimate and reduce the degree of uncertainty. 

6.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population occupies the John Day Basin above 

the mouth of the South Fork John Day River at Dayville. The population has five MaSAs: Upper 

John Day, Upper Middle Mainstem John Day, Beech, Laycock, and Canyon. It does not have 

any MiSAs. Spawning is distributed broadly across the population including mainstem reaches in 

the Upper John Day River, Canyon Creek, and Beech Creek, as well as in numerous tributaries 

from Dayville upstream to the headwaters. 

The Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately 

variable, the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 524 (572 total 

spawners). During the period 1969-1998, returns per spawner for steelhead in the Upper 

Mainstem John Day River ranged from 0.19 (1992) to 5.43 (1979). The most recent 20-year 

(1979-1998) SAR adjusted and delimited geomean of returns per spawner was 2.14 (Appendix 

B). 

The current point estimate for 

Abundance/Productivity on the 

viability curve for the Upper 

Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population resides between 

the 5% and 25% risk curves (Figure 

6-8). 

Figure 6-8. Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer 

Steelhead population abundance and productivity 

compared to the viability curve for the DPS. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-11 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is moderate risk for the Upper Mainstem John 

Day River population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially 

mediated processes” was very low risk. A rating of “very low” was achieved because the current 

distribution is nearly identical to the historical distribution. The rating for Goal B “maintaining 

natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. This risk rating was a result of a moderate rating 

for changes in major life history strategies. Additional genetics information needs to be assessed 

to determine current genetic variation and to examine for the degree of introgression of hatchery 

fish. The population was rated as high risk for out-of-DPS hatchery strays based on a limited 

time series of composite John Day population hatchery fish observation data. Better population 

specific spawner composition data are needed to better determine the out-of-DPS hatchery 

fraction. If there is significant hatchery introgression that affects the genetic variation of this 

population through time, then the risk rating for Goal B will increase, and the overall risk rating 

for Spatial Structure/Diversity will increase. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead population does not currently meet the 

ICTRT criteria for viable status, although it does meet criteria for a “maintained” population. 

The 10-year geomean abundance of 524 is well below the viable goal of 1,000 natural-origin 

spawners for an “intermediated” size population; however, the abundance is above the 500 

minimum recommended for maintained status of an intermediate size population. The 

productivity point estimate of 2.14 is above the minimum needed at an abundance of 1,000, and 

the lower end of the adjusted standard error is above the 25% risk level. An increase in 

abundance is needed for this population to achieve viable Abundance/Productivity criteria. In 

addition, the Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk due to loss in life history 

diversity and high risk for spawner composition. 

6.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Umatilla River steelhead population includes thirteen historical MaSAs: Butter, East Birch, 

West Birch, McKay, Meacham, Middle Umatilla, Lower Middle Umatilla, Upper Umatilla, 

Lower Umatilla, Lower Birch, Alder, Glade and Wildhorse. It contains three historical MiSAs: 

Alkali, Fourmile Canyon, and Cottonwood (Umatilla). Two of the MaSAs (Alder Creek and 

Glade Creek) and one MiSA (Fourmile Canyon) that are included in the Umatilla River 

population are direct tributaries to the Columbia River on the Washington side of the Columbia. 

These areas are considered in our assessment of spatial structure/diversity for the Umatilla 

steelhead population, but are not considered for abundance/productivity because no abundance 

data are available. Current spawning distribution is somewhat limited relative to historical and is 

concentrated in Birch Creek, Iskuulpa Creek, Meacham Creek, Upper Umatilla River, and the 

North and South Forks of the Umatilla River. 

The Umatilla River Summer Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on current spawner 

abundance and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately variable, 

the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 1,472 (2,347 total 

spawners). During the period 1967-2000, returns per spawner for steelhead in the Umatilla River 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-12 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

ranged from 0.3 (1978) to 4.98 (1998). The most recent 20-year (1981-2000) geomean of returns 

per spawner SAR adjusted and delimited at 75% of the threshold was 1.50 (Appendix B). 

The productivity rating for the 

Umatilla River summer steelhead 

population is in the low risk zone 

because the current point estimate 

on the viability curve for the 

population is above 5% risk level 

and the adjusted standard error is 

above the 25% risk level. 

Abundance is moderate because the 

point estimate is slightly below the 

5% risk level (Figure 6-9). 

Figure 6-9. Umatilla River Summer Steelhead 

population abundance and productivity compared to the 

viability curve for the DPS. 

The combined integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating is moderate risk for the Umatilla 

River population. The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated 

processes” was moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in spawner distribution 

relative to intrinsic potential distribution. This reduction has caused significant increases in gaps 

between spawning areas as well as disrupted continuity. The rating for Goal B “maintaining 

natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. Habitat changes have been significant in the 

Umatilla Basin resulting in changes to flow profiles and elevated temperatures. These changes 

have resulted in impacts to life history diversity and phenotypic trait variation. The out-of-DPS 

spawners in combination with local-origin hatchery fish spawning naturally put the population at 

high risk for spawner composition. Hydrosystem effects and within basin habitat changes have 

likely resulted in selective mortality of specific components of juvenile and adult life stages 

resulting in a moderate risk rating. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Umatilla River Summer Steelhead population does not currently meet the ICTRT criteria for 

viable status because Abundance/Productivity and Spatial Structure/Diversity risks ratings are 

both moderate risk. However, the population does meet criteria for a “maintained” population 

because the abundance level is well above the minimum 500 required for maintained status. The 

20-year delimited recruit per spawner point estimate is 1.50 with the lower end of the adjusted 

standard error above the 25% risk level, thus placing the productivity at low risk. The 10-year 

mean abundance of 1,472 is 98.1% of the minimum threshold of 1,500. Improvement in many of 

the Spatial Structure/Diversity metrics and a small increase in the average abundance will raise 

the population to viable status. 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-13 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-year geomean abundance

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

6.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Walla Walla Basin spans the Oregon-Washington border east of the Columbia River. The 

main tributaries of the Walla Walla River are the North and South forks and Couse, Pine, Birch, 

Cottonwood and Mill creeks. The North and South forks and Couse Creek are entirely within 

Oregon, but the remaining tributaries span the state line. Birch and Pine creeks originate in 

Oregon, but their confluence with the Walla Walla River is in Washington. Cottonwood Creek 

flows into Yellowhawk Creek in Washington. Mill Creek originates in Washington, flows 

through Oregon for approximately six miles and enters the Walla Walla River in Washington, 

just west of the City of Walla Walla. 

The Walla Walla River population is comprised of three historical MaSAs (Walla Walla, Mill 

and Pine) and two historical MiSAs (Dry and Switzler). Current spawning distribution is 

substantially reduced relative to the historical intrinsic distribution and is concentrated in the 

North and South forks of the Walla Walla River, Couse Creek, Mill Creek and Dry Creek (WA). 

The Walla Walla Summer Steelhead population is at moderate risk based on current abundance 

and productivity. Spawner abundance in recent years has been moderately variable; the most 

recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners was 650. During the period 1993-

2000, returns per spawner for steelhead in the Walla Walla River ranged from 0.39 (1993) to 

2.65 (1998). The most recent 8-year (1993-2000) geomean of returns per spawner, delimited at 

the median and SAR adjusted was 1.34 (Appendix B). 

The current point estimate for 

Abundance/Productivity on the 

viability curve for the Walla Walla 

River summer steelhead population 

falls between the 5% and 25% risk 

curves (Figure 6-10). This risk rating is 

based on a short data series, and 

should be viewed with caution. 

Figure 6-10. Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead 

population abundance and productivity compared to the 

viability curve for the DPS. 

The integrated Spatial Structure/Diversity rating for the Walla Walla population is moderate risk. 

The rating for Goal A “allowing natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes” was 

moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in spawner distribution that has resulted in 

increased gaps and loss of continuity within the population and between the Walla Walla 

population and other Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. The rating for Goal B “maintaining 

natural levels of variation” was moderate risk. Water temperature and hydrograph changes as 

well as barriers have likely influenced life history diversity and phenotypic expression. Out-of-
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-14 

DPS spawners have put the population in the moderate risk category for the spawner 

composition metric. Within basin habitat changes have likely resulted in selective mortality at 

multiple life stages resulting in a moderate risk rating. 

Overall Risk Rating 

The Walla Walla Summer Steelhead population does not currently meet ICTRT criteria for 

viable status, although it does meet the criteria for a “maintained” population. The 

abundance/productivity values are at moderate risk and the time series is short resulting in 

considerable uncertainty. The 10-year geomean abundance of 650 is well below the minimum 

threshold of 1,000 for viable status. However, current abundance exceeds the 500 minimum 

recommended by the ICTRT for maintained status of an “intermediate” size population. We 

need additional brood years to demonstrate sustained recruits per spawner and abundance values 

above the low risk criteria level. Significant improvements to spatial structure and diversity are 

needed to improve the risk level. 

6.11 Major Population Groups Viability Assessments 

The status of each MPG is assessed based on the status of the constituent populations. Viability 

assessment findings for the three Mid-C steelhead MPGs that contain Oregon populations are 

summarized below. 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

To achieve viable status in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, the Fifteenmile Creek, 

Deschutes River Eastside, Deschutes River Westside, and Klickitat populations must all achieve 

viable status. The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG is below viable status because the 

Deschutes River Westside population did not meet viability criteria, and the Deschutes Crooked 

River population is extinct. (Table 6-1). 

Table 6-1. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries MPG. 

 

 Abundance___ Productivity___ 

 

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population 

Extant/ 

Extinct Mean 

Lower 

90% CI Mean 

Lower 

90% CI 

A/P 

Risk 

Processes 

Risk 

Diversity 

Risk 

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability 

Rating 

Fifteenmile 

Creek 

Extant 703 481 1.82 1.23 Low Very Low Low Low Viable 

Deschutes River 

Eastside Extant 1,599 896 1.89 1.10 Low Low Moderate Moderate Viable 

Deschutes River 

Westside Extant 456 306 1.05 0.76 High Low Moderate Moderate High Risk 

Deschutes 

Crooked River Extinct 0 NA 0 NA Extinct NA NA NA Extinct 

John Day River MPG 

To achieve viable status in the John Day River MPG, the Lower Mainstem John Day River, 

North Fork John Day River, and either the Middle Fork John Day River or Upper Mainstem John 

Day River populations must achieve viable status. The John Day River MPG is below viable 
Section 6, Current Status 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

6-15 

status. The North Fork population is highly viable, however all of the other John Day River 

populations were below viable status (Table 6-2). 

Table 6-2. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the John Day River 

MPG. 

 

 Abundance___ Productivity___ 

 

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population 

Extant/ 

Extinct Mean 

Lower 

90% CI Mean 

Lower 

90% CI 

A/P 

Risk 

Processes 

Risk 

Diversity 

Risk 

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability Rating 

Lower Mainstem 

John Day River Extant 1,800 1,065 2.99 1.91 Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 

North Fork John 

Day River Extant 1,740 1,375 2.41 1.62 Very Low Very Low Low Low Highly Viable 

Middle Fork 

John Day River Extant 756 508 2.45 1.81 Moderate Low Low Low Maintained 

South Fork John 

Day River Extant 259 168 2.06 1.26 Moderate Very Low Low Low Maintained 

Upper Mainstem 

John Day River Extant 524 399 2.14 1.15 Moderate Very Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

To achieve viable status in the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG, the Umatilla River population 

and either the Walla Walla River or Touchet River population must achieve viable status. The 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG is below viable status because neither the Umatilla River or 

Walla Walla River populations meet viability criteria (Table 6-3). 

Table 6-3. Viability assessment results for Mid-C steelhead populations in the Umatilla/Walla 

Walla Rivers MPG. 

 Abundance Productivity

Goal A 

Natural Goal B Overall 

Population Extant/ 

Extinct 

Mean Lower 

90% CI 

Mean Lower 

90% CI

A/P Risk Processes 

Risk

Diversity 

Risk

Integrated 

SS/D Risk 

Population 

Viability Rating

 

Willow Creek Extinct 0 NA 0 NA Extinct NA NA NA Extinct 

Umatilla River Extant 1,472 988 1.50 1.11 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Maintained 

Walla Walla 

River Extant 650 459 1.34 1.05 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Maintained 

6.12 DPS Viability Assessment 

All major population groups must achieve viable status for the DPS to be considerable viable. 

The Mid-C steelhead DPS is below viable status because none of the MPGs currently achieve 

viable status. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-1 

Section 7 Viability Gaps 

In the previous two sections we described viability criteria and presented results of the current 

status assessments. The status assessments provide a visual and narrative comparison of the 

current status relative to the abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity criteria. In 

this section, we present the results of ICTRT (2007a) abundance/productivity gap analysis and 

our spatial structure/diversity gap analyses. 

7.1 Gaps Approach 

This section provides a brief overview of the methods to establish a general understanding of the 

approach. Detailed methods for abundance/productivity gaps determination are provided in 

ICTRT (2007a). 

The abundance/productivity gap is defined as the quantitative relative amount of change in 

survival or capacity that is required for a population to improve from current status to a specific 

viability level. The purpose of determining gaps is to inform planners and managers how much 

change is required to improve current status to a specific viability level. Observed gaps represent 

the amount of improvement needed assuming that the climate/environmental conditions and 

average survivals that occurred during the time period of the status assessments (generally 1980-

2001) will be the same in the future. The gap analysis provides estimates of the magnitude of 

survival or capacity change that are needed to reach viability criteria for 25% (moderate risk), 

5% (low risk) and 1% (very low risk) probability of extinction over a 100-year timeframe as 

defined by the viability curves. Beyond estimating observed gaps, the ICTRT used a modeling 

approach to evaluate the influence of alternative climate regimes and hydrosystem scenarios on 

observed gaps. 

We only present observed gaps in this section. The influence of alternative ocean survival 

scenarios, hydrosystem scenarios, and other management actions on observed gaps is presented 

in Section 10 “Management Action Effectiveness.” In addition to the gaps calculated for the 

current A/P status point estimate, gaps are also calculated to address the uncertainty criteria. 

Estimates of current abundance and productivity of a population are based on sampling data and 

are therefore subject to statistical uncertainty. The level of uncertainty, especially for the 

productivity, can have a substantial impact relative to confidence in the empirical difference 

between current status and specific risk levels. We incorporate an uncertainty gap into our 

analyses to minimize the potential of a substantial underestimate in the gap between the current 

A/P estimate and the specific risk levels. For Mid-C steelhead, we applied the following 

uncertainty criteria in our viability assessments: To achieve the 5% risk criteria (low risk), the 

lower end of the productivity 90% confidence interval needed to be above the 25% risk curve; 

and, to meet the 1% risk criteria (very low risk), the lower end of the 98% confidence interval 

needed to be above the 25% risk curve. We calculated gaps for both the 5% and 1% uncertainty 

criteria. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-2 

The ICTRT described a four-step process for determining observed abundance/productivity gaps. 

We summarize the steps below and encourage readers to view ICTRT (2007a) for a more 

extensive explanation. 

1. Estimate current intrinsic productivity and natural-origin abundance (method previously 

described). 

2. Estimate adult spawner population size that achieves juvenile production capacity. The

ICTRT used population specific stock recruitment data fitted to a Hockey-Stick function 

to estimate current capacity. The full range of data for each population was used in the 

analyses. Simple cohort analyses were used to generate broodyear specific estimates of 

spawners. Spawner numbers were standardized to reflect average recent SARs and 

harvest rates to remove the substantial variation in ocean survival and harvest rates. 

Population specific estimates of spawners at capacity were highly variable. To address 

the effects of sampling variability, populations were grouped by species and the 

estimated capacity was regressed against the independent estimates of capacity derived 

from the intrinsic habitat potential analyses. The ultimate estimate of capacity was 

derived as the mean of the population specific stock-recruitment estimate and the 

corresponding regression-based estimate. This estimate is referred to as Model Capacity 

in the equations below. 

3. Assign populations to categories based on the point estimate position relative to the 

abundance/productivity variability curve. Many of the Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations clustered together in a zone (ICTRT Zone C) where the 

abundance/productivity point estimates fell below the viability curve, substantially to the 

right (greater than) of the minimum productivity values. Those Mid-C steelhead 

populations that did not reside in Zone C were populations that had either 

abundance/productivity point estimates above the viability curve including Fifteenmile 

Creek, Deschutes River Eastside, and North Fork John Day River, or productivity and 

abundance values below the minimum criteria including the Deschutes River Westside 

population. 

4. Calculate the gap as the minimum distance for the current abundance/productivity point 

estimate (observed gap) to each viability curve and from the lower end of the 90% and 

98% CI’s to the 25% risk curve. In cases where the uncertainty criteria gap was greater 

than the A/P point estimate gap, the uncertainty criteria gap was used. All of the Oregon 

Mid-C populations that did not meet A/P viability criteria, except the Deschutes River 

Westside population, exhibited current productivity above minimums needed at threshold 

abundance with recent average abundance below the threshold. The ICTRT concluded 

that these populations were strongly affected by density dependence. 

The method for calculating gaps for populations with moderate to high productivity and 

relatively low abundance is detailed in ICTRT 2007a. The gaps are estimated based on 

estimated difference in observed abundance and estimated capacity relative to the threshold 

abundance level specific to the population. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-3 

The gap was calculated as: 

 Survival Gap = Threshold Abundance ÷ EQ capacity – 1 

 where EQ Capacity = Model Capacity + 10-year geomean abundance ÷ 2

 

The calculated gaps are expressed as the proportional increase in productivity, but can also be 

considered the proportional increases needed in effective capacity of the population. Because the 

threshold abundance levels are equal at the 5% and 1% risk levels, populations that reside in 

Zone C have the same point estimate gaps at these two risk levels. 

Uncertainty gaps are calculated in a different way because they only address required changes in 

productivity. Uncertainty gaps are calculated as the relative proportional change in productivity 

required to move the lower end of the 90% confidence interval to the 25% risk curve for the low 

risk criteria, and to move the lower end of the 98% confidence interval to the 25% risk curve for 

the very low risk criteria. 

The ICTRT has not provided specific guidance on how to define Spatial Structure/Diversity 

gaps; therefore we developed the following steps and criteria for identifying these gaps. 

1) Identify for each population all spatial structure and diversity metrics with ratings of 

moderate or high risk. 

2) For the metrics rated moderate, determine if the rating is a result of changed status from 

intrinsic conditions or if the rating is a result of an intrinsic moderate risk for the metric. 

3) Characterize spatial structure and diversity gaps for each population as those metrics that 

are rated high risk and those metrics that are rated moderate risk because the current 

status is impaired relative to the intrinsic condition. 

7.2 Population Specific Viability Gaps 

The results of gaps analyses for Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations are discussed below and 

shown in Table 7-1. 

 

7.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 703 spawners exceeds the minimum 

threshold abundance of 500. The current productivity estimate of 1.82 recruits per spawner 

resides between the 5% and 1% risk curves. There is no observed gap or uncertainty gap for the 

5% risk level. The observed and uncertainty gaps for the 1% risk level are 0.03 and 0.09 

respectively (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was low risk. All of the Spatial Structure and 

Diversity metrics were rated very low or low risk, therefore there are no Spatial 

Structure/Diversity gaps for this population. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-4 

Table 7-1. Abundance/Productivity statistics, risk ratings, and observed and uncertainty gaps for 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead populations. Observed gaps are calculated from current status point 

estimates. Uncertainty gaps are for achieving uncertainty criteria and are only presented when 

they exceed the observed gaps. Negative gaps indicate that current abundance/productivity 

exceeds the criteria. Gap data are from ICTRT (2007a). A/P SS/D Gaps 

Current Status Equilibrium Risk Risk Observed (point estimate) Uncertainty

Population Abundance Productivity Abundance Rating Rating 25% 5% 1% 5% 1% 

Fifteenmile Cr. 703 1.82 632 Low Low -.41 -.21 .03 .09 

Deschutes R. 

Eastside 1,599 1.89 1,501 Low Moderate -.46 -.34 -.20 .05 

Deschutes R. 

Westside 456 1.05 448 High Moderate .14 .78 .92 

Lower Mainstem 

John Day R. 1,800 2.99 2,019 Moderate Moderate .00 .11 .11 

North Fork John 

Day R. 1,740 2.41 1,689 Very Low Low -.58 -.49 -.38 

Middle Fork John 

Day R. 756 2.45 928 Moderate Low .00 .08 .08 

South Fork 

John Day R. 259 2.00 409 Moderate Low -.02 .22 .22 .23 

Upper Mainstem 

John Day R. 524 2.14 730 Moderate Moderate -.02 .37 .37 

Umatilla River 1,472 1.50 1,371 Moderate Moderate -.32 .09 .09 

Walla Walla River 650 1.34 625 Moderate Moderate -.08 .34 .45 

7.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,599 spawners substantially exceeds 

the minimum threshold abundance of 1,000. The current productivity estimate of 1.89 resides in 

the very low risk zone and, thus, there are no observed abundance/productivity gaps. The lower 

end of the productivity 98% confidence interval is below the 25% risk curve resulting in a 0.05 

gap to meet uncertainty criteria for 1% risk level. The abundance/productivity dataset is a 

relatively short time series which results in a larger 90% CI than is typical of most other Oregon 

Mid-C populations. Additional brood years will likely decrease the uncertainty around the 

productivity point estimate (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Spatial structure/diversity gaps 

were identified for the following metrics: 

Phenotypic variation 

Metric rated moderate risk due to likely reduction in juvenile and adult migration patterns 

resulting from flow and temperature changes in tributary production areas. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-5 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to the high proportion of Snake River strays 

spawning naturally in the population. 

Out-of-population spawners within the MPG. Metric rated moderate risk due to the proportion 

of Round Butte Hatchery fish spawning naturally in the population. 

7.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 456 spawners is well below the 

abundance threshold of 1,000, the threshold abundance for currently available habitat. The 

current productivity estimate of 1.05 recruits per spawner is well below the minimum of 1.35 

required at the threshold abundance. The observed gaps, that are greater than uncertainty gaps, 

for the 5% and 1% risk levels are 0.78 and 0.92 respectively. This gap is by far the largest 

observed gap of all the Oregon Mid-C populations. The large gap results from the substantial 

difference in the equilibrium abundance (448) and the threshold abundance, as well as the low 

productivity (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Spatial Structure/Diversity 

gaps were identified for the following metrics: 

Spatial extent or range of population 

Metric rated moderate risk because spawner distribution is substantially reduced from historical 

due to blocked access to Whychus Creek and the Metolius River. 

Increase or decrease in gaps or continuity 

Metric rated moderate risk due to loss of occupancy in areas above Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex. 

Genetic variation 

Metric rated moderate risk because there are limited genetics data available and the samples that 

have been analyzed show similarity to out-of-DPS hatchery strays. 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk because out-of-DPS strays have comprised a 

significant proportion of the natural spawners in this population for many generations. 

7.2.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,800 spawners is 72% of the threshold 

abundance of 2,250. The current productivity of 2.99 recruits per spawner is well above the 

minimum required at threshold abundance to meet the 1% risk level. The lower end of the 98% 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-6 

CI also resides above the minimum needed to meet the 1% risk level. The observed 

abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.11. This gap is a result of 

the difference in the equilibrium abundance (2,019) and the threshold abundance (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Gaps were identified for the 

following Spatial Structure/Diversity metrics:

Major life history strategies 

Metric rated moderate risk because habitat changes have resulted in reduced juvenile life history 

diversity and restricted summer rearing distribution.

Genetic variation

Metric rated moderate risk because there are no genetics data and due to potential genetic effects 

of the high proportion of out-of-DPS spawners.

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to high proportion and increasing trend of outof-DPS spawners. 

7.2.5 North Fork John Day River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,740 spawners exceeds the threshold 

abundance of 1,500. The current productivity of 2.41 recruits per spawner is well above the 

value needed to meet the 1% risk level. The lower end of the 90% CI resides above the 1% risk 

level. There are no abundance/productivity gaps for the 5% or 1% risk levels (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was low risk. All metrics were rated very low or 

low risk, except for the following: 

Spawner composition

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of Snake 

River hatchery strays within this population. In addition, there is considerable uncertainty 

regarding the hatchery fraction estimates for this population. 

7.2.6 Middle Fork John Day River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 756 spawners is 75.6% of the threshold 

abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 2.45 recruits per spawner is above the minimum 

needed at threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI is well above the 25% risk level. 

The observed abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels is 0.08. This gap 

is a result of the difference in equilibrium abundance (928) and threshold abundance (Table 7-1). 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-7 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was low risk. All metrics were rated very low or 

low risk, except for the following: 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays within this population. 

7.2.7 South Fork John Day River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 259 spawners is 51.8% of the threshold 

abundance of 500. The current productivity of 2.00 recruits per spawner is greater than the 

minimum required at the abundance threshold. The lower end of the 90% CI extends well below 

the 25% risk level. The observed abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk levels 

is 0.22. Uncertainty gap for the 1% risk level is 0.23. The gaps are primarily a result of the 

difference between the equilibrium abundance (409) and the threshold abundance (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was low risk. All metrics were rated very low or 

low risk, except the following: 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to the high estimated proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays within this population. 

7.2.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 524 spawners is only 52.4% of the 

threshold abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 2.14 recruits per spawner is well 

above the minimum required at the threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI resides 

above the 25% risk level. The observed abundance/productivity gap to reach the 5% and 1% risk 

levels is 0.37. The uncertainty gaps are less than the observed gaps. The gap is primarily a 

result of the difference in the equilibrium abundance (730) and threshold abundance (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Gaps were identified for the 

following Spatial Structure/Diversity metrics:

Major life history strategies 

Metric rated moderate risk due to reduced opportunities for juvenile movement patterns and 

reduced summer rearing distribution that has resulted from altered mainstem and tributary 

habitats. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-8 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated high risk due to the high proportion of out-of-DPS strays 

and uncertainty in the estimates of hatchery fraction. 

7.2.9 Umatilla River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 1,472 spawners is 98.1% of the 

threshold abundance of 1,500. The current productivity of 1.50 recruits per spawner is above the 

minimum of 1.26 required at the threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% CI resides 

slightly above the 25% risk level. The observed abundance/productivity gap for the 5% and 1% 

risk levels is 0.09. The uncertainty gaps are less than the observed gaps (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Gaps were identified for the 

following Spatial Structure/Diversity metrics:

Spatial extent or range of population 

Metric rated moderate risk because the current spawner distribution is substantially reduced from 

the historical distribution. Loss of spawning in the Butter Creek and McKay Creek watersheds 

has resulted in the reduced distribution. There is considerable uncertainty regarding occupancy 

of the Alder and Glade MaSAs. 

Increase or decrease in gaps and continuity 

Metric rated moderate risk because of increased gaps and changed continuity resulting from 

losses of occupancy in the Butter Creek and McKay Creek watersheds. 

Major life history strategies

Metric rated moderate risk as a result of reduced opportunity for life history expression for 

juvenile and adult life stages. This reduced opportunity has resulted from significant habitat 

changes in the Umatilla Basin. 

Phenotypic variation 

Metric rated moderate risk due to effects of flow and temperature on adult and juvenile migration 

characteristics. 

Spawner composition 

Overall rating is high risk due to two moderate ratings for the component metrics. 

 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated moderate risk due to the estimated level of strays observed 

at Three-mile Falls Dam over the last three generations. 

Within-population spawners. Metric rated moderate risk due to the proportion and duration of 

Umatilla Hatchery fish spawning in the basin. 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-9 

Selective change in Natural Processes-Habitat 

Metric rated moderate risk due to the selective effects of tributary temperature and flow changes 

on juvenile and adult migration characteristics and the effect of mainstem Columbia River 

temperature and flow on adult migration, survival, and straying. 

7.2.10 Walla Walla River Population Gaps 

Abundance/Productivity 

The recent 10-year geomean natural-origin abundance of 650 spawners is well below the 

threshold abundance of 1,000. The current productivity of 1.34 recruits per spawner is slightly 

less than the minimum of 1.35 required at the threshold abundance. The lower end of the 90% 

CI extends well below the 25% risk level. The observed gaps for abundance/productivity at the 

5% and 1% risk levels were 0.34 and 0.45 respectively. The uncertainty gaps at the 5% and 1% 

risk levels were less than the observed gaps. These gaps should be viewed cautiously because 

there is only a short data series available to estimate productivity (Table 7-1). 

Spatial Structure/Diversity 

The overall Spatial Structure/Diversity rating was moderate risk. Gaps were identified for the 

following Spatial Structure/Diversity metrics: 

Spatial extent or range of population 

Metric rated moderate risk because the current distribution is substantially reduced from the 

historical distribution. Loss of spawning in the Pine Creek MaSA and Switzler MiSA has 

resulted in reduced distribution. 

Increase or decrease in gaps and continuity 

Metric rated moderate risk because of increased gaps and changed continuity resulting from loss 

of occupancy in the Pine Creek MaSA. 

Major life history strategies 

Metric rated moderate risk due to changes in juvenile and adult movement patterns as well as 

reduced juvenile rearing distribution relative to historical opportunities. The reduced life history 

strategies have resulted from significant flow and temperature changes within the basin. 

Phenotypic variation 

Metric rated moderate risk due to effect of flow and temperature changes on phenotypic 

variation. Adult and juvenile migration patterns have been significantly altered due to these 

habitat changes. 

Spawner composition 

Out-of-DPS spawners. Metric rated moderate risk due to the proportion and duration of out-ofDPS spawners in the population. 

 
Section 7, Viability Gaps 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

7-10 

Selective change in Natural Processes-Habitat 

Metric rated moderate risk due primarily to tributary flow and temperature effects on juvenile 

and adult migration and movement patterns and the effect of mainstem Columbia River 

temperature and flow effects on adult migration, survival, and straying.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-1 

Section 8 Limiting Factors and Threats 

This section describes limiting factors and threats to the viability of Mid-C steelhead in Oregon. 

The limiting factors and threats analyses serve as an essential foundation for the development 

and prioritization of management actions across the entire lifecycle. Findings were identified 

based on many sources of information, including the Mid-C steelhead Expert Panel’s report, 

subbasin plans, ODEQ reports, ICTRT reports, NOAA’s limiting factors modules, ODFW 

reports, hydrosystem biological opinion remand documents, and numerous other sources. 

Section 8.1 provides a broad level perspective of the primary limiting factors and threats across 

and within Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. This broader look is followed by more 

detailed, in-depth discussions of limiting factors and threats in Section 8.2 (Tributary Habitat), 

8.3 (Hydrosystem), 8.4 (Estuarine and Plume Habitat), 8.5 (Harvest), 8.6 (Hatchery), 8.7 

(Predation and Competition) and 8.8 (Climate Change). 

8.1 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats Across and Within Populations 

This section describes the primary factors and threats constraining the viability of Oregon’s MidC steelhead populations throughout their life cycles. It summarizes the findings of the Mid-C 

Expert Panel, the Mid-C recovery planning team, other groups and published information 

regarding the significance of these various factors and threats both across and within the 

populations. We used the following definitions of limiting factors and threats for our 

assessment: 

Limiting factors: The physical, biological, or chemical conditions of the environment 

and associated ecological processes and interactions (e.g., habitat connectivity, water 

quality, physical habitat quality, etc.) that influence Mid-C steelhead viable salmonid 

population parameters, including abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Threats: Human actions (e.g., fishing, operation of hatcheries, operation of hydrosystem, 

land use practices, etc.) or natural events (e.g., flood, drought, volcano, etc.) that cause or 

contribute to limiting factors. Threats may influence one or multiple life stages and may 

occur in the present or future or have occurred in the past. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel, created by ODFW for this purpose, consisted of 12 biologists with 

significant knowledge of the limiting factors and threats influencing steelhead production in the 

Mid-C steelhead DPS. Panelists examined limiting factors and threats for the ten independent 

steelhead populations, and then identified common key and secondary threat themes for all of the 

populations. They used a systematic process, similar to a Delphi process, during their 

deliberations. The Panel’s approach in their deliberations and findings are discussed in the 

report Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Steelhead in the Oregon Portion of the 

Mid-Columbia Distinct Population Segment: Results of Expert Panel Deliberations (Mid-C 

Expert Panel 2006). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-2 

8.1.1 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats across Populations 

Several factors and threats play a critical role in restricting viability across Oregon’s Mid-C 

steelhead populations. 

Land Use 

We acknowledge that land use practices have improved significantly over the past few decades. 

In the tributary watersheds land managers, local land owners, and others have improved habitat 

management in an effort to enhance watershed conditions to support steelhead recovery. Actions 

to improve watershed conditions from the uplands to the floodplain are allowing, in some cases, 

natural ecosystem functions to recover. Although many steps have been taken, there are many 

more needed to achieve recovery goals. Tributary habitat degradation from past and/or present 

land use remains a key concern for all of the populations. Steelhead have been adversely 

affected by modified and reduced streamflows, impaired water quality due to elevated water 

temperatures and agricultural chemicals, impaired upstream and downstream fish passage, 

degraded channel structure and complexity (including riffles, pools and large woody debris), loss 

of riparian vegetation, reduced floodplain connectivity, and excessive levels of fine sediments 

caused by altered sediment routing. Threats contributing to these factors include agricultural, 

forestry and grazing practices that negatively impact steelhead growth and survival, dams and 

other barriers, water withdrawals, roads and channel manipulations. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel identified land use as having the most key concerns of any of the threat 

categories. Depending on the population, the Panel listed the following as either key or 

secondary concerns attributable to land use: 1) impaired upstream and downstream movement of 

juvenile and adult steelhead; 3) impaired physical habitat quality; 4) impaired water quality due 

to elevated water temperatures and agricultural chemicals; 5) reduced water quantity and/or 

modified hydrologic processes. Listed as secondary concerns for all populations were the 

impacts of fine sediment on steelhead eggs and alevins, and the impact of predation by birds on 

pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat alterations resulting from the creation 

of dredge spoil islands. Panelists noted that current land use practices are considerably improved 

over historical practices. 

Hatcheries 

Out-of-DPS hatchery strays pose significant risk to several of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead 

populations, particularly to the Eastside and Westside Deschutes and John Day populations. 

Viability assessments, summarized in Section 6 of this document and presented in Appendix B, 

identified that a significant proportion of spawners in the Deschutes River and John Day River 

populations were out-of-DPS strays. In addition, these populations were rated at high risk for 

spawner composition due to the abundance of strays. Biologists remain especially concerned 

regarding the continuing detrimental impact of stray out-of-DPS hatchery fish in natural 

spawning areas on the genetic traits and productivity of these natural populations. Hatchery 

programs operated within the Mid-C steelhead DPS ― including the Umatilla, Walla Walla and 

Westside Deschutes subbasins ― also create some risks. The Mid-C Expert Panel ranked the 

impact of hatchery strays as a key concern to the Eastside and Westside Deschutes and Lower 

John Day populations, and as a secondary concern to the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-3 

Hydrosystem 

The mainstem Columbia River hydrosystem is considered a primary threat to the viability of 

Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. Specific viability concerns identified by the Mid-C 

Expert Panel related primarily to effects of delayed upstream passage (adults), direct and indirect 

mortality on downstream migrants (juveniles), alteration of the hydrograph (mainstem and 

estuary flow regime), depletion of historically available nutrients, and degraded rearing and food 

resources for both presmolts and smolts in the Columbia. 

Results of the BiOp Framework Work Group support this conclusion. This work group was 

created by NMFS to provide scientific expertise during development of its Biological Opinion 

(BiOp) evaluating effects of operations of the FCRPS. One work group task was to estimate the 

relative magnitude of human-caused mortality factors influencing Interior Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead populations, including Mid-C steelhead. During this evaluation, the work 

group found that the FCRPS hydrosystem had the greatest relative impact on the Mid-C 

steelhead populations compared with other human-induced mortality effects (Step 4 Report 

2006) (Table 8-1). The ICTRT reached a similar conclusion in September 2006, when members 

rated the mainstem Columbia River hydrosystem as a major limiting factor for all populations in 

the DPS. Oregon’s recovery planning team also determined that the mainstem hydropower 

system represents a primary threat to the viability of Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. The 

Expert Panel’s findings were generally consistent with the BiOp Framework Work Group’s 

findings on magnitude of human-induced mortality, however, the Expert Panel considered the 

mainstem Columbia hydrosystem a threat of moderate concern to the populations and generally 

considered legacy and current land use as a greater threat than the hydrosystem. 

Impacts from the mainstem Columbia River hydrosystem increase somewhat for each of the 

populations in direct relation to the number of dams the fish must pass during their migration to 

and from the Pacific Ocean. Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations pass from one to four 

Columbia River dams: the Fifteenmile Creek population passes one dam; Deschutes River 

populations pass two dams; John Day River and Umatilla River populations pass three dams; and 

the Walla Walla River population passes four dams. 

Several hydroelectric dams on Columbia River tributaries also pose significant threats to the 

viability of specific populations. The Expert Panel listed the impact of the Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex as a key concern for Westside Deschutes and Crooked River populations 

 

Harvest 

Given current management regulations for mainstem Columbia River and tributary fisheries, 

harvest is not considered a primary or secondary threat due to the low impact on viability. The 

ICTRT identified harvest-related effects as a secondary level limiting factor and the Mid-C 

Expert panel did not identify harvest as either a key or secondary concern for Oregon’s Mid-C 

steelhead populations. The panel, however, did express concerns over the impact that mortality 

associated with catch and release fisheries have on Westside and Eastside Deschutes populations. 

Predation 

Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia 

was listed by the Expert panel as a secondary concern for all Mid-C steelhead populations. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-4 

Predation is a primary concern for juvenile and adult steelhead in the Columbia River estuary 

and plume. Estuary habitat modifications have increased the number and/or predation 

effectiveness of Caspian terns, cormorants, and gull species (Fresh et al. 2005). The increasing 

abundance of native pinnipeds has resulted in increased predation on adult salmonids to a point 

of concern. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-5

Table 8-1. Ranges of proportional reduction in survival for human-induced mortality factors that influence Oreg

River steelhead. Negative values are truncated to zero (Step 4 Report 2006). 

Location 

Population 

FCRPS 

Hydro 

(juvenile) 

FCRPS 

Hydro 

Latent 

FCRPS 

Hydro 

(adult) 

Tribal 

In-River 

Harvest 

NonTribal 

In-River 

Harvest 

Indirect 

and 

Additional 

Harvest 

Tributary 

Habitat 

Tributary 

Habitat 

Delayed Hatchery Estuary 

Above McNary Dam 

Walla Walla River .47 .05 -.29 0 -.02 0 -.10 .03 0 -.07 .25 0 -.03 .02 -.05 .04 

Above John Day Dam 

Umatilla River 

John Day Subbasin 

(5 populations) 

.39 .06 -.22 0 -.02 0 -.10 .03 0 -.07 .25 0 -.03 .02 -.05 .04 

Above The Dalles Dam 

Deschutes River 

(2 populations) 

.24 .08 -.15 0 -.02 0 -.10 .03 0 -.07 .20 0 -.03 .02 -.05 .04 

Above Bonneville Dam 

Fifteenmile Creek 

.15 .08 0 -.02 0 -.10 .03 0 -.07 .20 0 -.03 .02 -.05 .04 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-6 

8.1.2 Primary Limiting Factors and Threats Within Populations 

 

During the recovery planning process, the recovery planning team and the Mid-C Expert Panel 

conducted separate evaluations of limiting factors and threats for the ten independent steelhead 

populations throughout their life cycles, and then identified the primary, or key and secondary, 

constraints limiting population viability. The limiting factors and threats assessment in this plan 

reflects information gained from many sources including subbasin plans, water quality reports, 

ICTRT assessments, NOAA limiting factors modules and ODFW reports. The results from the 

two evaluations, which are generally similar, are summarized below. 

 

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: low flows, high water temperatures, 

degraded riparian condition, sediment routing, degraded floodplain, degraded channel 

structure (channel confinement and overall habitat diversity); Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Current land use practices (including roads, residential development, 

agricultural practices and forest practices) and the Columbia River mainstem hydropower 

system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices are the primary threat 

to the viability of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population (Table 8-2). 

Table 8-2. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population 

(Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Fifteenmile Creek 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures; 

agricultural chemicals in tributaries; reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr and winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, and forest practices, road maintenance) that 

negatively impact steelhead growth and survival in tributary streams. Improvement of some habitat 

conditions is expected to occur in the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved 

over historical practices. 

 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at dams; 

delayed upstream migration of returning adults over dams; cumulative impact of system on mainstem and 

estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; 

increased fine sediment from past and present agricultural and forestry practices reduces survival of eggs and 

alevins in tributary streams. 

Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in mainstem Columbia. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-7 

Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded riparian condition, low flows, 

high water temperatures, degraded channel structure/complexity and floodplain 

connectivity, impaired fish passage; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray 

hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high proportions of stray 

hatchery fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (grazing, roads, 

residences, forestry and agricultural practices that simplify habitats and irrigation 

withdrawals); the Columbia River mainstem hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Spawners, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current hatchery and land use practices are the 

primary threats to the viability of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population (Table 8-3). 

Table 8-3. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead 

population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Deschutes – Eastside Tributaries 

Key Threats 

Current Hatchery Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Straying of hatchery steelhead into spawning grounds. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: Spawners. 

• Specific threat(s): Management designed to produce returns of hatchery summer steelhead to the Deschutes 

and many other upstream Columbia River tributaries results in significant proportions of stray hatchery 

steelhead spawning naturally in this population. The principal concern relates to a continuing detrimental 

impact of stray hatchery fish in natural spawning areas on the genetic traits and productivity of naturally 

produced steelhead. 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; impaired 

physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures.

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, grazing, forest practices, road maintenance, etc.) 

that impact steelhead growth and survival, or modify natural hydrographs during critical periods in tributary 

streams. Improvement of some habitat conditions is expected to occur in the future, based on current land 

use practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Fifteenmile Creek population.) 

Land Use Practices: (See discussion for Fifteenmile Creek population.) 

Harvest: Mortality of returning adults in tributary streams from catch and release fishery. 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Fifteenmile Creek population.) 

Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Deschutes River Westside steelhead population: 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-8 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and 

complexity, altered sediment routing, high water temperature, low flows and lack of fish 

passage over PRBC; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on 

viability; Hydro: mainstem passage and tributary passage to blocked areas above PeltonRound Butte Complex. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (grazing, roads, residences, 

forestry and agricultural practices that simplify habitats and irrigation withdrawals); the 

Columbia River mainstem hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Spawners, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current hatchery practices, hydropower 

influences, and land use practices are the primary threats to the viability of the Deschutes River 

Westside steelhead population (Table 8-4). 

Table 8-4. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Deschutes River Westside steelhead 

population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Deschutes – Westside Tributaries 

Key Threats 

Current Hatchery Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Stray hatchery steelhead spawn with wild population.

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: Spawners. 

• Specific threat(s): Management designed to produce returns of hatchery summer steelhead to the 

Deschutes and many other upstream Columbia River tributaries results in significant proportions of stray 

hatchery steelhead spawning naturally in this population. Straying of these hatchery fish into natural 

spawning areas threatens the genetic traits and productivity of naturally produced steelhead. 

Current Hydropower: 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired downstream migration through Lake Billy Chinook; 

blocked migration above Pelton Dam. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: Smolts and returning adults. 

• Specific threat(s): Fish passage currently blocked at Pelton Dam on the Deschutes, eliminating access by 

steelhead to a significant portion of the historical distribution of this population. 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired physical habitat quality.

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, grazing, forestry, road maintenance) that 

negatively impact steelhead growth and survival in tributary streams. Improvement of some habitat 

conditions is expected to occur in the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved 

over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Fifteenmile Creek population.) 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; 

elevated water temperatures and increased fine sediment from past and present agricultural and forestry 

practices reduce survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams; reduced water quantity and/or modified 

hydrograph impacts growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributaries. 

Harvest: Mortality of returning adults in tributary streams from catch and release fishery. 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Fifteenmile Creek population.) 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-9 

Crooked River Summer Steelhead Population 

Members of the Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and 

threats to the Crooked River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and 

complexity, floodplain connectivity, degraded riparian condition, altered sediment 

routing, high water temperatures, low flows, and passage barriers. Hydro: mainstem 

Columbia river passage and passage in the Deschutes River mainstem to blocked areas 

above Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Primary Threats: Current land use practices (including grazing, roads, residential 

development, forestry and agricultural practices that simplify habitats and irrigation 

withdrawals); the Pelton-Round Butte Complex and the Columbia River mainstem 

hydropower system; passage barriers that block access to tributary spawning and rearing 

habitat. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Spawners, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts and 

adult migrants. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices and the Pelton-Round 

Butte Complex are primary threats to viability of the Crooked River steelhead population (Table 

8-5). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-10 

Table 8-5. Key and secondary threats to viability of the extinct Deschutes Crooked River 

steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Deschutes – Crooked River (Extinct population) 

Key Threats 

Current Hydropower 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired downstream migration; blocked upstream migration, 

 hydrograph, water quantity. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: smolts and returning adults. 

• Specific threat(s): Fish passage is currently blocked at Pelton Dam on the mainstem Deschutes, thereby 

 entirely eliminating access by steelhead to the historic distribution of this population. 

Current Land Use Practices/Irrigation System 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Fish migration; impaired physical habitat quality; elevated water 

 temperatures; reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph, population traits. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, adults. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, grazing, forestry, road maintenance, etc.) that 

 impact steelhead growth and survival in tributaries; irrigation diversions. These conditions would impair the 

 likelihood of re-establishing a self-sustaining population of steelhead in the future. Improvement of some 

 habitat conditions is expected to occur in the future, based on current land use practices that are much 

 improved over historic practices. Maintenance of an irrigation water storage system in the Crooked River 

 alters the seasonal hydrograph (lower summer flows, higher autumn flows) and increases summer water 

 temperatures. These conditions would impair the likelihood of re-establishing a self-sustaining population 

 of steelhead in the future. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at The Dalles 

and Bonneville dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults over dams; cumulative impact of system 

on mainstem and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; 

increased fine sediment from past and present agricultural and forestry practices reduce survival of eggs and 

alevins in tributary streams. 

Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in mainstem Columbia. 

Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and 

complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), altered sediment routing, water temperature, 

and altered hydrology. Impaired fish passage is also a high priority limiting factor in 

Bridge, Butte, Kahler, Muddy, Rock, and Thirtymile creeks; Hatchery: effects of 

naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (agricultural and grazing 

practices, removal of overstory trees and bank vegetation from the riparian corridor, 

water withdrawals, wetland draining and conversion, and stream channelization and 

diking; the Columbia River mainstem hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, egg incubation, egg-to-fry, fry-tosmolt, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-11 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current hatchery and land use practices are the 

primary threats to viability of the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population (Table 

8-6). 

Table 8-6. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

John Day River – Lower Mainstem 

Key Threats 

Current Hatchery Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Straying of hatchery steelhead into tributaries. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: Spawners. 

• Specific threat(s): Management designed to produce returns of hatchery summer steelhead to upstream 

Columbia River tributaries results in significant proportions of stray hatchery steelhead spawning naturally 

in this population. Straying of hatchery fish into natural spawning areas poses risks to the genetic traits and 

productivity of naturally produced steelhead. 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: Fry, summer parr and winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Past and/or current land use practices (agriculture, grazing, forest practices) that impart 

steelhead growth and survival in tributaries. Improvement of some habitat conditions is expected to occur in 

the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, 

The Dalles and Bonneville dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults over dams; false attraction of 

returning adults over Mc Nary Dam; cumulative impact of system on mainstem and estuary habitat for presmolts and smolts. 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary from creation of dredge spoil islands; increased 

fine sediment from agricultural and forestry practices reduces egg and alevin survival tributaries; reduced water 

quantity and/or modified hydrograph that impact growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributaries. 

Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in mainstem Columbia.

North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

North Fork John Day River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded floodplain connectivity and 

function, degraded channel structure and complexity (key habitat quantity, habitat 

diversity, channel stability), altered sediment routing, water temperature, and low flows; 

Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem 

passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream 

channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road building, irrigation 

withdrawals, mining and dredging); the Columbia River mainstem hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Parr-to-smolt survival, egg-to-fry survival, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-12 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) concluded that current land use practices are the primary threat 

to viability of the North Fork John Day River steelhead population (Table 8-7). 

Table 8-7. Key and secondary threats to viability of the North Fork John Day River steelhead 

population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

John Day River – North Fork 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Past and current land use practices (agriculture, grazing, forestry, road maintenance) that 

impact steelhead growth and survival in tributary streams. Improvement of some habitat conditions is 

expected in the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day 

population.) 

Land Use Practices: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population.) 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population.)

Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and 

complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), degraded floodplain function and 

connectivity, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water temperature; 

Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem 

passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream 

channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road building, passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals, mining and dredging); the Columbia River mainstem hydropower 

system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry-to-smolt, egg incubation; egg-to-parr, smolts, adult 

spawning. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) concluded that current land use practices are the primary threat 

to viability of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population (Table 8-8). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-13 

Table 8-8. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead 

population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

John Day River – Middle Fork 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Impaired physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Past and current practices (grazing, forest practices, road maintenance) that impact 

steelhead growth and survival in tributaries. Improvement of some habitat conditions is expected to occur 

in the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day 

population.) 

Land Use Practices: (Factors identified in discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population, plus pushup dams that impair upstream passage of returning adults and upstream and downstream movement of fry and 

summer parr.) 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population.)

South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

South Fork John Day River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: altered sediment routing, degraded 

channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), altered hydrology and 

low flow, water temperature, and impaired fish passage; Hatchery: effects of naturally 

spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (riparian disturbance, stream 

channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road building, fish passage 

barriers (culverts, and other seasonal barriers), and irrigation withdrawals); the Columbia 

River mainstem hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, adult spawning, egg incubation, eggto-parr survival, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices pose the primary 

threat to viability of the South Fork John Day River steelhead population (Table 8-9). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-14 

Table 8-9. Key and secondary threats to viability of the South Fork John Day River steelhead 

population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

John Day River – South Fork 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; impaired 

physical habitat quality; impaired fish passage; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, returning adults. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, push-up dams that provide irrigation water, 

grazing, etc.) that impact steelhead growth and survival in tributaries; push-up dams that block or impair 

fish movement. Improvement of some habitat conditions is expected in the future, based on current land use 

practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day 

population.) 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; 

increased fine sediment from agricultural and forestry practices reduces egg and alevin survival tributaries. 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population.)

Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: degraded channel structure and 

complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), degraded riparian areas and LWD 

recruitment, altered sediment routing, water temperatures, altered hydrology and 

degraded floodplain function and connectivity. Impaired fish passage is also a priority 

limiting factor in Beech and Laycock creeks; Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning 

stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices (agricultural practices, livestock 

overgrazing, removal of large trees from the riparian corridor, wetland draining and 

conversion, stream channelization/diking); the Columbia River mainstem hydropower 

system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: Juvenile rearing, egg incubation, egg-to-parr survival, 

smolts, adult spawning. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices pose the primary 

threat to viability of the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population (Table 8-10). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-15 

Table 8-10. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

steelhead population (Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

John Day River – Upper Mainstem 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; impaired 

physical habitat quality; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, forestry, push-up dams that provide irrigation 

water, grazing, etc.) that impact steelhead growth and survival in tributaries. Improvement of some habitat 

conditions is expected in the future due to current practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day 

population.) 

Land Use Practices: (See discussion for South Fork John Day population.). 

Introduced Species: (See discussion for Lower Mainstem John Day population.)

Umatilla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Umatilla River steelhead population: 

 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: high water temperature, sediment 

routing, impaired fish passage, degraded channel structure and complexity and low flows; 

Hatchery: effects of naturally spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem 

passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices that reduce habitat quality, 

quantity and disrupt ecosystem functions; the Columbia River hydropower system. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices pose the primary 

threat to viability of the Umatilla steelhead population (Table 8-11). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-16 

Table 8-11. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Umatilla River steelhead population 

(Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Umatilla 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; impaired 

physical habitat quality; impaired fish movement and habitat access; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, un-screened irrigation diversions, maintenance of 

the irrigation impoundment system that provides irrigation water and flow control, forest practices, grazing) 

that impact steelhead growth and survival in tributaries. Improvement of some habitat conditions is expected 

to occur in the future, based on current land use practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, 

The Dalles and Bonneville dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults over dams; cumulative impact 

of system on mainstem and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 

Hatchery Practices: Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributaries with wild population creating a risk of 

genetic introgression. 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; 

increased fine sediment from agricultural and forestry practices reduces egg and alevin survival in tributaries. 

Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in mainstem Columbia. 

Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Mid-C recovery planning team identified the following limiting factors and threats to the 

Walla Walla River steelhead population: 

Primary Limiting Factors: Tributary Habitat: high water temperature, sediment 

routing, impaired fish passage, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded 

floodplain connectivity and function, and low flow; Hatchery: effects of naturally 

spawning stray hatchery fish on viability; Hydro: mainstem passage. 

Primary Threats: Hatchery management that results in high rates of straying hatchery 

fish in natural spawning areas; current land use practices that reduce habitat quality, 

quantity and disrupt ecosystem functions; the Columbia River mainstem hydrosystem. 

Primary Life Stages Affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts. 

VSP Characteristics Impacted: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity. 

The Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) determined that current land use practices pose the primary 

threat to viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead population (Table 8-12). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-17 

Table 8-12. Key and secondary threats to viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead population 

(Mid-C Expert Panel 2006). 

Walla Walla 

Key Threats 

Current Land Use Practices 

• Limiting factor(s) primarily affected: Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; impaired physical 

habitat quality; impaired fish movement and habitat access; elevated water temperatures. 

• Life stage(s) primarily affected: fry, summer parr, winter parr. 

• Specific threat(s): Current land use practices (agriculture, un-screened irrigation diversions, push-up dams, 

maintenance of the irrigation impoundment system that provides irrigation water and flow control, forest 

practices, grazing) that impair steelhead growth and survival in tributaries. Improvement of some habitat 

conditions is expected in the future, based on current practices that are much improved over historical practices. 

Secondary Threats 

Current Mainstem Columbia Hydropower System: Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The 

Dalles and Bonneville dams; delayed upstream migration of returning adults over dams; cumulative impact of 

system on mainstem and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 

Hatchery Practices: Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributaries with wild population creating a risk of genetic 

introgression. 

Land Use Practices: Cumulative impact of past and present activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and 

smolts; predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in estuary because of creation of dredge spoil islands; increased 

fine sediment from agricultural and forestry practices reduces egg and alevin survival in tributaries. 

Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in mainstem Columbia. 

8.2 Tributary Habitat 

Historically, habitat conditions in the Fifteenmile, Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla 

Walla subbasins supported productive and viable steelhead populations. Natural processes 

created diverse instream habitats with deep pools and strong connections to floodplains. Many 

stream channels contained abundant large wood from surrounding riparian hardwood galleries, 

including cottonwood, aspen, willow, and upstream conifer forests. Stream temperatures were 

generally sufficient to support all steelhead life stages throughout the year, as upland and riparian 

conditions allowed for the storage and release of cool water during the dry, summer months and 

provided shaded sufficient to keep water temperatures cool. Extensive and abundant riparian 

vegetation armored streambanks, providing protection against erosion. 

Conditions in these tributary drainages have changed considerably over the last 150 years. 

Together, past land use practices across the region contributed significantly to causing the factors 

now limiting abundance, productivity, and diversity of Mid-C steelhead. As noted by the Expert 

Panel, and indicated by the EDT limiting factors analyses, historical spawning and rearing areas 

are now often degraded restricting steelhead abundance, productivity, spatial structure and 

diversity. However, while harmful land use practices continue today, many landowners now 

understand the advantages of good conservation practices and have changed their approaches to 

farming, grazing, forest practices and other activities so that important ecosystem processes and 

functions can recover. In addition, a suite of regulatory programs have been implemented to 

protect and restore steelhead habitat conditions. Many people are also voluntarily protecting and 

restoring stream corridors, wetlands, and other natural features that influence the viability of 

salmonid populations. Such changes are slowly improving habitat conditions for Mid-C 

steelhead and other species, while also restoring overall watershed health. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-18 

Nevertheless, two emerging threats ― forest health and land use conversion ― need to be 

acknowledged. Management actions of the past, including unregulated forest practices, poorly 

managed livestock grazing, and fire suppression have modified patterns of vegetation in forest 

and range habitats. These changes have resulted in alteration of important ecosystem processes 

such as fire, insects and succession. In some cases, current conditions are a significant departure 

from historical. Fire suppression and silvicultural practices in some Mid-C forests have modified 

the historical fire regimes and contributed to unnaturally heavy fuel loads. A significant 

proportion of the forested landscape in the Westside Deschutes, North Fork John Day, Middle 

Fork John Day, and Upper Mainstem John Day populations is now characterized by such 

conditions and is classified by the USFS (Schmidt et al. 2002) as condition class 3 with severely 

altered fire regimes and vegetation attributes significantly altered from the historical conditions 

(Figure 8-1). Unless improved, areas within these significantly altered landscapes will likely 

experience intensive wild fires that can impact steelhead recovery efforts, at least in the short 

term. 

Figure 8-1. Areas within Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations that have significantly altered fire 

regimes and vegetative attributes that are altered from the historical condition (USFS condition 

class 3). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-19 

Although significant proportions of the forested landscape in these four populations are classified 

as condition class 3, the degree of threat to the viability of steelhead is uncertain. Much of the 

research over the past 15 years has demonstrated that, in general, episodic wildfires and post-fire 

flood events tend to produce long-term habitat benefits for salmonids. The immediate adverse 

impacts, when they occur, are relatively short term in duration (Howell, 2006; Rieman et al. 

1997; Sestrick, 2005; Dunham et al. 2003). However, particularly after large intensive wildfires, 

water temperatures may increase where streamwide vegetation is destroyed and post-fire channel 

reorganizing flood events occur, though this does not occur in all cases. In cases where 

temperatures rise, they can remain elevated for periods of ten years or longer, but rainbow trout 

quickly repopulate such areas post-fire when fish passage has not been obstructed, and 

populations maintain their distributions (Dunham et al. 2007). Soil erosion and sediment losses 

may also increase significantly after intense wildfires, depending on area topography, 

precipitation, and restoration efforts, adversely impacting spawning and rearing habitats and 

increasing the short-term risks to viability of some populations (Rieman et al. 2000). 

Strategic restoration efforts aimed at restoring such landscapes back to their natural vegetative 

conditions and their historical fire regimes could help enhance watershed function and forest 

health. Such approaches will most likely be effective only in areas where existing road systems 

can facilitate restoration activities without additional disturbance or impact (Rieman et al. 2000). 

Rieman et al. (2000 and 2001) concluded that alteration of fire regimes did little to affect 

outcomes at the scale of the Interior Columbia River Basin and that aggressive active 

management could result in short-term fish habitat degradation. Specific to Mid-C steelhead 

populations in Oregon, Rieman et al. (2000) concluded that only in the Westside Deschutes 

River population and a few other locations would intensive forest restoration activities be 

potentially compatible with restoration of aquatic conditions, and only under very specific 

guidelines. The USFS specifically addressed the issue of fuels treatment as an action 

contributing to recovery of ESA listed salmonids. They concluded that any evaluation of tradeoffs to ESA listed salmonids from fuel treatments will be dependent on local conditions and 

successful integration of both forest and aquatic system restoration objectives. Site specific 

multi-scale analyses to evaluate benefits and risks of fuels treatments are necessary to assess 

potential value or detriment to recovery (Appendix J). 

In addition to previously described forest health issues, western juniper has expanded across a 

large area within the DPS. The estimated acres of juniper forest and savanna in Oregon 

increased since the 1930’s from about 1.5 million acres to 6.5 million acres. The expansion of 

juniper across the landscape has had an uncertain and unquantified affect on aquatic habitat. 

Junipers may use more water than other vegetation and can outcompete native vegetation. The 

overall results are potential reduction in streamflow and altered hydrological processes. 

Land use conversion is also an emerging threat. Oregon has had a statewide land use program 

since 1973. In spite of this effort, areas within the Mid-C DPS, such as the Deschutes subbasin, 

have experienced a high rate of conversion from resource land to developed land. Deschutes 

County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the Northwest. The extent to which this 

conversion has influenced aquatic habitat in the recent past, and the future impact of land use 

conversion on Mid-C steelhead has not been quantified. Although we did not identify forest 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-20 

health and land use conversion as primary or secondary threats, there are a number of 

management actions to address these threats in the management actions section. 

We defined seven general types of tributary habitat factors that limit the viability of Oregon’s ten 

steelhead populations in the Mid-C DPS and listed the key contemporary threats to each 

population at specific life stages. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function: The loss, impairment or degradation 

of floodplain connectivity; access to previously available habitats (seasonal wetlands, offchannel habitat, side channels); and a connected and functional hyporheic zone. This 

factor includes reduced overwinter habitat and channel habitat. Life stages affected: eggto-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity: The loss, impairment or degradation of 

channels; a suitable distribution of riffles and functional pools; functional amounts and 

sizes of large woody debris or other channel structure. Includes reduced summer rearing 

habitat, degraded spawning habitat, reduced diversity and structure (wood, boulders, 

etc.), inadequate quantity or depth of pools, loss of side and braided channels. Life stages 

affected: egg-to-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

Degraded riparian areas and LWD recruitment: The loss, degradation or impairment 

of riparian conditions important for production of food organisms and organic material, 

shading, bank stabilizing by roots, nutrient and chemical mediation, control of surface 

erosion, and production of large-sized woody material. Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt 

survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

Altered hydrologic processes: Changes in the hydrograph that alter the natural pattern 

of flows over the seasons, causing inadequate flow, scouring flow, or other flow 

conditions that inhibit the development and survival of salmonids. Life stages affected: 

egg-to-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, pre-spawning. 

Degraded water quality: Degraded or impaired water quality due to abnormal 

temperature, or levels of suspended fine sediment, dissolved oxygen, nutrients from 

agricultural runoff, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and other contaminants (toxics). 

Life stages affected: egg-to-smolt survival, smolt migration, adult migration, prespawning. 

Altered sediment routing: Altered sediment routing leading to an overabundance of 

fine-grained sediments, excess of course-grained sediments, inadequate course-grained 

sediments and/or contaminated sediment. Includes excessive fine sediment that reduces 

spawning gravel or increases embeddedness. Life stages affected: egg-to-parr survival. 

Impaired fish passage: The total or partial human-caused blockage to previously 

accessible habitat that eliminates or decreases migration ability or alters the range of 

conditions under which migration is possible. This may include seasonal or periodic total 

migration blockage. Includes dams, culverts, seasonal push up dams, unscreened 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-21 

diversions, and entrainment in irrigation diversions. Life stages affected: smolt 

migration, adult migration, juvenile upstream migration due to thermal blockage or water 

availability. 

These habitat limiting factors are often interrelated. For example, degraded riparian condition 

often results in channel straightening, elimination of off-channel habitat, loss of large woody 

debris, reduced channel roughness, increased water temperatures, and increased sedimentation. 

Changes in the hydrograph — such as through loss of storage on connected riparian areas, 

floodplains and uplands — often lead to higher peak flows and lower summer flows, which can 

impair water conditions and temperatures, or restrict fish movement between habitat reaches. 

8.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary habitat-related limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population are low flows, high water temperatures, sedimentation, 

channel confinement and overall habitat loss due to degraded channel structure and complexity. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

By 1910, irrigated farms and pastures occupied the floodplains of Fifteenmile, Eightmile, and 

Fivemile creeks. Development of irrigated farms and pastures on the floodplain and throughout 

the valley floor, and associated channel straightening and confinement, reduced available offchannel habitat and floodplain connectivity within the Fifteenmile subbasin. Off-channel habitat 

and floodplain connectivity declined further with the loss of beaver and from channel 

straightening and debris removal associated with flood restoration (NPCC 2004a). Stream 

straightening and debris removal increased stream energy and channel downcutting, causing 

streams to abandon floodplains and associated off-channels. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

In-channel large wood in the subbasin has declined considerably from historical levels due to 

channel cleanout and removal of source trees, and resulted in reduced pool frequency and 

quality. Stream straightening and debris removal led to increased bank erosion and a higher 

width/depth ratio. Streambank erosion has increased considerably over background levels 

resulting in direct input of large volumes of sediment and a corresponding increase in 

width/depth ratio. EDT analysis shows that habitat complexity ─ including habitat diversity, key 

habitat quantity, and channel stability ─ have been degraded by the straightening and 

channelization of streams, and other factors. EDT results rated most of the Fifteenmile Creek 

watershed, except Dry Creek, as a moderate priority for restoring habitat diversity for spawning, 

active rearing of all age-classes, juvenile migration, winter inactivity, and prespawning holding 

(NPCC 2004a). 

Habitat conditions in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed have begun to improve because of habitat 

restoration projects conducted since the 1980s. Recent large wood placement and riparian 

restoration within the Fifteenmile Creek watershed will increase off-channel habitat and 

floodplain connectivity by encouraging channels to aggrade, but more work is needed. Large 

wood placement will function to restore processes in the short term, and riparian restoration will 

help stabilize streambanks and restore ecological processes over the long term. As more large 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-22 

wood is placed or is naturally recruited, structures that can accommodate movement of large 

wood will be needed. 

Impaired fish passage 

While many physical barriers in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed have at least been partially 

fixed, some remain. Fish screens have been installed on 80 diversions and 5 fish ladders have 

been installed at diversion structures. Although the fish ladders are no longer barriers to adults, 

they may still be barriers to upstream juvenile migration (NPCC 2004a). A 1998 ODFW culvert 

survey identified 11 culverts not meeting fish passage criteria on intermittent streams. 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Development of farms, pastures and residential areas in the Fifteenmile subbasin considerably 

impacted riparian condition and connectivity. Roads were also located in many riparian areas, 

confining stream channels and eliminating riparian vegetation. Below the forested areas, riparian 

vegetation and large woody debris was nearly gone well before 1980 due to extensive 

management associated with residences, agriculture, flood control, livestock grazing, and roads 

(NPCC 2004a). Riparian impacts were also present in forested areas, but to a lesser extent. 

Riparian buffer programs and various restoration projects have been implemented to protect and 

restore riparian habitat. Timber harvest on national forest land has declined sharply since 

adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1990. Since 1980, the Forest Service has been working 

to replace large wood in channels and on floodplains (NPCC 2004a). Roads have largely been 

eliminated in riparian area on national forest lands, though the middle and lower portions of the 

watershed still contain extensive riparian roads. In addition, riparian buffers have been 

established in many parts of the Fifteenmile Creek watershed, areas. Riparian conditions are 

improving in the lower parts of the watershed through ODFW and USDA programs, and beavers 

have started re-colonizing the lower watershed. Approximately 126 miles of stream in the 

watershed has some protection through some form of riparian buffer, either through the NWFP 

on federal lands, the Forest Practices Act on private forest lands, or programs available to private 

landowners. Currently, about 30 miles of anadromous habitat lack a forested buffer in the 

watershed. 

Degraded water quality 

High water temperatures restrict steelhead production in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin, 

particularly in the lower watershed. While spawning occurs in most presettlement spawning 

areas, temperatures become too high to support one or more life stages. Portions of the middle 

and lower watershed cannot support any steelhead life stages during late summer due to high 

water temperatures or dry streams (NPCC 2004a). Water temperatures can also create thermal 

barriers that prevent fish from moving to cooler reaches. Water temperatures in late summer in 

lower Fifteenmile Creek, Eightmile Creek, and Fivemile Creek are too high to allow for passage 

of any life stages. Several reaches in the subbasin are on the 303(d) list for temperature, 

including Fifteenmile, Ramsey, Dry, Eightmile and Fivemile creeks. Some areas in the 

watershed exceed the cold-water and rearing standards and are believed to exceed the spawning 

standard as well, although most of the temperature monitoring has occurred during the summer. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-23 

Water quality in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed is also degraded by suspended sediment 

associated with erosion from land management activities, and possibly chemical contaminants 

and nutrients. While there is currently not enough data to determine if chemical contaminants 

and nutrient are a problem, both are likely above presettlement levels because of fertilizer and 

pesticide use for agriculture. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

Forest practices, conversion of shrub-steppe habitat to agricultural land, loss of beaver, and road 

development in the Fifteenmile Creek drainage have affected the subbasin’s natural hydrologic 

regime, resulting in higher peak flows and lower base flows. Peak flows increased by as much 

as 600% between 1850 and 1950 as very little water was being retained in the soil. On forest 

lands, runoff increased by 1 to 6% due to forest practices and roads (NPCC 2004a). Below the 

forest boundary, irrigation withdrawals and the dry climate result in very low flows in most 

Fifteenmile subbasin streams during the summer. At the time of low summer flow, streamflow 

has been nearly fully appropriated for irrigation since the early 1900s. The change in base flows 

causes most lower elevation tributaries to become intermittent during summer months, with 

flows in some smaller tributaries drying up completely. The shallow water depths can prevent 

fish passage. The lower portions of Fifteenmile, Eightmile, and Fivemile creeks have been the 

most impacted by low flows, high water temperatures, and overall habitat loss. 

Peak flows have the greatest potential for recovering native vegetation; however, peak flows 

have partially recovered with the adoption of no-till techniques. Over half of the agricultural 

land in the watershed has been converted to direct-seed/no-till systems that reduce runoff and 

erosion by increasing infiltration, leaving 50,000 to 60,000 acres that could be converted (NPCC 

2004a). 

Altered sediment routing 

The geology in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin lends itself to erosion so any management that 

disturbs the soil increases fine sediment production. Fine sediment in spawning gravel is a 

primary concern in the subbasin. Extensive soil loss associated with tilled agriculture has 

contributed to increased fine sediment in spawning gravel. By 1950, soil loss due to water 

erosion associated with tilled agriculture in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed was as high as 20 

tons per acre per year. Steep slopes and clean tillage were largely responsible for the soil loss 

(NPCC 2004a). Fifteenmile and Ramsey creeks are on the 303(d) list for sedimentation, and 

EDT modeling identified sedimentation as one of the key factors inhibiting steelhead production 

(NPCC 2004a). The adoption of minimum-till and no-till techniques on well over half of the 

tilled acreage in the watershed has reduced erosion and fine sediment delivery to streams in 

recent years. Rates of erosion and sediment delivery, however, remain elevated above 

presettlement rates. 

In addition, riparian road densities are highest on private land adjacent to Fivemile, Eightmile, 

and lower Fifteenmile creeks, with more than a half mile of road per mile of stream within 200 

feet of the stream. Forest Service pebble counts have found elevated levels of sand and fine 

sediment in streams throughout the watershed (NPCC 2004a). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-24 

Table 8-13 shows the primary limiting factors identified in the EDT Diagnostic Report for the 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population. A summary of the major limiting factors and 

threats by geographic area is presented in Table 8-14. 

Table 8-13. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

for Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fifteenmile Cr-1

Fifteenmile Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-2

Fivemile Cr-3

Fivemile Cr-4

Fivemile Cr SF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-2

Fivemile Cr MF-3

Eightmile Cr-2

Eightmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-4

Eightmile Cr-5

Eightmile Cr-6

Eightmile Cr-7

Eightmile Cr-8

Eightmile Cr-9

Eightmile Cr-10

Eightmile Cr-11

Eightmile Cr-12

Eightmile Cr-13

Eightmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-4

Fifteenmile Cr-5

Fifteenmile Cr-6

Dry Cr-1

Dry Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-7

Fifteenmile Cr-8

Ramsey Cr-1

Ramsey Cr-2

Ramsey Cr-3

Ramsey Cr-4

Ramsey Cr-5

Ramsey Cr-6

Ramsey Cr-7

Ramsey Cr-8

Fifteenmile Cr-9

Fifteenmile Cr-10

Fifteenmile Cr-11

Fifteenmile Cr-12

Fifteenmile Cr-13

Cedar Cr

Fifteenmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-15

Fifteenmile Cr-16

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-25 

Table 8-14. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

FIFTEENMILE CREEK POPULATION 

Fifteenmile 

Creek 

Population 

Altered hydrology (low 

flows); Water quality 

(temps); altered sediment 

routing; degraded 

floodplain; degraded 

channel structure (channel 

confinement, overall 

habitat loss), degraded 

riparian condition 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Roads, residential 

development, 

agricultural practices 

and forest practices, 

irrigation diversions, 

and loss of beaver 

All life stages 

Upper 

Fifteenmile 

Creek 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(shorter/steeper, diversity, 

stability); degraded 

riparian community; 

altered sediment routing; 

altered hydrology; 

degraded water quality 

(temp); blocked or 

impaired fish passage 

Fifteenmile [F, 

CS, R, T (RM 0-

40), H (mouth to 

Pine Cr.), S (RM 

0-52.7)]; Dry 

Creek [F, CS, T 

(RM 0-16.6),H]; 

Ramsey Creek 

[F, CS, BP (on 

Mt. Hood NF 

block 2,357 feet 

of habitat), T 

(RM 0-5.4), H, S 

(RM 0-13.2)]; 

Long Hollow, 

Douglas Hollow, 

Standard 

Hollow, Mays 

Canyon [IP 

(culverts)] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Roads, residential 

development, 

agricultural and forest 

practices, irrigation 

diversions, and loss of 

beaver 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Eightmile 

Creek 

MaSA 

Water quality (temp); 

altered hydrology; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

sediment routing; impaired 

fish passage 

Eightmile Cr. [F, 

CS, IP (culverts 

at campground 

and RM 10), T 

(RM 0-22), R, H, 

S (RM 0-34.5)]; 

Japanese 

Hollow [IP] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Roads, residential 

development, 

agricultural and forest 

practices, irrigation 

diversions, and loss of 

beaver 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Fivemile 

Creek 

MaSA 

Water quality (temp); 

altered hydrology; altered 

sediment routing; 

degraded riparian 

communities; impaired fish 

passage 

Fivemile Creek 

[F, CS, R, T, H, 

S]; Middle Fork 

Fivemile Cr [F, 

CS, BP (culvert), 

IP,T, R, H] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Road building, legacy 

forest roads, 

residential 

development, 

agricultural and forest 

practices, irrigation 

diversions, and loss of 

beaver 

All life stages 

are affected. 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F), degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), high water temperatures (T); altered 

sediment routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

Deschutes Eastside steelhead population are degraded riparian condition, low flows, high water 

temperatures, degraded channel structure/complexity and floodplain connectivity, impaired fish 

passage. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-26 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Off-channel habitats, including wet meadows, oxbows and backwater areas have been reduced 

by floodplain degradation and loss of beaver. These areas provided juvenile rearing habitat and 

helped moderate streamflows and water temperature alterations. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Habitat complexity is generally impaired in most stream reaches used by the Deschutes Eastside 

steelhead population. Large wood and pool habitat is lacking, thus limiting salmonid production. 

During summer low flows, a small number of pools with little cover provide the only available 

habitat for juveniles and adults. The lack of pool habitat confines large numbers of fish to small 

areas with very little cover, exposing them to potential predation (NPCC 2004b). 

EDT results identified reduced habitat diversity as a major factor limiting steelhead in the Buck 

Hollow, Bakeoven, and Trout creek systems. Reduced habitat diversity ranked as extreme or 

high for several reaches. Other major limiting for these streams include the loss of instream 

habitat complexity and pool habitat for rearing, reduced spawning habitat diversity and high 

temperatures for egg incubation and 0-age rearing, and low flow for 0- to 2-age rearing (NPCC 

2004b). EDT results also identified habitat diversity for spawning and rearing and channel 

stability as major habitat constraints in the smaller tributaries (NPCC 2004b). 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Streams on the lower eastside of the Deschutes have been considerably impacted by beaver 

harvest, irrigation, roads, and cattle grazing; particularly since soils in many eastside stream 

systems are not very permeable and are prone to landslides. With the loss of riparian vegetation, 

streams began eroding vertically and horizontally during storm events. Roads were located in 

many of the riparian areas within the subbasin (NPCC 2004b). Channel downcutting contributed 

to lowering the water table, which exacerbated the loss of riparian vegetation (NPCC 2004b). 

Riparian vegetation is recovering in many areas because the impacts associated with grazing 

have been reduced through improved livestock management practices, including early season 

use, better livestock distribution, shorter use duration, lower intensity of use, and installation of 

livestock exclosures (NPCC 2004b). With the recovery of riparian vegetation, beavers have 

started recolonizing the eastside tributaries (NPCC 2004b). 

Degraded water quality 

Water temperatures in the eastside tributaries naturally rise more quickly and reach higher levels 

than westside tributaries because of warmer air temperatures and more arid conditions (NPCC 

2004b). Temperatures have increased because of land use practices, and now typically exceed 

State water quality criteria for salmonid rearing during summer months. Buck Hollow Creek 

(RM 0-37.7) is on the 303(d) list for temperature and Trout Creek (RM 0-50.7) and tributaries 

Tenmile, Auger, Big Log, Bull Cartwright, Dick, Dutchman and Potlid creeks are on the 303(d) 

list for temperature and sedimentation. In Buck Hollow Creek, summer water temperatures often 

rise above 75° F, except in areas of cool water refuge where seeps and springs enter the channel, 

or where widely scattered deep pools are recharged with cool subsurface flow. In Trout Creek, 

water temperatures usually surpass recommended levels by late May and can remain high 

through October (NPCC 2004b). Bakeoven Creek also experiences high water temperatures and 

other water quality problems, including turbidity, low dissolved oxygen and nutrients. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-27 

Altered hydrologic processes 

The eastside streams are very flashy due to their high average slope, high drainage densities, and 

occasional severe thunderstorms (NPCC 2004b). The uplands are generally degraded by grazing 

and agriculture; reducing the soil’s ability to collect and store moisture, contributing to the flashy 

nature of the streams. Approximately 370,000 acres of contiguous interior grassland that existed 

in the upper Bakeoven, Buck Hollow, and Antelope watersheds has been lost to encroachment by 

other habitat types and land use (NPCC 2004b). There has also been an increase in the drainage 

network due to roads. Roads and ditches increase runoff by intercepting ground water from cut 

slopes and collecting precipitation and routing it directly to stream channels. 

Combined upland and riparian degradation has resulted in an altered flow regime with higher 

peak flows and lower base flows. In places where juniper encroachment has resulted in 

woodland stands, hydrologic processes have likely been altered. The Natural Resource 

Conservation Service estimates that current peak flows in some segments of the Trout Creek 

system are two to three times greater than under pre-settlement conditions (Jefferson County 

SWCD 1996). Some streams are intermittent in summer months. EDT results identified low 

flows for 0- to 1-age rearing as a major habitat constraint in the smaller tributaries (NPCC 

2004b). 

Altered sediment routing 

Substrate has been degraded by fine sediment deposition from tilling practices associate with dry 

cropland farming. However, no-till techniques, which have greatly reduced erosion and 

sediment delivery to substrate, are being adopted (NPCC 2004b). EDT results identified 

sediment during egg incubation as a major habitat constraint in the smaller tributaries (NPCC 

2004b). Buck Hollow is a gravel-rich system, but fine sediment levels are elevated. 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

A road crossing on Stag Canyon impairs fish passage. On the Trout Creek system, numerous 

push-up dams block fish passage during the irrigation season, including on Trout Creek between 

Little Trout Creek and Board Hollow Creek, on Antelope Creek between the mouth and Ward 

Creek, and on Clover Creek. Most irrigation diversions have been screened or replaced with 

infiltration galleries. Road culverts affect fish passage. Mud Springs Creek contains a high 

gradient concrete box culvert in section 15 that is a barrier, and a culvert just upstream of 

Gateway that is a barrier. Relocation of Hay Creek has created a barrier cascade in the SW 

corner of section 17 near the mouth of Hay Creek. Other barriers in Hay Creek include storage 

reservoirs (NPCC 2004b). 

Table 8-15 shows limiting factors and priorities identified by EDT Diagnostic Reports for the 

Deschutes Eastside steelhead population. A summary of major limiting factors and threats by 

geographic area is presented in Table 8-16. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-28 

Table 8-15. Limiting factors and priorities for restoration as defined by EDT for Deschutes River 

Eastside steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

Fall Canyon

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

Finnegan Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-2

Hauser Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-3

Macken Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-4

Thorn Hollow

Buck Hollow Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

Trail Hollow Cr

Bakeoven Cr-2

Booten Cr

Bakeoven Cr-3

Robin Cr

Bakeoven Cr-4

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven)

Cottonwood Cr-1

Ochoco Gulch Cr

Cottonwood Cr-2

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven)

Maupin Trail Canyon

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven)

Bakeoven Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefitChannel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

 _____________________________________________
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-29 

Table 8-15 cont. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Trout Cr-7

Trout Cr-8

Trout Cr-9

Wapinitia Cr-1

Wapinitia Cr-2

Ward Cr-1

White R MS-1

Amity Cr

Antelope Cr-1

Antelope Cr-2

Auger Cr

Bakeoven Cr-1

Bakeoven Cr-2

Bakeoven Cr-3

Bakeoven Cr-4

Beaver Cr (Trout)

Big Log Cr-1

Big Log Cr-2

Big Whetstone Cr

Board Hollow Cr

Buck Hollow Cr-1

Buck Hollow Cr-2

Buck Hollow Cr-3

Buck Hollow Cr-4

Cartwright Cr

Clover Cr

Cottonwood Cr-1

Cottonwood Cr-2

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven)

Dutchman Cr

Eagle Cr

Foley Cr-1

Foley Cr-2

Hay Cr-1

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General Temperature Withdrawals

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

ChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment load

Geographic area priority Protection benefit

Restoration benefit

Channel stability

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-30 

Table 8-16. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA 

Major Limiting 

Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted

Potential 

Causes/Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

DESCHUTES EASTSIDE POPULATION 

Deschutes River 

Eastside 

Population 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(complexity, deep pools, 

diversity); degraded 

riparian communities; 

water quality (temp, 

chemical contaminants 

and nutrients); altered 

hydrology (higher peak, 

lower low flows); altered 

sediment routing 

MaSAs and MiSAs Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Livestock grazing, roads, 

residences, agricultural 

practices that simplify 

habitat, irrigation 

withdrawals, dams and 

other barriers 

All life stages 

Buck Hollow 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology, degraded water 

quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing 

Buck Hollow [F, CS (mouth 

to Thorn Hollow), T (RM 0-

37.7); H; S]; Thorn Hollow 

Cr. [R, F, CS (mouth to 

spring in section 23), S] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Livestock grazing, upland 

agricultural practices 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Bakeoven MaSA Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded water 

quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing; impaired 

fish passage 

Bakeoven [F, CS, T, H, S 

(mouth to Deep Cr.), IP 

(road crossing at Stag 

Canyon)]; Deep Cr. [F, CS 

(especially mouth to 

Cottonwood Cr)]; 

Cottonwood Cr. [F, CS 

(mouth to Ochoco Cr)] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Livestock grazing, upland 

agricultural practices, 

irrigation, roads 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Ward/ 

Antelope/Cold 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; blocked and 

impaired fish passage 

Most drainages [F, CS, H]; 

Antelope Cr. [BP (push-up 

dams] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Irrigation withdrawals, 

agricultural practices 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Lower Trout Cr. 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded water 

quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing; blocked 

and impaired fish passage 

Trout Cr. [H (especially 

below Willowdale), T (RM 0-

50.7), F, CS, R, S, PB (Mud 

Springs Cr., Hay Cr.)]; 

Tenmile Cr. [T (RM 0-5.9)]; 

Mud Cr. [IP (culvert in 

section 15 and just above 

Gateway)]; Hay Cr. [IP 

(cascade near mouth, 

storage reservoirs, 

diversions)] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Agricultural practices, 

channel simplification 

following flood, roads, 

irrigation storage 

reservoirs and diversions, 

livestock grazing 

All life stages 

are affected. 

Upper Trout Cr. 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded water 

quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing; blocked 

and impaired fish passage 

Trout Cr. [F, CS (mouth to 

4,800-ft level, especially 

below NF boundary), R, T, S 

(RM 0-50.7), H (especially 

below Ashwood), IP (Little 

Trout to Board Hollow)]; Big 

Log Cr. [T and S (RM 0-

5.5)]; Cartwright Cr. [T and 

S (RM 0-4.3)]; Dick Cr. [T 

and S (RM 0-2.2)]; 

Dutchman Cr. [T and S (RM 

0-4.8)]; Potlid Cr. [T and S 

(RM 0-5.2)]; Bull Cr. [T and 

S (RM 0-1.8)]; all systems 

[F, CS]; Clover Cr. [IP]. 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Livestock grazing, 

agriculture practices, 

building of flood control 

berms, channel 

straightening, roads 

All life stages 

are affected. 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F), degraded channel structure and 

complexity (CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); 

altered sediment routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-31 

8.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the Recovery Planning Team for the 

Deschutes Westside steelhead population are degraded channel structure and complexity, altered 

sediment routing, high water temperature, low flows and lack of fish passage over Pelton-Round 

Butte Complex. 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

The Shitike Creek and Warm Springs River systems have experienced a slight to moderate loss 

of riparian vegetation and vegetative diversity due to grazing, roads and other land use practices. 

Habitat is primarily degraded in the lower reaches, with upper reaches in good to excellent 

condition (NPCC 2004b). The lower four miles of Shitike Creek have experienced substantial 

loss of riparian vegetation. The cottonwood gallery forest is now a fraction of its former size and 

contributes a smaller amount of large wood to the stream channel. Roads located in many 

riparian areas within the subbasin have played a major role in degrading riparian habitat in the 

Shitike Creek and Warm Springs River systems (NPCC 2004b). Riparian fencing in some areas 

of the Warm Springs River system has allowed riparian vegetation to become established that 

has stabilized stream banks (NPCC 2004b). 

Riparian conditions along upper and lower Whychus Creek are generally good. Many sections 

of lower Whychus Creek have a broad riparian area comprised of floodplains, willow stands and 

cottonwood bottom lands. Riparian vegetation along sections of the creek’s middle reach has 

been damaged by past grazing, channel alterations and development (NPCC 2004b). 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Off-channel habitats provide critical steelhead habitat. In 1995, about 68% of all steelhead 

spawning in the Deschutes River from the Reregulating Dam to Trout Creek occurred in side 

channels between islands and channel margins, despite the fact that such channels comprise less 

than 10% of the channel length in the reach (Zimmerman and Ratliff 2003). In tributary reaches, 

including the Warm Springs drainage and many small tributaries in the area, loss of connectivity 

with the floodplain has reduced groundwater discharge, further exacerbating problems of low 

flow and high water temperature. This is especially true for the lower four miles of Shitike 

Creek and segments of Beaver Creek where Hwy 26 has reduced floodplain connectivity. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

The results of EDT analysis identified lack of habitat diversity and complexity as major limiting 

factors for the Deschutes River above Trout Creek, and for several reaches on Shitike Creek and 

the Warm Springs River system. Habitat degradation on the stretch of the Deschutes River 

above the mouth of Trout Creek results primarily from recreational impacts on riparian 

vegetation on the east side of the river and from grazing impacts on the west side of the river. 

On lower Shitike Creek and the Warm Springs River, channel simplification and land use 

practices have accentuated flashy flows that scour the channel and reduce habitat complexity 

(NPCC 2004b). Some instream habitat projects have been implemented on the Warm Springs 

River and have increased habitat complexity (NPCC 2004b). Channelization and loss of large 

wood along the lower four miles of Shitike Creek have reduced channel and fish habitat 

heterogeneity (e.g. side channels, substrate diversity, etc.). Loss of floodplain connectivity has 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-32 

resulted in increased water temperatures and the loss of off-channel juvenile rearing habitat and 

winter high flow refugia. EDT results identified channel instability as a major limiting factor for 

the Shitike and Warm Springs systems (NPCC 2004b). In the Whychus Creek drainage, channel 

simplification has reduced channel complexity and stability from RM 24.7 to the National 

Grassland Boundary (RM 5), resulting in a loss of sinuosity and stream length (NPCC 2004b). 

Degraded water quality 

The lower Deschutes River and several westside tributary reaches are included on the 2002 

ODEQ 303(d) list of water quality limited streams (NPCC 2004b). The lower Deschutes River 

exceeds temperature criteria for salmonid rearing from White River to Pelton Dam. In addition, 

water temperatures in lower reaches of Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek can exceed 70°F 

from mid to late summer. EDT results identified water temperature during incubation and 

juvenile rearing as a major limiting factor in lower Shitike Creek, Beaver Creek, and several 

other reaches (NPCC 2004b). Suspended sediment further reduces water quality in smaller 

tributaries to the Deschutes River and in Quartz and Coyote creeks in the Warm Springs River 

system. Whychus Creek is also included on the 2002 ODEQ 303(d) list for exceeding water 

temperature criterion for salmonid spawning during summer months (NPCC 2004b). 

 

Information regarding chemical contaminants and nutrients in streams is lacking for this area. It 

is likely that levels of both are above pre-settlement levels because of fertilizer and pesticide use 

for agriculture. Irrigation return flows to the Deschutes River and its tributaries may pose water 

quality problems (NPCC 2004b). Contaminants from municipal waste spill/discharge into 

Shitike Creek and from water lagoons and golf course at the resort on the mainstem Warm 

Springs River also degraded water quality. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

Lands in watersheds that support the Deschutes River Westside steelhead population have 

generally been degraded through grazing, agriculture, forest practices, and roads, and are not 

able to capture and slowly release precipitation as efficiently as they did historically. Headwater 

channel scour has reduced water storage and lowered the water table (NPCC 2004b). This is 

especially true for Coyote, Quartz, Tenino, Skookum, Eagle, and Nena Creeks. It is also the case 

on upper Beaver Creek where the creek has been channelized along Hwy 26. Flows, which are 

dominated by snowmelt, peak in spring and taper off through the summer to base levels in 

August or September. Small tributary flows are often intermittent, limiting habitat availability in 

the summer. EDT results identified reduced streamflows as a major limiting factor in this area. 

Altered sediment routing 

Fine sediment levels in spawning substrate are a concern in Shitike and Warm Springs systems 

and small tributaries to the Deschutes River. Several drainages, including Quartz and Coyote 

creeks in the Warm Springs system, contain highly erosive soils that have become more unstable 

due to extensive grazing, construction of logging roads, and conversion of land for tilled 

agriculture (NPCC 2004b). Excessive sediment loads also occur occasionally in the Warm 

Springs River, primarily due to runoff from lower tributaries, including Coyote and Quartz 

creeks in the Beaver Creek drainage, and from Charlie Canyon. Lower Whychus Creek also 

displays a high percentage of fine sediment associated with unstable streambanks and livestock 

grazing (NPCC 2004b). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-33 

The small tributaries to the Deschutes River have become incised and lost some of the steelhead 

spawning gravel that was historically abundant. In-channel large wood, which has decreased the 

ability of streams to sort and store spawning gravels, has also been reduced throughout the area 

(NPCC 2004b). Increased fine sediment in small tributaries results from cropland and rangeland 

runoff. Substrates contained less fine sediment before European settlement due to stable 

vegetation conditions (NPCC 2004b). 

Impaired fish passage 

The Pelton-Round Butte Complex on the Deschutes River at RM 100 blocks fish passage to and 

from historical habitats in the Metolius River, Whychus Creek and other previously accessible 

habitats above the complex. Fish passage facilities were constructed with the dams, but attempts 

to pass juveniles out of the system failed. Currently efforts are underway to restore passage as 

part of the FERC relicensing process (NPCC 2004b). The new downstream fish passage 

structure is scheduled to be functioning by 2010. Details of the proposed reintroduction are 

presented in the tributary hydro actions in Section 9. 

Adult steelhead are also affected by structural barriers, such as culverts, irrigation diversions, 

roads and railroad crossings that block upstream passage. Juvenile rearing is greatly affected by 

all of the passage barriers. 

Table 8-17 shows limiting factors and priorities identified in the EDT Diagnostic Report for the 

Deschutes Westside steelhead population. A summary of the major limiting factors and threats 

by geographic area is presented in Table 8-18. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-34 

Table 8-17. Limiting factors and priorities for restoration as defined by EDT for Deschutes River 

Westside steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

Paquet Gulch-1

Wapinitia Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

Warm Springs MS-2

Warm Springs MS-3

Beaver Cr-1 (WS)

Beaver Cr-2 (WS)

Beaver Cr-3 (WS)

Beaver Cr-4 (WS)

Beaver Cr-5 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-4

Mill Cr-1 (WS)

Boulder Cr (WS)

Mill Cr-2 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-5

Badger Cr (WS)

Warm Springs MS-6

Warm Springs MS-7

Warm Springs MS-8

Bunchgrass Cr

Warm Springs MS-9

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Trout Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-20

Shitike Cr-1

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-35 

Table 8-18. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Deschutes River Westside steelhead 

population.

 Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted

Potential 

Causes/Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

DESCHUTES WESTSIDE POPULATION 

Deschutes 

River 

Westside 

Population 

Degraded riparian 

communities; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure (complexity, 

side-channel habitat, 

diversity); water quality 

(temp); altered hydrology 

(low flow); altered 

sediment routing; 

blocked and impaired 

fish passage 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial 

structure, 

diversity 

Primarily livestock 

grazing, roads, 

residential development 

and agricultural 

practices that simplify 

habitat, irrigation 

withdrawals, forest 

practices, dams and 

other barriers 

All life stages 

Lower Warm 

Springs 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(complexity, loss of 

LWD); degraded riparian 

communities; degraded 

water quality (temp); 

altered hydrology; altered 

sediment routing 

Beaver Creek [R, 

F, CS, T, S 

(mouth to Wilson 

Cr.)]; Warm 

Springs R. [(F, 

CS and R in KaNee-Ta resort 

area), S, R 

(mouth to 

Schoolie Cr.)]; 

Quartz and 

Coyote creeks [F, 

CS, S] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Confinement and runoff 

from Hwy. 26, livestock 

grazing, bank armoring 

and confinement in KaNee-Ta area 

All life stages 

Middle 

Warms 

Springs 

MaSA 

Degraded riparian 

communities; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure; altered 

sediment routing 

Badger Creek Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Primarily livestock 

grazing, roads, and 

agriculture practices 

All life stages 

Upper Warm 

Springs 

MaSA 

Degraded channel 

structure; water quality 

(temp) 

SF Warm Springs 

and Upper Warm 

Springs Rs 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Loss of LWD All life stages 

Mill Creek 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(channelization, 

complexity) 

Mill Cr. [mouth to 

Old Mill Camp] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Channelization All life stages 

Shitike Creek 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded 

water quality (temp, 

pollutants); altered 

sediment routing 

Shitike Cr. [F, CS, 

R (mouth to upper 

road crossing, 

City of Warm 

Springs, near 

Hwy. 26); WQ 

(Warm Springs 

mill site and 

sewage lagoons)] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Livestock grazing, 

riparian degradation 

and confinement 

through Warm Springs, 

Hwy. 26, Warm Springs 

mill site and sewage 

lagoons, channelization 

All life stages 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F), degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), high water temperatures (T); altered 

sediment routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP).
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-36 

8.2.4 Crooked River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified for the Crooked River steelhead 

population are degraded channel structure and complexity and floodplain connectivity, degraded 

riparian condition, high water temperature, low flows and lack of fish passage over PeltonRound Butte Complex (ODFW 1996). 

The Crooked River and tributaries were historically inhabited by Mid Columbia summer 

steelhead. They were extirpated in the upper Ochoco Creek watershed in 1921 with the 

construction of Ochoco Dam approximately five miles east of Prineville. Steelhead use in the 

upper mainstem Crooked River including the North and South forks and Beaver and Bear creeks 

was terminated with the completion of Bowman Dam at Rm 70 in 1961. Limiting factors are 

similar for habitats upstream and downstream of the two dams. However, only the lower 

Crooked River watershed below the dams is identified by the Upper Deschutes Subbasin Plan 

amendment (ODFW 2003) for reintroduction of the species. Discussion of habitat limiting 

factors in the Crooked River watershed will focus on the reintroduction area followed by a 

section describing conditions in the upper watershed above Ochoco and Bowman dams. 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian vegetation condition in the lower Crooked River watershed is largely a function of 

geomorphology and land use practices. Two separate reaches of the mainstem flow through 

steep narrow basalt canyons and are managed by the Bureau of Land Management as Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. These reaches extend from the head of Lake Billy Chinook at Rm 6 to the 

Highway 97 crossing at Rm 17 and from Rm 62 upstream from Prineville to Bowman Dam at 

Rm 70. Riparian communities in these reaches are in excellent condition resulting in stable 

channel conditions and reduced sediment inputs. However, limited numbers of large riparian 

trees, lack of wood recruitment from portions of the watershed above Ochoco and Bowman 

Dams and periodic scouring high flow events result in these reaches lacking in large wood. 

Riparian condition in the mainstem between the two Wild and Scenic reaches is extremely 

degraded. Past grazing and agricultural practices contributed to almost complete removal of 

native vegetation resulting in bank instability, minimal canopy cover and high sediment loads. 

Restoration efforts have had limited success due to the erosive soils, lack of vegetation, incised 

channel and altered hydrograph. Large wood is absent in this reach. 

Ochoco Creek below Ochoco Dam is characterized by largely degraded riparian conditions 

resulting from livestock and agricultural practices as well as development in and around 

Prineville. Scattered remnant willows and cottonwoods are present but the riparian community 

is dominated by reed canary grass. Limited overstory canopy is present in the section of the 

creek that flows through Prineville. Large wood is absent. Riparian conditions in lower McKay 

Creek are similar to Ochoco Creek. The upper McKay watershed is on USDA Ochoco National 

Forest ownership. Riparian conditions are significantly improved from that of the lower 

watershed. Vegetation consists of both conifers and woody species. Full site potential is not 

realized due to livestock grazing and damage resulting from unauthorized off highway vehicle 

use. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-37 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Floodplain interaction in the lower Crooked River was important for dissipating energy during 

high flow events, providing off channel refugia for juvenile salmonids and storing water for late 

season release. Floodplain connectivity and function is variable within the Crooked River 

steelhead reintroduction area. Generally, in the Wild and Scenic reaches of the mainstem and 

upper McKay Creek connectivity is intact. However, the middle section of the mainstem, 

Ochoco Creek and lower McKay Creek have limited connectivity to the floodplain. In 

particular, the reach of the Crooked River from Lone Pine to Prineville (Rm 31 to Rm 51) has a 

deeply incised channel and extremely poor floodplain connectivity resulting in chronic bank 

erosion that has hampered restoration efforts. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Diverse habitats including pools and structures providing cover increase the production capacity 

of a stream through increased holding areas for migrating adults and particularly for juvenile 

steelhead rearing. The entire section of the Crooked River watershed in the steelhead 

reintroduction area was channelized following the 1964 floods excluding the two canyon reaches 

of the mainstem and the upper section of McKay Creek. Channelization resulted in severe 

reduction in channel complexity and width/depth and pool/riffle indices. 

Degraded water quality 

Water quality degradation in the Crooked River is largely from nonpoint pollution sources 

including livestock grazing, timber harvest, and agricultural and stormwater runoff. Primary 

water quality parameters limiting steelhead production are temperature, dissolved oxygen and 

turbidity. The Crooked River is on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 303d list 

for not meeting water quality standards for temperature, turbidity and total dissolved gas. In 

particular, the Crooked River mainstem from the Highway 97 crossing (Rm 17) to the Feed 

Canal (Rm 51) suffers from chronically high summer temperatures often in excess of 80F. 

Partially treated wastewater discharged into the river near Prineville during the winter months 

also impairs water quality. 

The hypolimnotic release of water from Bowman Dam results in cool water (52F) discharged 

into the Crooked River. This results in favorable summer conditions supporting a very robust 

redband trout population and popular tailrace fishery. Conversely, flows released from the dam 

in excess of 2000 cfs result in nitrogen supersaturation and dependent upon length of exposure 

can result in varying degrees of gas bubble disease. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

The natural hydrograph was largely driven by climactic patterns of the Blue Mountain 

physiographic province characterized by hot arid summers and cold winters. The majority of 

annual precipitation occurred as snowfall. Annual streamflow was determined largely by 

snowpack. This resulted in low to moderate year around base flow with annual spring runoff 

events. 

The hydrology of the lower Crooked River steelhead reintroduction area has been significantly 

altered by construction of Ochoco and Bowman dams and management of water released from 

Prineville and Ochoco reservoirs, irrigation practices and removal of beaver. Reservoir 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-38 

management has the greatest influence on flows in the mainstem Crooked River and Ochoco 

Creek. Releases of water for irrigation delivery result in flows (250 cfs – Crooked R., 20 cfs - 

Ochoco Cr.) exceeding natural levels from April through October in the reaches upstream of the 

major points of diversion: Rm 51 to Rm 70 on the Crooked and Rm 3 to Rm 10 on Ochoco 

Creek. At the close of irrigation season in October, water is stored in the two reservoirs and 

releases are reduced to 50-75 cfs in the Crooked River (legally protected flows in the non 

irrigation period are 10 cfs) and 5-10 cfs in Ochoco Creek. This pattern is occasionally 

punctuated by spring high flow events when the respective reservoirs fill and inflow is 

discharged downstream. This flow management has generally resulted in robust populations of 

redband trout in the tailrace reaches of both the Crooked River and Ochoco Creek Below the 

major points of diversion streamflows are critically low, particularly in the Crooked River from 

Rm 14 to Rm 51. Low summer flows and high temperatures (exceeding 80F) limit trout 

production in this reach. Below the Highway 97 crossing on the Crooked River groundwater 

from the east slope of the Cascades Mountains resurfaces as springs recharging the streamflow 

with cool water. Summer readings at the Opal gauge near Culver average 1250 cfs just upstream 

from Lake Billy Chinook. This results in favorable water quality and quantity conditions for 

resident redband trout and introduced steelhead, however, the reach is spawning gravel limited. 

Hydrology in lower McKay Creek has been significantly altered as well downstream of the 

Ochoco National Forest boundary at Rm 14. Irrigation withdrawals frequently dewater the creek 

from this point downstream to Rm 5 during the irrigation season. At Rm 3.5 and Rm 5 Ochoco 

Irrigation District’s main canals bisect McKay Creek at each of these points 1-10 cfs of water is 

diverted from the canal and the creek serves as a conduit to deliver irrigation water to 

downstream customers. This results in artificially favorable flows in this reach of McKay Creek 

that supports a healthy redband trout population despite relatively degraded habitat conditions. 

Altered sediment routing 

Sediment deposition and substrate composition in the lower Crooked River recovery area are 

altered through two pathways. The mainstem reach from Prineville to Lone Pine and most of the 

Ochoco and McKay Creek watersheds have degraded riparian areas, poorly functioning channels 

and unstable banks. These conditions result in high levels of fine sediment incorporated into 

available spawning gravel. Conversely, the mainstem reach below Bowman Dam receives little 

sediment impact from eroding banks but has chronic high turbidity levels resulting from fine 

sediments released from Prineville Reservoir. Bowman Dam also serves to limit gravel 

recruitment, which may limit steelhead production, into this reach. In general, the reaches with 

the highest water quantity and quality have limited amounts of spawning gravel, while the 

reaches with abundant gravel are water and sediment limited. The one reach in the 

reintroduction area currently with fair to good conditions for both spawning and rearing is the 

mainstem Crooked River from Prineville (Rm 51 to Rice Baldwin Dam Rm 55). The lower five 

miles of McKay Creek and the eight miles within the Ochoco National Forest as well as the ten 

miles of Ochoco Creek from the mouth to Ochoco Dam also have moderate potential to support 

each steelhead life history stage. 

Impaired fish passage 

Artificial barriers are a significant limiting factor for steelhead production in the Crooked River. 

However, ongoing efforts by ODFW, the Crooked River Watershed Council, U.S Fish and 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-39 

Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service and others are making progress at 

addressing several barriers. The Pelton-Round Butte Complex represents the paramount 

impediment to steelhead passage into upper Deschutes Basin including the Crooked River. 

Development of passage facilities is a FERC license condition to operate the hydroelectric 

project. Passage efforts here are discussed elsewhere in this document. 

A second large barrier to upstream fish migration into the Crooked River is Opal Springs Dam at 

Rm 7, approximately one mile upstream from the Crooked River Arm of Lake Billy Chinook. 

This is a 24 foot high concrete dam owned and operated by Deschutes Valley Water District. It 

was constructed in 1982 as part of a FERC licensed hydroelectric project. At the time of 

licensing passage was not required. The license does not expire until 2032, however, numerous 

stakeholders are working collaboratively with the dam operator to construct passage facilities at 

Opal Springs with an estimated completion date in 2012. 

There are four additional concrete irrigation dams on the mainstem Crooked River between Opal 

and Bowman Dams. The Crooked River Watershed Council and others completed construction 

of passage facilities at the Crooked River Central and People’s Irrigation District Dams at Rms 

44 and 51 respectively in January 2009. The Rice Baldwin and Stearns Dams remain partial 

barriers with the former passable by adult fish at all flows and the later passable to adults at high 

flows. Discussions are underway to improve passage at Stearns Dam in the near future. 

Both Crooked River major tributaries, Ochoco and McKay Creeks had numerous seasonal and 

permanent barriers prior to the 1998 flood in Prineville. Ochoco Irrigation District alone had 

eleven permanent or seasonal barriers in the two creeks prior to the flood. The irrigation district 

worked collaboratively with ODFW, OWEB and others to replace each of these diversions with 

state of the art structures. Currently there is one seasonal barrier on Ochoco Creek and two 

permanent partial barriers on McKay Creek. ODFW and the Watershed Council are engaged 

with private landowners to provide passage at each of these sites. 

Upper Crooked River Watershed Limiting Factors 

The upper Crooked River watershed includes the mainstem, North Fork, South Fork, Bear Creek 

and Beaver Creek above Bowman Dam and Ochoco Creek and Mill Creek above Ochoco Dam. 

The entire upper subbasin was historically inhabited by summer steelhead with the exception of 

the North Fork Crooked River that had a largely impassable natural barrier (Lower Falls) nine 

miles upstream from the mouth. However, these historic habitats are not in the current Mid 

Columbia steelhead reintroduction area. 

Limiting factors in the upper watershed are largely similar to the lower watershed. A notable 

exception is the water quality and quantity issues in the mainstem above Prineville Reservoir are 

more pervasive. Summer flow is routinely below 5 cfs with stream temperatures in the mid 80s. 

Suitable steelhead production areas are fragmented are largely disconnected from viable 

migration and rearing areas. Conversely, the upper Ochoco watershed has considerable 

steelhead production potential. The Mill Creek watershed in particular has had considerable 

restoration work and could be one of the most productive streams in the subbasin. Altered 

hydrology is the primary limiting factor in upper Ochoco as well. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-40 

A summary of the major limiting factors and threats for the Crooked River steelhead population 

by geographic area is presented in Table 8-19. 

Table 8-19. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Crooked River steelhead population. Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted

Potential 

Causes/Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

CROOKED RIVER POPULATION 

Crooked 

River 

Population 

Degraded riparian 

communities; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure (complexity, 

side-channel habitat, 

diversity); water quality 

(temp); altered 

hydrology (low flow); 

altered sediment routing; 

blocked and impaired 

fish passage 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial 

structure, 

diversity 

Primarily livestock 

grazing, residential 

development and 

agricultural practices 

that simplify habitat, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

unauthorized OHV use, 

dams and other 

barriers, reservoir 

release flows 

All life stages 

Crooked 

confluence 

MISA 

(reintroduction) 

Limited spawning 

habitat, passage 

Crooked River 

(Rm 6 – Rm 7) 

BP 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Barrier at Opal Springs 

Dam 

Spawning 

Lone Pine 

MISA 

(reintroduction) 

Limited spawning habitat Crooked River 

(Rm 7 –Rm 20) 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

 Spawning 

McKay 

MASA 

(reintroduction) 

Degraded channel 

structure; water quality 

(temp), altered 

hydrology, degraded 

riparian communites, 

altered sediment routing, 

passage 

McKay Cr. (Rm 0 

- Rm 14) 

including Allen 

Cr. F, CS, R, H, 

S, T, BP; McKay 

Cr. (Rm 14-Rm 

19) including 

Little McKay 

Cr.CS, R, S, WQ 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Past channelization, 

livestock grazing and 

agricultural practices, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

unauthorized OHV use, 

permanent and 

seasonal barriers, 

removal of riparian 

vegetation, loss of LWD 

All life stages 

Lower Ochoco 

MASA 

(reintroduction) 

Degraded channel 

structure and reduced 

complexity, altered 

hydrology, degraded 

riparian communites, 

altered sediment routing, 

Ochoco Cr (Rm 0 

– Rm 10) F, CS, 

R, H, S, IP 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Urban development in 

reach through 

Prineville, flow 

management in 

releases from Ochoco 

Dam. Livestock grazing 

and agricultural 

practices in upper 

reach below Ochoco 

Dam 

All life stages 

Lower 

Crooked 

MASA 

(reintroduction) 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded 

water quality (temp, 

pollutants); altered 

sediment routing 

Crooked River 

(Rm 20 – Rm 56) 

F, CS, R ,H, WQ, 

T, S; Crooked 

River (Rm 56 – 

Rm 70) H, WQ, 

S, BP 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Livestock grazing and 

agricultural practices, 

past channelization, 

flow management or 

releases from Bowman 

Dam, irrigation 

withdrawals 

All life stages 

Upper Ochoco 

MASA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded 

water quality (temp, 

pollutants); altered 

sediment routing 

Mill Creek (Rm 0-

Rm 15) F, CS, H, 

T; considerable 

restoration has 

occurred. 

Ochoco Cr. (Rm 

14-Rm 32) 

F,CS,R, H, T, S; 

Wolf Cr. (Rm 0 – 

Rm 4). CS, R; 

Marks Cr. (Rm 0- 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Livestock grazing and 

agricultural practices, 

past channelization, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

roads , forest 

management 

All life stages 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-41 

 Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted

Potential 

Causes/Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

Rm 8) CS, T, S, 

BP 

Upper 

Crooked, 

South Fork 

Crooked, 

Beaver Cr 

MASAs, Bear 

Cr. MISA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; degraded 

water quality (temp, 

pollutants); altered 

sediment routing 

Crooked R (Rm 

86 – Rm 125) 

and tribs. 

F,CS,R,H,T,S , 

BP (Horse 

Heaven Cr), IP; 

South Fk 

Crooked (Rm 0 – 

Rm 20) CS, R, H, 

T, S, IP; Beaver 

Cr.(Rm 0 – Rm 

25) and tribs 

F,CS, R, H, T, S,; 

North Fk Crooked 

(Rm 0 – Rm 9) 

CS, R, H, T 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Livestock grazing and 

agricultural practices, 

past channelization, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

roads, forest 

management 

All life stages 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F), degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), high water temperatures (T); altered 

sediment routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP).

8.2.5 Lower Mainstem John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified for this population are: degraded 

floodplain and degraded channel structure (key habitat quantity and habitat diversity), altered 

sediment routing, water quality (temperature), and altered hydrology. Obstructions are high 

priority limiting factors in Bridge, Kahler, Muddy, Rock (lower in Gilliam County), and 

Thirtymile creeks. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Land cover in the lower John Day River watershed is predominately rangeland and cropland 

(ODA 2004). Floodplains and riparian areas have been extensively altered by agriculture, 

livestock grazing, transportation corridors, and other development. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

The lower reaches of tributaries in many MaSAs and MiSAs for this population have had 

extensive channel modifications. Channelization and streambank hardening are extensive, 

affecting channel conditions and dynamics. Habitat diversity and LWD are also lacking, and 

overall habitat complexity is well below benchmark condition. Examples include lower Bridge, 

Mountain, Rock (Wheeler County), Cottonwood, Ferry Canyon, Pine Hollow, and Thirtymile. 

Conditions improve upstream in many of the streams that flow out of the Bridge Creek 

Wilderness, including Bridge, Mountain, and Rock (Wheeler County), as well as Cottonwood 

Creek, that flows out of a roadless area. 

Kahler and Service creeks have low levels of LWD and overall habitat complexity. EDT results 

identified habitat diversity as a medium priority limiting factor and key habitat quantity as a high 

priority. Ferry Canyon has an incised channel that is generally unstable, though conditions have 

improved recently. Pine Hollow has a pipeline buried in the channel for 6.6 miles, which in 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-42 

combination with the 1964 flood, contributes to a very unstable channel. Channel conditions in 

Thirtymile Creek are generally degraded, with low levels of LWD and habitat complexity. 

Habitat complexity in Butte Creek is generally higher, with rearing occurring throughout the 

system. Rock Creek (Gilliam County) channel conditions are degraded, with areas that have 

been channelized and have low levels of LWD. 

Altered sediment routing 

EDT findings indicated that sediment impacts in the Lower John Day watershed are higher than 

elsewhere in the subbasin (NPCC 2005). Sediment problems are often associated with changes 

in native plant communities due to wheat farming, grazing, and other activities that can cause 

severe streambank erosion and sedimentation. Forest and other roads, if not constructed and 

maintained with best management practices, can contribute to altered sediment routing. EDT 

results show sediment as a high priority limiting factor in Bridge, Butte, Grass Valley, Muddy, 

Scott Canyon, Lower and Upper Rock (Gilliam County), Thirtymile, Pine Hollow, and Mountain 

creeks, and gravel embeddedness as a significant limiting factor in the lower watershed. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

The USGS-maintained gage at McDonald Ferry, Oregon at RM 21, the oldest gage in the 

subbasin, has been in operation since December 1904. The lowest recorded discharge from the 

McDonald Ferry station was zero cfs for part of September 2, 1966, August 15 to September 16, 

1973, and August 13, 14 and 19-25, 1977. Peak flow at the McDonald Ferry gaging station is 

typically more than 100 times greater than the lowest flows of the same year. From year to year, 

peak flows can vary as much as 300 to 700%. This portion of the watershed is prone to intense 

thunderstorms, which can scour channels down to bedrock, during summer months. 

According to NMFS 2005, water withdrawals, riparian corridor alterations, grazing, channel 

alterations, and wetland loses have all contributed to lower base flows. Low flows are below 

benchmark in the lower reaches of Bridge, Cottonwood, and Mountain creeks. Flows are also 

below benchmark in Ferry Canyon, Pine Hollow, Thirtymile, Lower Rock (Wheeler County), 

and Butte. Water diversions contribute to reduced summer low flows in most of these areas. 

EDT results rated “flow” as either a medium or low priority for restoration in 16 out of 18 

reaches in the Lower John Day, though the subbasin planning technical team considered flow 

restoration a higher priority for several reaches. Flow is not a restoration priority for the lower 

John Day River McDonald Ferry reach since it is frequently inundated by backwaters from the 

John Day reservoir. Flow restoration would improve several other limiting factors addressed by 

EDT including habitat complexity and temperature. 

Degraded water quality 

From July to September, groundwater provides much of the base flow to the Lower John Day 

River (NPCC 2005). Elevated temperature is an important limiting factor for most stream 

segments for the Lower John Day population that are measured (ODA 2004). 

BLM (1999) characterized temperature as “Not Properly Functioning” for all streams rated in the 

lower John Day. Other water quality constituents such as total phosphates, biological oxygen 

demand, and fecal coliform can also limit water quality in late summer when flows are lowest 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-43 

and water temperatures are the greatest. Cottonwood, Rock (Wheeler Co) and Bridge have good 

quality water in their upper reaches, but water quality conditions, especially temperature, 

degrade in the lower reaches. Butte Creek has water quality that supports rearing throughout the 

stream. Table 8-20 shows 303(d) listed streams in the Lower John Day watershed. 

Table 8-20. Lower John Day watershed 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters of concern 

(ODEQ 2002 cited in NPCC 2005). Waterbodies that are listed multiple times represent 

different locations and/or different life stages. 

Waterbody Name Parameter Waterbody Name Parameter 

Bear Creek Temperature John Day River Temperature 

Bridge Creek Temperature John Day River Temperature 

Gable Creek Temperature John Day River Fecal Coliform 

Grass Valley Canyon Temperature John Day River Dissolved Oxygen 

Henry Creek Temperature Nelson Creek Temperature 

John Day River Fecal Coliform Pine Creek Biological Criteria 

John Day River pH Sorefoot Creek Temperature 

John Day River Temperature Stahl Canyon Temperature 

John Day River Temperature Thirtymile Creek Temperature 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

EDT results identified “obstructions” as a high priority limiting factor in Bridge, Kahler, Muddy, 

Lower Rock (Gilliam County), and Thirtymile creeks, and a medium priority in Rock Creek 

(Wheeler County). The passage barrier on Bridge Creek is near the town of Mitchell and is 

considered passable to adults. The passage barrier on Kahler Creek is low in the system and only 

a juvenile barrier. Irrigation diversions create passage barriers on Lower Rock Creek (Gilliam 

County). Some of these have been repaired, but others have not. A fish passage structure was 

installed recently on Thirtymile Creek. None of the passage barriers identified are complete 

barriers, except for the one on Muddy Creek. ODFW biologists also identified passage problems 

on Mountain Creek (Unterwegner 2005). 

Many irrigation diversions occur within the John Day subbasin watershed and, in low-water 

years, fish may encounter passage and spawning difficulties in some tributary reaches due to 

these diversions. Flows necessary for migration may be unavailable during early summer 

months and low-flow conditions may limit the use of some potential spawning areas (NMFS 

2003a). 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian conditions have been degraded by agriculture, grazing, stream channelization, and 

riparian roads, and other development and activities. EDT rated riparian habitat improvements 

as “high” to “very high” priorities for restoration in all reaches of the lower John Day watershed. 

Reaches of Lower Rock (Gilliam County), Kahler, Service, Pine Hollow, and Thirtymile have 

very poor riparian conditions. Riparian conditions are fairly good in the Bridge Creek 

Wilderness areas of Bridge, Mountain and Rock (Wheeler County) creeks and in the inventoried 

roadless area of Cottonwood Creek. Many reaches of Ferry Canyon and Pine Creek also have 

good riparian cover. Butte has generally fairly good riparian cover, except for isolated areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-44 

Table 8-21 shows limiting factors and priorities identified by EDT diagnostic reports for the 

Lower John Day steelhead population. A summary of major limiting factors and threats by 

geographic area is presented in Table 8-22. 

Table 8-21. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT for 

the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Bridge Creek

Butte Creek

Fields Creek

Grass Valley Canyon

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower Rock Cr

Mountain Creek

Pine Hollow

Rock Creek

Thirtymile Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Upper Rock Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-45 

Table 8-22. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

LOWER MAINSTEM JOHN DAY POPULATION 

Lower 

Mainstem 

John Day 

Population 

Altered hydrology (low flow); 

degraded water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure (complexity, diversity, 

pools); degraded riparian 

community; altered sediment 

routing 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, roads, 

irrigation 

withdrawals, 

wetland draining 

and conversion, 

diking and stream 

channelization 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry 

survival, fryto-smolt 

survival. 

One-year 

smolts 

present at 

reduced 

level. 

Ferry MaSA degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; altered hydrology 

Ferry Canyon 

[H, F, CS] 

Productivity, 

abundance 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Middle 

Rock 

(Gilliam) 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

degraded water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; altered hydrology 

Rock Cr. [F, CS] Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Pine Hollow 

MaSA 

Altered hydrology, degraded 

riparian communities; altered 

sediment routing; degraded water 

quality (temp); degraded floodplain 

and channel structure 

Pine Hollow Cr. 

[F, CS (lower, 

pipeline), S,H,R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural 

activities, livestock 

grazing 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Upper Rock 

(Gilliam) 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

degraded water quality (temp); 

altered hydrology; degraded 

floodplain and channel structure 

[F, CS, S] Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals and 

forest practices 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Lower Rock 

MaSA 

degraded riparian communities; 

altered sediment routing; altered 

hydrology; impaired fish passage; 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; water quality (temp) 

Rock Cr. [R, IP 

(lower), H,S,F, 

CS] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural 

activities, livestock 

grazing, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Thirtymile 

MaSA 

impaired fish passage; altered 

hydrology, degraded floodplain 

and channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water quality 

(temp); degraded riparian 

communities 

Thirtymile Cr. [F, 

CS (lower 

especially), 

S,H,R,IP,T] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

forest practices 

activities, livestock 

grazing, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Bridge 

MaSA 

impaired fish passage; degraded 

floodplain and channel structure; 

altered sediment routing; water 

quality (temp); altered hydrology 

Bridge Cr. [F, 

CS,R,H (lower), 

IP (near 

Mitchell), S,T] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-46 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

Mountain 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp); altered 

hydrology; impaired fish passage 

Mountain Cr. [F, 

CS, H (lower), S, 

IP] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Rock 

(Wheeler) 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; water quality (temp); 

altered hydrology 

Rock [F, CS 

(lower), H, IP] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Kahler 

MaSA 

Altered hydrology; degraded 

floodplain and channel structure; 

impaired fish passage; altered 

sediment routing; water quality 

(temp); degraded riparian 

communities 

Kahler Cr. [IP 

(lower), F, CS, 

R,] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Butte MaSA Altered hydrology; degraded 

floodplain and channel structure; 

altered sediment routing; water 

quality (temp), degraded riparian 

communities in isolated reaches 

Butte Cr. [H, S 

(lower)], R 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Service 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and channel 

structure; degraded riparian 

communities; altered hydrology; 

altered sediment routing; water 

quality (temp) 

Service Cr. [F, 

CS, R] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

Cottonwood 

MaSA 

Altered hydrology; water quality 

(temp) 

Cottonwood Cr. 

[H, F, CS (lower 

reaches)] 

Reduced 

productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure, 

diversity 

Agricultural and 

livestock grazing 

practices, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile 

rearing, egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-fry, 

fry-to-smolt, 

one-year 

smolts 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F), degraded channel structure and 

complexity (CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); 

altered sediment routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.2.6 North Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

North Fork John Day River steelhead population are degraded floodplain connectivity and 

function, degraded channel structure and complexity (key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, 

channel stability), altered sediment routing, water quality (temperature), and altered hydrology. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Floodplain connectivity in several reaches of the Granite Creek system has, until recently, been 

limited by dredge piles from historical mining operations. Many of these historical dredge piles 

sat very near the stream and prevented the stream from overflowing into the floodplain during 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-47 

high flow events. During the last five years, many of the tailing piles along Granite and Clear 

creeks have been leveled and floodplain connectivity has been re-established. However, a high 

flow event is needed to reconfigure the channel and create the necessary pool frequency. 

 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Most indicators of channel condition within the North Fork John Day River are “functioning at 

risk” (NMFS 2003). The North Fork River does not meet PACFISH pool frequency 

management objectives (USDA and USDI 1994 cited in NPCC 2005). Key habitat quantity is 

identified by the EDT analysis as the most important limiting factor to address for this 

population. Pool frequency and quality limit production in the Granite Creek and upper North 

Fork systems. Degraded channel conditions also limit steelhead production in the Big Wall 

Creek drainage (NMFS 2003). Middle Camas and lower Owens Creek watersheds have good 

potential; however, stream channels are incised, LWD is low, and habitat diversity is limited. 

Large pools, channel habitat, wetted width/maximum depth ratio, and streambank condition are 

considered properly functioning in the Granite Creek subwatershed. 

Altered sediment routing 

Erosion caused by forest practices and other activities affects habitat conditions in several parts 

of the North Fork drainage. The Wallowa Whitman National Forest (WWNF) has identified 

sediment as “functioning at risk” in both the Granite Creek and Upper North Fork John Day 

subwatersheds. The Umatilla National Forest (UNF) considers sediment to be “not properly 

functioning” and substrate embeddedness to be functioning at risk in the Big Wall Creek 

subwatershed (NMFS 2003). Big Wall Creek was listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. 

Sediment modeling conducted for the parts of the Big Wall Creek subwatershed indicates that 

only prescribed fire and instream habitat improvement posed more than negligible risk of 

sediment increases (NMFS 2003). Wissmar et al. (1994) noted that turbidity in Cottonwood 

Creek, a North Fork tributary, is notoriously high after storm events. The resulting siltation of 

stream beds decrease aquatic insect production and degrades spawning habitat. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

Water yield is generally close to benchmark conditions in most of the upper reaches and 

tributaries to the North Fork John Day, where much of the watershed is protected as a wilderness 

area. Low flows are more a problem in the lower elevation tributaries to the west including the 

lower reaches of Big Wall, Cottonwood, and Rudio. EDT results identified flow as a medium 

priority restoration need in Cottonwood Creek and as a low restoration priority for Granite, upper 

and lower Camas, and the lower North Fork John Day River. 

The Pete Mann ditch system in the Granite Creek watershed is a complex of ditches originally 

constructed in the late 1800s to deliver water to local mines. Currently, the ditch system delivers 

water to both mines and land irrigated for agriculture. The Pete Mann ditch system often 

completely diverts Lightning Creek, Salmon Creek, and the East Fork Clear Creek (all steelhead 

streams) into the Burnt River subbasin, a non-anadromous basin. Although the Forest Service 

did not rate change in peak/base flows, it is likely that this indicator is functioning either “at risk” 

or “not properly functioning” because of this ditch system. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-48 

Degraded water quality 

The North Fork has the best chemical, physical, and biological water quality in the John Day 

subbasin as compared to ODEQ water quality standards (USDI 2000 cited in NPCC 2004). Most 

of the streams in this subbasin are considered in relatively good condition, with the exception of 

elevated late summer water temperatures that do not meet ODEQ standards (Table 8-23). Water 

temperature is primarily a concern in Cottonwood Creek, the lower North Fork John Day and 

lower reaches of Granite Creek. Because the North Fork (including its primary tributary, the 

Middle Fork) contributes 60% of the flow to the mainstem John Day (OWRD 1986), the 

influence of the North Fork on temperature is significant. 

Leaching of toxic mine waste and a high degree of stream sedimentation from highly erodible, 

decomposing granitic soils also create water quality problems in the North Fork. Waste from 

abandoned mine sites may be having serious negative effects on water quality in the upper North 

Fork John Day and Granite Creek watersheds, where ODFW biologists have observed dead fish 

and adult spring Chinook with gill lesions (NMFS 2003; Wilson et al. 2005a). The cause of this 

mortality is not certain, but elevated iron and heavy metal concentrations may be a contributing 

factor. While recent surveys conducted by the UNF and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

indicate that mercury was not present in high enough concentrations known to cause these types 

of effects, conditions at abandoned mine sites and abatement ponds may change yearly, 

increasing the amount of heavy metals released (NMFS 2003). Hot geothermal springs also 

exist, but their effects on water quality are not fully known (NPCC 2005). 

Table 8-23. North Fork John Day River subbasin 303(d) listed stream segments and water 

quality parameters of concern (ODEQ 2002 cited in NPCC 2005). 

Waterbody Name Parameter Waterbody Name Parameter 

Alder Creek Sedimentation Hidaway Creek Temperature 

Baldy Creek Sedimentation Hog Creek Sedimentation 

Bear Wallow Creek Temperature Indian Creek Temperature 

Beaver Creek Temperature Lane Creek Temperature 

Big Creek Temperature Mallory Creek Temperature 

Big Wall Creek Temperature, Sedimentation Meadow Creek Temperature 

Bowman Creek Temperature North Fork Cable Creek Temperature 

Bridge Creek Temperature North Fork John Day River Temperature 

Buck Creek Temperature Onion Creek Temperature 

Bull Run Creek Temperature Owens Creek Temperature 

Cable Creek Temperature Porter Creek Sedimentation 

Camas Creek Temperature Potamus Creek Temperature 

Clear Creek Temperature Rancheria Creek Temperature 

Cottonwood Creek Biological Criteria Skookum Creek Temperature 

Crane Creek Temperature South Fork Cable Creek Temperature 

Desolation Creek Temperature South Trail Creek Temperature 

Ditch Creek Temperature Sponge Creek Temperature 

East Fork Cottonwood Creek Biological Criteria Stalder Creek Temperature 

Fivemile Creek Temperature Swale Creek Temperature, Sedimentation 

Frazier Creek Temperature Trail Creek Temperature 

Granite Creek Temperature, Sedimentation Wilson Creek Temperature, Sedimentation 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-49 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

Physical barriers in the Big Wall Creek and Granite Creek drainages are considered to be 

“functioning at risk” (NMFS 2003). Currently a number of culverts on forest land from partial 

passage barriers for steelhead (USFS 2001). 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Much of the Upper North Fork watershed is designated as wilderness and is likely at or near 

benchmark condition. Riparian conditions are also likely near benchmark conditions in the 

Potamus and Stony watersheds where access and road densities are very limited. Riparian 

conditions are considered to be “functioning at risk” in the Big Wall and Granite watersheds. 

The active recent fire history has caused some changes in riparian conditions. Large fires in 

Desolation Creek, Upper North Fork John Day, and Granite Creek from 1986-1996 modified 

stream shade and sediment routing in some locations. 

Table 8-24 provides information from EDT Diagnostic Report on limiting factors for each HUC5 

occupied by the North Fork John Day steelhead population. A summary of limiting factors and 

threats by geographic area is presented in Table 8-25. 

Table 8-24. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT for 

North Fork John Day Steelhead. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Cottonwood Creek

Desolation Creek

Granite Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower Camas Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Big Creek

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper Camas Creek

Upper NF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-50 

Table 8-25. Habitat limiting factors summary for the North Fork John Day River steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA

Major Limiting 

Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

NORTH FORK JOHN DAY POPULATION 

North Fork John 

Day Population 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (pools, 

connectivity, diversity); 

altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp, toxic 

mine waste) 

MaSAs and MiSAs Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure. 

Riparian disturbance, 

stream channelization 

and relocation, grazing, 

forest practices, road 

building, irrigation 

withdrawals, mining and 

dredging 

Parr-to-smolt 

survival and eggto-fry survival. All 

stages affected 

by toxic leaching 

in Granite Cr. and 

NF John Day R. 

Lower Camas 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp) 

Camas between 

Hideaway and Wilkins 

(T, F, CS, R, H, S 

Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

Parr-to-smolt 

survival and eggto-fry survival. 

Potamus MaSA degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp) 

Potamus [T,S,F,CS] Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

Parr-to-smolt 

survival and eggto-fry survival. 

Big Wall MaSA degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp); altered 

hydrology 

[H (lower), F, 

CS,S,T,IP,R] 

Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

Parr-to-smolt 

survival and eggto-fry survival. 

Upper NF John 

Day MaSA 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (toxic mine waste) 

[WQ (mine sites), 

F,CS,S,] 

Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, mining 

and dredging 

Primarily parr-tosmolt and egg-tofry survival. All 

stages affected 

by toxic leaching 

Desolation MaSA degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp) 

[F,CS,S,T] Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

slightly altered spatial 

structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

Primarily parr-tosmolt and egg-tofry survival. 

Granite MaSA degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (toxic mine waste); 

altered hydrology 

[H (Pete Mann ditch 

system), WQ (mine 

sties), F,CS, S,T,R] 

Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

forest practices, roads, 

mining and dredging 

Parr-to-smolt and 

egg-to-fry 

survival. All 

stages affected 

by toxic leaching 

Cottonwood 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp); altered 

hydrology; degraded 

riparian communities 

[H, IP (lower 

reaches), F,CS, S, 

WQ, R (biological 

criteria)] 

Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

irrigation withdrawals 

Primarily parr-tosmolt and egg-tofry survival. 

Owens MaSA degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

[F, CS, S, T] Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads, 

irrigation withdrawals 

Primarily parr-tosmolt and egg-tofry survival. 

Upper Camas 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp) 

[F, CS, S, T,] Productivity and 

abundance most affected; 

possible slightly altered 

spatial structure 

Livestock grazing, forest 

practices, roads 

Primarily parr-tosmolt and egg-tofry survival. 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-51 

8.2.7 Middle Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for 

Middle Fork John Day steelhead are degraded floodplain and channel structure (key habitat 

quantity and habitat diversity), altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water quality 

(temperature). 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Channels have become disconnected from their floodplains in several areas of the Middle Fork 

John Day watershed (Malheur National Forest (MNF) 1999). A number of areas with very wide 

grassy valley bottoms historically were likely Rosgen E-channels but have been altered to type G 

and C channels by past overgrazing and road construction within floodplains (MNF 1999). 

Known areas with this condition include the mainstem Middle Fork John Day River, Squaw 

Meadow, Summit Creek and Squaw Creek near their mouths, and Olmstead Creek at Olmstead 

meadows. Floodplains along the Middle Fork and tributaries were also altered by mining 

operations. 

 Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Tributaries to the Middle Fork that flow out of the Dixie Divide between the Middle Fork John 

Day and the Upper John Day are generally steep and incised in the lower reaches. Long, Squaw 

and Camp creeks flow through low-gradient meadow systems in the upper reaches. Tributaries 

that flow out of the Elkhorn Mountains to the north do not generally have meadow systems in 

their upper reaches, and the base rock is granite. Portions of Bridge, Dry Fork Clear, Crawford, 

Summit, and Squaw creeks have significant lengths of their channels impacted by streamside 

roads. EDT results identified habitat diversity and key habitat quantity as limiting factors in all 

major and minor spawning areas. 

Mining operations have altered many of the stream channels and floodplains along the Middle 

Fork and its tributaries (MNF 1999). Alterations have occurred along Elk, Davis, Deep, 

Vinegar, Placer Gulch, Vincent, Caribou, Beaver, Granite Boulder, Big Boulder, Ragged, Butte, 

Ruby, and the Middle Fork mainstem. Some of the meadow areas have incised channels, 

including Phipps Meadow. Road construction has altered and constricted channels in many 

tributaries and along the Middle Fork mainstem. Log weirs, placed in lower Camp Creek, keep 

the channel from re-establishing its natural morphology. 

Altered sediment routing 

The BLM has identified sediment/turbidity and substrate embeddedness as “functioning at risk” 

in the Middle Fork John Day and a number of its tributaries (NMFS 2004/00383). EDT results 

identified sediment loading to be a significant limiting factor in the watershed. Excessive fine 

sediment problems are generally located in the Middle Fork mainstem (Unterwegner 2005). 

Poor riparian conditions, riparian roads, grazing activities, and past forestry, mining, and channel 

alterations all contribute sediment to streams in the watershed. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

The Middle Fork drainage is susceptible to rain-on-snow events capable of producing high 

volume, short duration run-off surges during the late winter and early spring months. Late 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-52 

season base flows are sustained by slow release of water from the soil matrix, effluent 

groundwater, numerous wet meadows, and perennial springs (MNF 1999). Where channels have 

become entrenched, water tables are lowered and water storage capacity is reduced, resulting in 

lower base flows. 

While low flows are a problem throughout the subbasin, irrigation withdrawals are not as 

significant as for some other populations in the John Day subbasin, or as significant as they were 

a few years ago. Most water rights in the upper Middle Fork subbasin are no longer being used 

for irrigating pastures. Four of the five largest water users above Highway 395 have converted 

their consumptive rights to instream rights for either the entire year or for the most critical low 

flow period. Three properties in the Middle Fork subbasin above Highway 395 continue to 

irrigate pastures with flood irrigation. One of the properties is located on Camp Creek, one is on 

the Middle Fork immediately above Camp Creek, and the other is near Galena. 

Degraded water quality 

Water quality in the Middle Fork subbasin generally exhibits satisfactory chemical, physical, and 

biological quality as compared to ODEQ water quality standards (USDI 2000 cited in NPCC 

2005). The Middle Fork usually has worse water quality problems than its tributaries, with the 

most serious water quality problem being elevated summer temperatures. Season-long cattle 

grazing contributes to elevated fecal coliform counts during summer. However, agricultural 

runoff presents a low level of potential impact to water quality (NPCC 2001 cited in NPCC 

2005). Flow from Bates Pond, an old mill pond on Bridge Creek less than 200 yards from its 

confluence with the Middle Fork, likely increases temperatures in the Middle Fork. 

ODEQ has identified several streams in the Middle Fork subbasin as water quality limited for 

high temperatures, dissolved oxygen, or biological criteria, with the most serious water quality 

problem being elevated summer temperatures caused by vegetation disturbance, stream 

straightening/relocation, livestock grazing, forest practices, road building, irrigation water 

withdrawals, and historical mining and dredging (NPCC 2005). Table 8-26 provides data on 

listed stream segments in the Middle Fork subbasin. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-53 

Table 8-26. Middle Fork John Day River subbasin 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters 

of concern in 1998 and 2002 (ODEQ 2002). 

 

Waterbody Name River Mile Parameter Season List Date

Big Creek 0 to 11.6 Temperature Summer 1998 

Camp Creek 0 to 15.6 Temperature Summer 1998 

Caribou Creek 0 to 3.6 Temperature Summer 1998 

Clear Creek 0 to 12.7 Temperature Summer 1998 

Coyote Creek 0 to 2.5 Temperature Summer 1998 

Crawford Creek 0 to 3.5 Temperature Summer 1998 

Davis Creek 0 to 6.8 Temperature Summer 1998 

Dry Fork Clear Creek 0 to 11 Temperature Summer 1998 

Granite Boulder Creek 0 to 8.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Little Boulder Creek 0 to 2.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Little Butte Creek 0 to 2.6 Temperature Summer 1998 

Long Creek 0 to 36.7 Temperature Summer 1998 

Lunch Creek 0 to 4.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Middle Fork John Day River 0 to 69.8 Temperature Summer 1998 

Middle Fork John Day River 0 to 69.8 Temperature August 15 - July 15 2002 

Mill Creek 0 to 3.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Placer Gulch 0 to 4.2 Temperature Summer 1998 

Ragged Creek 0 to 4.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Squaw Creek 0 to 9.4 Temperature Summer 1998 

Summit Creek 0 to 8.6 Temperature Summer 1998 

Summit Creek 0 to 8.6 Temperature August 15 - July 15 2002 

Unnamed Waterbody 0 to 2.4 Temperature Summer 1998 

Vinegar Creek 0 to 7.1 Temperature Summer 1998 

Poage et al. (1996) studied stream temperatures along the length of the Middle Fork John Day 

River and found they differed from other subbasins of the John Day River. The average stream 

temperature profile for the Middle Fork John Day River indicated that the pattern of water 

temperature was highly variable, with the highest average water temperatures observed at the 

upstream end of the study section. The authors hypothesized that the decrease in downstream 

temperature can be explained by cold-water inputs from cooler tributaries, including Clear 

Creek, and as the result of relatively cool groundwater seeping into the main stream channel 

(Poage et al. 1996). 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

Currently a number of culverts on forest land form partial passage barriers for steelhead 

(Unterwegner 2005). In the past, numerous pushup dams and irrigation diversions in the upper 

Middle Fork and several of its tributaries created intermittent passage barriers; they also 

increased sedimentation, seasonally reduced flows, altered channels, and caused other water 

quality impacts. Many of these irrigation diversions have been converted to permanent, more 

fish passage friendly structures within the last ten years. Water diversions that are not properly 

screened to prevent intake of juvenile Mid-C steelhead may still exist in the system, particularly 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-54 

on Long Creek and other tributaries of the lower Middle Fork (NPCC 2001 cited in NMFS 

2004a). 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian corridors and levels of instream LWD have changed significantly from historical 

conditions. The reduction in large wood has resulted in fewer pools, increased stream velocities, 

reduced sediment trapping, and an overall reduction in channel diversity and key habitat (MNF 

1999). Exceptions include the Clear Creek and Lunch Creek watersheds that contain high levels 

of woody material and good riparian conditions. Weir “hard structures” have been constructed 

in Camp, Lick, Squaw, Summit, Phipps, Dry Fork Clear creeks, and the lower portion of Clear 

Creek in an attempt to increase pool habitat and instream diversity (MNF 1999). 

Table 8-27 provides information from EDT Diagnostic Report on limiting factors for each HUC5 

occupied for the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population. A summary of major 

limiting factors and threats by geographic area is presented in Table 8-28. 

Table 8-27. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT for 

Middle Fork John Day River steelhead. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Big Creek

Camp Creek

Cottonwood Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Long Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper MF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-55 

Table 8-28. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA

Major Limiting Factors Sites 

Affected* 

VSP Characteristics 

Impacted

Threats Life Stages 

Affected 

MIDDLE FORK JOHN DAY POPULATION 

Middle Fork 

John Day 

Population 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(connectivity, diversity, 

complexity); altered 

hydrology; altered 

sediment routing; water 

quality (temp); impaired 

fish passage 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Stream channelization 

and relocation, 

grazing, forest 

practices, road 

building, culverts and 

other passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

mining and dredging 

All life 

stages, 

especially 

fry-to-smolt 

survival, egg 

incubation; 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

Long Creek 

MaSA 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

altered hydrology; 

altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp); 

impaired fish passage 

Long Cr. [T 

(RM 0-36.7), 

IP,F,CS,H,S,

R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Stream channelization 

and relocation, 

grazing, forest 

practices, road 

building, culverts and 

other passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals 

All life 

stages, 

especially 

fry-to-smolt 

survival, egg 

incubation; 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Slide Creek 

MaSA 

Degraded riparian 

communities, floodplain 

connectivity, channel 

structure, altered 

sediment routing 

Slide (F,CS, 

S, R) 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Grazing management, 

forest practices 

All life 

stages, 

especially fry 

to smolt 

survival and 

egg to fry 

survival 

Rush Creek 

MaSA 

Impaired fish passage, 

channel complexity, 

connectivity 

Rush Creek 

irrigation 

diversion at 

RM 2.2 (IP, 

F,CS) 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure, diversity 

Stream bottom road, 

effects of past grazing 

management 

All life 

stages, 

especially fry 

to smolt 

survival and 

egg to fry 

survival 

Upper MF 

John Day 

MaSA 

Altered sediment 

routing; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure; altered 

hydrology; water quality 

(temp) 

MF 

mainstem [T 

(RM 0-69.8), 

F,CS, S, 

H,R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Stream channelization 

and relocation, 

grazing, forest 

practices, road 

building, culverts and 

other passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals 

All life 

stages, 

especially 

fry-to-smolt 

survival, egg 

incubation; 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Camp Creek 

MiSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; 

altered hydrology; water 

quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing 

Lower Camp 

Cr. [T (RM 0 

to 15.6), 

F,CS, S,T,R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Stream channelization 

and relocation, 

grazing, forest 

practices, road 

building, culverts and 

other passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals 

All life 

stages, 

especially 

fry-to-smolt 

survival, egg 

incubation; 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Big Creek 

MiSa 

Altered sediment 

routing; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure; altered 

hydrology; water quality 

(temp) 

[T (RM 0-

11.6), 

F,CS,S,T,R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure and diversity 

Stream channelization 

and relocation, 

grazing, forest 

practices, road 

building, culverts and 

other passage barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals 

All life 

stages, 

especially 

fry-to-smolt 

survival, egg 

incubation; 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-56 

8.2.8 South Fork John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

South Fork John Day River steelhead population are altered sediment routing, degraded 

floodplain and channel structure (key habitat quantity and habitat diversity), altered hydrology, 

water quality (temperature) and blocked or impaired fish passage. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

While the extent of floodplain connectivity has not been measured, ODFW considers this 

attribute as not properly functioning in sections of Murderers Creek below Cabin Creek. New 

beaver dams are contributing to improving off-channel habitats. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Loss of beavers, active LWD debris removal projects, road construction, riparian timber 

harvests, and poor grazing management have accelerated water runoff and instream 

velocities in the South Fork system and led to increased channel and bank erosion, with 

incised and unstable channels (MNF 1997). Current stream bank surveys on the lower 14.6 

miles indicate that the banks of Murderers Creek are between 98 and 100% stable. A 

riparian fence protects the stream bank along this reach except for in six water gaps used by 

cattle. Stream surveys conducted by ODFW in 1960 and the Malheur National Forest in 

1997 showed that most reaches of Murderers Creek were deficient in LWD. Lower reaches 

of Murderers Creek are likely still deficient in LWD, but this condition is expected to 

improve as riparian vegetation recovers within the fenced riparian areas. Murderers Creek 

currently has few braided channels and backwaters. As the water drops in the summer, 

braiding and backwaters are reduced and flow is restricted to the channel. During low water 

and periods of high stream temperatures, distribution of juvenile steelhead is limited to cool 

water areas. Today, pool habitat is closer to benchmark conditions in the South Fork than 

generally found in the tributaries (Unterwegner 2005). There is more beaver activity in the 

creek than in the 1960s and the riffle-pool ratio has likely improved. 

Altered sediment routing 

Results from properly functioning condition (PFC) assessments conducted by the Malheur 

National Forest in 2004 in the South Fork and tributaries showed that sediment conditions in 

pool and riffle habitats were generally “not properly functioning” (MNF 2004). The MNF 

(2004) also noted that ongoing management of the existing road network associated with Reach 

1 of Deer Creek is continuing to contribute excess gravel to the channel. The Forest Service 

lands within Deer Creek HUC5s have road densities of 4.14 miles of road/mile2. This high road 

density may contribute to elevated sediment levels and embedded substrates in the South Fork 

and its tributaries. 

The MNF (2004) also collected substrate embeddedness data for 40 streams in the South 

Fork watershed that showed substantial problems with embeddedness throughout the 

watershed. Out of 26 summaries, 21 were found to have more than 50% of the unit 

embedded (MNF 2004). 

 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-57 

Roads might be the single most important threat causing the increases in sedimentation of 

streams (MNF 1997) because of density, location, and maintenance. Road densities on Forest 

Service lands in various HUC5s of the South Fork drainage are; 2.75 miles/mile2 in Murderers 

Creek; 4.14 miles/mile2 in Deer Creek; 4.25 miles/mile2 in Middle South Fork; and 3.27 

miles/mile2 in Upper South Fork. The most heavily roaded areas are coincident with 

sedimentary soils in the upper watershed (MNF 1997). Surveys from 1992 to 1997 identified a 

number of reaches in the Murderers Creek watershed that were contributing excessive sediment 

to stream channels including, Beaver and North Fork Beaver, Miner, Grapefruit, Orange, 

Charley Mack, South Fork Murderers, Bark Cabin, Murderers (reach between Stewart’s Cabin 

and Murderers Creek Guard Station), Oregon Mine, and Tennessee creeks. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

Livestock grazing, logging, road construction, beaver removal and fire suppression have all 

contributed to changes in peak/base flows in the South fork drainage. Further changes in the 

area’s hydrology resulted from intensive stream channelization, flow modifications and drainage 

(including some tiling of drainage ditches) projects in the South Fork between 1943 and 1951. 

Irrigation withdrawals also reduce summer low flows in some reaches; however, overall, 

irrigation withdrawals and agricultural impacts in steelhead occupied reaches of the South Fork 

drainage are not as significant as for Upper Mainstem John Day or Lower John Day steelhead 

populations. 

Low-flow conditions in Murderers Creek and other South Fork tributaries may limit the use of 

some potential spawning areas, even in unaltered habitat, due to the lack of water in early 

summer months. In some years, flows fall below recommended levels for successful spawning 

in Murderers Creek as early as May. Water temperatures and unsuitable habitat associated with 

naturally occurring low water conditions in Murderers Creek likely alter or temporarily block 

movement of juveniles during summer months (Harcombe and Unterwegner 2005). 

Tributaries such as Black Canyon remain a source of good quality, cool water to the mainstem 

South Fork. The loss of beaver in the John Young Meadows in the upper South Fork Murderers 

Creek, where beavers were very active historically, has reduced the water storage capacity and 

led to entrenched channels downstream of the meadows (MNF 1997). MNF (1997) describes the 

Murderers Creek watershed as having a higher density of springs than most of the Bear Valley 

Ranger District. However, many of the tributaries flow only intermittently during the summer. 

Degraded water quality 

Elevated water temperatures during the summer months are considered a major limiting factor in 

the South Fork John Day River, Deer Creek, North Fork Deer Creek and Murderers Creek. All 

four streams are on the ODEQ’s 303(d) list (ODEQ 2000). Monitoring by the stream gage near 

the mouth of Murderers Creek shows that water temperatures exceed 64oF, 54% of the time (65 

days out of 122 days) between July 1 and September 30, averaged over the 5-year period 

(ODFW 2005a). Elevated stream temperatures are also a problem in other major tributaries. 

Water withdrawals and agricultural impacts above Izee Falls contribute to water quality 

problems in occupied reaches of the lower South Fork (Unterwegner 2005). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-58 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

Izee Falls, at RM 28.5, is a complete natural block to steelhead migration. Water diversion 

structures and thermal barriers restrict juvenile steelhead passage at times. Irrigation 

withdrawals can also hinder upstream adult migration during late spring in very low water years. 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian areas are typically managed as part of range operations, and many have been altered 

from their natural state by water diversions, channelization, vegetation changes and the like 

(NPCC 2005). Grazing activities on the forest and private lands have impacted riparian 

functions by reducing or eliminating native plant communities, altering soil conditions and 

infiltration rates (MNF 1997; Kauffman 2004). Private, state and Federal forest practices have 

also altered riparian vegetation. These activities have reduced instream large wood 

concentrations and the potential for future large wood contributions. The MNF (2004) measured 

LWD in the South Fork watershed. Out of 28 streams, 15 streams met NMFS criteria of >20 

pieces per mile of LWD >35 feet in length. 

Table 8-29 provides information from EDT Diagnostic Report on limiting factors for the South 

Fork John Day River steelhead population. A summary of major limiting factors and threats by 

geographic area is presented in Table 8-30. 

Table 8-29. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT for 

South Fork John Day River steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower SF JDR

Middle SF JDR

Murderers Creek

Rock Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation

* Fields Creek, which is tributary to the JDR upstream of the SFJD, was included in the EDT analysis as part of the SFJD, but the 

TRT considers it a MiSA to the UJD population and it was discussed in the UJD population. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-59 

Table 8-30. Habitat limiting factors summary for the South Fork John Day River steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major Limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

SOUTH FORK JOHN DAY POPULATION 

South Fork 

John Day 

Population 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (lack of 

deep pools, habitat diversity); 

degraded riparian 

communities; water quality 

(temp); hydrologic 

alterations; sediment routing 

dysfunction; impaired fish 

passage 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure. 

Riparian disturbance, 

stream 

channelization and 

relocation, roads, 

grazing, forest 

practices, culverts 

and other barriers, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

beaver removal 

Juvenile 

rearing, 

spawning, 

egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Murderers 

Creek 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (lack of 

deep pools); hydrologic 

alterations; sediment routing 

dysfunction; water quality 

(temp); degraded riparian 

communities 

Upper/Middle 

SF Murderers 

Cr. [F/CS, H, S, 

R]; Murderers 

Cr. [S, R, F/CS, 

T) 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure. 

Riparian disturbance, 

stream 

channelization and 

relocation, roads, 

grazing, forest 

practices, culverts 

and other barriers, 

fire suppression, 

irrigation withdrawals, 

beaver removal 

Juvenile 

rearing, 

spawning, 

egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Upper SF 

John Day 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; sediment 

routing dysfunction water 

quality (temp); hydrologic 

alterations; degraded riparian 

communities; impaired fish 

passage 

Deer Cr. [Sed., 

R, F,T]; Upper 

SF John Day 

[T, F, S, BP, IP, 

R] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure. 

Irrigation withdrawals, 

agricultural practices, 

livestock grazing, 

stream 

channelization, road 

density 

Juvenile 

rearing, 

spawning, 

egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

Lower SF 

John Day 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; sediment 

routing dysfunction; water 

quality (temp) 

Lower South 

Fork [T, S, 

F/CS] 

Productivity, 

abundance, spatial 

structure. 

Irrigation withdrawals 

and agricultural 

practices above Izee 

Falls, stream 

channellization, 

livestock grazing 

Juvenile 

rearing, 

spawning, 

egg 

incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.2.9 Upper Mainstem John Day River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population are degraded floodplain and channel 

structure (key habitat quantity and habitat diversity), altered sediment routing, water quality 

(temperature) and altered hydrology. Impaired fish passage is also a priority limiting factor for 

Beech and Laycock creeks. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

There has been a loss of off-channel and side-channel habitats that once provided habitat for 

spawning and rearing, and refugia from high flows. Degraded floodplain connectivity and 

function has led to more extreme flows and summer water temperatures. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-60 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

EDT results rated key habitat quantity as either a high or medium priority restoration need for all 

areas of the Upper Mainstem John Day River population and habitat diversity ranked as either a 

medium or low priority restoration need in all Upper John Day reaches (NPCC 2005). In 

addition, the Malheur National Forest rated LWD conditions and potential recruitment as 

“functioning at risk” in their Environmental Baseline for the Upper John Day (MNF 2004). 

Levels of big LWD are well below benchmark conditions for all areas outside wilderness 

boundaries (Unterwegner 2005, personal communication). Beech, Laycock, Fields, and 

Strawberry creeks are areas where restoration needs are highest for key habitat quantity and 

habitat diversity. Removal of beaver and their associated dams has reduced habitat complexity, 

floodplain function, and the amount of stored water. Livestock grazing has contributed to 

increased channelization, reductions in LWD, cover and bank stability, particularly in lower 

reaches of tributaries. 

Altered sediment routing 

Canyon Creek has a large supply of spawning gravels, with most good spawning habitat in upper 

meadow reaches. However, surveys of substrate embeddedness for the Upper John Day 

watershed show that, for measured streams, more than 50% of their summaries showed >35% 

embeddedness. Substrate embeddedness is a problem in 5 of 8 Canyon Creek reaches measured 

and 10 of 32 mainstem John Day reaches measured (MNF 2004). 

Altered hydrologic processes 

The upper John Day River experienced intensive stream channelization, flow modifications and 

drainage (including some tiling of drainage ditches) projects between 1943 and 1951. These and 

other activities altered the routing and timing of water delivery to streams; often increasing peak 

flows and reducing summer low flows. Irrigation withdrawals further reduce summer low flows, 

especially considering that the vast majority of the irrigation is from surface waters of the John 

Day and its tributaries (NPCC 2005). Livestock grazing, logging, road construction, beaver 

removal and fire suppression have all contributed to altered flow regimes. Today, summer low 

streamflows are below what would have existed historically. Water withdrawals dewater the 

lower reaches of Pine, Strawberry, Indian, Riley, Moon, McClellan, Laycock, and Fields creeks. 

Degraded water quality 

Water quality is fair in the upper watershed during most of the year, as compared to ODEQ water 

quality standards (USDI 2000 cited in NPCC 2005). Low summer flows on the mainstem John 

Day River above Dayville contribute to elevated temperatures; higher streamflows during the 

winter/spring and streambank erosion contribute to turbidity. Problematic eutrophication in the 

mainstem John Day River is a partial result of irrigation return flow and possibly cattle feedlots 

(NPCC 2001 from NPCC 2005). Table 8-31 lists stream segments within the Upper John Day 

watershed included on ODEQ’s 303(d) list. Elevated stream temperatures are common to almost 

all the streams in the Upper John Day watershed. Historical mining has added to water quality 

problems by removing riparian vegetation, simplifying stream channels and changing stream 

substrate composition, all of which contribute to increased water temperatures. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-61 

Table 8-31. Upper John Day River watershed 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters of 

concern (ODEQ 2002). Waterbodies that are listed multiple times represent different locations 

and/or different life stages. 

Waterbody Name Parameter Waterbody Name Parameter 

Badger Creek Temperature Grub Creek Temperature 

Battle Creek Temperature Indian Creek Temperature 

Bear Creek Temperature Little Pine Creek Temperature 

Canyon Creek Temperature McClellan Creek Temperature 

Corral Creek Biological Criteria Mountain Creek Temperature 

Cottonwood Creek Temperature Murderers Creek Temperature 

Dads Creek Temperature North Fork Deer Creek Temperature 

Dans Creek Temperature Pine Creek Temperature 

Deardorff Creek Temperature Rail Creek Temperature 

Deer Creek Temperature Reynolds Creek Temperature 

Dog Creek Temperature Reynolds Creek Temperature 

East Fork Canyon Creek Temperature Rock Creek Temperature 

Ennis Creek Temperature Slyfe Creek Temperature 

Ennis Creek Temperature South Fork John Day River Temperature 

Fields Creek Temperature Strawberry Creek Temperature 

Fields Creek Temperature Sunflower Creek Temperature 

Flat Creek Temperature Tex Creek Temperature 

Flat Creek Temperature Tex Creek Temperature 

Grasshopper Creek Temperature Tinker Creek Temperature 

Grasshopper Creek Temperature Utley Creek Biological Criteria 

 Utley Creek Dissolved Oxygen 

 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

Strawberry Creek has numerous unscreened ditches that may strand fish. Water withdrawals 

dewater the lower reaches of Pine, Indian, Strawberry, Moon, Laycock, McClellan, Riley, and 

Field creeks and create passage problems for juvenile fish. Diversions and low flows in 

Strawberry Creek create passage problems for adults as well. Push-up dams and other irrigation 

structures throughout the Upper John Day watershed often obstruct or delay fish passage. 

Culverts on national forest, state, county and private lands also create passage barriers in many 

areas. EDT results identified obstructions as high priority restoration needs in Beech and 

Laycock creeks. Panama Ditch crosses Beech Creek approximately one mile above its 

convergence with the John Day River forming a juvenile passage barrier, and possibly an adult 

barrier, at certain flows. High water temperatures in numerous tributaries and portions of the 

mainstem alter or sometimes block juvenile steelhead movements in the summer months.

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian conditions are generally degraded in the Upper John Day watershed. Roads along 

riparian corridors have altered riparian functions; the Malheur National Forest has identified 

123.8 miles of roads within RHCAs in the Upper John Day watershed (MNF 2004). Forest 

practices on private and public lands have altered riparian vegetation and reduced LWD 

recruitment potential. Grazing activities on the forest and private lands have reduced or 

eliminated native plant communities, altering soil conditions and infiltration rates (Kauffman 

2004). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-62 

Table 8-32 shows the primary limiting factors identified in the EDT Diagnostic Report for the 

Upper Mainstem John Day population. A summary of major limiting factors and threats is 

presented in Table 8-33. 

Table 8-32. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

for the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Beech Creek

Canyon Creek

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Laycock Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower SF JDR

Rock Creek

Strawberry Creek

Upper JDR

Upper Middle JDR

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-63 

Table 8-33. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead 

population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA

Major Limiting 

Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

UPPER MAINSTEM JOHN DAY POPULATION 

Upper 

Mainstem 

John Day 

Population 

Degraded floodplain 

and channel structure 

(loss of cover, pools, 

LWD, overall habitat 

diversity, connectivity); 

water quality 

(temp);altered 

sediment routing; 

degraded riparian 

communities; altered 

hydrology; impaired 

fish passage 

MaSAs and MiSAs Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure. 

Agricultural 

practices, livestock 

grazing, removal of 

large trees from 

riparian corridor, 

wetland draining and 

conversion, stream 

channelization and 

diking, mining and 

dredging, irrigation 

withdrawals 

Juvenile rearing, 

egg incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

Up. John Day 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain 

and channel structure; 

altered hydrology; 

water quality (temp); 

altered sediment 

routing; degraded 

riparian communities; 

impaired passage 

Mainstem and tribs 

[F,CS, S, H, T); 

Strawberry [H 

(lower), F,CS]; Pine 

[H (lower)}; Indian 

[H (lower)]; IP 

(pushup dam sites 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure. 

Agricultural 

practices, livestock 

grazing, irrigation 

withdrawals, beaver 

removal, roads 

Juvenile rearing, 

egg incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

Beech MaSA Degraded floodplain 

and channel structure; 

altered hydrology; 

water quality (temp); 

altered sediment 

routing; impaired 

passage 

IP (Panama Ditch), 

F,CS (lower 

reaches, next to 

Hwy 395), H (lower 

reaches of Riley, 

Moon, McClellan, 

Laycock and Fields 

crs.); S,T 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure. 

Hwy 395, forest 

roads, irrigation 

withdrawals, 

livestock grazing 

Juvenile rearing, 

egg incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

Canyon 

MaSA

Degraded floodplain 

and channel structure; 

altered hydrology; 

water quality (temp); 

altered sediment 

routing

F,CS (Hwy 395, 

forest roads), S,T,H 

Productivity, 

abundance, 

spatial structure. 

Hwy 395, forest 

roads, irrigation 

withdrawals, 

livestock grazing 

Juvenile rearing, 

egg incubation, 

egg-to-parr 

survival, 

spawning 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.2.10 Umatilla River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

Umatilla River steelhead population are water quality (temperature), sediment routing 

dysfunction, blocked and impaired fish passage, degraded floodplain and channel structure (key 

habitat quantity and habitat diversity) and hydrologic alterations. 

 Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Intensive land uses within Umatilla subbasin flood plains and upslope habitats have led to 

dramatic changes in waterway characteristics since arrival of Euro-American pioneers to the area 

during the middle 1800’s. Dikes, levies, and roads border many streams in the subbasin and 

limit connectivity between streams and their floodplains. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-64 

Degraded channel structure and connectivity 

The mainstem Umatilla River from Wildhorse Creek to the forks and sections of 17 tributaries of 

the mainstem are 303(d) listed because of habitat (including substrate) problems. Habitat 

benchmarks developed by ODFW were used to list stream reaches based upon standardized 

habitat surveys (Moore et al.1999 cited in NPCC 2004c). Parameters measured in these surveys 

include habitat features known to be important to salmonids such as presence and amount of 

large woody debris, pool frequency, presence of eroding streambanks, type of riparian 

vegetation, stream channel form and pattern, and the proportion of the substrate composed of 

fine materials. Key habitat quantity and habitat diversity are also identified as medium impact 

limiting factors that are pervasive throughout the subbasin. Channel stability is frequently noted 

as a low impact limiting factor. 

Overall, instream habitat has been simplified and pool habitat has decreased. Some stream 

reaches have been channelized in agricultural fields to prevent flooding of fields and natural 

channel movement into fields. Channelization greatly decreases winter habitat (e.g., braided 

channels, sloughs) for juvenile salmon and steelhead. This habitat is very important for 

overwinter survival and juvenile growth. The loss of this type of habitat in the Umatilla River 

and its tributaries is thought to be one of the most significant causes of the reduction in naturally 

surviving salmonid and steelhead (personal communication: C. Contor, CTUIR, April 2004 cited 

in NPCC 2004c). Other primary causes of low habitat diversity/complexity include past forest 

practices that removed conifers from riparian areas, and the ongoing removal of LWD from 

streams to prevent flooding and streambank erosion. 

Altered sediment routing 

The Umatilla River receives large amounts of sediment, much of which originates from 

weathered basalt and unconsolidated loess deposits — the dominant geology in the subbasin. 

Primary sources include bank and upland erosion of tributaries and tributary watersheds, which 

may be accelerated by land uses (ODEQ et al. 2001). Peak sedimentation usually occurs during 

rainstorms or snowmelts associated with freeze and thaw periods (CTUIR and ODFW 1990). 

The entire Umatilla mainstem from the mouth to the forks is 303(d) listed for either sediment or 

turbidity. One sediment-impaired stream segment that significantly deviated from the target 

standard for turbidity was Wildhorse Creek (at its confluence with the Umatilla River) that had a 

peak turbidity value of over 5,000 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) measured on April 

23,1997. High levels were also measured in McKay Creek. Wildhorse Creek turbidity mainly 

results from spring runoff, while McKay’s turbidity is mostly a result of bottom withdrawal of 

water from the reservoir for flow augmentation. Composite samples of turbidity, collected at 

various stations during the winter of 1997-1998, show that Tutuilla, Birch, and five sites on the 

Umatilla mainstem exceeded standards on numerous occasions (ODEQ et al. 2001). 

Surveys conducted by ODFW and CTUIR throughout the Umatilla River subbasin found that 19 

of 42 stream reaches had fine sediment as the dominant substrate (Boyd et al.1999 cited in 

NPCC 2004c). In the Patawa/Tutuilla watershed, fine sediment made up the dominant substrate 

in 9 of 19 reaches surveyed (Watershed Professionals and Duck Creek Associates 2003 cited in 

NPCC 2004c). Substrate sediment is less of a problem in the upper Umatilla subbasin; a survey 

of the upper Umatilla River and Meacham Creek by the Umatilla National Forest (2001) in 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-65 

which substrate embeddedness was measured directly found that only two sub-watersheds of 18 

had embeddedness levels greater than 35% (a level of embeddedness considered detrimental to 

salmon) (NPCC 2004c). EDT analyses also showed that sediment is a large limiting factor in 

many areas of the Umatilla, especially in Butter and Wildhorse creeks, in the lower reaches of 

the Umatilla, and in reaches of Umatilla mainstem from Mission Bridge to Meacham Creek. 

Altered hydrologic processes 

Flow patterns observed in the Umatilla/Willow subbasin are the result of snow melt and rain in 

late winter and early spring that cause peaks in flow. Water runoff peaks in April, while base 

flows generally occur in September. The average monthly discharge of the Umatilla River near 

its mouth (measured at RM 2.1) varies from 23 cfs in July to 1,095 cfs in April (low flow at the 

mouth occurs in July rather than September because of upstream removals for irrigation). 

Summer baseflows can be extremely low and many of the larger tributaries lose all surface flow 

during the summer through parts of their lengths. Flows in sections of Birch, McKay, Butter, 

Meacham, Wildhorse and Iskuulpa creeks are subsurface during low flow periods (ODEQ 1998 

cited in NPCC 2004c). 

Past evaluations of the Umatilla River have identified summer low flows as a primary limiting 

factor to salmonid natural production throughout all life stages (Boyce 1985, Contor et al. 1995, 

and CTUIR 1994 cited in White et al. 2004). EDT identifies flow as either a medium or low 

impact limiting factor in almost all reaches of the Umatilla subbasin. 

Fluctuation of flows related to Umatilla Basin Project operations, for both the winter-spring 

storage and spring-fall release periods, is identified as a possible concern for juvenile steelhead 

and the food web on which they depend (BOR 2001). Significant fluctuations in flows on a 

weekly, daily, or even hourly basis may cause cyclic dewatering and rewatering of near shore 

habitats, riffles, and pools, which reduces biotic productivity and strands salmonid fry (BOR 

2001), particularly in McKay Creek. Currently, there are six major irrigation diversions in the 

lower Umatilla River that withdraw approximately 129,000 acre-feet on an average year 

(Umatilla River Subbasin Local Agricultural Water Quality Advisory Committee et al. 1999). 

The irrigation withdrawals dewater the river below Dillon Dam, resulting in an average daily 

flow over a 14-day period of less than 1 cfs. 

During late spring through late fall (April to November), water is released from McKay 

Reservoir to supply water for irrigation and instream uses. Summer discharge has more than 

tripled from RM 52.0 to 27.2 since the early 1900s; however, the river has been virtually dewatered from RM 27.2 to the confluence with the Columbia River (White et al. 2004). 

Streamflows below McKay Dam fluctuate greatly depending on flood water releases, irrigation 

releases, and other operations from McKay Reservoir (BOR 2001). BOR modeling results 

indicated that these water releases would increase Umatilla River flows. The model predicted 

that water releases in the late spring would aid juvenile steelhead in their out-migration, and that 

water releases in the summer and fall would aid juvenile summer rearing and adult upstream 

migration. The model also predicted that increased flows would connect pool and riffle habitat, 

increase the width and depth of flow, and improve velocity, water temperature, rearing space, 

and food production. Despite these predictions, however, actual July and August streamflows in 

the lower Umatilla River fall well below the recommended levels, with or without the operation 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-66 

of the Umatilla Basin Project, and often dewater the lower three miles of the Umatilla River 

completely from July 1 to August 15. These conditions delay steelhead entry into the Umatilla 

Subbasin (BOR 2001; ODEQ et al. 2001). 

Degraded water quality 

Summer water temperatures in the lower Umatilla River frequently exceed the incipient lethal 

limit for salmonids of 21°C (ODEQ et al. 2001; White et al. 2004). Water temperature is a 

concern throughout most of the Umatilla subbasin during periods of low flow (May until early 

November). On the 1998 303(d) list, 287 miles of the Umatilla River and its tributaries were 

listed as impaired for elevated water temperatures including the entire mainstem Umatilla River 

(ODEQ et al. 2001 cited in NPCC 2004c) (Table 8-34). The highest water temperatures have 

been recorded in late July and early August when ambient air temperatures are high. During this 

period, the Umatilla River warms rapidly from the headwaters to the mouth, reaching sub-lethal 

(64-74°F, 20-23°C) and incipient lethal temperatures (70-77°F, 21-25°C) for its entire length 

(Boyd et al.1999; Contor and Crump 2003 cited in NPCC 2004c). White et al. (2004) noted that 

during 2002, mean weekly water temperature at RM 2.1 on the Umatilla River ranged from 

39.2°F to 88.5°F. Daily mean water temperatures exceeded 75.2°F for 55 days in 2002, with 31 

of those days at or above 82.0°F (White et al. 2004). Many of its tributaries also reach sub-lethal 

and incipient lethal ranges for salmonids (Boyd et al.1999; CTUIR 2004). 

Water releases from McKay Reservoir during summer generally cool temperatures in reaches of 

the Umatilla River below the McKay Creek confluence (RM 50.5). Surveys determined that 

hypolimnetic releases of cool water from the reservoir during early summer months kept 

temperatures suitable for salmonids in areas between the McKay Creek confluence and Westland 

Dam (RM 27.2) (Contor et al.1997 cited in NPCC 2004c). However, releases from McKay 

Reservoir for fish are not made from July 1 to approximately September 15, though water is 

released to provide for irrigation. In addition, warmer epilimnetic waters can be discharged upon 

the depletion of the hypolimnion and can contribute to unsuitable habitat conditions for 

salmonids (Contor et al.1997 cited in NPCC 2004c). 

The Umatilla subbasin’s coolest mid-summer recorded temperatures are in the North Fork of the 

Umatilla River, where maximum summer temperatures usually do not exceed the state standard 

of 64°F (17.8°C). For example, in the summer of 2002, maximum water temperature in the 

North Fork did not exceed 60.8°F (16.0°C) (Contor and Crump 2003 cited in NPCC 2004c). The 

South Fork of the Umatilla River experiences higher summertime temperatures often above 

64°F, though rarely above 70°F. Data indicate a significant increase (approximately 5° F) in 

temperature from the Umatilla River east of the Gibbon site (RM 80.0) to the Umatilla River at 

Cayuse Bridge (RM 69.4). This increase in temperature is attributed to Meacham Creek that 

enters the Umatilla Mainstem at RM 79. Summer water temperatures in Meacham Creek are 

frequently in the high 60s oF. However, maximum summer temperatures drop further 

downstream (at RM 50) as a result of cold water releases from McKay Reservoir. 

Wildhorse Creek is one of the warmest tributaries of the Umatilla River. This drainage regularly 

experiences excessive summertime stream temperatures throughout the entire stream length. 

Headwaters often exceed 70 ̊F for long periods in the summer, while lower Wildhorse Creek can 

often experience stream temperatures exceeding 85 ̊F. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-67 

The lower Umatilla River and the North Hermiston Drain are in violation of EPA ammonia 

standards, primarily because of excessive temperatures and pH during the summer months 

(ODEQ et al. 2001). Other problem areas include Butter Creek, where ammonia concentrations 

have been measured at 0.3 to greater than 0.4mg/L (ODEQ 1998). 

Excessive growth of attached algae (periphyton) and attendant increases in pH are common 

during summer months throughout much of the mainstem Umatilla River (from Speare Canyon, 

RM 44, to the forks) (ODEQ et al. 2001). Large periphyton mats can be found in this section of 

the Umatilla River in the summer, affecting river odor, aesthetics, contact recreation, and pH. As 

periphyton obtains carbon dioxide for cell growth it decreases bicarbonate levels in the water. 

This has the effect of increasing pH levels that can be stressful to fish. Because periphyton 

growth is positively influenced by water temperature, patterns in summer water pH are 

influenced by water temperature. pH increases from the forks to RM 58, where it frequently 

exceeds 9.0 (the water quality standard); pH drops at RM 49 because of inputs of cold water 

from McKay Reservoir and then increases downstream where it routinely exceeds the water 

quality standard at Yoakum Bridge (RM 37.2)(ODEQ et al. 2001 cited in NPCC 2004c). 

Elevated summertime temperatures and excessive algal growth are also likely contributors to 

high pH levels recorded in Willow Creek, from the mouth upstream to Heppner. 

Table 8-34. Impaired stream reaches from the 1998 303(d) list and used for development of the 

2001 Umatilla Subbasin TMDL (ODEQ et al. 2001). 

Parameter Stream Segment (boundaries) Criterion 

Birch Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Buckaroo Creek Mouth to headwaters 

E. Birch Creek Mouth to Pearson Creek 

EF Meacham Creek Mouth to headwaters 

McKay Creek Mouth to McKay Reservoir 

Meacham Creek Mouth to headwaters 

NF McKay Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Rearing 64°F 

NF Meacham Creek Mouth to headwaters 

NF Umatilla River Mouth to headwaters 

Shimmiehorn Creek Mouth to headwaters 

SF Umatilla River Mouth to headwaters 

Oregon Bull Trout 

Squaw Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Umatilla R. Mouth to Lick Creek 

W. Birch Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Westgate Canyon Mouth to headwaters 

Temperature 

Wildhorse Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Rearing 64°F 

Beaver Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Birch Creek, WF Mouth to headwaters 

Boston Canyon Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Coonskin Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Cottonwood Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Line Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Little Beaver Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Lost Pin Creek Mouth to headwaters 

McKay Creek, NF Mouth to headwaters 

Meacham Creek East Meacham Creek to headwaters 

Sediment 

Mill Creek Mouth to headwaters 

See Narrative 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-68 

Parameter Stream Segment (boundaries) Criterion 

Mission Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Moonshine Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Rail Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Sheep Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Twomile Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Umatilla River Wildhorse Creek to Forks 

Turbidity Umatilla River Mouth to Mission Creek >30 NTU 

pH Umatilla River Speare Canyon to Forks pH 6.5-9.0 

Nitrate Wildhorse Creek Mouth to headwaters 

Spring Hollow Creek Mouth to headwaters 

>10mg/L 

Ammonia Umatilla River Mouth to RM 5 

North Hermiston Drain Mouth to headwaters 

pH dependent 

McKay Creek Mouth to McKay Reservoir 

Bacteria Umatilla River -- Summer Mouth to Speare Canyon 

Water Contact Recreation (fecal

coliform 96-Std) 

Aquatic 

Weeds/Algae 

Umatilla River Speare Canyon to Forks Growth considered to be 

deleterious to aquatic, public, 

recreation, industry 

Flow Modification Birch Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Umatilla River Mouth to Speare Canyon 

Bell Cow Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Boston Canyon Creek Mouth to Speare Canyon 

Calamity Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Coonskin Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Cottonwood Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Darr Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

E. Birch Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Line Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Little Beaver Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Lost Pin Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Meacham Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Mill Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Mission Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Moonshine Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

N.F. McKay Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

N.F. Meacham Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Rail Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

Umatilla River Mouth to Headwaters 

Habitat 

Modification 

Wood Hollow Creek Mouth to Headwaters 

ODFW Habitat Benchmarks 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

In the Umatilla River subbasin, 36 barriers were identified in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan and 

these are listed in Table 8-35, along with their priority for removal. While it is not mentioned in 

the list, McKay Dam was not designed to include fish passage facilities, and blocks steelhead 

and salmon access to approximately 108 miles of highly productive tributary habitat in upper 

McKay Creek (CTUIR 2001). Historical abundance of steelhead in McKay Creek is unknown, 

but CTUIR tribal members report that a high number of steelhead spawned in McKay Creek 

before the construction of McKay Dam and Reservoir in 1927 (CTUIR 2001). 

A number of significant passage barriers remain, particularly in Birch, and Butter creeks. 

Unscreened water diversions can also have a substantial impact on anadromous fish. All known 

gravity feed diversions in steelhead habitat areas of the Umatilla subbasin are screened, but it is 

not known to what extent pump diversions have been screened in the habitat areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-69 

Table 8-35. Barriers to upstream passage on streams in the Umatilla River Subbasin. 

Stream 

River 

Mile Barrier Type 

Step Height 

Est. (m) Degree Recommended Action Priority 

Umatilla R. 1.5 Channel Mod. 0.7 Partial Modify L 

Umatilla R. 2.4 Irrigation Dam 1.0 Partial Modify M 

Umatilla R. 49 Irrigation Dam 1.2 Partial Remove M 

Butter Creek 7.9 Flash Boards 2.3 Complete Modify L 

Butter Creek 27.2 Irrigation Dam 1.4 Complete Modify L 

Butter Creek 43.0 Irrigation Dam 1.2 Complete Modify L 

Johnson Cr. (Butter) 0.3 Culvert 0.8 Partial Modify M 

Birch Creek 0.5 Pipe Casing 1.4 Partial Modify M 

Birch Creek 2.5 Irrigation Dam 1.5 Partial Modify/Remove H 

Birch Creek 5.0 Irrigation Dam 1.2 Partial Modify/Remove H 

Birch Creek 10.0 Irrigation Dam 1.0 Partial Remove M 

Birch Creek 11.0 Irrigation Dam 0.7 Partial Remove L 

Birch Creek 12.0 Irrigation Dam 1.0 Partial Modify M 

Birch Creek 15.0 Irrigation Dam 1.7 Partial Remove H 

West Birch Cr. 1.0 Irrigation Dam ? Partial Modify M 

West Birch Cr. 3.5 Irrigation Dam 2.1 Partial Modify H 

West Birch Cr. 3.8 Bridge 1.2 Partial Modify H 

West Birch Cr. 5.5 Irrigation Dam 1.4 Partial Remove H 

West Birch Cr. 8.5 Irrigation Dam 1.5 Partial Remove H 

Bridge Cr. (W. Birch) 2.0 Culvert ? Complete Modify H 

East Birch Cr. 4.0 Irrigation Dam 0.7 Partial Remove L 

East Birch Cr. 9.0 Irrigation Dam 1.0 Partial Remove L 

Jungle/Windy Spr. 

(Pearson) 

0.1 Culvert 0.15 Partial Modify L 

Wildhorse Cr. 0.1 Irrigation Dam 0.7 Partial Modify L 

Wildhorse Cr. 18.8 Bridge 1.0 Partial Modify L 

Greasewood Cr. 0.4 Irrigation Dam 0.6 Partial Modify L 

Mission Cr. 0.9 Bedrock Drop 0.5 Partial Modify M 

Mission Cr. 3.3 Bridge/Culvert 0.7 Partial Modify M 

Coonskin Cr. 0.3 Bridge 0.5 Partial Modify M 

Coonskin Cr. 0.9 Pipe Casing 1.1 Partial Modify M 

Whitman Spr. 0.1 Culvert 0.5 Complete Modify L 

Red Elk Can. 0.2 Culvert 0.8 Partial Modify L 

Minthorn Spr. 0.1 Culvert 0.5 Partial Modify L 

Unnamed Trib to SF 

Umatilla at RM 1.5 

0.1 Culvert 0.5 Complete Modify M 

Camp Creek 0.25 Irrigation Dam 1.3 Partial Remove M 

Unnamed trib to 

Umatilla R. at RM 81.2 

0.1 Culvert 0.6 Partial Modify L 

Twomile Creek 1.25 Culvert ? ? Modify L 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Riparian vegetation on the mainstem Umatilla River and many tributaries is in poor condition, 

with 70% of 422 miles inventoried identified as needing riparian improvements (CTUIR and 

ODFW 1990 cited in NPCC 2004c). Losses of riparian vegetation are particularly high in the 

lower subbasin; Kagan et al. (2000) estimated these losses at greater than 95% as compared to 

pre-settlement conditions (c. 1850). 

Table 8-36 shows key limiting factors for Mid-C steelhead in the Umatilla River drainage based 

on EDT findings. Table 8-37 summarizes major limiting factors and threats.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-70 

Table 8-36. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT 

for Umatilla River summer steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

GA1

GA2

GA3

GA4

GA5

GA6

GA7

GA8

GA9

GA11

GA12

GA13

GA14

GA15

GA16

GA17

GA18

GA19

GA20

GA21

GA22

GA24

GA25

GA26

GA27

GA28

GA29

GA30

GA31

GA32

GA33

GA34

GA35

GA36

GA37

GA38

GA39

GA40

GA41

GA42

GA43

GA44

GA45

GA46

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation

Key to geographic areas: Planners identified the following geographic areas in the Umatilla 

subbasin as EDT geographic areas during the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 

recent subbasin planning process (NPCC 2004c): GA1-2: Lower Umatilla, GA4-8: Butter Creek 

and tributaries, GA9-11: Mainstem Umatilla from Butter Creek to McKay Creek, GA12-19: 

Birch Creek and its tributaries, GA20-24: McKay Creek and its tributaries, GA25: Umatilla 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-71 

mainstem from McKay Creek to Mission Bridge, GA26-27: Wildhorse Creek and its tributaries, 

GA28-32: Umatilla mainstem from Mission Bridge to Meacham Creek and its tributaries, GA33-

37: Meacham Creek and its tributaries, GA40-41: Umatilla from Meacham Creek to the forks 

and its tributaries, GA42: North Fork Umatilla, GA43-46: South Fork Umatilla and various 

tributaries. The areas are also shown in Figure 8-2. 

Figure 8-2. Geographic areas used in the EDT analysis for the Umatilla River Subbasin (NPCC 

2004c). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-72

Table 8-37. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Umatilla River steelhead population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

UMATILLA RIVER POPULATION 

Umatilla 

River 

Population 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(complexity, diversity, 

braided channels, sloughs, 

pools); altered sediment 

routing; altered hydrology; 

water quality (temp, pH, 

ammonia, bacteria); blocked 

and impaired fish passage; 

degraded riparian 

communities, LWD 

recruitment 

MaSAs and MiSAs Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, flood 

control, forest 

practices, urban 

development 

All life stages 

 

Butter 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp); altered 

hydrology; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure; blocked or 

impaired fish passage 

Butter Cr. [BP 

(flash boards - RM 

7.9, irrigation 

dams- RM 27.2 

and 43)]; 

Johnson Cr. [IP 

(culvert RM 0.3)]; 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, urban 

development 

All life stages 

East Birch 

MaSA 

Water quality (temp); altered 

sediment routing; degraded 

floodplain and channel 

structure; impaired fish 

passage 

East Birch Cr. [T 

(mouth to Pearson 

C) and F, CS 

(mouth to 

headwaters); IP 

(irrigation dams 

RM 4.0, 9.0)] 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, forest 

practices 

All life stages 

Little Butter 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

hydrology 

 Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion 

All life stages 

McKay 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

hydrology; water quality 

(temp, pathogens); altered 

sediment routing; impaired 

fish passage 

McKay Cr. [T and 

B (mouth to 

reservoir), McKay 

Dam blocks 

steelhead access 

to 108 miles of 

productive habitat]; 

NF McKay [T,S, F, 

CS (mouth to 

headwaters)] 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, urban 

development, forest 

practices 

All life stages 

Meacham 

MaSA 

Water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; impaired 

fish passage; altered 

sediment routing; altered 

hydrology 

Meacham Cr. [T 

and F, CS (mouth 

to headwaters), S 

(above EF)] NF 

Meacham [T and 

F, CS (mouth to 

headwaters)]; EF 

Meacham [T 

(mouth to 

headwaters)] 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion 

All life stages 

Middle 

Umatilla 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure; altered 

hydrology; degraded 

riparian communities 

 Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, Union 

Pacific railroad, 

roads, forest 

practices, flood 

control, urban 

development 

All life stages 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-73

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

UMATILLA RIVER POPULATION 

Upper 

Umatilla 

MaSA 

Water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(diversity/complexity); 

altered sediment routing; 

impaired fish passage 

 Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, Union 

Pacific railroad, 

roads, forest 

practices, flood 

control 

All life stages 

West Birch 

MaSA 

Impaired fish passage; 

altered sediment routing; 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

West Birch Cr. [T 

and S (mouth to 

headwaters); IP 

(irrigation damsRM 1, 3.5, 5.5, 8.5; 

bridge – RM 3.8)] 

Bridge Cr. [BP 

(culvert – RM 2)] 

Abundance, 

productivity, 

spatial structure 

and diversity 

Agricultural 

cultivation and 

practices, livestock 

grazing, water 

storage and 

diversion, forest 

practices 

All life stages 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); Degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.2.11 Walla Walla River Population, Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors 

The primary tributary habitat limiting factors identified by the recovery planning team for the 

Walla Walla River steelhead population are water quality (temperature), altered sediment 

routing, blocked and impaired fish passage, degraded floodplain and channel structure (key 

habitat quantity and habitat diversity) and flow. 

 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function 

Land use activities within the Walla Walla Subbasin including flood plains and upslopes have 

dramatically altered connectivity between the river channel and the floodplain. Dikes, levies, 

roads and channels exist throughout the subbasin and separate the channel from the floodplain. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Habitat complexity is generally reduced or absent in the lower reaches of the Walla Walla River, 

particularly in channelized areas. Habitat complexity in headwater areas of some streams, 

including the South Fork, North Fork, and Mill Creek is close to or at properly functioning 

condition. The lower reaches of these tributaries, particularly in areas of agricultural or urban 

development, have poor habitat complexity due to a lack of pools and LWD. 

Altered sediment routing 

EDT analyses for streams occupied by this population indicate that elevated fine sediment levels 

in stream substrates are present, particularly in the lower reaches. Land management activities 

such as agriculture and road building add fine sediment to streams and reduced high flows can 

interrupt normal sediment flushing events. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-74

Altered hydrologic processes 

The runoff pattern in the Walla Walla River subbasin generally consists of high flows from 

November through May and low flows from June through October. The spring snowmelt flood 

period usually extends from about the first of March through the end of May, but peak 

discharges resulting from snowmelt runoff rarely result in damaging stages. In the past, winter 

flood peaks in the period of December through February have been responsible for flash-flood 

damage, caused by intense rainfall occurring on ground with high soil moisture content or by 

warm temperatures and rainfall on snow and frozen ground. (USACE 1997). 

The Walla Walla River valley is extensively and intensively irrigated (NPCC 2004d). Primary 

water sources include the Touchet and Walla Walla rivers, East-West Canal, Gardena Canal, 

Lowden Canals, gravel aquifers, and the underlying basalt aquifer system (NPCC 2001, 2004d). 

Water diversions reduce flows in some reaches of the river and principle tributaries; lower Mill 

Creek and Walla Walla River near the border of Oregon and Washington have been completely 

dewatered in the past (NPCC 2004d). An increasing number of shallow individual domestic 

wells resulting from urban sprawl also pose a very real and significant deterrent to full utilization 

of the available water resources in the underlying aquifer (NPCC 2001, 2004d). 

Degraded water quality 

High water quality in the upper Walla Walla drainage generally degrades in lower elevations 

(NPCC 2001, 2004c). Temperature is a primary concern, with much of the lower Walla Walla 

remaining above 20°C (68°F) for most of the summer (NPCC 2001, 2004d). In Oregon, the 

Walla Walla River, North and South Forks of the Walla Walla River, and Mill Creek were all 

listed as 303(d) water quality limited for temperature in 2002 (ODEQ 2002). Sediment also 

reduces water quality as rain on frozen snow events in winter and spring often lead to high 

surface erosion in agricultural lands (NPCC 2001, 2004c). 

Blocked or impaired fish passage 

There are several total or partial fish passage barriers in the streams occupied by this population. 

Table 8-38 shows barriers to upstream passage in the subbasin for the Walla Walla steelhead 

population; however, the accuracy of the list is unknown because there has not been a 

comprehensive on-the-ground inventory of passage barriers in the subbasin. Obstructions are 

caused by low streamflow and channel spawning diversion structures and dams. Some culverts 

also act as fish passage barriers. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-75

Table 8-38. Barriers to Upstream Passage on Streams in the Walla Walla Subbasin within the 

Area Inhabited by the Walla Walla River steelhead population. This list is based on a 

combination of archived records and field observation. 

Stream Description River Mile /1 Priority Lat. Long. 

Pine Cr. Bevans Irrigation Dam 6.5 2 45.9903984 -118.57524108 

Pine Cr. Grade Control Structure on County Road 

707 

7.1 2 45.98669815 -118.56809997 

Pine Cr. Bevans and Young Irrigation Dam 7.5 2 45.98413848 -118.56359863 

Pine Cr. Irrigation Dam 8.1 2 

Pine Cr. Irrigation Ditch Diversion 10.8 2 

Pine Cr. Bridge on County Road 708 11.0 2 45.9595 -118.5372 

Pine Cr. Culvert at Johnson Road 23.6 2 45.8337 -118.4354 

Pine Cr. Culvert at Hwy 11 23.9 2 45.83039855 -118.43309783 

Pine Cr. Pine Cr. Rd Culvert 27 2 45.78490066 -118.40599822 

Pine Cr. Spring Reservoir Dam 1 28.7 2 45.77669906 -118.39499664 

Pine Cr. Spring Reservoir Dam 2 30.6 2 45.77603149 -118.36067962 

Dry Cr. Cockburn and Ray Irrigation Dam 1.0 2 45.9645195 -118.51821136 

Dry Cr. Marlatt-Shaw-Kelty Irrigation Dam 3.0 2 45.95537948 -118.48547363 

Dry Cr. Earnest Key Irrigation Dam 5.25 2 45.93603897 -118.45072174 

Dry Cr. Hohn and Phillips Irrigation Dam 5.75 2 45.93013 -118.44455718 

Dry Cr. Unnamed Dam 6.75 2 45.92193984 -118.43679809 

Dry Cr. Unnamed Dam 8.75 2 45.90356063 -118.41124725 

Dry Cr. Unnamed Dam 12.0 2 45.85702896 -118.40177154 

Dry Cr. Upper Dry Creek Rd Culvert 13.3 2 45.84577941 -118.38316345 

Little Dry Cr. Winn Rd Culvert 0.75 2 45.84624862 -118.4035263 

Little Dry Cr. Winn Power Dam 1.5 2 45.8399887 -118.40193176 

Dry Cr. (Walla 

Walla) 

Bridge at Lower Waitsburg Rd. 18.4 2 

Dry Cr. (Walla 

Walla) 

Cement box culvert just upstream of Sapolil 

Rd. 

24.1 2 

Mud Cr. (Dry 

Cr. Trib nr Dixie 

 1.4 2 

East Little 

Walla Walla 

Locust Rd Culvert 2 45.95819854 -118.39649963 

East Little 

Walla Walla 

Appleton Rd Culvert 2 45.96920013 -118.40000152 

East Little 

Walla Walla 

Crockett Road Culvert 2 45.97299957 -118.39969635 

East Little 

Walla Walla 

Ballou Rd Culvert 2 45.98740005 -118.40440368 

East Little 

Walla Walla 

Stateline Rd Culvert 2 46.00040054 -118.4083023 

West Little 

Walla Walla 

Winesap Rd Culvert 2 45.96900177 -118.41320037 

West Little 

Walla Walla 

Appleton Rd Culvert 2 45.96920013 -118.41390228 

West Little 

Walla Walla 

Sunquist Rd Culvert 2 45.99110031 -118.42350006 

West Little 

Walla Walla 

Stateline Rd culvert 2 46.00049972 -118.43969726 

Middle Branch 

Mud Cr. 

Triangle Rd Culvert 2 45.97399902 -118.4287033 

Middle Branch 

Mud Cr. 

County Rd 332 Culvert 2 45.9748001 -118.43389892 

Middle Branch 

Mud Cr. 

County Rd 332 Culvert 2 45.97660064 -118.43779754 

Mill Cr. Stiller Ditch Diversion Dam 2.1 1 

Mill Cr. Gose St. Dam and Concrete Apron 5.4 1 

Mill Cr. Concrete Channel, velocity and light 

barriers 

5.4 to 9.3 1 

Mill Cr. Concrete capped weirs and diked channel 

from Gose St. to Bennington Dam 

5.4 to 12.3 1 

Titus Cr. Culvert at mouth 0 2 

Mill Cr. Yellowhawk Division Dam and Ladder 11.4 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-76

Stream Description River Mile /1 Priority Lat. Long. 

Mill Cr. Bennington Dam and ladder 12.3 1 

Mill Cr. Kooskooskie Dam 23.0 1 

Mill Cr. City Water Intake – fishway needs 

upgrading 

 1 45.99021148 -118.04837036 

Garrison Cr. Larch and Lyon’s ponds 3.7 2 

Stone Cr. Pond Dam 1.1 2 

Big Spring Cr. Railroad crossing 0.7 2 

Unnamed 

spring 

Railroad crossing 0.3 2 

Russell Cr. Old irrigation diversion dam 0.9 2 

Russell Cr. CCC Dam, complete obstruction 5.6 2 

Yellowhawk Cr. Yellowhawk-Garrision Division Dam 7.8 1 

Doan Cr. Underground pipe in which creek is 

confined 

2.1 2 

Birch Cr. Waterfall 0.4 1 45.99863815 -118.36891174 

Birch Cr. Culvert at Powerline Rd. 3.9 1 45.9824 -118.3139 

Walla Walla R. Nursery Bridge Dam – Additional 

improvements needed 

46.8 1 

Couse Cr. Culvert at gravel pit entrance 1.1 1 45.8967514 -118.36978149 

Cup Gulch (NF 

Walla Walla 

NF Walla Walla River Road Culvert 2 45.89690017 -118.25279998 

Degraded riparian communities and large wood recruitment 

Vegetative conditions in the Walla Walla subbasin reflect land use practices. Historically, 

extensive riparian zones existed along streams in the Walla Walla subbasin (USACE 1997). 

Along the Oregon portion of the river, 70% of the existing riparian zone is in poor condition 

(Water Resources Commission 1988 cited in USACE 1997). Where steppe grassland vegetation 

communities once existed in the valley, crops and invasive plant species have largely replaced 

them. 

Table 8-39 shows key limiting factors for Mid-C steelhead in different parts of the Walla Walla 

drainage based on EDT findings. A summary of major limiting factors and threats is presented 

in Table 8-40. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-77

Table 8-39. Limiting factors and priorities for protection and restoration as defined by EDT for 

the Walla Walla River steelhead population. 

Attribute class priority for restoration

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche)

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei)

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr)

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz)

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil)

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks)

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dry & SF D

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Walsh)

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at Gose St

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold)

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusTitus)

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue)

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intake

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb &Tiger)

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to access limit

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradise)

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus MacAvoy

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant)

Stone Cr Drainage

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnamed Sprin

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridg

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source)

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Reser & Caldw

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, SF & MF)

Birch Creek Drainage

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Walla Divers

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks

Couse Creek Drainage

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Canyon Cr (

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access limit (plus B

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Canyon, Elbow

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Skiphorton &

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-78

Table 8-40. Habitat limiting factors summary for the Walla Walla River steelhead population. 

Population 

MaSA 

and MiSA Major limiting Factors Sites Affected* 

VSP 

Characteristics 

Impacted Threats

Life Stages 

Affected 

WALLA WALLA RIVER POPULATION 

Walla 

Walla 

River 

Population 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure 

(complexity, pools); altered 

sediment routing; altered 

hydrology; water quality 

(temp); blocked or impaired 

fish passage; degraded 

riparian communities 

MaSAs and 

MiSAs 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Agricultural 

practices, water 

diversions for 

irrigation, 

wetland draining 

and conversion, 

urban 

development, 

stream 

channelization 

and diking 

All life stages 

Mill Creek 

MaSA 

Impaired fish passage; 

altered sediment routing; 

water quality (temp); 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (pools, 

diversity, food, stability); 

degraded riparian 

communities 

Mill Cr. [F,CS 

(LWD, pools – 

lower reach); T 

and H (lower 

reach)] 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Agriculture, 

urban 

development, 

flood control, 

water diversions 

All life stages 

Pine Creek 

MaSA 

Altered sediment routing; 

degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (diversity, 

stability, food); altered 

hydrology; water quality 

(temp); impaired fish 

passage 

Pine Cr. [many 

passage barriers; 

S (RM 1-5)] 

Abundance, 

productivity 

 All life stages 

Dry Creek 

MaSA 

Altered hydrology; water 

quality (temp) 

 Abundance, 

productivity 

 Juvenile 

rearing, 

spawning 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

MaSA 

No data 

Walla Walla 

MaSA 

Degraded floodplain and 

channel structure (diversity, 

quantity); altered 

hydrology; altered sediment 

routing; degraded riparian 

communities; water quality 

(temp); impaired fish 

passage 

Walla Walla [T 

(lower)]; North 

Fork [F,CS, H,T, 

S and H (lower 

reach)]; South 

Fork [T, F,CS, H, 

S (lower reach)] 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Agricultural 

practices, 

livestock 

grazing, stream 

channelization, 

All life stages 

* Abbreviations for limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function (F); degraded channel structure and complexity 

(CS); degraded riparian communities (R); altered hydrology (H); degraded water quality (WQ), temperature (T); altered sediment 

routing (S); man-made block to migration (BP); impaired fish passage (IP). 

8.3 Mainstem and Tributary Hydrosystems 

This section describes direct and delayed effects of mainstem and tributary hydropower projects 

on Mid-C steelhead originating from the Fifteenmile Creek and the Deschutes, John Day, 

Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers. It describes how configurations and operations of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System affect the abundance and productivity of Mid-C steelhead 

juveniles and adults. This includes a discussion of how current actions under NOAA Fisheries 

2004 FCRPS BiOp affect the juvenile and smolt-to-adult return of steelhead populations as well 

as factors related to species recovery. The section also discusses how tributary hydropower 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-79

projects in the Deschutes, Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers subbasins influence steelhead 

viability. 

8.3.1 Mainstem Hydropower Configurations and Operations 

The FCRPS consists of 19 sets of dams, powerhouses, and reservoirs, operated as a coordinated 

system for power production and flood control by the Federal Action Agencies (i.e., USACE, 

USBR, and BPA) under various Congressional authorities. The principle projects are: Dworshak, 

Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor dams, power plants, and 

reservoirs in the Snake River basin; Albeni Falls, Hungry Horse, Libby, Grand Coulee and 

Banks Lake (features of the Columbia Basin Project), and Chief Joseph dams, power plants, and 

reservoirs in the upper Columbia River basin; and McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and 

Bonneville dams, power plants, and reservoirs in the lower Columbia River basin. 

Development and operation of the mainstem Columbia hydropower system dramatically alters 

travel conditions in the mainstem Columbia River, resulting in delayed upstream passage 

(adults), downstream passage (juveniles), and direct and indirect mortality for downstream 

migrants (juveniles). The hydropower system also changes the hydrograph; depleting 

historically available nutrients, increasing water temperatures, and degrading rearing and food 

resources for both presmolts and smolts in the Columbia River. Changes in the hydrograph leave 

steelhead more vulnerable to bird and pinniped predation in the mainstem and Columbia River 

estuary. These impacts increase somewhat for each population in direct relation to the number of 

dams that fish must pass during their migration to and from the Pacific Ocean. Mid-C steelhead 

populations pass one to four Columbia River dams: the Fifteenmile Creek population passes one 

dam; Deschutes River populations pass two dams; John Day River and Umatilla River 

populations pass three dams; and the Walla Walla River population passes four dams). 

Legacy and Current Effects of Hydropower System 

Hydropower development and operation in the Columbia Basin has reduced productivity, 

restricted salmonid migrations, altered habitats, and increased predation on and competition 

between juvenile salmonids. The hydropower system affects the following factors: 

Loss of population traits and productivity: Low adult abundance attributable to direct 

mortality of downstream migrant smolts at a dam, or to direct mortality or delayed 

passage of upstream migrant adults at a dam. Selective mortality resulting in nonnormative changes in genetic and phenotypic characteristics. Reduction and possible 

elimination of iteroparity due to high mortality of kelts attempting to return to the ocean. 

Impaired habitat access: Impaired access to spawning and rearing areas upstream from 

a dam, or restriction of spawning and rearing to sub-optimal areas downstream from a 

dam. 

Degraded habitat quality and quantity: Modification of riverine habitat into 

impoundments results in changes in habitat availability, migration patterns, and feeding 

ecology. Downstream migration is significantly slower through impoundments. Food 

webs are different in the impoundments than in natural rivers. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-80

Increased predation: Ecosystem alterations attributable to dams led to increased 

predation by native and introduced fish species on naturally produced juveniles. Other 

fishes, including northern pikeminnow, walleye, smallmouth bass, and salmonids, prey 

on juvenile salmonids. Modification of the Columbia River hydrosystem and estuarine 

habitat also led to increased predation by pinnipeds and birds on adult and juvenile 

salmonids. 

Degraded water quality: Flow regulation and reservoir construction have increased 

average water temperatures beyond optimums for salmonids in the lower Columbia 

River. High water temperatures can cause migrating adult steelhead to stop or delay their 

migrations. Warm temperatures can also increase the fishes’ susceptibility to disease. 

Flow regulation and reservoir construction also have increased water clarity that can 

affect salmonids through food availability and susceptibility to disease. Water can 

become supersaturated with atmospheric gases, primarily nitrogen, when water is spilled 

over high dams and this has resulted in significant salmonid mortality. Temperature 

changes influence physiological transition and seawater readiness of migrating smolts. 

Altered hydrograph/water quantity: Changes in flow patterns affect steelhead 

migration and survival directly and indirectly. Juvenile and adult migration behavior and 

travel rates are related to river flow. Flow fluctuations stimulate or delay juvenile 

emigration or adult migration, thereby affecting the timing of juvenile arrival in the 

estuary and ocean, or adult arrival at the spawning grounds. Reduced springtime flows, 

for example, have delayed upstream migrations. Flow also affects the availability of 

habitat for mainstem spawning and rearing stocks. Rapid diurnal flow fluctuations can 

disrupt mainstem spawners, leave redds dewatered, or strand juveniles. 

While management of the hydropower system has improved in recent years, the conditions 

created by current practices continue to exert negative impacts on the viability to Mid-C 

steelhead and other listed species today. 

Current Effects of Federal Columbia River Power System Management 

The FCRPS is currently operated consistent with actions identified in NOAA Fisheries 2004 

Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (BiOp)(NOAA Fisheries 2004) and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final Updated Proposed Action for the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion Remand (UPA) (USACE et al. 2004). These actions are intended to address the needs 

for survival and recovery of all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead ESUs and DPSs in the 

Columbia Basin. Operation of the FCRPS may change as a result of a remand of the NOAA 

Fisheries 2004 BiOp, as ordered in June 2005 by the Federal District Court. However, pending 

any court-ordered hydrosystem operational changes during the remand process, the FCRPS 

Action Agencies intend to implement the actions identified in the 2004 BiOp and UPA through 

2014. Many of the actions are continuation of the 'Reasonable and Prudent Alternative’ (RPA) 

actions contained in the 2000 Biological Opinion. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-81

The following hydrosystem actions are currently being implemented under the 2004 BiOp and 

UPA. 

Continue adult fish passage operations. The Action Agencies continue to complete 

capital construction projects at federal dams to improve adult fish passage. These fish 

passage improvements have resulted in meeting or exceeding the adult fish survival 

performance standards set out in the 2000 BiOp, however there is concern that they do 

not adequately address delayed mortality and reduced spawning success effects from 

upstream passage (delay/fallback). The effect of reduced operation of adult passage 

facilities during winter maintenance, which is especially critical for Fifteenmile Creek 

winter steelhead, is also a concern. 

Improve juvenile fish passage. The Action Agencies continue to implement specific 

capital improvements, giving priority for funding and implementation to dams with the 

lowest juvenile passage survival rates. They are pursuing the use of removable spillway 

weirs (RSWs) or similar surface bypass devices, where feasible. RSWs are installed or 

planned for installation at all Snake River projects and feasibility studies are being 

conducted for RSWs at McNary and John Day dams and a forebay guidance device at 

The Dalles. These RSWs/surface bypass systems are currently designed to operate with 

reduced levels of conventional spill to provide similar or greater spillway passage and 

survival at a lower overall spill level to reduce operational costs. However, RSWs with 

greater training spill or multiple RSWs could be installed at projects to provide even 

higher spillway passage and survival. 

Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage. The basic spring and summer 

spill program from the 2004 BiOp continues to be implemented. Under the 2004 BiOp 

remand, court-ordered summer spill was provided in 2005 at Snake River collector 

projects and McNary Dam to improve survival of listed Snake River fall Chinook. 

Continue reservoir operations and flow augmentation to benefit migrating fish. The 

Action Agencies continue to operate federal storage reservoirs to supplement streamflows 

and provide spill at mainstem dams to benefit juvenile fish migration consistent with 

current implementation of the 2000 BiOp as modified through implementation plans. 

The hydrosystem operations include both discretionary and nondiscretionary actions. 

Under these operations, the Action Agencies operate federal storage projects at or near 

upper (flood control) rule curve elevations during the spring to pass spring runoff 

downstream and to help refill the projects by July 1 for summer flow augmentation 

operations. 

Modify fish transportation to improve juvenile survival. Collection and transport of 

juvenile fish at Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and McNary dams 

continues. Under the 2004 and previous Biological Opinions, spring migrants including 

Mid-C steelhead are not transported during the spring April 10-June 30 spill period so 

transportation effects (only potentially applicable to Yakima and Walla Walla steelhead) 

are not considered aside the effects of transportation of upriver stocks on straying in 

Middle Columbia tributaries. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-82

While current actions under NOAA Fisheries 2004 BiOp are improvements over past 

hydropower system management, the FCRPS continues to affect Mid-C steelhead abundance and 

productivity by restricting migrations, altering habitats, and increasing predation on and 

competition between juvenile salmonids. As a result, the ICTRT ranked the Columbia 

hydropower system as a major limiting factor for all Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. 

Effects of the FCRPS are assessed in the following four categories: 

1. Smolt-to-adult returns 

2. Juvenile migration and survival related to dam operations and river environment 

3. Delayed mortality associated with the FCRPS 

4. Adult migration and survival related to dam operations and river environment 

Because of the lack of specific survival data for Mid-C steelhead, research data from juvenile 

steelhead marked primarily from Snake and upper Columbia River stocks, and run-at-large 

juvenile and adult fish were used to generalize effects of the FCRPS on Mid-C steelhead. These 

data gaps need to be addressed by the TRT. 

1. Smolt-to-Adult Returns 

Smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates provide a measure of survival that encompasses smolt 

migration, estuary/ocean residence, and adult returns. Changes in SAR over a number of years 

provide an index of temporal variability in stock productivity and viability, and a basis to 

understand the relative effects of natural limiting factors in freshwater and marine environments, 

as well as effects of the FCRPS. 

SAR data for hatchery and wild steelhead in the Umatilla and Hood rivers indicate that the 

effects of the FCRPS increase in relation to the number of dams the fish pass while migrating 

through the Columbia. Data for the Hood River, which is not part of the Mid-Columbia DPS, 

have been used here to represent fish passage through one mainstem dam, such as is true for 

Fifteenmile Creek. These data show that, although not directly comparable, survival of hatchery 

summer and winter steelhead released from the Hood River have about four to five-fold higher 

SARs (1.94 % summer and 1.65% winter for 1992-97 brood or 1994-99 migration years) than 

the Umatilla (0.39%). ODFW contends that that is likely due to additional mortality incurred 

from passage at three mainstem dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville) for Umatilla 

steelhead vs only one dam (Bonneville) for Hood River steelhead. Similarly, SARs of combined 

wild summer and winter steelhead in Hood River were about four-fold higher than SARs of wild 

summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. 

For Umatilla River wild steelhead, SARs for 1995-2002 migration years ranged from 1.418% in 

1996 to 5.316% in 1998, and averaged 2.570% for the eight-year period (Table 8-41). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-83

Table 8-41. Smolt-to-adult return of Umatilla River wild summer steelhead at Three Mile Falls 

Dam for 1995-2002 migration years (White et al. 2007). Data are incomplete for 2001 and 2002 

migration years. 

Smolt Smolt-to-Adult 

Migration No. of No. Returns Return Rate 

Year Smolts to TMFD (%) 

1995 54,361 837 1.540 

1996 73,361 1,040 1.418 

1997 22,221 1,026 4.615 

1998 59,182 3,146 5.316 

1999 46,530 2,299 4.941 

2000 81,759 4,045 4.948 

2001 33,844 1,135 3.353 

2002 77,016 1,649 2.141 

2003 24,773 

2004 35,640 

2005 59,807 

Mean = 51,681 2.570 

For hatchery summer steelhead released in the Umatilla River from 1987-97 broods, SARs have 

ranged from 0.043% for the 1988 brood to 0.752% for the 1994 brood and averaged 0.38% for 

the 11 years (Table 8-42). 

Table 8-42. Smolt-to-adult return (hatchery release to Three Mile Falls Dam) of Umatilla 

Hatchery steelhead 1987-97 broods (Rowan 1998; Chess et al. 2005). 

 

Smolt-toAdult 

Brood No. Total Return Rate No. Adults No. Returns 

Year Rearing Location CWT'ed Released (%) Produced to TMFD 

1987 

Oak Springs 

Hatchery 58,067 61,306 0.437 374 268 

1988 

Oak Springs 

Hatchery 52,726 81,712 0.043 41 35 

1989 

Oak Springs 

Hatchery 56,034 89,193 0.704 838 628 

1990 

Oak Springs 

Hatchery 57,825 71,935 0.598 612 430 

1991 Umatilla Hatchery 103,353 199,404 0.085 221 169 

1992 Umatilla Hatchery 92,952 158,388 0.313 587 495 

1993 Umatilla Hatchery 57,033 153,098 0.385 826 589 

1994 Umatilla Hatchery 57,884 146,463 0.752 1372 1101 

1995 Umatilla Hatchery 61,580 146,703 0.333 541 489 

1996 Umatilla Hatchery 58,699 137,287 0.283 407 389 

1997 Umatilla Hatchery 60,914 137,485 0.248 393 341 

 

Mean = 65,188 125,725 0.380 565 449 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

8-84

For the Hood River, estimated SARs for combined wild summer and winter steelhead for 1994-

2002 migration years ranged from 3.68% for 1997 migration year to 17.84% for 2001 and 

averaged 9.00% for the nine years (Table 8-43). Hatchery summer steelhead SARs for the same 

time period ranged from 0.98-4.52% with a mean of 2.51% (Table 8-44). Hatchery winter 

steelhead SARs for the same time period ranged from 0.64-2.90% with a mean of 1.78% (Table 

8-45). 

 

Table 8-43. Combined estimates of wild summer and winter steelhead subbasin smolt 

production, escapement to the mouth of the Hood River, and smolt-to-adult survival rate. 

Estimates are by year of migration. Year of migration is bold faced for those years in which 

estimates of adult escapements back to the mouth of the Hood River subbasin are greater than 

97% complete (Olsen 2005). 

Year of smolt Adult returns 

migration 

Smolts 

Run yearsa

 No.b

Smolt-adult survival 

(%) 

1994 7,573 1994/95-1999/00 538 7.10 

1995 4,656 1995/96-2000/01 438 9.41 

1996 6,799 1996/97-2001/02 400 5.88 

1997 13,334 1997/97-2001/02 400 3.68 

1998 25,485 1998/99-2003/04 491 6.16 

1999 18,842 1999/00-2004/05 1,569 8.22 

2000 14,882 2000/01-2004/05 1,979 13.30 

2001 5,786 2001/02-2004/05 1,032 17.84 

2002 8,096 2002/03-2004/05 765 9.45 

a Summer steelhead escapements in the 2004-2005 run year are preliminary estimates through 31 December, 2004. 

 Winter steelhead returns are complete through the 2003-2004 run year. b Hooking mortality was assumed to average approximately 10% in the sport fishery located from the mouth of the 

 Hood River to Powerdale Dam. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-85

Table 8-44. Estimates of Foster and Hood River stock hatchery summer steelhead subbasin smolt production relescapements to the mouth of the Hood River, smolt-to-adult survival rate, and percent difference from the wild srate. Estimates are by year of migration. Year of migration is bold faced for those years in which estimates of ad

to the mouth of the Hood River subbasin are more than 97% complete (Olsen 2005). 

Foster stock hatchery summer steelhead Hood River stock hatchery summ

Adult Returns Smolt to adult survival Adult Returns 

Year of smolt 

migration 

 Smoltsa,b Run Yearsc No. Percent 

Survival 

Difference 

from 

wild (%) 

 Smoltsa,b Run Yearsc No. 

 

1994 90,042 1995/96-2000/01 2,051 2.28 -67.89 -- -- -- 1995 76,330 1996/97/2001/02 1,010 1.32 -85.97 -- -- -- 1996 68,378 1997/98-2002/03 673 0.98 -83.33 -- -- -- 1997 60,993 1998/99-2003/04 600 0.98 -73.37 -- -- -- 1998 64,910 1999/00-2004/05 1,624 2.5 -59.42 -- -- -- 1999 62,218 2000/01-2004/05 2,208 3.55 -56.81 19,513 2000/01-2003/04 470 2000 49,278 2001/02-2004/05 2,225 4.52 -66.02 33,899 2001/02-2004/05 1,253 2001 62,354 2002/03-2004/05 1,777 2.85 -84.02 37,665 2002/03-2004/05 522 2002 58,711 2003/04-2004/05 2,100 3.58 -62.12 45,658 2003/04-2004/05 1,154 

a Production releases of Foster stock hatchery summer steelhead smolts were direct released into the West Fork of the Hood River from 1994-1997. A

were made below Powerdale Dam (RM 4.5) beginning in 1998. b Number represents the estimated hatchery smolt production release. Numbers have not been adjusted for residualism. 

c Escapements in the 2004-2005 run year are preliminary estimates through 9 March, 2005. d Hood River stock hatchery summer steelhead smolts were first released into the Hood River subbasin in 1999 (1998 brood). The entire production re

two weeks prior to being volitionally released into the West Fork of the Hood River. 

e Hood River stock summer steelhead were generally not available for harvest in the sport fishery through the 2003-2004 run year; with the exception o

adipose-left maxillary clipped adults returning from the 2000 brood release (i.e., 29 adults). This was because of their unique hatchery mark combinaThe 2002 brood release was the first brood release in which the entire production group was marked with an adipose clip; in combination with anotheHooking mortality of maxillary only clipped adults was assumed to average approximately 10% in the sport fishery located from the mouth of the Hood 

f Estimates include counts at Powerdale Dam of adult steelhead with a valid (i.e., for harvest) Hood River stock summer steelhead mark combination th

River stock (Unknown) winter steelhead. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-86

Table 8-45. Estimates of Hood River stock hatchery winter steelhead subbasin smolt production 

releases, adult escapements to the mouth of the Hood River, smolt-to-adult survival rate, and 

percent difference from the wild smolt-to-adult survival rate. Estimates are by year of migration. 

Year of migration is bold faced for those years in which estimates of adult escapements back to 

the mouth of the Hood River subbasin are more than 97% complete (Olsen 2005). 

 

Adult returns Smolt-adult survival

Release strategy, 

year of smolt 

migration 

 Smoltsa,b Run years No.c

 Percent 

 Survival 

 Diff. from 

 wild (%) 

Direct release, 

1994 38,034 1994/95-1998/99 682 1.79 -74.79 

1995 4,656 1995/96-2000/01 1,023 2.39 -74.60 

Acclimated, 

1996 6,799 1996/97-2001/02 580 1.14 -80.61 

1997 13,334 1997/97-2001/02 385 0.64 -82.61 

1998 25,485 1998/99-2003/04 651 1.05 -82.95 

1999 18,842 1999/00-2004/05 1,355 2.90 -64.72 

2000 14,882 2000/01-2004/05 1,724 2.73 -79.47 

2001 5,786 2001/02-2004/05 720 1.42 -92.04 

2002 8,096 2002/03-2004/05 1,220 1.94 -79.47 

 a

 Hood River stock hatchery winter steelhead smolts were first released into the Hood River subbasin in 1993 (1992 brood). 

 The entire production release was first acclimated in 1996 (1995 brood). Hatchery smolts are acclimated for up to two weeks 

prior to being volitionally released into both the East and Middle forks of the Hood River. b

 Number represents estimated smolt release. Numbers have not been adjusted for residualism. c

 Number includes counts at Powerdale Dam of adult steelhead with a valid Hood River stock winter steelhead mark 

 combination that were classified as a Hood River (Unknown) stock summer steelhead. 

2. Juvenile Migration and Survival Related to Dam Operations and River Environment 

Juvenile steelhead migration and survival are affected by dam operations (primarily spill), 

environmental parameters (primarily flow and temperature), and predation. Impacts on juvenile 

survival and migration timing are discussed below. 

Juvenile survival 

Currently, there are inadequate data to estimate juvenile survival of Mid-C steelhead because 

very few of these fish have been PIT-tagged, and only steelhead from the Umatilla and John Day 

rivers have been tagged. Consequently, data from PIT-tagged steelhead from the Snake River 

have been used to gain a better understanding of Mid-C steelhead survival through MidColumbia dams (McNary to Bonneville). While these findings cannot be directly extrapolated to 

Mid-C steelhead, they provide a basis for understanding probable environmental and dam 

operational conditions that might be influencing survival and viability of Mid-C steelhead. 

Additional tagging of specific Mid-C stocks is needed to corroborate results. 

 

Data collected by the Fish Passage Center (FPC 2005) from 1999 to 2005 show statistically 

significant relationships between survival of PIT tagged steelhead from McNary to Bonneville 

dams and spill (Figure 8-3), water transit time (related to flow) (Figure 8-4), and temperature 

(Figure 8-5). Pearson’s correlation matrix for these analyses is provided in Table 8-46. Although 

these relationships were highly influenced by a single low flow year (2001), they still suggest 

that survival of steelhead is influenced by the amount of spill, flow, and temperature at MidColumbia dams, with higher survival at higher spill and flow and lower water temperatures. 

These results are similar to those found for yearling Chinook between McNary to Bonneville 

(FPC 2005), and for yearling Chinook and steelhead between Lower Granite to McNary dams. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-87

(FPC 2005) where greater sample sizes and observations over a wider range of dam operations 

and environmental conditions allow greater statistical rigor and strength of relationships. 

Figure 8-3. Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for PIT-tagged steelhead 

detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 1999 to 2005 plotted with 

average spill percent at John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville dams. 

Figure 8-4. Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for PIT-tagged steelhead 

detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 1999 to 2005 plotted with 

average water transit time for the reach McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam. 

y = 2.4751x - 0.3356

R2

 = 0.6003

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Average Spill Percent

Survival

y = -0.0684x + 1.0171

R2

 = 0.7079

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Water Transit Time (d)

Survival
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-88

Figure 8-5. Reach survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam for PIT-tagged steelhead 

detected at McNary Dam between May 11 and June 8 for years 1999 to 2005 plotted with 

average water temperature(C) measured at tailwater TDGS monitors for the reach McNary Dam 

to Bonneville Dam. 

Table 8-46. Pearson correlation matrix for Snake River steelhead survival relationships. 

 SURVIVAL TRAVTIME WTT AVGSPILL AVTEMP 

SURVIVAL 1.00000 

TRAVTIME -0.76894 1.00000 

WTT -0.84138 0.96015 1.00000 

AVGSPILL 0.77482 -0.92923 -0.93281 1.00000 

AVTEMP -0.85401 0.87935 0.85638 -0.90103 1.00000 

Data from PIT-tagged steelhead from the Snake River have been used to estimate survival 

through Mid-Columbia dams. These data were not sufficient to estimate juvenile steelhead 

survival from McNary to Bonneville until 1997, and then only for pooled wild and hatchery 

steelhead (Table 8-47). Annual estimates ranged from 0.250 in 2001 to 0.770 in 1998, and 

averaged 0.540 for the seven years. These survival estimates include only direct effects of 

passage through the Mid-Columbia dams and reservoirs; delayed, or latent, mortality from 

hydrosystem passage for these fish is discussed later in this section. 

Data from 1997 to 2003 indicate that steelhead survival from McNary Dam to Bonneville Dam is 

influenced by dam operations (spill); as well as migration rate (as influenced by flow), 

temperature, and predation. Survival in 2001 was only about one-third of 1998, due to extremely 

y = -0.165x + 2.8967

R2

 = 0.7293

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

12 13 14 15 16 17

Average Temperature(C)

Survival
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-89

low flows, high temperatures, and limited spill at each dam because of a declared power 

emergency by BPA (Williams et al. 2005). 

Table 8-47. Estimated survival from McNary Dam tailrace to Bonneville Dam tailrace for 

hatchery and wild steelhead (pooled) PIT tagged from the Snake River (from Williams et al. 

2005). 

Year Survival Standard Error

1997 0.651 0.082 

1998 0.770 0.081 

1999 0.640 0.024 

2000 0.580 0.047 

2001 0.250 0.016 

2002 0.488 0.090 

2003 0.510 0.015 

Average 0.540 0.071 

 

 

Survival data from 1999 to 2005 for wild summer steelhead from release in the Umatilla River to 

John Day Dam echo these findings. Results from these data ― which examine effects in the 

Umatilla River and also passage through John Day Reservoir ― show that survival probabilities 

were lowest in 2001 and 2004, two below normal flow years in both the Umatilla and Columbia 

rivers (Table 8-48). 

Table 8-48. SURPH generated survival and capture probabilities for natural summer steelhead 

tagged and released into the Umatilla River, 1999 – 2005 (White et al. 2007). S*P = Survival 

Probability. 

 Survival probabilities Capture probabilities

 

Final S*P

Year TMFD 

TMFD to 

JDD JDD TMFD JDD TMFD JDD 

Number 

tagged 

All fish tagged and released in Upper Basina

 

1999 0.26 0.75 0.19 0.32 0.42 0.40 0.19 2010 

2000 0.34 0.52 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.25 0.22 1652 

2001 0.39 0.38 0.15 0.15 0.53 0.27 0.36 2622 

Fish tagged and released from January - June in Upper Basinab 

2000 0.37 0.57 0.21 0.36 0.29 0.24 0.18 1281 

2001 0.40 0.37 0.15 0.15 0.53 0.26 0.36 2480 

 

Fish tagged at TMFD for Trap Efficiency testsc

1999 0.97 0.69 0.67 0.21 0.37 0.20 1845 

2000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 

2001 0.75 0.53 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.21 281 

2002 1.04 0.61 0.64 0.17 0.30 0.14 468 

2003 0.80 0.64 0.51 0.18 0.40 0.32 498 

2004 0.84 0.44 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.13 309 

2005 0.91 0.54 0.49 0.29 0.41 0.10 704 

 

a

 These fish were tagged at various times and released at various upriver sites (RM 48 – RM 80) but were grouped for species survival. Natural fish were only tagged from 1999 to 2001. b

 Fish tagged from January to June were assumed to be actively migrating smolts. These fish were separated because of the potential for overwintering mortality associated with fish tagged from July to December. c

 These fish were released about 1.5 miles upstream of TMFD at various times. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-90

Predation by Piscivorous Fish. Survival rates also reflect predation that has increased due to dam 

development and operations. Slower river flows and warmer water temperatures in the lower 

Columbia River caused by hydropower development and operations create hospitable 

environments for northern pikeminnow, walleye, smallmouth bass and other fishes that prey on 

outmigrating juvenile steelhead. The dams can stress and disorient migrating smolts, making 

them vulnerable to predators. Dams may also delay migration, thereby increasing travel time and 

exposure to predators. Northern pikeminnow are considered the major piscivore responsible for 

predation on juvenile salmonids, with mortality potentially similar to that caused by dam passage 

(Rieman et al. 1991). Predation impacts are further discussed in Sections 8.7. 

Juvenile migration timing 

Data on the migration timing for wild Mid-C steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River, as 

determined by detection of PIT tagged fish, are limited to wild and hatchery steelhead PIT 

tagged in the Umatilla River, where adequate numbers have been PIT tagged since 2001. PIT 

tagging of wild steelhead has also been initiated in the John Day, Wind and Hood rivers, but 

inadequate numbers have been detected at mainstem dams to determine migration timing. 

Summarized migration timing data for Umatilla River wild and hatchery PIT tagged steelhead 

from 2001 to 2005 show that Umatilla steelhead generally passed John Day Dam during April 

and May, typical of migration timing of steelhead PIT tagged in the Snake and upper Columbia 

rivers (Figures 8-6--8-10). However, in 2001, Umatilla steelhead migrations extended into 

August because of drought and power emergency (limited spill) conditions (Figure 8-6). 

Figure 8-6. Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day Dam in 

2001. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-91

Figure 8-7. Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day Dam in 

2002. 

Figure 8-8. Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day Dam in 

2003. 

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2003.04.072003.04.082003.04.092003.04.102003.04.11

2003.04.122003.04.162003.04.172003.04.192003.04.212003.04.272003.04.282003.04.292003.05.012003.05.032003.05.082003.05.192003.05.222003.05.232003.05.242003.05.252003.05.272003.05.28

Date of Observation

Number of Observations
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-92

Figure 8-9. Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day Dam in 

2004. 

Figure 8-10. Migration timing of wild PIT-tagged Umatilla River steelhead at John Day Dam in 

2005. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-93

3. Delayed Mortality Associated with the FCRPS 

While there currently is not enough data to determine what level of latent mortality for Mid-C 

steelhead can be attributed to passage through the hydropower system, studies and analyses 

conducted on Snake River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead indicate that latent mortality 

can be high. Comparisons of SARs for Snake River spring/summer Chinook and steelhead with 

survival estimates through the FCRPS (both juvenile downstream and adult upstream direct 

survival estimates) indicate that most mortality of both in-river and transported fish occurs 

outside the hydrosystem, manifested as “delayed” mortality (Marmorek et al. 2004). Studies and 

analyses have been conducted over the last 10 years to identify causative mechanisms including 

changes in migration timing (from delay of in-river smolts and acceleration of transported 

smolts), disease transmission or stress resulting from concentration of fish in 

bypass/transportation facilities, depletion of energy reserves due to prolonged migrations, altered 

estuary/plume characteristics, and disruption of homing instincts. 

The Comparative Survival Study (CSS) Workshop (Marmorek et al. 2004) found that results 

from updated modeling (Delta model used by Deriso et al. 2001) indicate that delayed mortality 

for Snake River spring/summer Chinook has remained high in recent years (long-term 

average=0.81) despite improvements in ocean conditions. The CSS Workshop evaluated 

evidence of several mechanisms of delayed mortality, including several that are directly 

applicable to Mid-C steelhead: 

The hydrosystem indirectly affects SARs by delaying in-river arrival of smolts in the 

estuary- Snake River steelhead arrive in the estuary 2-3 weeks later than historically 

(travel times greatly extended due to reduced water particle time from dam construction) 

that influence availability of prey that might be key in estuary/early ocean survival. 

Although delay of Mid-C steelhead may not be as great as Snake River stocks, any delay 

may affect survival. 

The hydrosystem indirectly affects SARs by delaying the smolt development process 

through altered entry timing and stress- Similar to Snake River stocks, Mid-C steelhead 

may be stressed from hydrosystem passage and reverse in smolt development decreasing 

overall survival. 

The hydrosystem indirectly affects SARs through size selectivity and annual variation in 

bypass survival- Although thought to be a key hypothesis (Williams et al. 2005), a 

re-analysis of data by Marmorek et al. (2004) for Snake River wild Chinook showed a 

weak trend in size selectivity and only at Little Goose Dam. Bypass passage for Mid-C 

steelhead is probably less of a factor than for upriver stocks due to less bypass systems 

encountered (most stocks are affected by only two dams, John Day and Bonneville, as 

there is no bypass at The Dalles). 

Smolt passage through the hydrosystem increases stress, reduces growth rate and fish 

condition that increases vulnerability to mortality factors including predation and 

horizontal transmission of pathogens- This hypothesis is likely but uncertain as evidence 

is mainly from laboratory studies and lack of empirical data confirming results.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-94

4. Adult Migration and Survival Related to Dam Operations and River Environment 

Research by the University of Idaho and NMFS since 1996 (provided by Dr. Chris Peery, 

University of Idaho) indicates that adult steelhead migration and survival is also affected by the 

FCRPS. The research focused primarily on passage of adult Snake River salmon and steelhead, 

but the findings are also applicable, though to a lesser degree, to Mid-C steelhead. 

From 1996 to 2003, more than 18,000 adult Snake River salmon and steelhead, were radiotagged and monitored, and the fates of individual fish were assessed. Monitored groups included 

spring, summer, and fall Chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye salmon. Samples from later 

years included adults that were PIT-tagged as juveniles at known locations, allowing researchers 

to assess behavior and survival for individuals with known homing destinations. The tagging 

program has included several ESA-listed stocks including limited Mid-C steelhead (primarily 

Umatilla and John Day steelhead). Additional information related to research results described 

here can be found at, http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/uiferl/. 

Survival and pre-spawn mortality 

Survival. Survival through the Columbia River hydrosystem (Bonneville Dam to Lower Granite 

or Priest Rapids dams) averaged 73% for spring–summer Chinook salmon, 61% for fall Chinook 

salmon, and 63% for steelhead; survival varied significantly among years (Figure 8-11). Fish 

that did not reach spawning areas were presumed lost to harvest and other causes. Survival of 

Mid-C steelhead is likely to be higher due to less dams encountered. 

Non-Harvest Mortality. After accounting for fishing mortality, an average of 12–17% of 

Columbia River and Snake River salmon and steelhead adults had unknown fates before 

reaching spawning tributaries or exiting the monitored hydrosystem. Causes for these mortalities 

are unknown, but likely include extended migrations, stress from elevated water temperatures, 

energetic exhaustion, disease, unreported harvest, delayed mortality due to injuries sustained 

during fallback or from encounters with fisheries, or other factors. An important finding 

applicable to Mid-C steelhead is that survival for all runs has tended to be lowest in the lower 

Columbia River (Bonneville to McNary) and higher through lower Snake River reaches. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-95

'96 '97 '98 '00 '01 '02 '03 '98 '00 '01 '02 '03 '96 '97 '00 '01 '02 '03

H

y

drosystem escapement 0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Sp/Su Chinook Fall Chinook Steelhead

Figure 8-11. Average escapement for adult spring/summer Chinook salmon, fall Chinook 

salmon, and steelhead through the Federal Columbia River Power System, adjusted for known 

commercial and sport harvests. Error bars are 95% CIs. 

Pinniped Predation. Predation by Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions and California sea lions 

on salmon and steelhead in the lower Columbia River has increased in recent years. More and 

more seal lions have been traveling as far as Bonneville Dam to prey on adult salmon and 

steelhead that congregate below the dam before attempting to climb the fish ladders. They also 

consume large numbers of salmon and steelhead in the 145 miles of the Columbia River below 

the dam. Section 8.7 discusses the effects of pinniped predation on Mid-C steelhead. 

Pre-Spawn Mortality. Additional mortality occurs upstream from the hydrosystem and before 

spawning, but quantitative summaries of these components of adult survival are limited. 

Intensive surveys of spawning areas in the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho, reveal 25 to 60% of 

successful Chinook salmon migrants die before spawning each year compared to numbers 

observed at Lower Granite. A study is underway to determine how migration history, water 

temperatures in and upstream from the hydrosystem, and fish energetics are related to pre-spawn 

mortality for this population. Similar studies are needed for Mid-C steelhead. 

Straying. Permanent inter-basin straying is a challenging component of assessing adult survival 

because they could be considered either successful migrants (they reached a spawning area) or 

unsuccessful migrants (they did not home to their natal site). On average, 2–4% of known-origin 

spring–summer and fall Chinook salmon and 7% of steelhead in the radiotelemetry study strayed 

into non-natal basins where they may have spawned with native stocks. Hatchery fish and fish 

transported (barged) from the Snake River as juveniles were more likely than other groups to 

stray. Many stray steelhead from the Snake River entered the Deschutes and John Day rivers 

and possibly spawn with native populations. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-96

Wandering. In warm years and during warm periods within years, large proportions of summer 

and fall Chinook salmon and steelhead runs encounter temperatures considered stressful for 

salmonids. In response, many fish seek cool thermal refuges—and particularly cool non-natal 

tributary streams particularly the Deschutes River. During the warmest times, majorities of the 

fall Chinook and steelhead runs concentrate in these refugia, where they may be highly 

vulnerable to harvest. While the behavior likely has immediate energetic benefits, delays and 

elevated harvest risks during warm water periods may lead to overall decreases in system 

productivity. There is some evidence that survival consequences of high temperature exposure 

may be greater for obligatory migrants like Chinook salmon than for steelhead which migrate 

many months in advance of spawning. 

Effects of dams and operations 

Passage Rates. Most adult salmon and steelhead pass individual dams in 1 to 2 days, and pass 

quickly through reservoirs. However, a proportion of each run (typically between 2–12%) takes 

several days to weeks to pass individual dams. Research found that fish that took a relatively 

long time to pass individual dams were less likely to migrate successfully to spawning 

tributaries. Similarly, relatively slow passage through the lower Columbia hydrosystem 

(multiple dams and reservoirs) from McNary to Bonneville was associated with unsuccessful 

migration. Though the cause is unknown, the association described above may have resulted 

from inadequate dam passage facilities ‘delaying’ some individuals, the expenditure of large 

amounts of energetic stores, and resulting in premature death. Alternatively, individuals in poor 

condition at river-entry may have been both slow and less likely to reach spawning grounds, 

regardless of passage conditions at dams. Studies are on-going to determine the relative roles of 

these two mechanisms. Improving passage efficiency has been a management goal, and 

incremental improvements to fishways (transition pools, count windows, entrance and exit 

conditions) and operations (spill, fishway temperatures) are being studied and implemented. 

Fallback. Some fish from all runs pass dams and then fall back downstream. Approximately 

22% of spring/summer Chinook salmon, 15% of fall Chinook salmon, and 21% of steelhead fell 

back at one or more dams during migration. Fallback is associated with both direct and delayed 

mortality, slowed migration rates, and increased likelihood of straying. Fallback rates have been 

highest in years with high river flow and high spill at dams, at least in part because most fish fall 

back via dam spillways. Fish also appear to fall back as a result of orientation errors, including 

failure to locate natal tributaries and imprinting problems associated with juvenile barging. 

Providing benign downstream passage routes for these individuals could lessen the survival costs 

of fallback. Operational changes may help reduce fallback and therefore increase overall 

survival, but it is unclear how large a reduction is possible given the management constraints. 

Juvenile Barging. Currently, about 70% of juvenile migrating seaward in the Snake River are 

collected and transported by barge below Bonneville Dam. Returning adults that had been 

barged as juveniles were ~10% less likely to migrate to spawning grounds, exhibited less direct 

migrations, and strayed to non-natal tributaries (ex: Deschutes River) at rates that were 

approximately twice that of adults that had migrated in the river as juveniles. Barging probably 

interrupts the ‘sequential imprinting’ process whereby adults use olfactory memories from the 

juvenile seaward migration during homing. It should be noted that fish used in this study are 

captured at the Washington shore fish trap which may have influenced results. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-97

Spill. Results three years when spill levels were manipulated at Bonneville Dam suggest that 

high spill volumes (>100 to kcfs at Bonneville) increase adult passage times slightly compared to 

moderate spill volumes of ~75 kcfs. Higher spill was also associated with higher fallback rates 

in spring Chinook salmon and in steelhead. As already noted, longer passage times and fallback 

events have been associated with lower survival for individual fish. 

Summer Spill. Preliminary results from the adult radiotelemetry project suggest that moderate 

spill during summer would likely have only a limited impact on adult passage. Summer Chinook 

salmon also exhibited slight increases in passage time and fallback rate at high spill levels at 

Bonneville dam. However, these effects should be weighted against the potential benefits of 

limited spill for those adults that volitionally fallback (i.e., those that overshot natal tributaries) 

because fallback via spillways is more benign than through turbines. 

Fishway Temperatures. Elevated water temperatures and large temperature differentials 

(between the top and bottom of ladders) in dam fishways can deter passage. Mean passage times 

for spring-summer Chinook at Lower Granite Dam increased from 6.6 hours when temperatures 

at the ladder exit were similar to those at the base of the ladder, to 19.1 hours when exit 

temperatures were ≥ 2 ̊C warmer than at the base. Similarly, the proportion of fish requiring 

more than one day to pass the dam increased from 32.7% with no temperature barrier to 71.4% 

when temperatures differed by ≥ 2 ̊C. Greater numbers of fish reject fishways at John Day Dam 

when water temperatures exceed 18oC. Temporary temperature barriers contribute to adult 

passage delay that may result in permanent straying to downstream sites or migration failure. 

Dissolved Gas. High spill at dams can create supersaturated dissolved gas condition in tailraces 

and downstream areas, and there is concern that fish that encounter these conditions may develop 

gas bubble disease. Results from an archival tag study that monitored fish swimming depths 

suggest that adults do not avoid plumes of high dissolved gas and frequently experience high 

dissolved gas conditions. However, most adults remained at depths that provided adequate 

“hydrostatic compensation” and consequently prevented expression of gas bubble disease. Little 

is known about the effects of the observed frequent, but short, exposures to supersaturated 

conditions. Addition of flow deflectors and increased use of surface flow weirs at spillways 

should moderate dissolved gas conditions in the system. Additional study of this issue may be 

warranted given the incidence of gas bubble disease symptoms in adults in some years. 

River and ocean environment 

Flow and Survival. Adult Chinook salmon appear to have lower hydrosystem survival in years 

with high flow (discharge). This pattern is probably the result of higher fallback and slower 

migration rates in high-flow years, two energetically demanding aspects of migration. Survival 

for runs that migrate during typical low-flow times (most fall Chinook salmon and steelhead) has 

not been correlated with river flow. 

Temperature and Survival. Water temperatures in the Columbia and Snake Rivers have been 

increasing since dam construction began due to development and management of the 

hydrosystem as well as from regional climate and water use patterns, resulting in longer 

summers and higher summer temperatures. Adults returning in the late spring, during summer, 

and in the early fall frequently choose the coolest water available to them to migrate in, but still 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-98

frequently encounter stressful temperatures. Higher temperatures were associated with altered 

migration behavior and lower migration success. Predictions for continued warming will 

probably adversely affect migrating adults because migration through stressful temperature 

conditions requires more energy and may contribute to higher rates of prespawn mortality. A 

study is underway to evaluate effects of temperature exposure on gamete quality and spawning 

success. 

8.3.2 Tributary Hydropower Configurations and Operations 

Several hydroelectric dams on Columbia River tributaries pose significant threats to the viability 

of specific Mid-C steelhead populations, including the Deschutes Westside, Crooked, Umatilla, 

and Walla Walla populations. 

Deschutes River Populations 

The Pelton-Round Butte Complex on the Deschutes River at RM 100 significantly impacts 

abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of the Deschutes Westside steelhead population 

and to a lesser extent the Deschutes Eastside Population. The complex blocks passage to 

historical upstream habitats in the Deschutes watershed, including the Crooked River, Metolius 

River, the Deschutes River upstream to Big Falls, and Whychus Creek. On the Deschutes River, 

Big Falls (RM 132) is considered to have been the upstream limit of anadromous fish migration 

(Nehlsen 1995). Summer steelhead were historically present throughout much of the Crooked 

River subbasin, with the exception of the North Fork Crooked River above Upper and Lower 

Falls. 

Construction of the complex, a system of three dams and reservoirs, began in the late 1950s and 

was completed in 1964. The complex spans 20 miles on the Deschutes River and also extends 

into two tributaries, the lower seven miles of the Crooked River and the lower 13 miles of the 

Metolius River. The complex was constructed with upstream and downstream fish passage 

facilities, however, by 1966 it appeared that downstream passage through Lake Billy Chinook, 

the reservoir behind Round Butte Dam, could not be maintained due to poor guidance of outmigrating smolts. The last fish were passed in 1968, and production shifted to state hatchery 

facilities. In 1974 Round Butte Hatchery was completed at Round Butte Dam, and production 

shifted to this facility. 

With the new federal license issued in June 2005, the joint owners of the project (PGE and 

CTWSRO) have developed plans to reinitiate fish passage through the complex and reintroduce 

Chinook and steelhead above the complex. A comprehensive fish passage plan includes 

development of effective downstream collection and passage for parr and smolt life history 

stages. The facility is scheduled for completion in 2009. 

Potential to Introduce Disease 

 The reintroduction of steelhead to historical habitats upstream of Round Butte Dam in the 

Deschutes River subbasin may expose existing resident populations to diseases. Resident trout 

upstream of the dam have been isolated from the rest of the Columbia Basin for over 30 years. 

As such, they have not been subject to newly introduced or more virulent disease found 

downstream. Primary diseases of concern that may affect upstream fish populations include 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-99

Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) and Myxobolus cerebralis the parasite that 

causes whirling disease. 

Umatilla River Population 

The Boyd Hydro Project has been in operation since the early 1980’s and is located at 

approximately RM 9-10 on the Umatilla River. Water is diverted from the Umatilla River at 

approximately RM 10 into a mile long canal that routes water to the generating facility where the 

water is returned to the river. The hydraulic capacity of the facility is 500 cubic feet per second 

with an average head of 30 feet. Flows for operation of the facility are generally only available 

during the winter and spring months. The Oregon Water Resources Department and Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission have established minimum flows for the Bypass reach of 150 

cfs from September through November and 100 cfs from December through August. These 

flows are well below the instream water right for this reach with priority date of November 3, 

1983. The instream water right flows are 300 cfs October through November 15, 250 cfs 

November 15 – June, 120 cfs in July, 85 cfs August – September 15, and 250 cfs September 15 

to October 1. 

A low head dam exists at the point of diversion and fish screens are installed across the intake 

canals. Malfunction of the fish screens led to entrainment of fish and an associated fish kill in 

1993. Problems with the screens were corrected and no further problems with the screens have 

been identified. A fishway exists at the dam structure, but this facility does not meet current fish 

passage standards for anadromous adult salmonids. 

Walla Walla River Population 

The Twin Reservoirs Hydro Project, owned and operated by the city of Walla Walla, is located 

on Mill Creek along a six-mile reach that dips into Oregon (most of this creek is within the state 

of Washington). The City diverts water from Mill Creek for municipal uses and to generate 

electricity that is sold on the power market to offset costs of the City’s water supply system. 

Water for both uses is diverted at the same point of diversion and routed to Walla Walla through 

a pipeline. The current hydraulic capacity of the facility is 38 cfs when the hydro plant is in 

operation. The City’s original 1866 municipal water right has no instream flow requirements. 

However, when the city operates its hydropower project the following bypass flows are required: 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-100

 Immediately below project intake: At Kooskooskie 

 Aug-Nov 13 cfs October 32 cfs 

 December 15 cfs November 35 cfs 

 January 20 cfs December 37 cfs 

 February 25 cfs January 44 cfs 

 Mar- Apr 30 cfs February 53 cfs 

 May 25 cfs March 63 cfs 

 June 15 cfs April 86 cfs 

 July 14 cfs May 64 cfs 

 June 39 cfs 

 July 32 cfs 

 Aug-Sept 31 cfs 

 

The City’s hydroelectric license is conditioned to require gauging equipment as necessary to 

provide full-time, continuous records of project diversions and of streamflow below the project 

intake. A dam with fishway exists at the point of diversion and fish screens are installed on the 

intake. The current fish screens were installed in 1999 to replace old screens that were found to 

result in fish mortality. The screens meet current ODFW and NMFS standards. Recovery team 

members are unsure of the fishway’s compliance with current passage standards. 

8.4 Estuarine and Plume Habitat 

Changes in estuarine and plume habitat at the mouth of the Columbia River impact Mid-C 

steelhead juveniles and adults as they undergo the vast physiological changes needed to 

transition to and from saltwater production. This section summarizes relevant information 

presented in the Columbia River Estuary Recovery Plan Module (LCREP 2006). The module 

provides detailed descriptions of limiting factors and proposes recovery actions to improve 

salmon and steelhead habitat conditions in the estuary. 

 

The Columbia River estuary and plume are considerably degraded compared to only 200 years 

ago. In terms of absolute size, the estuary tidal prism is about 20% smaller than it was when 

Lewis and Clark camped along the Columbia’s shore (NPCC 2004). This reduction in estuary 

size is due mostly to dike and filling practices used to convert the floodplain to agricultural, 

industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Instream flows entering the estuary also have 

changed dramatically—there has been a 44% decrease in spring freshets or floods, and the 

annual timing, magnitude, and duration of flows no longer resemble those of the historical 

hydrograph in the Columbia River (Jay and Kukulka 2002). Changes to the hydrograph are 

attributed to flow regulation by the hydrosystem, water withdrawal for irrigation and water 

supplies, and climate fluctuations. 

While much remains to be learned about how Mid-C steelhead and other stream-type juveniles 

use estuarine and plume habitats, scientists generally believe that stream-type salmonids are 

particularly affected by changes in plume habitat conditions and by predation in the estuary and 

plume (LCREP 2006). Changes in estuarine habitats affect ocean-type juveniles more because 

they reside in the estuary longer than stream-type juveniles and tend to use shallow-water 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-101

habitats, thus they are more affected by flow alterations that structure habitat and/or restrict 

access to wetland or floodplain areas than are stream-type juveniles. Mid-C steelhead and other 

stream-type juveniles have relatively short estuary residence times and use the plume much more 

extensively than ocean types do. Thus they are more affected by plume habitat conditions. They 

are also threatened by predation in the estuary and plume (LCREP 2006). 

8.4.1 Changes in Plume Habitat 

Mid-C steelhead and other stream-type salmonids are affected by the size, shape, behavior, and 

composition of the plume. The plume is believed to function as habitat, as a transitional 

saltwater area, and as refugia for juvenile salmonids as they prepare for ocean life (LCREP 2006; 

Fresh et al. 2005). 

Evidence suggests that the plume supports ocean productivity by increasing primary plant 

production during the spring freshet period, distributing juvenile salmonids in the coastal 

environment, concentrating food sources such as zooplankton, and providing refugia from 

predators in the more turbid, low-salinity plume waters (Fresh et al. 2005). Changes in the 

Columbia River hydrograph alter both the size and structure of the plume during the spring and 

summer months (NPCC 2000). Changes in the hydrograph also affect plume habitat by reducing 

fine-sediment inputs leaving the estuary. 

8.4.2 Predation 

Predation is a primary concern for juvenile and adult Mid-C steelhead during their stay in the 

Columbia River estuary and plume. Effects of predation are discussed below and in Section 8.7. 

Estuary habitat modifications have increased the number and/or predation effectiveness of 

Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and a variety of gull species (Fresh et al. 2005). 

Stream-type juvenile salmonids, including Mid-C steelhead, are most vulnerable to avian 

predation by Caspian terns because they use deep-water habitat channels that have relatively low 

turbidity and are close to island tern habitats. 

Native pinnipeds, including harbor seal, Stellar sea lions and California sea lions, also prey on 

steelhead in the estuary (NPCC 2004). Native pinniped abundance has steadily increased since 

passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. Diet studies indicate that pinnipeds 

consume both juvenile and adult salmonids. Mortality of adult salmonids at Bonneville Dam 

because of sea lions was estimated at 4.1% in 2007 (USACE 2005), however the estimate does 

not reflect pinniped mortality occurring in the 145 river miles downstream of the dam. There are 

also no official estimates of downstream mortality on adult spring Chinook and winter steelhead 

(both of which are stream-type salmonids); however, unsubstantiated estimates are as high as 

10%, which would equate to about 29,000 adult fish (LCREP 2006). 

The northern pikeminnow and other native piscivorous fish likely pose a lesser concern for MidC steelhead in the estuary. The fish prey on ocean-type juveniles more than stream-type 

juveniles because of their longer estuary residency times and use of shallow-water habitats; 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-102

however, it is believed that stream-type juveniles leave faster, deeper water to forage for food in 

the shallows and also experience mortality from pikeminnow predation. 

8.5 Harvest 

This section explains the different types of harvest impacts, the types of fisheries and areas that 

Mid-C steelhead fisheries occur, and the multitude of jurisdictions and processes that influence 

harvest. The section also provides perspective on historical and current harvest impacts. 

Harvest may affect population viability by affecting abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

and/or diversity. Harvest decreases survival rates relative to an un-harvested population by 

direct and incidental mortality. Steelhead may be removed at several life stages, ranging from 

pre-smolts taken in trout fisheries to adults taken after they have returned to natal tributaries to 

spawn. Harvest, therefore, directly decreases adult abundance (viewed either as the number of 

spawners or as the number of adult recruits) and productivity, measured as the number of adult 

recruits per spawner returning to the spawning ground. The extent of this decrease in abundance 

is usually reported as a harvest rate. Harvest also may be selective and influence diversity and 

spatial structure viability criteria. Harvest may selectively remove fish based on size, age, 

distribution or run timing, depending on the gear, timing and location of the fishery. Selectivity 

impacts have rarely been measured or reported. 

The ICTRT identified harvest-related adverse effects as a secondary level limiting factor and the 

Mid-C Expert Panel did not identify harvest as a primary or secondary threat (Mid-C Expert 

Panel 2006). Given the current management regulations for mainstem and tributary fisheries we 

consider harvest to be a threat that does limit viability; however, the combined affect of all 

fisheries only raises the threat to a secondary level. 

8.5.1 Fisheries Management ― Historically to Present 

Steelhead may be caught in ocean, mainstem Columbia River, or tributary fisheries depending on 

their distribution, run timing relative to fishery openings and vulnerability to gear. Because of 

their exposure to fisheries across large geographic regions of the West Coast, Pacific salmon and 

steelhead management is governed by a number of regional organizations. Fisheries of the 

Columbia River are established within the guidelines and constraints of the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty, the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, the Endangered Species Act administered by 

NOAA Fisheries, The Pacific Fishery Management Council, the states of Oregon and 

Washington, the Columbia River Compact, and management agreements negotiated between the 

parties to US v. Oregon. 

Fisheries management through these various organizations has resulted in the decline of total 

exploitation rates for Columbia River salmon and steelhead, especially since the 1970s. Because 

of these changes, the ICTRT and Expert Panel currently consider harvest a secondary limiting 

factor for Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. There has been no direct freshwater non-tribal 

harvest on wild steelhead from the Mid-Columbia DPS since 1992 when the last wild fish catchand release regulations on these populations became effective. It is also assumed that steelhead 

are rarely caught in ocean fisheries. Therefore, all current non-tribal harvest impacts on Mid-
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-103

Columbia DPS steelhead are due to incidental by-catch in commercial or recreational fisheries 

that target hatchery steelhead or other species. 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 impact of these various fisheries is discussed below. 

Ocean Fisheries 

Columbia River steelhead have been captured in high-seas sampling in the far North Pacific and 

along the coast of SE Alaska and British Columbia (Burgner et al. 1992). According to Rich 

(1942), Columbia River steelhead were historically taken along with Chinook and coho in ocean 

fisheries off the mouth of the Columbia River, but accounted for less than 0.1% of the catch and 

numbered only in the few hundreds of fish. More recent ocean commercial fisheries have not 

been monitored for incidental steelhead by-catch, and it is assumed that by-catch is very low. 

Recreational fisheries in the ocean catch small numbers of steelhead.

Mainstem Commercial Fisheries 

Steelhead catch in Columbia River mainstem commercial fisheries was reported starting in 1889, 

although it is thought that some steelhead were processed along with Chinook (and counted as 

Chinook) in previous years. The available information is mostly about summer steelhead catch 

since early reporting focused on the fall fishery, but earlier spring fisheries probably caught some 

winter steelhead. The maximum annual catch reported was about 492,000 fish (Figure 8-12) 

(Craig and Hacker 1940). Annual catches were averaging about 189,000 fish by the 1930s. 

Escapements were not estimated before the late 1930s so the harvest rates due to these early 

fisheries were not known. All early catch was of wild steelhead. 

The Bonneville Dam fish ladder opened in 1938 and allowed escapement estimates to be made 

on populations that passed above that location. Rich (1942) estimated that the 1938 harvest rate 

on up-river steelhead was 67%, with 80% of the catch occurring below Bonneville Dam. 

Subsequent harvest records indicate that commercial harvest rates on up-river steelhead were 

about 66% between 1938 and 1950 (Figure 8-15) (WDFW and ODFW 2002). Most of the 

harvest was probably of summer steelhead. Winter steelhead were not identified as a separate 

race until 1953. From 1939 through 1950, about 8% of the steelhead passing the dam were 

probably winter steelhead based on run timing. 

Total mainstem commercial harvest rates on steelhead (tribal and non-tribal combined) began to 

decline in the 1950s, and also began to include a mix of hatchery and wild fish. Mainstem 

harvest rates on up-river summer steelhead declined from about 50% to about 20% from the 

early 1950s to the early 1970s, while winter steelhead harvest rates declined from about 30% to 

about 5% over the same period. Non-tribal mainstem commercial fisheries on steelhead were 

discontinued in 1975. Subsequent impacts in the non-tribal commercial fishery were due to bycatch during fisheries on other species. All steelhead were released in these fisheries, although 

some release mortality occurred. Tribal commercial harvests in Zone 6 since 1975 ranged from 

about 30% to less than 10% (Figure 8-13). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-104

Figure 8-12. Number of steelhead harvested each year in mainstem Columbia River fisheries 

(1866-1936) (Craig and Hacker 1940). 

Figure 8-13. Commercial harvest rates on steelhead, 1938 – 2002 (WDFW and ODFW 2002). 

Non-tribal commercial harvest was discontinued in 1975. 

Mainstem Recreational Fisheries 

Mainstem recreational fisheries below Bonneville Dam have been monitored by creels since 

1964. The harvest rate on summer steelhead ranged from over 16% to less than 1% until 1992 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

186618701874187818821886189018941898190219061910191419181922

19261930

1934

Year

Number of steelhead harvested

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

186618701874187818821886189018941898190219061910191419181922

19261930

1934

Year

Number of steelhead harvested

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1938194219461950

19541958

196219661970

19741978

19821986

199019941998

2002

Year

Commercial Harvest Rate

Total mainstem commercial 

harvest on summer 

steelhead (Zones 1-6) 

Zone 6 commercial 

harvest on summer 

steelhead

Lower mainstem

commercial harvest 

on winter steelhead 

(Zones 1-5) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1938194219461950

19541958

196219661970

19741978

19821986

199019941998

2002

Year

Commercial Harvest Rate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1938194219461950

19541958

196219661970

19741978

19821986

199019941998

2002

Year

Commercial Harvest Rate

Total mainstem commercial 

harvest on summer 

steelhead (Zones 1-6) 

Zone 6 commercial 

harvest on summer 

steelhead

Lower mainstem

commercial harvest 

on winter steelhead 

(Zones 1-5) 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-105

when all fisheries became catch-and-release for wild fish (Figure 8-14). The harvest rate on 

winter steelhead over the same period ranged from 2% to less than 1%. Current recreational 

harvest impacts for both life histories are estimated to be less than 1% and are due entirely to 

hooking mortality. 

Recreational fisheries in the mainstem above Bonneville Dam are not monitored, except by 

punch card estimates. Bubble fisheries at the mouths of some tributaries can be seasonally 

intense, but the impact rates are unknown except for a bubble fishery at the mouth of the 

Deschutes. These fisheries have also been catch-and-release since 1992 and impacts to wild fish 

are thought to be less than 1%. 

Figure 8-14. Recreational harvest rates on steelhead in the mainstem below Bonneville Dam, 

1964 – 2002 (WDFW and ODFW 2002). Blue is summer steelhead while pink is winter 

steelhead. All mainstem fisheries became catch-and-release in 1992 and the impacts since that 

year were calculated by the encounter rate and an estimated release mortality. 

8.5.2 Allowed Harvest Impacts under NOAA Biological Opinions 

Harvest of ESA-listed fish, including the Mid-C steelhead DPS, is controlled by NOAA 

Fisheries to protect weak stocks. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission also sets limits on 

certain fisheries to protect the listed stocks. Impacts from harvest regulations to protect Mid-C 

steelhead are discussed below. 

Mid-C Winter Steelhead 

The NOAA Biological Opinion for 2008 set a mainstem Columbia River non-tribal impact limit 

on winter steelhead of 2% (including both sport and commercial impacts), and an average tribal 

impact of 2.3%. Oregon has FMEPs in place that set tributary impact limits between 0% and 

2.5%. 

Year

Recreational Harvest Rate

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1964

19671970

1973

19761979

1982

1985

19881991

199419972000

Year

Recreational Harvest Rate

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1964

19671970

1973

19761979

1982

1985

19881991

199419972000
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-106

Mid-C Summer Steelhead 

The NOAA Biological Opinion for 2008 set a mainstem Columbia River non-tribal impact limit 

on summer steelhead of 4%, including both sport and commercial impacts. This limit is split 

across two seasons, with 2% applied to spring and summer fisheries and 2% applied to fall 

fisheries. An average annual tribal impact of 9.3% (1.9% summer season and 7.4% fall season) 

is set for Zone 6. Oregon has FMEPs in place or proposed that set tributary impact limits 

between 0% and 5%. 

8.5.3 Actual Recent Harvest Impacts 

Monitoring of harvest impacts on Mid-C steelhead is complex because there is no direct nontribal harvest on wild steelhead from the DPS and all catch is indirect. Indirect effects include 

incidental mortality of fish that are caught and released, encounter fishing gear but are not 

landed, or are harvested incidentally to the target species or stock. Monitored and unmonitored 

fisheries, and impacts due to fishing gear and environmental conditions are discussed below. 

Monitored Fisheries 

Actual harvest impacts on Mid-C DPS steelhead over the last several years have been 

incompletely monitored. Monitoring of incidental harvest impacts is complex for two reasons. 

First, since all caught fish are released, encounter rates and characteristics of encountered fish are 

difficult for monitors to observe. Second, released fish experience a mortality rate, possibly 

delayed and difficult to measure, that is highly variable and depends upon what gear is used, how 

the fish is caught by the gear, how the fish are handled during capture and release, and on 

environmental conditions. 

Ocean commercial and recreational harvest of salmon has generally declined in recent years 

because of international treaties, fisheries conservation acts, regional conservation goals, the 

Endangered Species Act, and state and tribal management agreements. Creels on recreational 

ocean fisheries recorded less than 100 steelhead caught each year in 2003 – 2005. Of these, less 

than 10 were estimated to be released wild fish mortalities. 

The only effort to regularly monitor steelhead by-catch in non-tribal commercial fisheries occurs 

in the spring Chinook commercial fishery, which impacts primarily winter steelhead, in the 

mainstem Columbia below Bonneville Dam. This monitoring effort, which began in 2003, 

employs observers on board fishing boats to measure steelhead encounter rates and uses 

information from recent literature to set a release mortality rate from gill nets according to mesh 

size. The estimated impact rate on wild winter steelhead from 2003 to 2005 ranged from 0.5% to 

1%. The measurements have an unknown error around these numbers due to the use of point 

estimates for encounter rates, mortality rates and escapements, all of which actually contain 

some variance and/or measurement error. 

Recreational creel surveys in the lower Columbia mainstem below Bonneville Dam and in the 

lower Deschutes and Umatilla include questions about wild steelhead releases to estimate 

encounter rates, and use recent literature to set a hooking mortality rate. Estimated recent impact 

rates in these recreational fisheries ranged from 0.1% to 1.5% in each fishery. The fish in any 

particular population may be exposed to several of the fisheries as they move through the 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-107

mainstem and into tributaries, but the total recreational impact is probably less than 2.5% in most 

cases. Again, there is an unknown error around these numbers. 

Catch of steelhead in the Zone 6 tribal fishery is easier to monitor since steelhead sold to 

commercial buyers are counted and measured. However, some tribal steelhead catch, and 

possibly much of it, may not be reported if they are sold over the bank by individuals or if they 

are retained for personal use. Tribal biologists make some effort to account for unreported catch, 

especially in fall fisheries. Reported steelhead catch in Zone 6 winter and spring fisheries for 

2003 to 2005 ranged from 0.7% to 7.9% of the winter steelhead run over Bonneville Dam (Table 

8-49). Reported steelhead catch in Zone 6 summer and fall fisheries in 2003 and 2004 was 2.6% 

and 2.7% of the summer steelhead run over Bonneville Dam (Table 8-50). In 2004, the 

estimated non-reported catch increased the impact to 4.8% of the run at Bonneville. Again, there 

is an unknown error around these numbers. 

Potential impacts due to harvest selectivity are only taken into account in the Zone 6 tribal 

fishery that is thought to select for larger steelhead because of the use of gill nets with 

unrestricted mesh sizes. Mesh size in these fisheries is generally selected to optimize the catch 

of Chinook, the target species. Smaller and younger steelhead are able to escape many nets. The 

Zone 6 fishery monitors the catch of large steelhead as a separate stock. The 2004 estimated 

impact on large verses small fish is presented in Table 8-51. Each of the four “stocks” also has a 

distinct run timing which may account for hatchery/wild differences within size category. 

Table 8-49. Estimated impacts (percent of run) on winter steelhead in winter and spring 

mainstem fisheries (2003–2005). 

Non-tribal Commercial_____ __________Tribal____________

Year 

Number of wild 

steelhead 

Impact rate 

(of Columbia 

River mouth 

escapement) 

Total number of 

steelhead (wild + 

hatchery) 

Impact rate 

(of Bonneville Dam 

escapement) 

2003 229 1.0% 807 7.9% 

2004 238 0.8% 81 0.7% 

2005 69 0.5% 208 3.6% 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-108

Table 8-50. Estimated impacts (percent of run) on summer steelhead in summer and fall Zone 6 

fisheries. Fish numbers include hatchery and wild steelhead, and impact rates are calculated 

based on the Bonneville Dam escapement. 

 Fall 

 Summer 

Bonneville 

Pool 

The Dalles 

Pool 

John Day 

Pool 

 

 Total summer/fall 

Year 

Fish Impact 

rate 

Fish Impact 

rate 

Fish Impact 

rate 

Fish Impact 

rate 

Fish Impact 

rate 

2003 Ticketed 96 <0.1% 4,484 1.3% 2,478 0.7% 2,251 0.6% 9,309 2.6% 

2004 Ticketed 714 0.2% 4,611 1.5% 1,792 0.6% 1,219 0.4% 8,336 2.7% 

Est. Total Landed in 2004 (Ticketed, non-ticketed, and C&S) 14,757 4.8% 

Table 8-51. Estimated size selectivity of the 2004 Zone 6 fishery. The size breakout is that 

“Small” fish are less than 78 cm, while “Large” fish are equal to or greater than 78 cm. 

Estimated impact rates are based on the abundance of each group at Bonneville Dam. 

Characteristic Number of Fish Estimated Impact Rate 

 

 Small hatchery 6,791 3.2% 

 Small wild 1,963 3.4% 

 Large hatchery 4,963 17.2% 

 Large wild 1,040 10.6% 

Unmonitored Fisheries 

All other fisheries that could encounter steelhead have been unmonitored or irregularly 

monitored in the past few years. All of these other fisheries must release caught steelhead, but 

mortality can still occur. The Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS is a diverse DPS that includes 

winter and summer-run steelhead. Winter steelhead move through the Columbia River between 

November and May; summer steelhead move through the Columbia River primarily between 

April and October, although some may be present at other times. Therefore, steelhead from the 

DPS are present in the mainstem Columbia River nearly year-round, making them potentially 

vulnerable to a variety of lower mainstem fisheries (Figure 8-15). Some information about 

potential impacts caused by these fisheries can be inferred by the season and gear, which 

determine steelhead vulnerability to the fisheries. 

The primary fisheries targeting steelhead occur in the Columbia River mainstem and tributaries. 

These fisheries harvest primarily hatchery fish, and wild fish mortality is incidental. 

Unmonitored recreational fisheries currently occur in the mainstem Columbia above Bonneville 

Dam, Fifteenmile Creek (winter steelhead), Deschutes River above Sherars Falls, and in the John 

Day and Walla Walla rivers. 

Unmonitored mainstem non-tribal commercial fisheries target sturgeon, summer and fall 

Chinook, sockeye, shad and coho. These fisheries all use gill nets of various sizes and occur 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-109

between the mouth of the Columbia River and Bonneville Dam, although particular fisheries 

may target specific zones (Table 8-52). All steelhead taken in commercial nets must be released, 

but are subjected to encounter rates and release mortalities that vary by gear and season. 

Ocean fisheries generally target Chinook and coho salmon, and interception of steelhead is 

believed to be rare. Currently, however, all ocean commercial fisheries are unmonitored for 

steelhead by-catch. 

Figure 8-15. Run timing at Bonneville Dam of steelhead and other species that are targeted in 

mainstem commercial fisheries. 

Chinook

Sockeye

Steelhead

Coho

Shad

1-Mar

16-Mar

31-Mar

15-Apr30-Apr

15-May

30-May

14-Jun29-Jun

14-Jul29-Jul

13-Aug28-Aug12-Sep27-Sep

12-Oct

27-Oct11-Nov26-Nov

Day

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Percent of run passing Bonneville Dam

Winter and Spring fishery: 

Spring Chinook

Sturgeon

Winter steelhead

Summer fishery:

Shad

Summer Chinook 

Sockeye

Summer steelhead

Early and late fall fishery:

Fall Chinook

Coho

Sturgeon

Summer steelhead

Chinook

Sockeye

Steelhead

Coho

Shad

1-Mar

16-Mar

31-Mar

15-Apr30-Apr

15-May

30-May

14-Jun29-Jun

14-Jul29-Jul

13-Aug28-Aug12-Sep27-Sep

12-Oct

27-Oct11-Nov26-Nov

Day

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Percent of run passing Bonneville Dam

Chinook

Sockeye

Steelhead

Coho

Shad

1-Mar

16-Mar

31-Mar

15-Apr30-Apr

15-May

30-May

14-Jun29-Jun

14-Jul29-Jul

13-Aug28-Aug12-Sep27-Sep

12-Oct

27-Oct11-Nov26-Nov

Day

1-Mar

16-Mar

31-Mar

15-Apr30-Apr

15-May

30-May

14-Jun29-Jun

14-Jul29-Jul

13-Aug28-Aug12-Sep27-Sep

12-Oct

27-Oct11-Nov26-Nov

Day

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Percent of run passing Bonneville Dam

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Percent of run passing Bonneville Dam

Winter and Spring fishery: 

Spring Chinook

Sturgeon

Winter steelhead

Summer fishery:

Shad

Summer Chinook 

Sockeye

Summer steelhead

Early and late fall fishery:

Fall Chinook

Coho

Sturgeon

Summer steelhead
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-110

Table 8-52. Characteristics of commercial fisheries in the Columbia River below Bonneville 

Dam. 

Fishery Non-tribal Season Non-tribal Gear Tribal Season Tribal Gear Water 

temperature 

Steelhead life 

history present 

Sturgeon Variable 9 inch min. Variable variable Winter and 

summer 

Spring 

Chinook 

Late Feb. to early 

April 

9 inch min. or 

4 1⁄4 inch max. 

February 

through April 

low winter 

steelhead 

Shad May and June 5 3

/8 to 6 1⁄4 inch 

10 lb break 

no specific 

fishery 

high Summer 

steelhead 

Sockeye June and July 4 1⁄4 inch max. June and July high Summer 

steelhead 

Summer 

Chinook 

June and July 8 inch min. June and July high Summer 

steelhead 

Fall Chinook August, late Sept. 8 inch min. or 9 

inch min. 

August through 

October 

high Summer 

steelhead 

Coho Late Sept. and 

October 

No min. 

5 - 6 inch nets 

used 

September and 

October 

Dip nets, set 

lines and gill 

nets with no 

mesh size 

restrictions 

high Summer 

steelhead 

Encounter Rates and Mesh Size 

Encounter rates for Mid-C steelhead increase with smaller mesh nets. Figure 8-16 shows the 

number of steelhead caught and released per Chinook landed, by mesh size, as observed in the 

spring Chinook fishery, 2003 to 2005 (test fisheries, research, and observer data combined). 

Generally, few steelhead are caught in nets that are 9-inch mesh or larger because most fish are 

able to swim through them, although steelhead catch has been observed to be as high as one 

steelhead per four Chinook landed, and the steelhead that are caught are the large fish. Some 

fisheries use 8-inch minimum mesh size, which has a slightly higher encounter of steelhead, and 

is also selective for large fish. Mid-size mesh nets (5 to 6 inches) gill or body-wedge steelhead, 

and have high encounter rates and a high mortality rates. Small mesh “tangle” nets (41⁄4-inch) 

tangle most steelhead, causing high encounter rates but lower mortality rates compared to nets 

that gill fish. Some fisheries that are designed to catch small species (like shad) use nets with 

low break poundage that allow larger salmonids to break loose from the nets. 

Release Mortality Rates, Mesh Size and Environmental Conditions 

Release mortality rates in mainstem commercial fisheries vary by mesh size. The highest 

mortality rates occur when fish are gilled or body-wedged by the nets. In spring fisheries, when 

the river is relatively cool, release mortalities from nets that gill fish are 40% or higher. 

Steelhead are gilled or wedged in nets that are 5.5 inches are larger, until the mesh is large 

enough for the fish to swim through them. Nets that tangle fish, (41⁄4-inch for steelhead) have 

mortalities near 20% during the cool spring fisheries. Some fishing practices, particularly long 

soak times, increase mortality rates. Mortality rates increase dramatically during warm water 

conditions that occur in the summer and fall. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-111

Figure 8-16. Number of steelhead released per number of Chinook landed by mesh size, as 

observed during monitoring and test fishing in 2003 – 2005 spring Chinook fisheries. 

8.5.4 Tributary Fishery Impacts 

Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) have been developed for Oregon Mid-C 

steelhead populations to address the take of listed fish in recreational fisheries. The primary goal 

of a FMEP is to devise biologically based fishery management strategies that are consistent with 

the conservation and recovery of listed populations. FMEPs focus primarily on limiting impacts 

to abundance and productivity, the two key viability parameters most directly affected by sport 

fisheries. 

Overview 

Harvest regulations for Fifteenmile Creek and the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla rivers and the 

Oregon portion of the Walla Walla River all reflect strategies that provide protection for naturalorigin fish while allowing maximum levels of harvest on hatchery fish. We did not identify 

tributary harvest as a threat to viability of any of the Mid-C populations. In the review of past 

and present tributary fisheries, the Mid-C Expert Panel (2006) found that while legacy harvest 

practices had affected population traits of Mid-C steelhead the impacts of contemporary harvest 

management on populations in the DPS were much less significant than threats from current land 

use practices, hatchery programs, and hydropower projects. 

Steelhead Sport Harvest Management

In part, ODFW bases steelhead sport fishery harvest rates on the results of model runs that 

examine the extinction probability risks at different fisheries mortality rates. Chilcote (2001) 

estimated extinction probabilities for 27 Oregon steelhead populations with respect to a variety 

of fishery mortality rates. These model runs were then used to assess the impact of fisheries 

mortality on the status and recovery of steelhead in Oregon (Chilcote 2001). The model looked 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

9” 8” 5.5” 4.25”

Mesh Size

Average number of steelhead encountered 

per Chinook landed

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

9” 8” 5.5” 4.25”

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

9” 8” 5.5” 4.25”

Mesh Size

Average number of steelhead encountered 

per Chinook landed
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-112

at a range of fisheries mortalities from 0% to 75%. The results were stated in terms of the 

probability of population extinction in 50 years at each mortality rate. For most populations, the 

modeling suggested that the probability of extinction was essentially zero as long as fisheries 

mortality rates remained less than 30%. However there was significant variation between 

populations. The probability of extinction increased dramatically as mortality rates became 

greater than 40%. Furthermore, once the probability of extinction increased beyond 0.05, the 

transition to an extinction probability of 1.00 was very rapid. In other words, once mortality 

rates increase sufficiently to cause the probability of extinction to exceed 0.05, any additional 

mortality would cause a rapid increase in the likelihood of extinction. Because the transition 

from low to high risk happens rapidly, there is little room for error (in the model or the 

measurements of mortality rates). To address this concern, ODFW generally manages steelhead 

fisheries not to exceed a maximum fisheries mortality rate of to 20%, but it is more conservative 

when warranted. 

Trout Harvest Management 

Fisheries managers reduce juvenile steelhead mortality during trout fisheries by requiring catch 

and release fisheries and by prohibiting the use of natural and synthetic baits. They also restrict 

fisheries to areas, times and size limits that protect steelhead. Such steps are necessary because 

steelhead occupy many waters that are also occupied by resident trout species, and it is not 

possible to visually separate juvenile steelhead from similarly sized stream-resident rainbow 

trout. 

Juvenile steelhead and resident rainbow trout are the same species, are similar in size, and have 

the same food habits and habitat preferences; so, assumably, catch-and-release mortality studies 

on stream-resident trout would also apply to juvenile steelhead. Many studies have shown trout 

mortality to be higher when using bait than when angling with artificial lures and flies (Mongillo 

1984; Taylor and White 1992; Schisler and Bergersen 1996; Schill and Scarpella 1997; Wydoski 

1997). As a result, the prohibition of natural and artificial bait is believed to reduce juvenile 

steelhead mortality more than any other angling regulatory change. Hook-and-release mortality 

of juvenile steelhead is expected to be less than 10% and approaches 0% when anglers are 

restricted to use of artificial flies and lures with barbless hooks. 

Studies show that catch and release mortalities tend to increase for juvenile steelhead as water 

temperatures increase, with over 80% of the observed mortalities in one study occurring above 

21° C (Taylor and Barnhart 1997). Consequently, fisheries are restricted in some areas during 

times of the year when stream temperatures are high. 

Fifteenmile Creek 

Under current fisheries regulations, adult steelhead cannot be legally retained in any of the minor 

Columbia River tributaries (Fifteenmile, Mill or Chenoweth creeks). Steelhead are rare in 

Mosier, Rock and Threemile creeks; though they have been observed in each of the streams. 

Conservative trout angling regulations are currently in effect on Rock, Mosier, Chenoweth, Mill, 

Threemile and Fifteenmile creeks and provide a high level of protection for steelhead juveniles. 

Chenoweth, Mill, Rock, Mosier, Threemile and Fifteenmile creeks open to trout angling the 

fourth Saturday in May and remain open through October. It is believed that most steelhead 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-113

smolts emigrate for their natal streams before the opening date. Further, Chenoweth, Mill, and 

Fifteenmile Creeks are restricted to catch and release angling with artificial lures only. 

Rock, Mosier and Threemile creeks have very limited areas that are accessible to steelhead. 

Rock Creek has a porous alluvial fan at its mouth and fish passage across this fan is possible only 

at high winter and spring flows, and natural barriers that are not passable to steelhead are present 

a short distance upstream. Anadromous fish are blocked from accessing all but the lower 400 

meters of Mosier Creek by an impassable falls. Steelhead access in Threemile Creek is severely 

restricted by improperly functioning culverts under Interstate 84, and culverts under Highway 

197 block access approximately 300 meters above that point. Trout fishing in these streams does 

not open until the fourth Saturday in May, but is not restricted to catch and release or artificial 

lures. Five trout can be harvested per day with an 8-inch minimum length limit. Managers are 

not aware of any trout angling effort in the portions of these streams that are accessible to 

steelhead. 

In Fifteenmile Creek, juvenile steelhead receive significant protection from angling mortality. 

As noted above, anglers are restricted to artificial flies and lures for all angling. The incidental 

mortality associated with these fisheries is due to impacts from the catch and release of juvenile 

steelhead. ODFW has estimated that the mortality rate from the trout fisheries is less than 1% of 

the juvenile steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek, based on the low effort observed, and the low catch 

and release mortality. ODFW (2005) has submitted to NMFS a FMEP for fisheries affecting 

Mid-C steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek and the other mainstem Columbia River tributaries 

downstream of the Deschutes River (as part of the Deschutes River Basin FMEP), for review and 

concurrence under Limit 5 of the 4(d) rule for Mid-C steelhead (71 FR 834). 

Deschutes River 

The Deschutes River FMEP (ODFW 2005c) submitted to NMFS, specifies that the management 

objective is to provide consumptive recreational fisheries on adult hatchery summer steelhead, 

non-listed salmon, and resident redband trout in the Deschutes River while allowing for the 

recovery of ESA listed steelhead. Only adipose fin-clipped adult steelhead may be retained in the 

fisheries. The source of mortality in these selective fisheries is from the hook-and-release of 

listed fish. 

Steelhead Sport Harvest Management 

Specific exploitation rate goals for hatchery summer steelhead in the Deschutes River have not 

been identified, but fisheries managers recognize that maximizing removal of hatchery origin 

summer steelhead through angling is important to maintain the genetic health of the wild 

population. Removing hatchery steelhead utilizing harvest reduces the number of hatchery fish 

available to spawn in the wild. Continuing sport angler removal of hatchery steelhead from the 

Deschutes River is an important tool to meet management objectives. 

The importance of sport angler removal of hatchery steelhead in the Deschutes River is 

underscored by extinction probabilities estimated by Chilcote (2001). The current long-term 

average percentage of hatchery steelhead in the Westside population is estimated to be 18% and 

34.4 % for the Eastside population. Chilcote (2001) concluded that hatchery-origin fish 

spawning naturally in the Deschutes River subbasin posed significant risk to persistence of 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-114

natural populations. Reduction in the proportion of natural spawners that are hatchery origin 

would significantly reduce the risk of extinction. It is crucial that subbasin fish managers 

continue to use sport anglers as a tool to maintain and even increase removal of hatchery fish 

from the spawning population. 

The best available information suggests that the fishing mortality rate for summer steelhead in 

the Deschutes River is expected to be 1% (section 1.4.1 of the FMEP; ODFW 2005c). This 

estimate was derived using a 10% encounter rate and a 10% catch-and-release mortality rate 

(Hooton 1987). Also, as discussed earlier, catch and release mortalities tend to increase as water 

temperatures increase, with over 80% of the observed mortalities in one study occurring above 

21° C (Taylor and Barnhart 1997); and water temperatures in the Deschutes can approach 21° C 

during parts of the summer. As a result, a 10% hooking mortality was used to estimate fishing 

impacts on natural summer steelhead. The average recreational catch rate of Round Butte 

Hatchery origin steelhead from the mouth to RM 43 has been estimated to be 9.3% for the last 5 

years. Assuming that natural steelhead are also caught at this rate and that they suffer a 10% 

hook-and-release mortality, fishery impacts of less than 1% are expected for natural-origin 

steelhead. 

The steelhead fishery will continue as proposed as long as the average natural spawning summer 

steelhead escapement is above 1,479 at Sherars Falls. The trend in natural steelhead escapement 

will be monitored annually. If there is a downward trend or if escapement is expected to fall 

below 1,479 in the foreseeable future, fishery restrictions will be imposed. 

The current harvest rate on steelhead is believed to be well below that seen in the past. Cramer et 

al. (1997) reviewed harvest rates of adult steelhead in sport fisheries in Oregon and Washington 

before wild (unmarked) steelhead release regulations and concluded that harvest rates on natural 

summer steelhead were in the neighborhood of 50%. While past harvest impacts to adult 

steelhead in the Deschutes River before the start of mandatory unmarked fish release regulations 

in 1979 are unknown, harvest rates in the Deschutes River could have been of this magnitude 

during some years. It is estimated that the annual harvest impacts for fisheries covered in this 

FMEP will remain at less than 1.5%, which is well below the 50% observed in the past. 

ODFW sport harvest regulations for the Deschutes are also designed to protect holding and 

spawning steelhead. ODFW believes that the vast majority of mainstem steelhead spawning 

occurs in that portion of the Deschutes River bordering the Warm Springs Reservation (RM 71 

to 100). This river reach is closed to all angling from January 1 to the fourth Saturday in April 

each year. This closure minimizes disturbance to holding and spawning steelhead and 

outmigrating smolts. 

Steelhead Tribal Harvest 

The Warm Springs Tribal steelhead fisheries typically occur from September through December. 

The majority of fish are harvested at Sherars Falls and creel surveys are conducted to estimate 

harvest. Typically steelhead are not the target species but are caught incidentally during the Fall 

Chinook salmon fishery. Tribal members fish from scaffolds and with hook and line. Scaffold 

fishing is the more common method. Targeted hook and line steelhead fisheries occur on the 

Reservation lands but are minimal in scope and impact. In response to the listing of Mid-C 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-115

steelhead, the Warm Springs Tribal Council has annually approved Tribal Resolutions requiring 

the release of wild steelhead. Compliance with the resolution is generally good; however a few 

wild fish are retained. Table 8-53 shows harvest of wild and hatchery fish from 1980-2005. 

Prior to 1999 natural-origin fish were retained; after 1999 the majority of the natural-origin fish 

were released back into the Deschutes River. Since 1992, the estimated harvest of natural-origin 

fish has been well below previous years and has generally been low. 

Table 8-53. Deschutes River expanded summer steelhead tribal harvest estimates for Sherars 

Falls, by run year (June 16 – October 31). Harvest estimates are for the dip net and hook and 

line fisheries combined (ODFW/CTWSRO Creel Data). 

Anglers/ Tribal* 

 Year Fishers Hours Wild Hatchery 

1980 944 7,357 981 1,309 

1981 605 5,025 688 772 

1982 516 4,628 549 1,066 

1983 954 5,131 903 3,286 

1984 576 5,553 1,600 2,730 

1985 710 6,126 1,463 2,728 

1986 523 5,848 1,225 3,729 

1987 724 4,736 972 1,800 

1988 744 5,978 339 939 

1989 973 6,347 529 1,294 

1990 602 4,232 301 1,300 

1991 175 930 75 565 

1992 36 332 10 65 

1993 64 246 15 79 

1994 82 400 12 130 

1995 114 417 1 85 

1996 80 355 1 155 

1997 238 1,001 27 428 

1998 304 1,123 135 760 

1999* 275 1,451 0 419 

2000 303 1,225 42 616 

2001 261 1,106 65 700 

2002 345 1,984 17 585 

2003 411 1,809 22 287 

2004 478 1,919 69 546 

2005 671 3,031 23 505 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-116

Every year, the Tribal Council sanctions a sport fishery that occurs in select areas on and 

bordering the Warm Springs Reservation. These fisheries are for non-tribal anglers and require 

the purchase and possession of a permit. The regulations that are adopted by the Tribal Council 

are very similar to the ODFW regulations, where the fishing areas overlap. In 1999 the fishing 

area in the Warm Springs River near the Kah-Nee-Tah Resort was closed to reduce the impact of 

hook and line angling on steelhead. Also, the area along the Deschutes River from Dry Creek to 

Trout Creek is closed from November 1st until the third Saturday in April. Camping, fishing, or 

landing on all islands west of the middle of the main channel (Reservation Islands) is prohibited, 

and critical spawning areas for steelhead and fall Chinook are posted and the regulations require 

that no fishing is to occur within 100 feet of the signs. These regulations greatly reduce the 

amount of fishing pressure and harassment on the west bank of Deschutes River along the 

Reservation boundary during the steelhead run. Given the low exploitation and restrictive 

current regulations, no additional Tribal management regulations are proposed. 

Salmon Harvest Management 

Spring Chinook are reared at the Round Butte Hatchery and at the Warm Springs National Fish 

Hatchery. Spring Chinook are harvested principally from April 15 through June 15, and virtually 

all sport and tribal spring Chinook harvest takes place in the one-mile reach immediately 

downstream from Sherars Falls. This reach is characterized by very deep, high velocity areas 

where the river is constrained between bedrock cliffs; conditions that restrict use by significant 

numbers of juvenile steelhead. In addition, while natural bait is legal in the three-mile stretch of 

river downstream from Sherars Falls, anglers tend to use large hooks and bait when angling for 

Chinook salmon. Very few adult steelhead are caught in this fishery because very few steelhead 

are in this area at this time of year. The mortality on steelhead (adults and juveniles) caught and 

released in the fishery is estimated to be very low. 

Fall Chinook salmon return to the Deschutes River starting in late June and early July. The sport 

harvest scenario for fall Chinook is very similar to that for spring Chinook, with the majority of 

the sport harvest taking place in the one-mile stretch immediately downstream of Sherars Falls. 

Greater numbers of natural summer steelhead are caught and released during this fishery, given 

the greater number of natural steelhead present at the time of this fishery. The increased hooking 

mortality to natural summer steelhead due to the use of bait is unknown, but is likely small given 

the spatial and temporal constraints on the fishery. 

For all of the tributary fisheries described in the FMEP, the impacts are estimated to be less than 

1.5% of the natural-origin summer steelhead. 

Trout Harvest Management 

Trout fisheries for native redband trout are ongoing in the Deschutes River. Trout angling is 

closed from the northern boundary of Warm Springs Reservation upstream to Pelton Regulating 

Dam from November 1 through the fourth Saturday in April. This closure minimizes 

disturbance to rearing juvenile steelhead before spring migration. Redband trout are very 

abundant in the lower Deschutes River, where estimated population densities of more than 2,000 

trout (greater than or equal to eight inches) per mile have been observed. The total abundance of 

redband trout in the lower 100 miles of the Deschutes River likely exceeds 100,000 individuals, 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-117

and the magnitude of that population provides an effective buffer against juvenile steelhead 

mortality in the redband trout fishery. 

Juvenile steelhead are protected through the current fisheries regulations. There is a two fish bag 

limit for redband trout, and only fish between 10 and 13 inches in length can be retained. Other 

trout must be released unharmed. Most natural steelhead smolts are less than eight inches in 

length. Effort and harvest information collected from redband trout anglers in the lower 

Deschutes River for many years shows that the current trout slot length limit and bait ban 

combine to nearly eliminate consumptive trout angling. Data from harvest samples in the lower 

43 miles of the Deschutes consistently show that anglers harvest approximately 3% of their total 

redband trout catch. This harvest rate translates into an actual harvest of less than 1% of the 

redband trout population in the river each year. This very low harvest rate also protects juvenile 

steelhead caught incidentally by redband trout anglers. Further protection was provided in 1978 

with the end of stocking of legal-sized rainbow trout, which limited impacts to natural juvenile 

steelhead that are harvested incidentally to the catchable trout fishery. Protection is also 

provided by restricting anglers to artificial flies and lures for all angling on 97 of the 100 miles 

open to fishing in the lower Deschutes River. 

John Day River 

Fishery impacts on adult and juvenile steelhead in the John Day River have been minimized 

under the fishing regulations established in the FMEP, with impacts from all tributary fisheries 

estimated to be less than 2% of the natural-origin fish. The John Day River FMEP (ODFW 

2005a) submitted to NMFS, specifies that the management objective for the plan is to conduct 

consumptive fisheries for marked adult hatchery steelhead, resident rainbow trout, and 

warmwater species. Fisheries for spring Chinook salmon have not been open in the John Day 

River subbasin since 1976. 

While specific exploitation rate goals for hatchery summer steelhead in the John Day River have 

not been identified, managers stress that maximizing removal of hatchery origin summer 

steelhead through angling is important to maintain the genetic health of natural populations. 

Removing hatchery steelhead utilizing harvest reduces the number of hatchery fish available to 

spawn in nature. Continuing sport angler removal of hatchery steelhead from the John Day 

River is an important tool to meet management objectives. To help increase harvest of hatchery 

steelhead from the John Day River, managers have adopted a 3 fish per day, no annual limit 

regulation for adipose fin-clipped steelhead. 

 

Steelhead Sport Harvest Management 

Adult steelhead fishery impacts are minimized by season and areas closures. Listed below are 

the areas and times that are open to adult steelhead fisheries. 

• Mouth of the John Day to Cottonwood Bridge RM 38: Year round.

• RM 38 Cottonwood Bridge to RM 185 at Kimberly: Year round.

• RM 185 at Kimberly to RM 257, the mouth of Indian Creek: Sept.1 to April 15.

• Mouth of the North Fork to RM 60 at Hwy 395 Bridge: Sept.1 to April 15.

• Mouth of the Middle Fork to RM 24.2 at Hwy 395 Bridge: Sept.1 to April 15.

• South Fork: Closed to adult steelhead angling.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-118

• All other tributaries and portions of the Middle Fork, North Fork and Mainstem not 

listed: Closed to adult steelhead angling. 

In addition, ODFW has implemented restrictive regulations permitting only the retention of 

marked adult hatchery steelhead and requiring the release of natural-origin adult steelhead in the 

John Day subbasin. Punchcard estimates during years when retention of wild steelhead was 

permitted indicate that wild fish harvest rates in the John Day River subbasin averaged 

approximately 12% of the annual return (ODFW 2005a). This estimate includes years when bag 

limits allowed retention of 2 fish per day and up to 20 fish per year, and also includes a 

significant component of hatchery fish in some years. For 1996 (the only year in which 

statistical creel data are available), the proportion of hatchery fish in the harvest below 

Cottonwood Bridge (where most fish are caught) was approximately 48% (ODFW 2005a); so the 

estimated 12% harvest rate on natural-origin fish is likely higher than actual. Based on these 

data, ODFW estimates the potential encounter rate of natural-origin steelhead in the John Day 

River fishery to be in the range of 6 to 12% of wild steelhead present in the subbasin. A fishery 

requiring release of wild fish has been in effect since 1995, so in-subbasin fishery related 

mortality rates (likely less than 1% [12% encounter rate x 5% hooking mortality rate = 0.6%]) 

and angler effort have dropped substantially since the hatchery only harvest regulation was 

implemented. 

The 5% catch and release mortality rate is conservative for steelhead based on the mortality 

estimate for steelhead of 3.4% developed by Hooton (1987). Studies show that catch and release 

mortalities tend to increase as water temperatures increase, with more than 80% of the observed 

mortalities in one study occurring above 21° C (Taylor and Barnhart 1997). While the adult 

steelhead fisheries in the John Day River do not begin until September when the water 

temperatures are slightly elevated, steelhead returns and fishing effort do not increase until midOctober when flows increase and water temperatures drop below 21° C. 

ODFW estimates that the annual harvest impacts on natural-origin fish under the FMEP will 

remain at less than 1.5% annually. Harvest impacts on adult steelhead in the John Day River 

before the start of mandatory unmarked fish release regulations in 1996 are unknown, but were 

clearly greater than the current level 

Trout Harvest Management 

While the John Day River is not highly regarded by most anglers for its trout angling 

opportunities, redband trout occur throughout the subbasin and westslope cutthroat trout occur in 

the upper John Day River system and a few North Fork tributaries. Presently, angling effort for 

trout is targeted to standing water bodies where ODFW routinely stocks hatchery fingerling or 

legal sized rainbow trout. Past harvest impacts on juvenile steelhead during trout fisheries in the 

John Day River are unknown. 

Historically, most trout angling effort in streams was associated with areas where legal or 

fingerling rainbow were released. An evaluation of ODFW’s fingerling rainbow stocking 

program in the South and Middle forks was completed in 1995. The evaluation concluded that 

the stocked fingerling were not being caught by the few anglers interviewed, and that there were 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-119

adequate numbers of wild, legal-sized rainbow trout in both streams to support the modest 

fishery. 

Since 1998, there have been no releases of hatchery rainbow trout into any streams within the 

subbasin. The trout-angling season for streams does not open until the fourth Saturday in May 

and the minimum legal size is 8 inches. Monitoring of smolt migration at irrigation diversion 

bypass traps and out-migrant traps (screw traps located on the South Fork John Day River, 

Middle Fork John Day River and mainstem John Day River) indicates that most steelhead smolts 

emigrate before the second week in May. Juvenile O. mykiss length frequency data from 

selected steelhead spawning and rearing streams indicate that 98% of them are less than six 

inches long. The combination of a late opener and the eight-inch minimum size limit provides 

significant protection for juvenile steelhead and smolts. In addition, the following streams are 

closed to all angling: the Granite Creek system (North Fork John Day tributary), and the Middle 

Fork John Day River from Highway 7 to Summit Creek. 

It is difficult to quantify the impacts to juvenile steelhead from sportfishing because of the lack 

of information specific to the John Day River. However, given the current regulations that are in 

place to protect juvenile steelhead, the dispersed nature of the fishery and cessation of trout 

stocking after 1997, it is estimated that <1% of rearing juvenile steelhead in the John Day River 

subbasin are caught and released in the trout fishery. 

Warmwater Fisheries Harvest Management 

Warmwater fisheries in the subbasin are believed to have little, if any impact on the steelhead 

population because they occur primarily at a time and location where juvenile and adult 

steelhead are not present. These fisheries are open only during trout, salmon, or steelhead 

seasons, and the angling is largely dependent upon water temperatures and water clarity. 

Significant angler effort does not begin until mid- to late-May in most years. The bulk of the 

warmwater fishery takes place in the lower mainstem from RM 40 to RM 185 where steelhead 

do not rear. There is virtually no warmwater fishery in the John Day River above Kimberly or 

above Wall Creek on the North Fork John Day River because the abundance of smallmouth bass 

is relatively low. The probability of encountering juvenile steelhead increases as one progresses 

upstream due to improved rearing conditions. Additionally, most warmwater anglers use 

terminal angling gear that reduces the probability of catching steelhead, and if hooked, it 

facilitates easy release. 

Umatilla River 

The Umatilla River system supports steelhead sport and tribal harvests. Steelhead are also 

captured in fisheries targeting resident trout, warmwater fish and Chinook salmon. 

Steelhead Sport Harvest Management 

The Umatilla River steelhead sport fishery is directed at the harvest of hatchery steelhead 

produced by the Umatilla Hatchery and stray hatchery fish. Current angling regulations require 

the release of natural-origin (unmarked) steelhead in the Umatilla River. The general steelhead 

season for the Umatilla River (September 1 – April 15) and open area (mouth to west reservation 

boundary) seek to maximize harvest opportunity of hatchery steelhead while minimizing impacts 

to wild fish. The open season encompasses the period of adult migration into and through the 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-120

Umatilla River. The open area includes approximately 56 miles of the mainstem Umatilla River 

and does not include spawning areas of natural-origin summer steelhead. The bag limit of 3 

hatchery steelhead per day with no annual limits seeks to balance maximization of harvest and 

equally distribute the harvest among the angling constituents. When necessary, the Oregon 

Commission can adopt and implement emergency regulations that further restrict fisheries for 

conservation purposes. 

The abundance threshold for triggering harvest management regulation changes is the 6-year 

average natural-origin adult steelhead escapement of at least 650 unmarked steelhead; 

approximately two times the critical fishery conservation threshold recommended by Chilcote 

(2001). 

The draft FMEP for the Umatilla (ODFW 2005b) focuses primarily on the potential impacts of 

harvest on abundance and productivity, the two key viability parameters most directly affected 

by harvest. Although fisheries with high harvest rates and fisheries that are selective on 

phenotypic traits can influence spatial structure and diversity, the tributary fisheries in the 

Umatilla River are not selective and have little or no influence on spatial structure and diversity. 

Chilcote (2001) estimated extinction probabilities with respect to a variety of fishery mortality 

rates and demonstrated that for the Umatilla population there is substantial increase in risk of 

extinction for harvest greater than 10% (Table 8-54). Within the Umatilla, it is estimated that 

fisheries will result in a mortality rate of approximately 1.5% on the natural-origin fish. This 

estimate is based on an assumed post-catch and release mortality rate of 5% and a maximum 

fishery interception rate of 30% for the natural-origin fish. The interception rate for wild fish in 

the most recent years has been less than 25% and averaged 17%. The net mortality impact on 

natural-origin fish is between 1-2%. This is considerably less than the within subbasin 

maximum mortality objective of 5% (ODFW 2005b) natural-origin fish. 

Table 8-54. Results of Population Viability Analysis (PVA) simulations of estimated probability 

of extinction in 50 years for Umatilla steelhead under 16 different adult mortality rates. 

Percent Adult Mortality Rate 

Population 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 

Umatilla .0

1 

.0

8 

.2

1 

.5

7 

.8

5 

.9

8 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

1.

0 

CTUIR Tribal Steelhead Harvest 

Tribal fisheries are conducted within the Umatilla subbasin and both natural- and hatchery-origin 

fish are allowed to be harvested. CTUIR estimated that 50-100 fish are harvested annually, of 

which about 33% are natural-origin fish (Gary James, personal communication, 2006). Tribal 

harvest is not considered a significant threat. 

Trout Harvest Management 

Significant protection for juvenile steelhead is provided under current trout fisheries regulations. 

Redband trout fisheries in the Umatilla subbasin have been adapted to protect wild O. mykiss in 

natural production areas. The upper Umatilla and tributaries upstream from the eastern boundary 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have been catch and release only, and flies and lures only for 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-121

redband trout since 1995. Streams within the boundaries of the Umatilla Indian Reservation are 

under jurisdiction of the CTUIR. Other steelhead production streams, including Meacham Creek 

and Birch Creek, have a bag limit of five trout per day with an eight-inch minimum length. Both 

of these streams have limited public access. The lower 20+ miles of Meacham Creek are only 

accessible via the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way that is managed to exclude public entry. 

Upper parts of the Meacham drainage are lands under private ownership. The lands adjacent to 

Birch Creek are all private with limited public access available. Mortality due to harvest on 

these streams, while not quantified, is estimated to be low. 

The redband trout fishery is open from the fourth Saturday in May to October 31, with an eightinch minimum length to minimize angling impacts on adult steelhead spawners and outmigrating 

smolts. Thus, the fishery through the summer and fall likely focuses on resident trout (eight-inch 

minimum length) rather than younger fish, which could be either resident or anadromous 

juveniles. 

All stocking of hatchery rainbow trout was ceased in 1999 in streams within the Umatilla 

subbasin to protect wild stocks of O. mykiss. Legal-sized rainbow trout have been historically 

stocked in many streams throughout the Umatilla subbasin. However, stocking over the past 

decade has only occurred in the Umatilla River (downstream of steelhead production areas) and 

lower McKay Creek. From 1990 through 1993, approximately 8,000 legal sized Cape Cod stock 

rainbow trout were stocked in the forks area of the upper Umatilla River. In 1994, stocking of 

legal sized rainbow trout was moved downstream to the Pendleton area to reduce interaction with 

wild O. mykiss in the upper Umatilla River. 

Fishing effort is currently much lower than in previous years because of the elimination of 

hatchery catchable trout stocking in the Umatilla River and the conservative, selective fishing 

regulations currently in place. It is difficult to quantify the impacts to juvenile steelhead from 

sportfishing because of the lack of information specific to the Umatilla River. However, given 

the current regulations that are in place for juvenile steelhead, the dispersed nature of the fishery 

and cessation of trout stocking, it is estimated that <1% of rearing juvenile steelhead in the 

Umatilla River subbasin are caught and released in the trout fishery. 

Warmwater Fishery Harvest Management 

The warmwater game fish fishery is focused in the lower Umatilla River downstream from Echo; 

isolating the fishery from areas where anglers would likely encounter significant numbers of 

steelhead parr. Smolts and adults are the only life history forms that would be expected in the 

lower Umatilla River. Adult wild steelhead are required to be released unharmed. The 

warmwater gamefish fishery is closed from April 16 through the third Saturday in May, the peak 

of the steelhead smolt out-migration. During creel census of the fall and spring salmon fisheries 

and the steelhead fishery, personnel also census warmwater anglers to gather baseline data on 

this fishery. Data from 1998 through 2000 show that warmwater anglers catch very few smolts. 

The potential impact is not of concern. 

Spring Chinook Harvest Management 

Mortality on steelhead (adults and smolts) caught and released by spring Chinook salmon anglers 

is low and does not warrant further restrictions. The Umatilla River spring Chinook fishery 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-122

occurs in two sections of the Umatilla River: section 1 from Hwy 730 Bridge upstream to 

Threemile Dam during April 16 – May 21 and section 2 from Threemile Dam upstream to the 

western boundary of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (RM 55) from April 16 through June 30. 

The fishery begins after most steelhead adults have migrated above the fishery area to spawning 

areas. Although this fishery occurs through the peak of the steelhead smolt out-migration, the 

fishing tackle is not conducive to catching of smolts (large hook sizes and large lures). 

Walla Walla River 

Steelhead in the Walla Walla River system are captured in the tributary steelhead fishery and in 

resident trout fisheries. 

 

Steelhead Harvest Management 

The Walla Walla River steelhead fishery is directed at catch and release of natural-origin fish 

and harvest of stray hatchery steelhead. The season occurs from December 1 through April 15 

and the area open to angling is from the Oregon-Washington state line upstream to the 

confluence of the North and South forks. The entire upper subbasin has been set aside as an 

adult steelhead sanctuary area and will remain closed to steelhead angling. The daily bag limit 

(three fish/day) is restricted to adipose fin-clipped steelhead only. Natural-origin steelhead are 

required to be released unharmed. Harvest of natural-origin steelhead or further restrictions on 

this fishery are not anticipated in the foreseeable future. 

This fishery is managed based on the six-year rolling average of returns to Nursery Bridge Dam. 

As long as the rolling average natural-origin spawner escapement is above the critical fishery 

conservation threshold of 220 adults, the current fishery regime will be maintained (draft FMEP, 

revised September 2005). However, the abundance of natural-origin steelhead is monitored and 

evaluated annually. If there is a downward trend of wild adult steelhead below the objective of 

220, the fishery will be modified to reduce impacts. Possible adjustments could be gear 

restrictions, restriction of the open area and/or season length. 

There is also a process to make in-year adjustments to fisheries when returns approach the 

critical fishery conservation threshold. To make reasonable predictions for steelhead returns to 

the Walla Walla River, ODFW has developed a regression of Bonneville wild Group A summer 

steelhead counts and wild steelhead counts at Nursery Bridge Dam (Figure 8-17). This 

regression is used to develop a steelhead return estimate for the Walla Walla Annual Operation 

Plan to provide managers with a forecast model. As discussed above, the fishery will be 

managed based on a rolling six-year average. However, the Bonneville predictive tool will also 

be used to adjust fishery management within-year if escapements are expected to approach 

and/or go below the critical fishery conservation threshold. 

As seen in Figure 8-17, the data show two time series trends that are quite distinct; the years 

1993 through 1995 plot higher and result in a steeper trend line than do data from 1996 to 2000. 

While the apparent shift in population productivity in relation to the total wild Group A summer 

steelhead run is not fully understood, it is distinct enough for use in developing run predictions. 

The data and trend line from 1996 to 2000 are used to develop in-year run forecasts based on 

wild Group A returns to Bonneville. This conservative run estimate seems a prudent approach 

since this is the most current trend. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-123

Figure 8-17. Relationship of Bonneville Dam wild Group A steelhead counts to estimated 

escapement above Nursery Bridge Dam, Oregon for run years 1993-1994 through 1996-2000. 

Based upon Population Viability Analysis simulations of estimated extinction probability for 27 

steelhead populations in Oregon, Chilcote (2001) recommended a maximum fishery mortality 

rate for most wild steelhead populations of 20%. The fisheries that currently occur do not 

exceed this exploitation rate. 

Within the Walla Walla, it is estimated the current and proposed future fisheries will result in a 

mortality rate of approximately 1.5% on the natural-origin fish. This estimate is based on an 

assumed post-catch and release mortality rate of 5% (from Hooton 1987) and a maximum fishery 

interception rate for natural-origin fish of 30%. 

Creel surveys conducted by the WDFW from 1997 to 2000 indicate that approximately 27% of 

the steelhead caught during the Washington Walla Walla subbasin recreational steelhead 

fisheries are natural origin. Because there are currently no estimates of total wild steelhead 

escapement to the entire Walla Walla subbasin, these creel data cannot be used to determine the 

catch rate of natural-origin fish in the Walla Walla population. However it does indicate that 

significant numbers of wild fish are caught. The WDFW (2001) estimates that an average of 438 

natural-origin adults are caught and released in their steelhead fishery, resulting in an estimated 

mortality of 22 natural-origin adults. Natural-origin adults from both the Touchet and Walla 

Walla populations are caught and released in the fishery. This level of mortality results in 1-2% 

annual impact given the recent 10-year geomean abundance of 1,000 adults in the Walla Walla 

population. 

1995

1996

1999

2000

y = 0.0063x + 51.37

 = 0.6719

y = 0.0167x + 70.631

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000

Bonneville Wild Group A

Walla Walla Escapement

1994

1998

1997 R2

R 2

 = 0.9963
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-124

Trout Harvest Management 

To minimize angling impacts on adult steelhead spawners and outmigrating smolts, redband 

trout angling in the Walla Walla subbasin where anadromous fish are present is open from the 

fourth Saturday in May through October 31, with an eight-inch minimum length. The fishery 

through the summer and fall is focused on resident trout (eight-inch minimum length) rather than 

younger fish, which could be either resident or anadromous juveniles. All waterways in the 

subbasin are open to fishing for redband trout during the appropriate season. There are no closed 

areas. 

Significant protection for juvenile steelhead and bull trout is also being provided under the 

current fisheries regulations. Fisheries for redband trout in the Walla Walla subbasin have been 

adapted to protect wild O. mykiss in natural production areas. Anglers have been restricted to the 

use of flies and lures in the South Fork since 1996 and in Walla Walla River and tributaries since 

1999. The daily bag limit is five fish over eight inches in length. 

Legal-sized hatchery rainbow trout have been historically stocked in many streams throughout 

the Walla Walla subbasin in Oregon. In 1994, all stocking of hatchery rainbow trout was 

discontinued in streams within the Oregon portion of the Walla Walla subbasin to protect wild 

stocks of O. mykiss and bull trout. 

Fishing effort is currently much lower than in previous years because of the elimination of 

hatchery catchable trout stocking in the Walla Walla River and the conservative, selective fishing 

regulations currently in place. It is difficult to quantify the impacts to juvenile steelhead from 

sportfishing because of the lack of information specific to the Walla Walla River. However, 

given the current regulations that are in place for juvenile steelhead, the dispersed nature of the 

fishery and cessation of trout stocking, it is estimated that <1% or rearing juvenile steelhead in 

the Walla Walla River subbasin are caught and released in the trout fishery. 

8.6 Hatchery Practices and Releases 

This section describes potential hatchery-related limiting factors for Mid-C steelhead populations 

in the Fifteenmile, Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers systems. 

8.6.1 Overview 

Two hatchery programs are operated within the Mid-C DPS in Oregon, the Round Butte 

Hatchery program in the Deschutes River and the Umatilla Hatchery program in the Umatilla 

River. In addition WDFW releases hatchery smolts into the Walla Walla population as part of 

the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan program. The Mid-C Expert Panel expressed 

particular concern regarding the continuing detrimental impact of stray out-of-DPS hatchery fish 

in natural spawning areas on the genetic traits and productivity of naturally produced Mid-C 

steelhead. They also concluded that the spawning of hatchery produced adult steelhead from 

programs in the Umatilla and Walla Walla subbasins with naturally produced fish in these and 

other drainages adversely affects the population traits (productivity, genetic traits, and adult 

abundance) of the steelhead populations. Round Butte Hatchery in the Deschutes subbasin also 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-125

produces steelhead; however, the risks from this hatchery program to naturally spawning 

populations are considerably less than those from the other programs. 

8.6.2 Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead 

ODFW stocked rainbow trout in Fifteenmile Creek at the Taylorville Bridge until 1974 and at 

the downtown Dufur Bridge until 1991; and in Mosier Creek from 1952-1963 and 1968-1971. 

Today, hatchery fish are only stocked in Hanel Lake that has been stocked annually since 1994 

with approximately 500 catchable coastal rainbow trout from a private hatchery/trout farm near 

Sandy, Oregon or Oak Springs Fish Hatchery. A screen in the Wolf Run Ditch prevents the 

stocked fish from migrating out of the reservoir. 

Interbreeding between hatchery rainbow trout and steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek is believed to 

have been minimal. The particular stock of rainbows used for these introductions is not believed 

to have survived the summer due to susceptibility to a naturally occurring disease 

(Ceratomyosis), to which native rainbow are resistant. 

Currently, there are no plans to use artificial propagation to augment fisheries or enhance natural 

production in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin any time in the future. Consequently, the main 

hatchery-related threat to the Fifteenmile steelhead population is from out-of-subbasin strays. 

There have been very few stray hatchery steelhead observed in Fifteenmile Creek and there are 

few likely sources of winter steelhead strays in the Mid-Columbia DPS. Stray hatchery fish were 

not identified as a risk in the viability assessment. 

8.6.3. Deschutes River Steelhead 

Round Butte Hatchery 

Round Butte Hatchery (RBH) currently produces and releases steelhead in the Deschutes as 

mitigation for loss of habitat and harvest opportunities due to the construction of the Round 

Butte Complex of hydroelectric dams. The goal of the program is to produce 1,800 adults 

returning to the project. The RBH summer steelhead program is limited to known RBH stock to 

prevent the propagation of out-of-subbasin fish and associated disease concerns. Natural-origin 

fish were incorporated into the broodstock during the 1990–1998 brood years, but the practice 

was discontinued due to concerns about introducing or propagating diseases borne by unmarked 

fish of unknown origin from outside the subbasin. All RBH steelhead not used for broodstock 

and all out-of-subbasin hatchery fish are removed from the river at Pelton Trap and Warm 

Springs National Fish Hatchery (WSNFH). 

The RBH program minimizes impacts to naturally produced summer steelhead by releasing 

juveniles as age 1+ smolts, and at sizes and times that support rapid migration from the subbasin. 

This limits the potential for competitive interactions. RBH steelhead are acclimated at the 

hatchery before release to improve homing back to the hatchery. As a result, competitive 

interactions with wild juvenile steelhead in overwintering or rearing habitat are believed to be 

low. Resident O. mykiss naturally exist at multiple ages and at relatively great densities in parts 

of the Deschutes River and co-exist with other native salmonids including natural steelhead. This 

acclimation and homing of the RBH steelhead has been effective; in recent years less than 1% of 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-126

the steelhead observed at the WSNFH have been of RBH origin. RBH summer steelhead are 

uniquely marked to allow for their harvest and removal in selective recreational fisheries and to 

allow for identification during broodstock collection activities. 

Out-of-Subbasin Strays 

The large number of out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead straying into the Deschutes River each 

year presents a major risk to the population. In recent years, out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead 

collected and removed at WSNFH and the Pelton Trap averaged over 30% of the returns. The 

Mid-C Expert Panel considered strays a primary threat to Deschutes steelhead populations. 

The number of out-of-subbasin hatchery-origin steelhead observed in the Deschutes River began 

to increase as mitigation programs developed in other Columbia Basin watersheds (Figure 8-18 

and Table 8-55). A majority of these fish were produced in the Snake River Basin under the 

Lower Snake River Compensation Program, with a relatively large proportion of the out-ofsubbasin stray steelhead originating from the Wallowa Hatchery program (Carmichael and 

Hoffnagle 2006; Olson and Spateholz, no date). At WSNFH, where all steelhead known to be 

artificially produced are removed from the natural-origin population that is allowed to pass 

upstream, RBH steelhead make up a small proportion of the fish collected at the trap (Table 8-

56). 

Hatchery-origin steelhead have been observed spawning with unmarked steelhead in Deschutes 

River tributaries, and both live and dead hatchery-origin steelhead have been observed during 

spawning ground surveys in Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks (Table 8-57). However, the fish 

are not handled and stock composition of hatchery-origin steelhead is unknown. Stock 

composition of hatchery-origin fish that ascend Sherars Falls (the trapping facility nearest 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks) is monitored in terms of the proportion of Round Butte 

Hatchery steelhead relative to hatchery fish that originate from outside the subbasin, but the rate 

at which out-of-subbasin fish that ascend the falls remain within the Deschutes and spawn among 

the native populations is not well known. The trend in abundance of hatchery-origin fish within 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks has appeared to follow that at Sherars Falls, but at an overall 

lower rate. Most hatchery fish observed on the spawning grounds are out-of-subbasin strays. 

Out-of-DPS hatchery strays comprised an average of 29% of the Westside population and 15.2% 

of the Eastside population over the past three generations. This high fraction resulted in high 

risk ratings for spawner composition for both populations as described in the viability 

assessment.
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-127

Figure 8-18. Proportion of steelhead that are Round Butte Hatchery and out-of-subbasin 

hatchery origin by trapping facility: (a) Sherars Falls, (b) Pelton Trap, (c) WSNFH. 

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00 RBH

(a) Out-of-basin

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Proportion hatchery 

(b)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Spawning year

(c)
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-128

Table 8-55. Number of steelhead by origin in the Deschutes River by year and trapping facility, 1977 - 2004. 

Estimated Escapement of Steelhead at Sherars Falls Steelhead at Pelton Trap Steelhead 

Return 

year 

Brood 

year Wild 

Round 

Butte 

Hatchery 

 Out-ofsubbasin 

hatchery Total Wild 

Round 

Butte 

Hatchery 

Out-ofsubbasin 

hatchery Total Wild 

Roun

Butte 

Hatche

1977 1978 6,556 6,121 900 13,577 233 2,120 80 2,433 336 1978 1979 2,759 3,184 300 6,243 136 1,732 110 1,978 290 1979 1980 4,204 5,400 600 10,204 223 2,612 54 2,889 311 1980 1981 4,100 5,500 500 10,100 169 2,195 47 2,411 397 1981 1982 6,900 3,800 1,200 11,900 245 1,760 156 2,161 569 11982 1983 6,567 3,524 1,249 11,340 344 1,547 167 2,058 255 1983 1984 8,228 7,250 7,684 23,162 814 2,439 1,452 4,705 431 1984 1985 7,721 7,563 3,824 19,108 603 3,278 795 4,676 577 1985 1986 9,624 7,382 5,056 22,062 686 3,153 943 4,782 373 1986 1987 6,207 9,064 9,803 25,074 467 2,640 1,538 4,645 822 1987 1988 5,367 9,209 8,367 22,943 46 1,484 796 2,326 522 1988 1989 3,546 3,849 2,909 10,304 123 1,247 300 1,670 385 1989 1990 4,278 2,758 3,659 10,695 136 829 524 1,489 339 1990 1991 3,653 1,990 2,852 8,495 82 606 428 1,116 165 1991 1992 4,826 3,778 8,409 17,013 101 1,365 849 2,315 280 1992 1993 904 2,539 4,261 7,704 59 1,157 427 1,643 82 1993 1994 1,487 1,159 4,293 6,939 74 190 288 552 135 1994 1995 482 1,781 4,391 6,654 27 753 642 1,422 93 1995 1996 1,662 2,708 11,855 16,225 32 1,000 976 2,008 87 1996 1997 3,458 5,932 23,618 33,008 126 3,605 2,001 5,732 239 1997 1998 1,820 5,042 17,703 24,565 194 2,440 2,459 5,093 218 1998 1999 3,800 3,527 11,110 18,437 155 1,135 1,284 2,574 97 1999 2000 4,790 2,628 13,785 21,203 83 1,050 768 1,901 322 2000 2001 8,985 4,380 15,072 28,437 114 1,593 1,103 2,810 513 2001 2002 8,749 9,373 25,263 43,385 282 4,942 3,674 8,898 733 2002 2003 9,363 8,880 15,203 33,446 207 4,841 1,787 6,835 877 2003 2004 5,524 5,265 6,542 17,331 104 2,605 967 3,676 286 2004 2005 3,161 4,942 4,949 13,052 79 2,143 903 3,125 327 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-129

Table 8-56. Proportions of steelhead by origin in the Deschutes River by year and trapping facility, 1977 - 2004

Estimated Escapement at Sherars Pelton Trap Warm Springs NF

Return 

year 

Spawning 

year Wild RBH 

 Out-ofsubbasin Wild RBH Out-of- subbasin Wild RBH 

1977 1978 0.48 0.45 0.07 0.10 0.87 0.03 1978 1979 0.44 0.51 0.05 0.07 0.88 0.06 0.95 0.03 1979 1980 0.41 0.53 0.06 0.08 0.90 0.02 0.88 0.06 1980 1981 0.41 0.54 0.05 0.07 0.91 0.02 0.89 0.08 1981 1982 0.58 0.32 0.10 0.11 0.81 0.07 0.79 0.17 1982 1983 0.58 0.31 0.11 0.17 0.75 0.08 0.72 0.23 1983 1984 0.36 0.31 0.33 0.17 0.52 0.31 0.79 0.07 1984 1985 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.13 0.70 0.17 0.87 0.03 1985 1986 0.44 0.33 0.23 0.14 0.66 0.20 0.92 0.04 1986 1987 0.25 0.36 0.39 0.10 0.57 0.33 0.58 0.04 1987 1988 0.23 0.40 0.36 0.02 0.64 0.34 0.43 0.00 1988 1989 0.34 0.37 0.28 0.07 0.75 0.18 0.65 0.05 1989 1990 0.40 0.26 0.34 0.09 0.56 0.35 0.67 0.02 1990 1991 0.43 0.23 0.34 0.07 0.54 0.38 0.57 0.01 1991 1992 0.28 0.22 0.49 0.04 0.59 0.37 0.42 0.02 1992 1993 0.12 0.33 0.55 0.04 0.70 0.26 0.43 0.01 1993 1994 0.21 0.17 0.62 0.13 0.34 0.52 0.47 0.02 1994 1995 0.07 0.27 0.66 0.02 0.53 0.45 0.48 0.06 1995 1996 0.10 0.17 0.73 0.02 0.50 0.49 0.33 0.01 1996 1997 0.10 0.18 0.72 0.02 0.63 0.35 0.42 0.01 1997 1998 0.07 0.21 0.72 0.04 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.01 1998 1999 0.21 0.19 0.60 0.06 0.44 0.50 0.54 0.01 1999 2000 0.23 0.12 0.65 0.04 0.55 0.40 0.43 0.00 2000 2001 0.32 0.15 0.53 0.04 0.57 0.39 0.62 0.00 2001 2002 0.20 0.22 0.58 0.03 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.01 2002 2003 0.28 0.27 0.45 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.60 0.00 2003 2004 0.32 0.30 0.38 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.62 0.00 2004 2005 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.69 0.29 0.83 0.00 

 Minimum 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.34 0.02 0.33 0.00  Maximum 0.58 0.54 0.73 0.17 0.91 0.52 0.95 0.23  Average 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.07 0.64 0.29 0.62 0.04 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-130

Table 8-57. Proportion of hatchery-origin fish by location in the lower Deschutes Subbasin (for N > 9). 

Buck Hollow Bakeoven Trout Cree

Return 

year 

Spawning 

year Marked Unmarked 

Hatchery 

fraction Marked Unmarked 

Hatchery 

fraction Marked Unmarke

1989 1990 2 14 0.125 1 2 

N/A -- -- 

1990 1991 2 4 

N/A 

0 5 

N/A -- -- 

1991 1992 1 9 0.100 0 0 

N/A -- -- 

1992 1993 2 1 

N/A 

3 2 

N/A -- -- 

1993 1994 1 1 

N/A 

0 0 

N/A -- -- 

1994 1995 11 11 0.500 3 1 

N/A -- -- 

1995 1996 11 7 0.611 8 2 0.800 

-- -- 

1996 1997 23 9 0.719 9 4 0.692 

-- -- 

1997 1998 26 1 0.963 2 3 

N/A 

 

1998 1999 14 15 0.483 6 13 0.316 1999 2000 8 8 0.500 17 14 0.548 2000 2001 23 108 0.176 29 167 0.148 

-- -- 

2001 2002 20 42 0.323 10 55 0.154 

-- -- 

2002 2003 17 43 0.283 4 19 0.174 9 42003 2004 33 30 0.524 5 8 0.385 0 2004 2005 2 12 0.143 0 4 

N/A 

1 8

 Average 0.419 0.402 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-131

Potential Inter-Specific Hatchery Interactions 

Two spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs exist in the Deschutes River subbasin, one at 

Warm Springs NFH and one at Round Butte Hatchery, to mitigate for lost habitat and harvest 

opportunities due to construction and operation of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Spring 

Chinook salmon occur naturally in the Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek. Spring Chinook 

salmon are reared as juveniles to age 1+ smolts. Smolts actively migrate downstream after 

release, thus the duration of time that negative interactions could occur with native steelhead 

juveniles is relatively short. Interactions in overwintering and other rearing habitat are thought 

to be minimal. Bacterial Kidney Disease occurs within the Round Butte Hatchery broodstock. 

The influence of the Chinook hatchery programs is minimal and of little concern. 

8.6.4 John Day River Steelhead 

The John Day River steelhead populations are currently managed entirely as wild populations. 

No hatchery production or supplementation occurs within the John Day River subbasin. 

Hatchery releases of summer and winter run steelhead occurred historically in the John Day 

River subbasin between 1925 and 1969 (Table 8-58). Hatchery steelhead were last released into 

the John Day River subbasin in 1969. Hatchery steelhead released between 1966 and 1969 were 

for experimental use only and were not meant for production purposes (ODFW 1990, Olsen et al. 

1994). 

Table 8-58. Year, run (W-winter, S-summer, U-unknown), number, tributary, and subbasin of 

release for all known hatchery steelhead released into the John Day River subbasin from 1925 - 

1969. 

Year Run Number Tributary Subbasin 

1925 U 16,080 Canyon Creek Upper Mainstem 

1941 U 8,760 Canyon Creek Upper Mainstem 

1947 U 7,600 Rock Creek Lower Mainstem 

1947 U 7,520 Thirtymile Creek Lower Mainstem 

1962 W 200,000 Camas Creek North Fork 

1962 W 375,000 Granite Creek North Fork 

1963 U 10,667 Mainstem Mainstem 

1964 W 10,198 Upper Mainstem Upper Mainstem 

1965 W 27,860 South Fork South Fork 

1966 S 55,518 Middle Fork Middle Fork 

1967 S 98,090 Upper Mainstem Upper Mainstem 

1967 S 71,500 Camas Creek North Fork 

1969 S 22,375 Bridge Creek Middle Fork 

Rainbow trout make up the majority of all hatchery fish species released into the John Day River 

subbasin (Table 8-59). The mean annual stocking rate of hatchery O. mykiss in the John Day 

River subbasin between 1925 and 1997 was 71,402 fish and ranged between 5,000 and 612,668 

fish. Concern over competition for resources with wild fish and potential hybridization with 

natural-origin fish resulted in termination of all hatchery stocking of O. mykiss in the John Day 

River subbasin in 1997. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-132

Table 8-59. Summary of all known stocking records for hatchery salmonids released into the 

John Day River subbasin from 1925-1997. Species include rainbow trout (RbT), steelhead of 

unknown run (Sthd), winter steelhead (StW), summer steelhead (StS), brook trout (BkT), and 

west slope cutthroat trout (WcT). 

Summary of Stocking Records for Hatchery Salmonids Released in John Day River Subbasin, 1925-1997. 

Year RbT Sthd StW StS Coho BkT WcT Total releases 

1925 77,000 16,080 25,000 118,080 

1926 25,680 45,000 42,745 113,425 

1927 6,000 6,000 

1928 43,000 27,530 70,530 

1929 293,000 293,000 

1930 50,000 50,000 

1931 5,000 10,000 15,000 

1932 0 

1933 70,000 8,050 78,050 

1934 31,000 31,000 

1935 0 

1936 0 

1937 0 

1938 0 

1939 0 

1940 92,206 50,268 142,474 

1941 66,930 8,760 75,690 

1942 36,632 36,632 

1943 16,763 16,763 

1944 31,050 31,050 

1945 16,080 16,080 

1946 36,960 36,960 

1947 254,025 15,120 269,145 

1948 66,025 66,025 

1949 10,290 10,290 

1950 52,343 52,343 

1951 14,560 14,560 

1952 21,808 21,808 

1953 24,376 24,376 

1954 36,946 36,946 

1955 58,783 58,783 

1956 57,297 57,297 

1957 43,206 43,206 

1958 71,272 71,272 

1959 41,727 41,727 

1960 41,498 41,498 

1961 29,980 29,980 

1962 37,668 575,000 612,668 

1963 38,931 10,667 49,598 

1964 17,508 10,200 27,708 

1965 72,598 27,860 199 100,657 

1966 174,305 55,518 325,793 59,425 615,041 

1967 141,210 170,500 311,710 

1968 24,493 24,493 

1969 325,185 22,375 347,560 

1970 184,227 184,227 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-133

Summary of Stocking Records for Hatchery Salmonids Released in John Day River Subbasin, 1925-1997. 

Year RbT Sthd StW StS Coho BkT WcT Total releases 

1971 

1972 

31,547 

60,093 

 31,547 

60,093 

1973 141,758 141,758 

1974 84,809 84,809 

1975 87,850 87,850 

1976 84,121 84,121 

1977 85,173 85,173 

1978 110,521 110,521 

1979 148,294 148,294 

1980 95,565 95,565 

1981 87,480 87,480 

1982 106,053 106,053 

1983 111,964 111,964 

1984 46,567 46,567 

1985 57,715 57,715 

1986 64,226 64,226 

1987 8,997 8,997 

1988 43,572 43,572 

1989 29,369 29,369 

1990 32,987 32,987 

1991 21,036 21,036 

1992 21,043 21,043 

1993 8,004 8,004 

1994 22,525 22,525 

1995 7,993 7,993 

1996 6,988 6,988 

1997 6,479 6,479 

Out-of-Subbasin Strays 

Out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead strays pose a significant and primary threat to John Day 

steelhead populations. The Mid-C Expert Panel identified out-of-DPS hatchery strays as a threat 

to population traits for the Lower Mainstem population. Most hatchery stray recoveries occur in 

the Lower Mainstem below the North Fork (Table 8-60); however, strays have been observed in 

all populations. Carmichael et al. (2006) reports that the proportion of hatchery spawners in the 

Lower Mainstem population ranged from 0.01 in the early 1990’s to 0.18 in 2004, with a mean 

of 0.07. The ICTRT considers this to be a high risk for the metric of spawner composition 

because of the increasing trend since the 1990’s, fraction of strays and origin of the strays 

(Carmichael et al. 2006). Carmichael et al. (2006) concluded that all five of the John Day 

steelhead populations were at high risk for the John Day spawner composition viability metric. 

Data from coded-wire tagged hatchery steelhead recovered between 1986 and 2003 indicate that 

a large portion of the hatchery fish were from Wallowa stock releases into the Grande Ronde 

Rivers; however, most hatchery fish from upper Columbia River tributaries are not coded-wire 

tagged. 

Hatchery steelhead coded-wire tag (CWT) recoveries in the John Day subbasin from 1986 to 

2003 (378 recoveries) identify 18 separate hatcheries as the sources of strays. The majority of 

CWT recoveries were located downstream of Tumwater Falls in the John Day Arm (316 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-134

recoveries) and may not accurately represent fish that stayed and spawned within the John Day 

subbasin. The recoveries indicate that Dworshak National Hatchery is the predominate source of 

hatchery steelhead strays in the lower portion of the subbasin (97 CWT recoveries; 31%). 

Between Tumwater Falls and Cottonwood Bridge (RM 40) 55 hatchery CWT recoveries have 

been reported with many recoveries (26 CWT recoveries; 47%) in this area identifying Irrigon 

Hatchery (fish primarily released in the Grande Ronde Subbasin) as the source of strays (Table 

8-61). Limited information is available upstream of Cottonwood Bridge with only seven 

hatchery CWT recoveries reported. Irrigon Hatchery was the source of two hatchery steelhead 

strays in this area. It should be noted that the probability of observation of strays in the John Day 

River from any particular hatchery stock is dependent on the survival, stray rate of that stock, 

and the number of individuals tagged from the stock. There is substantial difference in numbers 

of fish tagged between stocks, and in some cases no hatchery fish are marked with CWTs. 

Table 8-60. Hatchery source, stock, number recovered, recovery period, and release agency for 

hatchery steelhead with coded wire tags in the John Day River arm. (Tumwater Falls upstream to 

Cottonwood Bridge) from 1996-2003. Data were compiled from the Pacific States Marine 

Fishery Commission Regional Mark Information System. 

Hatchery Source Stock 

Number 

Recovered Recovery Period Release Agency 

Irrigon Wallowa R., Imnaha R. & tributaries 25 10/10 - 05/07 ODFW 

Cottonwood Creek 

Pond Wallowa R. 10 10/11 - 05/23 WDFW 

Magic Valley Pahsimeroi R. 'A' run, Dworshak 'B' run,

 East Fork Salmon R. 'B' run 

 5 10/27 - 01/31 IDFG 

Niagara Springs 

Pahsimeroi R. 'A' run, Hells Canyon ‘A’ 

run 5 10/20 - 01/24 IDFG 

Clearwater Dworshak 'B' run 2 01/09 - 02/10 IDFG 

Dworshak National Dworshak 'B' run 2 10/17 - 02/09 FWS 

Umatilla Umatilla R. 2 10/09 - 11/11 ODFW 

Table 8-61. Hatchery source, release location, recovery location, number recovered, and 

recovery year for hatchery steelhead with coded wire tags in the John Day River above 

Cottonwood Bridge (RM 40) from 1988-2003. Data were compiled from archives in the John 

Day Field Office and Wilson et al. (2004). 

Hatchery Source Release Location Recovery Location 

Number 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Year 

Big Canyon Unknown Lower North Fork 1 1994 

Irrigon Spring Creek of Wallowa R., OR Kahler Creek, Lower Mainstem 1 2003 

Irrigon 

Big Canyon Creek of Wallowa 

R., OR Service Creek, Lower Mainstem 1 2003 

Cottonwood Creek 

Pond Grande Ronde R., OR Service Creek, Lower Mainstem 1 2003 

Unknown Washington 

Hatchery Unknown Service Creek, Lower Mainstem 1 2003 

Upper Columbia Unknown 

Cottonwood Bridge to Little Ferry 

Canyon 1 1988 

Wallowa Unknown Lower North Fork 1 1992 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-135

Distribution of Hatchery and Natural Adults 

Most observations of hatchery adults in the John Day have occurred in the Lower Mainstem, 

below the confluence with the North Fork (Wiley et al. 2004). However, several reports have 

noted observations of fin-clipped fish in the North Fork and South Fork drainages. These 

observations come from both spawning ground surveys and creel programs. 

Claire and Gray (1992a) reported 17 (23%) adipose fin clipped steelhead of 75 caught upstream 

of Kimberly (RM 185) during the 1992 steelhead fishery. Within the 1992 Zone 3 summer 

steelhead fishery (Kimberly to Indian Creek), 16% (6 of 37) of the fish reported by anglers were 

of hatchery origin (Claire and Gray 1992a). Within the 1992 lower North Fork summer 

steelhead fishery, 29% (11 of 37 reported) of steelhead reported by anglers were of hatchery 

origin. Claire and Gray (1992a) did not provide an explanation for the high stray rates observed 

during the 1992 fishery. Wilson et al. (2001) reported observing thirteen adipose fin-clipped 

adult summer steelhead (46%, both live and as carcasses) of twenty-eight steelhead observed 

while seining for smolts in the Mainstem John Day River between Kimberly (RM 185) and 

Spray (RM 170). 

Wiley et al. (2004) observed 50, live adult steelhead and sampled five carcasses on spawner 

surveys conducted during 2004. Of the ten sites where live fish were observed they were able to 

identify 34 fish as hatchery or wild at six of those sites based upon the presence (hatchery) or 

absence (wild) of an adipose fin clip (fin mark). Hatchery steelhead (13 fish) comprised 38% of 

live fish observations and were found at two of the six sites where identifications could be made. 

The majority of live hatchery steelhead observed (12 fish; 92%) and hatchery carcasses sampled 

(3 fish; 100%) during spawner surveys came from one stream (Service Creek) located in the 

Lower Mainstem at RM 157. An additional live hatchery steelhead was also observed in the 

Lower Mainstem in Rock Creek. They estimated 3,726 wild and 2,284 hatchery steelhead were 

present during the spawning season based upon the wild:hatchery ratio of live fish observed 

during spawner surveys. 

Wiley et al. (2004) observed fin-clipped adults paired with wild adults on redds during 2004. 

Others have also observed hatchery origin fish paired with wild fish during spawning (Wilson et 

al. 2004). Observations of pairings between hatchery and wild fish on the spawning grounds 

indicate introgression. No evidence is available for any negative impacts resulting from 

interactions between hatchery and natural steelhead in the John Day River subbasin. 

8.6.5 Umatilla River Steelhead 

The Umatilla River summer steelhead program was designed to enhance the natural production 

through supplementation and to provide sustainable harvest in the Umatilla River subbasin. The 

annual production goal is for a release of 150,000 smolts. Smolts are adipose fin-clipped to 

allow for selective fisheries and to monitor returns to TMFD. The program is funded by BPA 

through the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Several ongoing management actions were implemented to limit potential negative impacts on 

wild steelhead from the hatchery program. These actions all have positive benefits, and include 

1) marking hatchery produced steelhead to limit fishing mortality on wild steelhead, 2) reading 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-136

coded-wire tags before spawning broodstock to prevent using out-of-subbasin strays, and 3) 

acclimating and releasing a portion of hatchery smolts near areas targeted for supplementation 

and a portion lower in the subbasin to increase fishing opportunities in the lower river. 

Releasing a portion of the adults in the lower river also has the potential to limit spawning 

interactions between hatchery and wild adults. Nevertheless, the existing hatchery programs for 

steelhead and coho in the subbasin continue to pose potential risks to the wild steelhead 

population. However, the Mid-C Expert Panel did not identify hatchery fish as a primary threat 

to the population. 

Hatchery Program History 

The first attempt to supplement the natural population of summer steelhead in the Umatilla River 

and tributaries was in 1967 when hatchery-produced, non-endemic steelhead from Skamania and 

Idaho (Oxbow) stocks were released in the Umatilla River (ODFW 1987). From 1968 through 

1970, only non-endemic Skamania stock steelhead were released into the Umatilla River. No 

hatchery-produced steelhead were released in the Umatilla River from 1971 through 1974. The 

early release numbers and size-at-release varied considerably (Table 8-62). The first release of 

smolts from endemic Umatilla stock occurred in 1975. There were no releases of hatcheryproduced steelhead from 1976 through 1980. Annual releases of smolts from endemic Umatilla 

stock ensued from 1981 to the present. 

Broodstock are currently collected from returns to the Three Mile Falls Dam (TMFD) trap on the 

Umatilla River (RM 3.7). The broodstock goal is 120 adults, including 10 pairs of coded-wire 

tagged program fish. Steelhead are transferred to the Minthorn acclimation site for holding and 

spawning. The coded-wire tags are read prior to spawning to insure out-of-subbasin hatchery 

fish are not used for broodstock. Spawning is performed using a 3x3 matrix, selecting for natural 

x natural crosses whenever possible, and no hatchery x hatchery crosses are used. Hatchery fish 

are used when there are not enough natural-origin fish to meet egg-take objectives. 

Run Composition 

Steelhead returns to TMFD have averaged 956 hatchery, and 1,668 natural fish from the 1992-93 

through 2003-04 run years (Table 8-63). Over the same time period, Umatilla hatchery steelhead 

comprised 23.9-52.0% of the run (mean 32.0%), while out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead 

comprised 2.1-10.1% of the run (mean 3.1%; Table 8-63). Some steelhead are removed at 

TMFD for broodstock while others are harvested upstream in tribal and non-tribal recreational 

fisheries. Umatilla hatchery steelhead have comprised 19.0-57.1% of steelhead available to 

spawn in nature (mean 29.4%), and out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead have comprised 1.8-9.7% 

of potential spawners (mean 4.8%; Table 8-64). Carmichael (2000) concluded that the Umatilla 

River population was at high risk for the spawner composition viability metric. This high risk 

rating was the result of a moderate risk rating for proportion of out-of-DPS strays and a moderate 

risk rating for within-population hatchery spawners. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-137

Table 8-62. Releases of summer steelhead in the Umatilla River subbasin prior to the current 

program at Umatilla Fish Hatchery (Chess et al. 2003a). 

Release 

Year Hatchery No. Released Fish/lb. Strategy Stock Acclimation Facility Direct-release 

1967 Gnat Creek 109,805 75 Subyearling Skamania 

1967 Oak Springs 238,020 117 Subyearling Oxbow 

1967 Wallowa 142,240 240 Subyearling Oxbow 

1968 Gnat Creek 23,100 66 Subyearling Skamania 

1968 Gnat Creek 150,000 Eggs eggs Skamania 

1969 Oak Springs 174,341 145 Subyearling Skamania 

1970 Carson 39,489 8.0-9.0 Yearling Skamania 

1975 Wizard Falls 11,094 9 Yearling Umatilla 

1981 Oak Springs 17,558 6.0-9.0 Yearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1981 Oak Springs 9,400 145 Subyearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1982 Oak Springs 59,494 7.0-8.0 Yearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1982 Oak Springs 67,940 124 Subyearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1983 Oak Springs 60,500 11 Yearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1983 Oak Springs 52,700 62 Subyearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1984 Oak Springs 57,939 6.5 Yearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1984 Oak Springs 22,000 135 Subyearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1985 Oak Springs 53,850 7 Yearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1985 Oak Springs 39,134 150 Subyearling Umatilla Upper Umat. R. 

1986 Oak Springs 54,137 8.4 Yearling Umatilla Bonifer Spr. 

1987 Oak Springs 1,485 5.5 Yearling Umatilla 

1988 Oak Springs 30,549 7.4 Yearling Umatilla Minthorn Spr. 

1988 Oak Springs 30,757 6.5 Yearling Umatilla Umat. R. Minthorn 

1988 Oak Springs 33,984 10.3 Yearling Umatilla Umat. R. Stanfield 

1988 Oak Springs 10,033 57.5 Subyearling Umatilla Umat. R. Corporation 

1988 Irrigon 24,618 3,200 unfed fry Umatilla S. Fk. Umatilla R. 

1989 Oak Springs 29,852 6.6 Yearling Umatilla Minthorn Spr. 

1989 Oak Springs 29,586 5.6 Yearling Umatilla Umat. R. at Minthorn 

1990 Oak Springs 30,225 5.9 Yearling Umatilla Bonifer Spr. 

1990 Oak Springs 29,446 5.5 Yearling Umatilla Meacham Cr. (mouth) 

1991 Oak Springs 30,221 6.2 Yearling Umatilla Bonifer Spr. 

1991 Oak Springs 29,325 8.7 Yearling Umatilla Meacham Cr. (mouth) 

1992 Umatilla 67,435 5.8 Yearling Umatilla Bonifer/Minthorn 

1992 Umatilla 64,550 5 Yearling Umatilla Meacham Cr. (mouth) 

1992 Umatilla 67,419 5.5 Yearling Umatilla Meacham Cr. (mouth) 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-138

Table 8-63. Percent of Umatilla and non-endemic hatchery returns to Three Mile Falls Dam. 

 Umatilla % Umatilla Non-Endemic Prop Non- Total Total 

 Hatchery Hatchery Hatchery Umatilla Hatch. Hatchery Natural Hat+Nat 

Run Return Return Return Return Return Return Return 

Year to TMFD to TMFD to TMFD to TMFD To TMFD to TMFD to TMFD 

92-93 490 25.6% 126 6.6% 616 1298 1914 

93-94 309 24.0% 36 2.8% 345 945 1290 

94-95 535 34.9% 122 8.0% 657 874 1531 

95-96 664 31.9% 121 5.8% 785 1296 2081 

96-97 1288 52.0% 175 7.1% 1463 1014 2477 

97-98 725 41.1% 178 10.1% 903 862 1765 

98-99 701 37.2% 49 2.6% 750 1135 1885 

99-00 690 23.9% 61 2.1% 751 2141 2892 

00-01 939 25.6% 164 4.5% 1103 2559 3662 

01-02 1585 28.7% 276 5.0% 1861 3658 5519 

02-03 816 26.5% 142 4.6% 958 2121 3079 

03-04 1088 32.1% 190 5.6% 1278 2111 3389 

Mean 819 32.0% 137 5.4% 956 1668 2624 

Table 8-64. Percent of Umatilla and non-endemic hatchery returns available to spawn in nature. Umatilla Non-endemic 

 Umatilla Hatchery Non-Endemic Hatchery Total 

 Hatchery Percent of Hatchery Percent of Hatchery Natural Total 

Brood Potential Total Pot. Potential Total Pot. Potential Potential Potential 

Year Spawners Spawners Spawners Spawners Spawners Spawners Spawners 

93 345 21.9% 62 3.9% 407 1165 1572 

94 204 19.0% 23 2.1% 227 847 1074 

95 420 32.4% 95 7.3% 515 783 1298 

96 522 28.8% 95 5.2% 617 1194 1811 

97 1146 51.7% 155 7.0% 1301 914 2215 

98 609 39.8% 149 9.7% 758 771 1529 

99 538 33.7% 37 2.3% 575 1020 1595 

00 543 20.7% 48 1.8% 591 2030 2621 

01 774 23.1% 135 4.0% 909 2444 3353 

02 1389 26.9% 241 4.7% 1630 3542 5172 

03 688 24.4% 119 4.2% 807 2015 2822 

04 942 30.3% 164 5.3% 1106 2003 3109 

Mean 677 29.4% 110 4.8% 787 1561 2348 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-139

Distribution of Hatchery and Natural Adults 

In 2003, 70.0% of the summer steelhead available to spawn (fish released above TMFD minus 

all harvest components) were natural origin, and during spawning surveys 68.9% of the 

spawning steelhead identified were natural-origin (Schwartz et al. 2005; Table 8-66). 

Adult steelhead were trapped and counted at Birch Creek by ODFW from 1995 to 1999 (DeBano 

et el. 2004; Table 8-65). The fish were collected in a fish ladder trap on a diversion dam located 

approximately 1/4 mile downstream of the confluence of the East and West forks of Birch Creek. 

An estimated 60% of the adult steelhead that pass this location jump over the diversion dam and 

are not counted in the trap. In 1995-1996, ODFW biologists conducted a mark/recapture study 

that led to a total escapement estimate above the trap location of 358 natural-origin and 15 

hatchery-origin fish for a total of 373. For that year, this accounted for approximately 30% of 

the natural-origin fish that were counted at TMFD on the Umatilla. Mark/recapture data in other 

years were insufficient to make an accurate escapement estimate. A significant proportion of 

spawners observed on spawning ground surveys from 2001-2004 were hatchery origin in some 

locations within the population (Schwartz et al. 2005; Table 8-66). 

Table 8-65. Adult summer steelhead collected at the fish trap on Birch Creek (Tim Bailey, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication, January 2001). 

Run Year 

Natural-origin Hatchery-origin % Hatchery Total 

1995-96 143 6 4 149 

1996-97 109 6 5 115 

1997-98 85 1 1 86 

1998-99 73 0 0 73 

Table 8-66. Visual observations of natural and hatchery summer steelhead during spawning 

ground surveys (from Schwartz et al. 2005). 

Similarity between Hatchery-Origin and Natural-Origin Fish 

Hatchery summer steelhead are produced primarily from unmarked summer steelhead returning 

to the subbasin. All hatchery juveniles are released as one-year smolts, compared to naturalorigin summer steelhead that emigrate primarily as two-year smolts, with some three- and fouryear-old smolts. The adult return timing and relative monthly percent of hatchery and natural 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-140

steelhead returning overlap closely. No large-scale seasonal separation exists between natural 

and hatchery steelhead, however Chi-Square and Kolmolgorov-Smirnov tests reveal significant 

differences between natural and hatchery frequencies on a monthly scale for most years (Chess et 

al. 2003a). The female-to-male ratio of natural summer steelhead is higher than hatchery 

steelhead. Female summer steelhead comprised 69.3 ± 1.3% (mean ± SE) of the natural return 

for return years 1992-93 through 2001-02, whereas females comprised 57.3 ± 2.3% (mean ± SE) 

of the hatchery return for the same period (Chess et al. 2003a). Age structure of hatchery and 

natural steelhead is similar. For run years 1992-93 through 2001-02, natural female summer 

steelhead were 58.8 ± 4.8% (mean ± SE) one-salt, compared to 57.2 ± 5.1% (mean ± SE) onesalt for hatchery female steelhead (not significantly different: ANOVA, P = 0.82; Chess et al. 

2003a). For the same years, natural male steelhead were 68.5 ± 5.1% (mean ± SE) one-salt 

compared to 74.6 ± 4.4% (mean ± SE) of the hatchery male returns (not significantly different: 

ANOVA, P = 0.37; Chess et al. 2003a). 

Smolt Releases and Acclimation Sites 

Umatilla hatchery steelhead have always been released as one-year-old smolts, and are currently 

released at approximately 4.5 fish per pound (FPP). From the mid 1980s to the present, Bonifer 

Springs Pond and the Minthorn Springs site have been consistently used for acclimating Umatilla 

River summer steelhead. Large-grade summer steelhead and small-grade steelhead were 

acclimated at Bonifer Springs from brood years 1992 to 1998, excluding 1995 when the smallgrade steelhead were acclimated at the Thornhollow site (RM 73.5). Bonifer Springs Pond is 

located at the confluence of Boston Canyon and Meacham creeks, two miles above the 

confluence with the Umatilla River at RM 80. Bonifer Springs Pond was used to acclimate 

steelhead because it is a tributary of Meacham Creek, which was identified as a major 

component of the available summer steelhead habitat in the Umatilla River subbasin (CTUIR 

and ODFW 1990) and was targeted for steelhead supplementation. Large-grade steelhead were 

acclimated at the Minthorn Springs site from brood year 1992 to 1998. The Minthorn Springs 

site is located at RM 64.5 of the mainstem Umatilla River. Minthorn Springs is a large spring 

system connected to the Umatilla River and floodplain. For brood years 1999 to 2001, smallgrade (pass A) steelhead were no longer acclimated at Bonifer Springs, instead smalls were 

acclimated at Minthorn Springs following acclimation and release of the large-grade steelhead. 

The second group of large-grade steelhead was acclimated at Bonifer Springs Pond. In an effort 

to increase smolt survival, co-managers decided to release some steelhead from Pendleton (RM 

56), the most downstream acclimation site in the subbasin. From 2002 to present, ungraded 

steelhead were released in approximately equal numbers (approx. 30,000-50,000 ea.) from the 

Pendleton and Minthorn acclimation facilities, and direct stream released in Boston Canyon 

Creek near Bonifer Springs. Acclimated fish are held in ponds for 2-3 weeks, allowed to 

volitionally migrate for one week, and then forced out of the ponds.

Juvenile Migration Timing 

Natural and hatchery steelhead show similar trends in out-migration timing, except for the earlier 

migration of natural fish (Chess et al. 2003a; Figure 8-19). Hatchery steelhead were released 

from acclimation sites in early and late April. Small-grade steelhead were reared an extra month 

in the hatchery, acclimated and released a month later than the large-grade steelhead. If the 

hatchery steelhead migrated out of the Umatilla River subbasin soon after release, then a distinct, 

bimodal distribution of hatchery out-migrants would be produced. This was the case for three of 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-141

four years. The 1999 out-migrant year was skewed, but unimodal for hatchery steelhead. 

Natural steelhead started migration earlier than the earliest release hatchery steelhead release 

date in all four years. A small percentage of natural and hatchery steelhead arrive in late May 

and early June. Natural and hatchery out-migrants are being detected at Three Mile Falls Dam 

during rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph. 

 

Figure 8-19. Migration timing of natural and hatchery summer steelhead smolts counted at Three 

Mile Falls Dam. The percentages were from weekly totals of fish divided by the respective total 

for the out-migration period. Daily Flow data at the lower Umatilla River gauge (RM 2.1) were 

averaged on a weekly interval (from Chess et al. 2003a).

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 Natural

Hatchery

Discharge at 

Umatilla

1998

10

20

30

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1999

% ABUNDANCE 

DISCHARGE 

10

20

30

40

50

400

800

1200

1600

2000 3/10 3/17

3/243/

31

4/7

4/144/214/28

5/5

5/125/195/27

6/3

6/106/176/24

7/17/8

7/15

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2001

10

20

30

WEEK
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-142

Residualism 

Steelhead, which were the smallest in the fall and were separated by grading for release in the 

spring, exhibited lower PIT tag detections at TMFD and lower smolt-to-adult survival, 

suggesting they either had lower out-migration survival or they were residualizing in the 

Umatilla River (Chess et al. 2003b). There was evidence that small-grade steelhead residualized 

and did not migrate until the second or third year following acclimation. Only 3 of 20 radiotagged, small-grade steelhead migrated out of the subbasin after release from the outlet of 

Bonifer Springs (Stonecypher et al. 2001). Several detections of small-grade steelhead, PITtagged two years earlier have occurred at TMFD (White et al. 2003), confirming delayed outmigration of the small-grade production. Contor et al. (1995) estimated that 1,100 hatchery 

steelhead residualized in Boston Canyon Creek, with evidence of displacement of natural 

steelhead found in the stream. Approximately 4,000 hatchery steelhead residualize each year in 

Boston Canyon, Meacham, Minthorn Springs creeks, and in the mainstem Umatilla River 

(Contor et al. 1995). This estimate was 2.5% to 3.3% of the total steelhead released per year in 

the Umatilla River. There is evidence that many residual steelhead move into the lower Umatilla 

River. In recent years, anglers reported catching adipose and ventral fin clipped “trout” in the 

Stanfield area (RM 32). Summer steelhead are no longer size graded, all are released at 

approximately 4.5 FPP. 

Other Salmonid Releases in the Umatilla Subbasin 

Besides summer steelhead, coho salmon and spring and fall Chinook salmon are also released in 

the Umatilla River annually. Approximately 810,000 spring Chinook salmon are released 

annually, 600,000 from Umatilla hatchery and an additional 210,000 from Little White Salmon 

Hatchery (LWSH). All spring Chinook salmon are acclimated at the Imeques acclimation 

facility (RM 80). Fish raised at Umatilla Hatchery are transferred in fall or winter and released 

in mid-March at 12 FPP, whereas steelhead raised at LWSH are transferred to the acclimation 

site in mid-March and released in mid-April at 15 FPP. Approximately 1.5 million coho salmon 

are released in the Umatilla River annually. All coho salmon are acclimated at the Pendleton 

acclimation facility and released at 15 FPP. Half (~750,000) are transferred to the acclimation 

site in mid-February and released in mid-March and the other half are transferred in Mid-March 

and released in mid-April. Approximately 1.08 million fall Chinook salmon are released in the 

Umatilla River annually, of which 600,000 are subyearlings and 480,000 are yearlings. Half of 

the subyearlings (~300,000) are transferred to the Thornhollow acclimation site (RM 73.5) in 

early May and released in late May at 50 FPP, whereas the other half are direct stream released 

at Umatilla RM 49 in late May at 35 FPP. All yearling fall Chinook salmon are acclimated and 

released from the Thornhollow acclimation facility at 10 FPP. One half (240,000) are transferred 

in mid-February and released in mid-March, while the second half is transferred in mid-March 

and released mid-April. 

Program Performance 

The stray rate for hatchery summer steelhead has not been estimated. The mean smolt-to-adult 

survival rate for brood years 1991-97 was 0.42% (small grade range: 0.03-0.21; large grade 

range: 0.02-1.52; Chess et al. 2003a). The annual return of summer steelhead to TMFD averaged 

819 for the 1992-93 through 2003-04 run years (Table 8-63). Natural-origin summer steelhead 

returns for the same period averaged 1,668 annually. Harvest has not met expectations, with 

fewer than 100 steelhead caught annually from 1994 to 1999 (Chess et al. 2003a). However, an 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-143

estimated 114 steelhead were caught in 2000-01 and an estimated 278 were caught in 2001-02 

(Chess et al. 2003b). 

Potential Limiting Factors Influencing Viability 

The net effect of the Umatilla hatchery program is unknown, but recent natural-origin 

escapements have been high (Table 8-63). Almost 30% of steelhead available to spawn naturally 

originates from the Umatilla Hatchery. The use of natural-origin steelhead for broodstock 

reduces the potential for divergence of the hatchery-origin steelhead from the natural-origin fish. 

Smolt releases occur during the normal migration period of natural steelhead, and it appears that 

most fish emigrate soon after release. However, there is evidence that some smolts residualize 

and remain in the Umatilla River another year. These fish may compete with naturally produced 

fish for habitat and prey resources. 

Out-of-DPS strays pose several risks to the wild Umatilla steelhead population. A primary risk 

is spawner composition because out-of-DPS strays account for a mean of 4.8% of fish that return 

to TMFD, and because average hatchery fraction on the spawning grounds is 29.4%. 

8.6.6 Walla Walla River Steelhead 

There is one summer steelhead hatchery program in the Walla Walla River, operated by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication). 

Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

The Lyons Ferry Hatchery (LFH) segregated program involves the release of non-endemic LFH 

steelhead stock in the Walla Walla subbasin. Approximately 100,000 smolts are direct stream 

released annually in the lower Walla Walla River just downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. 

Smolts released into the Walla Walla have been targeted at 4.5 fish per pound to reduce 

residualism, insure rapid emigration, reduce interactions between wild and hatchery steelhead, 

and increase survival (WDFW 2005). 

The LFH stock program utilizes a non-endemic steelhead hatchery stock originally developed 

from Wells Hatchery (Wells Stock) on the upper Columbia River. Other steelhead stocks were 

also used in the past to fulfill production needs (Wallowa, Pahsimeroi, Oxbow, and Ringold 

stocks). Hatchery origin adults (mainly Wells and Wallowa stocks) were later trapped on site at 

LFH to build LFH stock summer steelhead. 

Broodstock Source, Collection and Spawning 

Broodstock collection, spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing for the program are conducted 

at LFH. Well water (52o

F) is the source for all facets of the hatchery production. The hatchery is 

operated in compliance with all applicable fish health guidelines and facility operation standards 

and protocols. Fish collected for broodstock are taken throughout the return or spawning period 

in proportions approximating the timing and age distribution of the population from which 

broodstock is taken. Annual broodstock collections goals for all LFH stock summer steelhead 

production programs are 360 adult hatchery returns. Additional fish may be collected to account 

for pre-spawning loss and incidence of IHNV in egg lots that are destroyed. Adults are spawned 

two males per female. Eggs are incubated without temperature regulation. Average eggs/female 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-144

is about 4,750 eggs. Fry are ponded in indoor rearing tanks and then moved to standard outdoor 

raceways. 

Survival and Distribution 

Survival data collected to date indicate 89% survival from green egg to fry, and 68% survival 

from fry to smolt. Currently, about 100,000 smolts of the 345,000 total LFH Stock fish produced 

annually are released into the lower Walla Walla River from LFH. Releases were greater in the 

past (Table 8-67), but have been reduced because of ESA concerns. Currently, smolts are direct 

stream released at a size of 4-5 fish/lb at RM 35 between April 15 and 25. 

Table 8-67. Release of LFH, Wallowa, Wells and Ringold stock steelhead smolts into the Walla 

Walla River, 1983-2005 release years. 

Release Year Stock River Mile Number of smolts 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Wells 

Wells 

Wells 

Wells 

Wells, LFH 

LFH 

LFH, 

Wallowa 

Ringold 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

LFH 

28 

35 

35,40 

30,32,35 

30,32,35 

22,24,25,27 

22,24,25,27 

22,24,25,27 

23,25,26,27 

NA 

35,36 

23,24,25,27,30,34,

35 

30,34,35,36 

30,35 

30,35 

30,35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

91,260 

133,235 

115,200 

138,845 

124,973 

181,166 

106,140 

130,217 

198,749 

75,210 

83,240 

159,905 

158,875 

170,000 

170,980 

165,855 

176,000 

165,500 

103,980 

99,859 

102,975 

80,143 

10,4027 

The Walla Walla watershed above Nursery Bridge Dam (NBD) has been designated a wild, 

endemic steelhead production area. Until 1999, stray hatchery adult steelhead were trapped and 

removed at NBD, preventing them from entering the natural production area and spawning with 

wild fish. This trapping was discontinued after 1999. 

The termination of trapping at NBD causes a potential threat to the diversity of the endemic 

steelhead population. For all brood years on record (1993-2005) the proportion of hatchery fish 

passing NBD and allowed to escape with natural-origin fish to the spawning grounds has 

remained below 5% (Table 8-68). Nevertheless, the proportion of hatchery adults escaping 

above NBD has been increasing since adult trapping and removal of strays ceased in 1999. 

Further increases in the future will increase the risk for the natural steelhead population. There 

is considerable evidence of genetic introgression of LFH stock into the Walla Walla natural 

population (Narum et al. 2004). In addition, results of telemetry studies conducted by CTUIR 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-145

demonstrated spatial and temporal overlap in LFH and natural-origin fish. Carmichael (2006) 

concluded that the Walla Walla steelhead population was at moderate risk for the spawner 

composition viability metric. However, since out-of-DPS strays are no longer removed at NBD 

this risk level will rise to high in the future. Overall we consider the out-of-DPS spawners to be 

a key threat to the Walla Walla population. 

Table 8-68. Estimated numbers of adult hatchery- and natural-origin summer steelhead passing 

upstream of Nursery Bridge Dam from brood years 1993-2005. 

Brood Hatchery Natural Percent 

Year Steelhead Steelhead Hatchery 

1993 4 1695 0.2% 

1994 2 1113 0.2% 

1995 10 894 1.1% 

1996 15 745 2.0% 

1997 10 607 1.6% 

1998 6 786 0.8% 

1999 2 580 0.3% 

2000 27 1069 2.5% 

2001 75 1548 4.6% 

2002 89 2417 3.6% 

2003 46 1252 3.5% 

2004 NA NA NA 

2005 15 374 3.9% 

 

Mean 25 1,090 2.2% 

In 2001, WDFW reduced the number of non-endemic smolts released into the lower Walla Walla 

River to reduce genetic risks to the endemic steelhead population. The reduction was justified 

because the adult returns were exceeding compensation goals set by the Lower Snake River 

Compensation Program (Glen Mendel, WDFW, personal communication). Releases in the lower 

Walla Walla River were reduced from approximately 170,000 smolts annually to 100,000 smolts 

annually in 2001. It is unknown at this time whether these reduced stocking rates will reduce 

genetic risks to endemic steelhead in the Walla Walla River. 

WDFW is currently developing an endemic steelhead program for the Touchet River population. 

The Touchet is a tributary to the Walla Walla River located entirely in Washington State. The 

success of this program will determine whether the Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock used in the 

Walla Walla and Touchet rivers will continue to be propagated. Evaluation results, available in 

1-2 years, will also be used to determine whether to expand the endemic program (Glen Mendel, 

WDFW, personal communication). If the Touchet River endemic program is successful, it is 

possible that the endemic stock could be used to produce smolts for release in the lower Walla 

Walla River. 

8.7 Predation and Competition 

Oregon Mid-C steelhead are also affected by threats from predation and competition. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-146

8.7.1 Predation by Pinnipeds, Birds and Piscivorous Fish 

Predation by pinnipeds, birds, and piscivorous fish in the mainstem Columbia River has become 

a contributing factor affecting the viability of the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. 

Anthropogenic changes in the Columbia River have altered the relationships between salmonids 

and other fish, bird, and pinniped species. Some species’ abundance levels have increased 

dramatically, particularly in localized areas, with associated changes in predation of steelhead 

juveniles and adults (LCREP 2006). 

Predation by Pinnipeds 

The abundance of native pinnipeds has steadily increased since passage of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and California sea lions 

all prey on salmon and steelhead in the lower Columbia River (NPCC 2004). Before 1980, few 

California sea lions were observed in the Columbia River. However, in recent years, more and 

more sea lions have been traveling as far upstream as Bonneville Dam to prey on returning 

salmon and steelhead congregating below the dam. The fish often spend several days in the river 

below the dam before climbing the fish ladders. The minimum daily occurrence of pinnipeds at 

Bonneville Dam increased from 14 animals in 2002 to 54 in 2007. Some marked individuals 

have been repeatedly observed at Bonneville since 2002. Estimates of spring-run adult salmonid 

mortality due to sea lions at Bonneville Dam ranged from 0.4% in 2002 to 3.4% in 2006 and to 

4.1% in 2007 (USACE 2007; USACE unpublished data). These estimates do not account for 

pinniped mortality occurring in the 145 miles of the Columbia River downstream of Bonneville 

Dam. 

A pinniped hazing program has been implemented at Bonneville Dam since 2005, but the efforts 

have largely been ineffective. Recently, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have 

applied to NOAA Fisheries for authorization under Section 120 of the MMPA to lethally remove 

problem California sea lions. NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Office in Seattle has 

appointed an 18-person panel of experts to review the request. 

Predation by Avian Predators 

Alteration of the estuary environment has lead to a significant increase in the number of native 

bird species, such as Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants, in the area, with measurable 

impacts on stream-type salmonids (BPA, BOR, and USACE 2004). These increases in 

population in the Columbia River estuary are attributed to the deposition of dredge spoils that 

represent high-quality habitat for the birds (Bottom et al. 2005). The loss of habitat elsewhere 

has contributed to terns and cormorants effectively relocating to the Columbia River estuary, 

with the populations there now representing the largest nesting colonies in North America. 

In 1997 it was estimated that avian predators consumed 10 to 30% of the total estuarine salmonid 

smolt production in that year (NPCC 2004). The draft 2005 season summary of Research, 

Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and MidColumbia River (Collis and Roby 2006) estimates that 3.6 million juvenile salmonids were 

consumed by terns in 2005. Double-crested cormorants consume a similar number of juvenile 

salmonids (approximately 3.6 million juveniles) from their East Sand Island nesting grounds 

(LCREP 2006; Collis and Roby 2006). Caspian terns on Crescent Island, an island in the mid-
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-147

Columbia that was also created by dredge spoils, consumed an estimated 679,000 juvenile 

salmonids during the 2001 breeding season (Antolos et al. 2005). 

Predation by Piscivorous Fishes 

The northern pikeminnow is a native piscivore that preys on juvenile salmon and steelhead in the 

Columbia River. Although northern pikeminnow have always been a significant source of 

mortality for juvenile salmonids in the mainstem Columbia, changes in physical habitats may 

have created more favorable conditions for predation (NPCC 2004). Dams can stress and 

disorient migrating smolts, making them vulnerable to predators. Dams may also delay 

migration, thereby increasing travel time and exposure to predators. Northern pikeminnow were 

found to be the major piscivore responsible for predation on juvenile salmonids, with mortality 

potentially similar to that caused by dam passage (Rieman et al.1991). Since 1990, the Northern 

Pikeminnow Management Program (NPMP) has implemented fisheries targeting northern 

pikeminnow at an exploitation rate of 10-20%. This level of exploitation is expected to reduce 

predation on juvenile salmonids by 25-50% (Rieman and Beamesderfer 1990). 

A wide variety of fish species have been introduced into the mainstem Columbia River. Among 

these introduced species, walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish are considered to be the 

most successful as predators of juvenile salmonids (Gray and Rondorf 1986; Poe et al.1991). 

Densities of non-indigenous predators have been found to be higher in impoundments created by 

mainstem dams compared to the unimpounded Columbia River below Bonneville Dam 

(Zimmerman and Parker 1995). Sampling suggests that smallmouth bass abundance in The 

Dalles and John Day reservoirs, as well as walleye abundance in parts of John Day Reservoir, 

has increased in recent years (Takata et al. 2007). Although non-indigenous species do not prey 

on juvenile salmonids to the extent that northern pikeminnow do, they can be an important 

predator at certain times and locations (Poe et al.1991). 

8.7.2 Intra-Species Interactions 

Unique to the Deschutes River Westside population is the presence of a highly abundant 

population of large resident rainbow trout throughout the population. Nowhere in any of the 

other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations, except in the mainstem Deschutes River reaches of 

the Deschutes River Eastside population, are abundant large rainbow trout found. Cramer and 

Beamsderfer (2006) concluded that habitat conditions (perennial steady flows and cool 

temperatures) in many areas in the upper Deschutes subbasin favor production of resident 

rainbow trout over steelhead. Similar habitat conditions are also found in much of the currently 

available habitat of the Deschutes River Westside population. 

Current abundance for steelhead in the Westside population is low relative to the quantity and 

quality of habitat available. With the exception of the South Fork John Day River population, 

the Deschutes River Westside population has the lowest current abundance of all other Oregon 

Mid-C steelhead populations. 

Although we cannot quantify the effects of resident rainbow trout on the capacity of steelhead in 

the Westside population, we hypothesize that the capacity may be significantly reduced by 

competition with resident rainbow. This hypothesis is supported by the conclusion of Cramer 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-148

and Beamesderfer (2006) regarding steelhead production capacity in the upper Deschutes 

subbasin. Although there may be reduced steelhead capacity resulting from the abundance of 

resident rainbow trout, this should be viewed as a natural outcome. Thus, no management 

actions are proposed to address this potential natural interaction effect. If, in the future, 

additional studies confirm this reduction in capacity in waters with abundant larger rainbow 

trout, then the abundance criteria for the Deschutes River Westside steelhead should be 

reevaluated. 

8.8 Climate Change 

This section describes the potential environment changes that will accompany climate change in 

the future and some likely life stage specific responses for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead. In 

addition, we have developed a potential climate change vulnerability risk index based on 

projected future stream temperatures, projected future springtime water availability, and 

historical variation in precipitation. 

8.8.1 Steelhead Habitat Impacts 

Climate change will alter environmental conditions across the entire life cycle for all life stages 

of Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River steelhead. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding 

the magnitude of loss and degradation of salmonid habitat in the Columbia Basin that will result 

from climate change. The magnitude of environmental change will vary considerable across 

ecoregions and thus will have different impacts on viability of steelhead populations within the 

Mid-C DPS. In general, habitats at lower elevations east of the Cascade Mountains in the 

southern portion of the Columbia River basin will experience the greatest level of change (ISAB 

2007a). 

Many of the environmental attributes that will be influenced by climate change (temperature and 

hydrograph) are those that have already been influenced significantly by past land use and are 

currently considered key limiting factors. The degree to which climate change will impact a 

given population is partially dependent on the degree to which natural processes have already 

been altered. A number of reviews have recently been completed that characterize potential 

climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest (O’Neal 2002; Mote et al. 2003; ISAB 2007a; 

Michael and O’Brien 2008). The environmental changes most often described as significant 

threats to salmonid viability include: 

• Increased air and stream temperatures 

• Reduced snow pack and a shift in precipitation from snow to rain 

• Altered hydrographs with earlier and higher peak flows, and lower summer-fall flows 

• More frequent extreme storm events 

• Increased periods of drought 

• Changing ocean temperatures and current patterns 

• More frequent and severe fire events 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-149

8.8.2 Potential Life Stage Specific Impacts 

The ISAB (2007) generally characterized potential impacts of climate change to salmonids in the 

 Columbia River basin. Expanding on their conclusions with a specific focus on Oregon’s MidColumbia River steelhead, we developed the following summary of potential life stage specific 

impacts of climate change. Again, we emphasize that the life stage specific impacts will vary 

considerably between populations based on many factors, and our summary attempts to capture 

the range of potential impacts across all populations. 

Egg incubation: The potential for increased mortality exists due to increased flood 

events in early spring resulting in greater redd scouring and dewatering of redds due to low 

spring flows (Jager et al. 1997). Increased temperatures will result in accelerated embryo 

development and earlier fry emergence. 

Fry emergence and colonization: Warmer spring temperatures will likely result in 

earlier fry emergence. Fry emergence timing is critical for successful colonization, thus altered 

emergence timing may reduce success in colonizing quality habitat and increase mortality. 

Summer rearing: Most Mid-C steelhead spend a minimum of two summers srearing 

prior to smolt seasonal migration. Reduced summer flows and increased temperatures will 

impact both the quality and quantity of summer rearing habitat. Summer temperatures currently 

limit habitat quality and quantity in most Oregon Mid-C populations. Lower flows and warmer 

temperatures have the potential to influence steelhead in many ways. The potential effects 

include the following: 

• Reduced rearing capacity due to loss of habitat that reaches lethal temperatures 

• Reduced growth rates due to metabolic stress of high temperatures 

• Increased growth rates in some locations that are currently below growth optimum 

temperatures 

• Reduced ability to compete with non-native and native competitors due to elevated 

temperatures 

• Increased predation mortality resulting from more active, abundant, and effective 

predators at high temperatures 

Overwinter Rearing 

Environmental changes have the potential to influence growth and survival including: 

• Reduced growth rates resulting from higher metabolic demands and low available food 

resources 

• Increased growth rates resulting from increased temperatures 

• Increased overwinter mortality resulting from more frequent and intense winter flood 

events 

• Reduced or improved overwinter survival resulting from changes in body size at the 

onset of winter 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-150

Smolt Migration 

Environmental changes have the potential to influence migration timing and survival including: 

• Alteration of smolt seaward migration timing as a result of hydrographic changes, prior 

 life stage growth patterns, and size-at-age 

• Alteration of the proportion of steelhead offspring that express anadromous and resident 

life history strategies as a result of changes in prior life stage growth rates and size-at-age 

• Increased smolt mortality in tributary and mainstem migratory corridor due to elevated 

temperatures and increased predation 

• Increased smolt mortality resulting from prolonged migration timing resulting from 

reduced flows 

Smolt to Adult Ocean Rearing 

Environmental changes have the potential to influence survival, growth, and age-at-maturation 

including: 

• Increased mortality at time of ocean entrance due to mismatch in smolt physiology and 

ocean entrance timing 

• Reduced early ocean survival due to changes in temperature, plume dynamics, and 

predator-prey relationships 

• Altered ocean growth patterns due to elevated temperatures and altered current patterns 

resulting in reduced survival and changes in adult age at return 

Adult Migration and Holding 

Environmental changes have the potential to influence migration timing, survival, and straying 

including: 

• Reduced migration success and increased mortality due to increased mainstem 

temperatures during the summer migration period. Increased temperatures can influence 

migration success and survival in a variety of ways including increased energetic 

demands, delayed passage, and direct mortality due to lethal temperature encounters 

• Potential for increased straying, for some populations, into summer coldwater refugia like 

the Deschutes River 

• Increased pre-spawn mortality due to high late summer and fall temperatures in adult 

holding habitat 

Adult Spawning 

Environmental changes have the potential to influence spawn timing and spawner distribution 

including: 

• Shifts in adult spawn timing resulting from increased temperature and associated changes 

in sexual maturation rates during adult migration and holding periods (some Mid-C adult 

steelhead spend up to 11 months in freshwater prior to spawning) 

• Shifts in adult spawner distribution due to flow and temperature changes in tributary 

spawning areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-151

8.8.3 Potential Vulnerability Risk to Climate Change 

Introduction 

There is a considerable amount of new information available regarding the potential impacts of 

climate change on air temperature, precipitation, and rain/snowfall patterns. Although some 

work is underway to assess the impacts of environmental change on salmon in the Pacific 

Northwest, there is no spatially explicit information available for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead 

populations that links climate change to potential vulnerability. 

We have taken the first step in linking climate change to potential vulnerability risk by 

developing an integrated risk analysis. One key objective of this effort is to produce maps that 

will serve as the basis for comparing the high priority tributary habitat actions and targeted 

limiting factors with geographic areas that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. We 

want to emphasize that this effort is only a first step and that this should serve as a stepping stone 

for others to build from and improve on. 

As discussed earlier, climate change will pose significant challenges to steelhead ecology 

throughout the entire life cycle. The magnitude of environmental change will vary considerably 

from one geographic area to another, even within the boundaries of an individual population. 

Ideally, we would like to assess the potential effects of climate change on abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of all Oregon Mid-C populations and determine the 

effectiveness of our management strategies in addressing climate impacts. However, the state of 

knowledge is not yet advanced to the point to allow this level of quantitative assessment. 

To characterize spatially explicit, potential vulnerability risk we utilized available environmental 

information to develop three risk metrics and a combined overall risk metric that integrates the 

three individual metrics. We chose key environmental parameters that should change 

significantly under all climate change scenarios and that should provide adaptive challenges to 

multiple life stages of Mid-C steelhead. We selected changes in springtime available water 

(Graves 2008) to index potential future risk for spawning and changes in peak summer 

temperature (Cooney and Holzer, in prep) to index potential future risk for summer rearing 

capacity and growth, incubation, and emergence/colonization. We also utilized past variation in 

precipitation (Brown 2009) as an index of adaptive capacity. 

Approach 

Springtime Water Availability Change (SWAC)

Graves (2008) compiled contemporary climate conditions (1971-2000) from PRISM data (Daly 

et al. 1994) in a GIS format for Columbia Basin watersheds. He then conducted an analysis to 

assess monthly water balances from precipitation and snowmelt for three future climate 

timeframes ( 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s) using future projections of monthly temperatures and 

precipitation changes generated by the University of Washington Climate Impact Group 

(UWCIG 2007). This UWCIG (2007) data included monthly expected change in temperature 

and precipitation from the baseline period including 2010-2029 (2020s), 2030-2059 (2040s) and 

2070-2099 (2080s). These projections of change were applied to the spatial grid of 

contemporary climate, producing a scalable result. Graves (2008) assessed changes in water 

availability for seven subbasins that are of importance to Columbia River Basin tribes. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-152

We conducted our analyses in a five step sequence: 

1. We obtained percent change in water availability from contemporary climate conditions 

(1971-2000) to the 2040s future climate scenario (Graves 2008). 

2. We aggregated the data for each 6th field hydrologic unit (HUC6) for all Mid-C populations. 

3. We calculated the percent springtime water availability change (SWAC) for each month and 

each HUC6. We selected the months of March, April, and May for our analyses because these 

months represent the period of time for spawning, incubation, fry emergence and fry 

colonization for most Oregon Mid-C steelhead. Therefore, hydrograph changes during this 

critical time period will pose significant adaptive challenges to multiple life stages. 

We calculated the mean percent directionless change in springtime water availability for each 

HUC6 as: 

NSWAC

SWAC SWAC SWAC

SWAC 1 2 ++ 3 =

 where 

 SWAC1 = March absolute value of percent change in water availability 

 SWAC2 = April absolute value of percent change in water availability 

 SWAC3 = May absolute value of percent change in water availability 

 N SWAC = number of months 

4. We developed risk rating criteria to categorize values into four risk levels. Criteria were 

based on expert opinion, manually selected categories: 

 Very Low Risk: SWAC = 1.2%-5.0% 

 Low Risk: SWAC = 5.1%-15.0% 

 Moderate Risk: SWAC = 15.1%-35.0% 

 High Risk: SWAC = 35.1%-203.1% 

5. We mapped the SWAC and risk rating for each HUC6 for all populations. These results were 

used in the development of the integrated risk assessment. 

Summer Temperature Change (STC)

Interior Columbia basin naturally produced steelhead populations rely on tributary habitats for 

juvenile rearing. Interior steelhead typically emerge from spawning gravels in the early summer 

of their natal year, spending two or more summer growth seasons in freshwater prior to 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-153

emigrating to the ocean. Smolt outmigration sampling indicates that emigration may be 

triggered by reaching a size threshold (e.g., Mullan et al. 1992). As with other salmonids, stream 

temperatures are extremely influential on juvenile growth and mortality rates (McCullough 

1999). 

Climate modeling projections for the Interior Columbia indicate a warming trend in air 

temperatures over the next 20 to 80 years (e.g., Mote and Salathe 2009). Mantua et al. (2009) 

developed statistical models relating patterns in available historical stream temperature records 

to associated air temperature estimates from throughout Washington State. The stream sites used 

in that analysis were largely associated with major mainstems or lower sections of river systems, 

very few of the sample series in their study were from upper tributary habitats used by juvenile 

steelhead. Cooney and Holzer (in prep) used recent historical stream temperature series from 

upper tributary habitats, exhibiting the physical characteristics associated with juvenile steelhead 

rearing, to model the potential impacts of increased temperatures on juvenile steelhead growth 

potential. This analysis had two major objectives: to highlight high intrinsic potential steelhead 

production areas across populations within the Columbia River basin that are particularly 

vulnerable to projected temperature increases and to identify representative drainages in which to 

carry out more detailed temperature assessments that would include groundwater interactions, 

etc. 

Recent historical stream temperature data: Stream temperature data sets were collected from 

various agencies, including federal (USGS, NOAA), state (Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, Washington State Department of Ecology), and tribal (Nez Perce) sources. The 

candidate data sets were limited to those that: 1) included at least two summers after 2000, and 

2) were located within Interior Columbia basin stream reaches identified as historic or current 

natural steelhead spawning/rearing areas. In a few cases, locations on streams blocked to 

anadromous migration were included in order to incorporate data series from underrepresented 

ecotypes. The Yakima River mainstem sites were excluded due to the influence of the highly 

modified flow regimes in that system. In addition, locations elsewhere throughout the Interior 

Columbia basin that are located directly downstream from reservoirs were excluded. Cooney 

and Holzer (in prep) also discarded temperature series in very small tributaries directly 

associated with springs. After screening, a total of 167 sites were available for the analysis. 

Stream temperature models: Stream temperatures in a given tributary reach can be influenced by 

a number of factors in addition to local air temperatures (e.g., Isaak and Hurbert 2001). Reach 

specific factors that could influence stream temperatures include air temperature, topography, 

flow, geology (e.g., potential for groundwater influence), and shading. Stream temperatures in a 

tributary reach can also be influenced by upstream conditions such as basin area, mean 

precipitation, ice or snow contribution (such as from glaciers) and geology. A set of candidate 

variables representing these potential factors was selected from available Interior Columbia basin 

GIS data sets. 

A forward stepwise multiple regression analysis (Statgraphics REGRESS routine) was used to 

generate statistical models of mean summer stream temperatures (defined as the maximum two 

week average stream temperature during July or August). A cross-validation approach was used 

for the analysis, each of the 167 site-series was randomly assigned to one of three groups. The 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-154

stepwise multiple regression analysis was repeated three times, leaving out one of the random 

groups for each repeat. Residuals were calculated for the out-of-sample set for each of the three 

runs and tabulated. Three variables were identified among the three runs as having the most 

significant influence: mean maximum air temperature, elevation range (ln) and percent forest 

cover. A fourth variable, basin alluvial geology, was included in the analyses for two of the 

three subsets. Given the high degree of consistency among results from the subset analyses, the 

data sets were combined in an aggregate analysis. 

Projected stream temperatures: The resulting aggregated stream temperature model was applied 

to estimate two-week mean average stream temperatures for current steelhead rearing habitats in 

accessible stream reaches and potential habitat within extinct population reaches. Estimates 

were expressed at the reach level for rearing habitats associated with each Interior Columbia 

steelhead population. The current distribution of steelhead production within stream networks 

was adapted from ICTRT data and generally reflects the distribution extent developed by state 

agencies (WDFW, ODFW, and IDFG). Historically occupied areas that are targeted for 

reintroductions were incorporated using an intrinsic potential habitat analysis (ICTRT 2007) as a 

proxy for current distribution. Temperature estimates were calculated for current conditions as 

well as for climate change projections. The potential increases in stream temperatures 

corresponding to future climate scenarios were generated by increasing the estimated current air 

temperature input values at the reach level by the average incremental change projected by the 

climate models (1.1, 1.3 and 3.1 °C by 2020, 2040 and 2080 after Mantua et al. 2009). The 

resulting point estimates of mean temperature by stream reach were summarized by HUC6 

subbasins. Aggregate values were then assigned to potential growth categories. The growth 

categories were assigned based on information summarized in McCullough (1999) and are 

presented below: 

 

We mapped the temperatures and growth categories for current conditions and a 2080 

temperature scenario. 

Risk assessment: The statistical models used to estimate stream temperatures had a relatively 

high degree of uncertainty. An estimate of the relative uncertainty in predicting stream 

temperatures based on a residuals analysis was directly incorporated in calculating a relative risk 

index at the reach level summarized by HUC6. The risk index was expressed relative to the 

Stream Temperature Growth Impact 

Assumption

<4.5 °C Zero Growth

4.5 to 10 °C Cold Growth

10 to 15 °C Optimum Growth 

15 to 19 °C Warm Growth

19 to 20 °C Zero Growth

> 20 °C Negative 

Growth/Lethality
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-155

lower threshold of zero growth temperature zone (19 °C). Using either the aggregate or 

composite model, approximately 80% of observed temperature values fell above the model 

predicted value +2 °C. If the point estimate of stream temperature for a HUC6 was between 19 

and 21 °C the risk was classified as High. If the point estimate exceeded the 19 °C threshold by 

2 °C or more, the risk rating was set at Very High. If the point estimate was more than 2 °C 

below the threshold (<17 °C), the HUC6 was rated at Low risk. Relative risk levels were 

assigned based on the following thresholds: 

 

The relative risk levels for the 2080 scenario were mapped and incorporated into the integrated 

risk analyses. 

Historical Precipitation Variation (HPV) 

We used historical precipitation variation as a metric to index adaptive capacity. As discussed 

earlier adult spawn timing, egg incubation, and fry emergence are key Mid-C steelhead life 

stages that are likely to be impacted by climate change, specifically hydrograph and temperature 

changes. 

A variety of salmon life history traits have been shown to vary with environment characteristics 

including flow, elevation, and temperature (Waples et al. 2004; Quinn 2005). Characteristic life 

history strategies, that are often geographically unique, represent adaptation to local 

environmental conditions (Lichatowich 1999). Many authors have concluded that life history 

strategies are an adaptive response to environmental conditions and when climate or habitat 

changes occur some life history strategies will perform better than others (Lichatowich 1999). 

McClure et al. (2008) concluded that some key adult and early life-stage traits are closely linked 

with environmental conditions and have moderate to high levels of heritability. Particularly 

relevant to Mid-C steelhead vulnerability to hydrograph and temperature changes, phenotypic 

traits such as adult migration timing, spawn timing, developmental rate, and emergence timing 

are known to be heritable and vary between populations. 

Life history diversity and degree of local adaptation are key elements influencing population 

capacity to deal with variable and changing environments. The ability of populations to adapt to 

changing environments depends, in part, on the rate and magnitude of environmental change as 

well as the inherent life history variation. Those populations that persist in highly variable 

environments and that exhibit diverse life history patterns will likely have greater capacity to 

Predicted

Temperature

Assigned 

Risk

< 17 °C Low

17 to 19 ° C Moderate

19 to 21 °C High

> 21 °C VeryHigh
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-156

adapt to changing environments. Brown (2009) hypothesized that the capacity of basins to adapt 

to water availability changes will likely be dependent on the level of historic precipitation. We 

hypothesize that populations which persist in areas with highly variable precipitation patterns 

will have greater resilience to future climate change than populations which reside in low 

precipation variability areas. 

To link environmental variation to adaptive capacity risk, we conducted the HPV analyses in a 

four step sequence: 

1. We obtained precipitation coefficient of variation data from Brown (2009) with the original 

data source of PRISM. 

2. We aggregated the data for each HUC6 for all Mid-C steelhead populations. 

3. We developed risk rating criteria to categorize values into four risk levels. Categories were 

based on natural break (Jenks 1967) methodology: 

 Very low risk: CV = 0.688 – 0.865 

 Low risk: CV = 0.596 – 0.687 

 Moderate risk: CV = 0.513 – 0.595 

 High risk: CV = 0.413 – 0.512 

4. We mapped HPV and risk ratings for each HUC6 for all populations. We then used the HPV 

results in the integrated risk assessment. 

Integrated Potential Vulnerability Risk

We combined the three individual risk metrics to develop an integrated potential vulnerability 

risk index. The integrated risk index was developed to identify the geographic areas where 

climate change is projected to influence multiple environmental factors and life stages. We 

weighted the influence of STC risk greater than SWAC risk, and SWAC risk greater than HPV 

risk. We placed the greatest weight on STC because of the potential impacts to capacity, 

survival, and life history that are associated with the magnitude of temperature changes that are 

projected to occur. 

We developed rating criteria to categorize risk into four levels. Table 8-69 shows the 

combinations of SWAC , STC and HPV which were designated as very low, low, moderate and 

high risk. 

 Very low risk: assigned when the metric combinations were low risk and very low risk. 

 

 Low risk: assigned when the metric combinations included one metric at moderate risk 

 with two metrics at low or very low risk, or, all three metrics with low risk. 

 High risk: assigned when STC was very high risk regardless of the other metric ratings, 

 when there were two high risks with any other risk rating, and if SWAC or STC were 

 high and the other two metrics were moderate. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-157

 Moderate risk: assigned to all other risk combinations. 

We mapped the integrated risk index for each currently occupied HUC6 for all populations and 

HUC6s in the Deschutes Basin where steelhead reintroductions are planned. 

Table 8-69. Criteria for considering springtime water availability change ( SWAC ), summer 

temperature change (STC), and historical precipitation variation (HPV) climate change risk 

metrics into an integrated potential climate change vulnerability index. The order of individual 

metric risk ratings is SWAC , STC, HPV. (VH=Very High; H=High, M=Moderate, L=Low, 

VL=Very Low) 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 Integrated Risk Category 

 High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Very Low Risk

 H VH H M H L L M L L L VL 

 H VH M M H VL L M VL VL L L 

 H VH L L H M VL M L VL L VL 

 H VH VL L H L VL M VL 

 M VH H L H VL M L L 

 M VH M VL H M M L VL 

 M VH L VL H L L L M 

 M VH VL VL H VL L L L 

 L VH H H M L VL L H 

 L VH M H M VL VL L M 

 L VH L M M H 

 L VH VL M M M 

 VL VH H M M L 

 VL VH M M M VL 

 VL VH L L M H 

 VL VH VL L M M 

 H H H VL M H 

 H H M VL M M 

 H H L H L M 

 H H VL H L L 

 M H H H L VL 

 M H M M L H 

 L H H M L M 

 VL H H L L H 

 H M H 

 H M M 

 H L H 

______________________________________________________________________________ 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-158

Results and Discussion

Springtime Water Availability Change

The percent change in springtime water availability and the associated risk levels are shown for 

each HUC6 in Figure 8-20. We observed a similar pattern in springtime water availability as 

described in Graves (2008) and Mantua et al. (2009). Mantua et al. (2009) concluded that many 

of the Washington State Mid-Columbia River steelhead basins will transition from rain and snow 

basins to rainfall dominant basins resulting in significant hydrograph shifts. In our analysis, 

moderate to higher elevation areas showed the greatest SWAC , and thus the highest risk levels. 

There were only a few populations with substantial areas that were rated as high risk, including 

the North Fork, Middle Fork, and Upper Mainstem John Day populations. The geographic areas 

with the highest risk levels were those areas with significant at-risk snow (Nolin and Daly 2006; 

Brown 2009) that are projected to shift from snow-dominated to rain-dominated precipitation 

patterns by mid-century (Graves 2008). Much of the currently occupied spawning habitat within 

all populations, except the Deschutes River Eastside and Lower John Day River, was classified 

at moderate risk. 

The water availability at HUC6 scale serves as a reasonable index of potential hydrograph 

changes for headwater and lower order streams. However, flow in larger mainstem, higher order 

streams is not influenced significantly by local area water availability, rather by upstream 

tributary flow inputs. Therefore, the SWAC analysis does not effectively index potential 

hydrograph changes for mainstem higher order stream reaches. The effect of this bias on our 

analysis is somewhat minimized because steelhead spawning distribution is concentrated in 

lower order tributary streams. The development of hydrologic models (see Mantua et al. 2009) 

to characterize future hydrograph changes would significantly improve the ability to characterize 

geographic specific risk to Mid-C steelhead in Oregon. In addition, inclusion of ground water 

inputs as well as water withdrawals would increase the value and applicability of the analysis. 

Summer Temperature Change

Modeled, mean stream temperatures and the associated steelhead growth zones for current 

conditions and the 2080 climate scenarios are shown in Figures 8-21 and 8-22 respectively 

(Cooney and Holzer, in prep). Significant proportions of the Deschutes River Eastside, Lower 

Mainstem John Day River, Umatilla River, and Walla Walla River populations currently exhibit 

mean summer temperatures residing in the zero net growth and negative growth zones (Figure 8-

21). Many of the streams and rivers within the Mid-Columbia Oregon population boundaries 

exhibited mean summer temperatures in the negative growth zone in the 2080 climate scenario 

(Figure 8-22). A majority of the streams and rivers within the boundaries of the Deschutes River 

Eastside, Lower Mainstem John Day River, Umatilla River, and Walla Walla River populations 

show predicted mean summer temperatures exceeding 20 °C in the 2080 climate scenario (Figure 

8-22). 

Maximum mean summer stream temperature risk levels are shown in Figure 8-23. All 

populations showed areas with Very High and/or High risk. Populations that showed the greatest 

vulnerability with large proportions of the streams and rivers in Very High and High risk 

included the Deschutes River Eastside, Lower Mainstem John Day River, Umatilla River and 

Walla Walla River. All populations exhibited Low and Moderate risk categories at the higher 

elevation headwater reaches (Figure 8-23). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-159

Historical Precipitation Variation

The historical coefficient of variation and associated risk levels are presented in Figure 8-24. A 

pattern emerged that showed low precipitation variation and high risk ratings in currently 

occupied areas within populations in the eastside of the DPS (SF, Upper Mainstem, MF, NF John 

Day River, Umatilla River, and Walla Walla River) whose headwaters originate in the Blue 

Mountains. In contrast, currently occupied areas within populations in the westside of the DPS 

(Fifteenmile Creek and Deschutes River Westside) whose headwaters originate from the 

eastslope of the Cascades Mountains showed moderate to high precipitation variation and 

moderate to low risk ratings (Figure 8-24). 

Integrated Potential Vulnerability Risk

Extensive geographic areas within all populations, except Fifteenmile Creek and Deschutes 

River Eastside, exhibit high vulnerability risk (Figure 8-25). In addition, all populations have a 

substantial proportion of the geographic area rated at moderate risk. 

Two patterns emerged that are characteristic of the areas rated at high risk. High risk levels for 

higher elevation areas within the John Day River populations were attributable to the 

combination of high risk for SWAC and HPV. In contrast, the high risk ratings for lower 

elevation areas in many of the populations, particularly evident in the Lower Mainstem John 

Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla populations, resulted primarily from the STC risk. 

Results that are of particular concern for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations include: 

1. The very small number of HUC6s that were at low or very low risk. 

2. Many populations, including the South Fork John Day, Upper Mainstem John Day, 

Middle Fork John Day, North Fork John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla, have the entire 

geographic area within the population boundaries rated at moderate or high risk. 

3. The combination of environmental characteristics that are projected to change under 

future climate scenarios will threaten capacity, productivity, diversity and spatial 

distribution from both lower elevations upward and higher elevations downward. The 

life stages, capacity, and productivity impacts will vary depending on the specific 

environmental factors that are altered and the adaptive capacity. 

As discussed earlier, we recognize this is a first step in development of a climate change 

vulnerability index for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead. Significant improvements to the approach 

can be made with use of hydrologic models that project reach scale flow changes, use of 

historical flow variation instead of precipitation variation, and incorporation of other 

environmental factors and life stages in the analysis. In addition, it would be beneficial to 

examine the relationship between current life stage specific habitat use and potential 

vulnerability risk for each population. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-160

Figure 8-20. Percent change in springtime water availability (March-May) from baseline 

conditions (1971-2000) to future conditions (2040s) and projected future relative risk to 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units). Data sources include Graves 

(2008) and UWCIG (2007). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-161

Figure 8-21. Modeled current summer (July 21-August 3) stream temperatures and growth zone 

characterization for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units). From Cooney 

and Holzer, in prep. All areas shown in the Crooked River and Deschutes River WestsideHistoric are currently unoccupied; however, reintroduction efforts are currently underway in 

some areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-162

Figure 8-22. Modeled future (2080) summer (July 21-August 3) stream temperatures and growth 

zone characterization for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units). From 

Cooney and Holzer, in prep. All areas shown in the Crooked River and Deschutes River 

Westside-Historic are currently unoccupied; however, reintroduction efforts are currently 

underway in some areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-163

Figure 8-23. Projected future relative risk to Mid-Columbia River steelhead habitat (6th field 

hydrologic units) due to changes in summer (July 21-August 3) stream temperatures from current 

(2010) to future (2080) conditions. Data source is Cooney and Holzer, in prep. All areas shown 

in the Crooked River and Deschutes River Westside-Historic are currently unoccupied; however, 

reintroduction efforts are currently underway in some areas. 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-164

Figure 8-24. Precipitation coefficient of variation for the period (1971-2007) and relative risk 

for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (6th field hydrologic units). Data sources include Brown 

(2009) and PRISM Climate Group (2007). 
Section 8, Limiting Factors and Threats 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

8-165

Figure 8-25. Integrated climate change potential vulnerability risk for Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead (6th field hydrologic units). Integrated risk index was developed from springtime 

water availability change risk, summer temperature change risk, and historical variation in 

precipitation. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-1

Section 9 Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

This section describes strategic guidance, strategies and specific management actions proposed 

for achieving recovery of Oregon populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. The 

strategic guidance supplies the framework for developing strategies and prioritizing actions at all 

scales. The management strategies and actions provide an integrated approach to address threats 

across the entire life cycle. These are identified in sections 9.3 (Tributary Habitat), 9.4 

(Hydrosystem), 9.5 (Estuarine and Plume Habitat), 9.6 (Harvest), 9.7 (Hatcheries) and 9.8 

(Predation and Competition). Together the strategies and actions provide broad guidance for 

recovery efforts at the local and regional level, consistent with both regional and local visions, as 

well as detailed management actions. 

While fundamentally intended to produce biological results, strategies and actions included in 

this plan also reflect economic, political, social, and cultural considerations. In particular, they 

are framed to regain DPS viability as well as make progress beyond delisting criteria to broad 

sense recovery goals. These considerations are critical to the prospects for developing and 

implementing an effective and equitable plan. It is expected that additional actions will be 

incorporated over time as part of the ongoing adaptive management process. 

9.1 Strategic Guidance for Management Actions 

Achieving recovery for the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS will depend on restoring the 

viability of extant populations in major population groups to levels that support the proper 

functioning of the DPS. This will require intensive effort by individuals at the regional, 

watershed and local levels. It is clear that not all of the management actions that should be 

implemented can be done in the near-term due to various constraints. 

The purpose of this strategic framework is to provide guidance for developing and prioritizing 

management actions to recover Mid-C steelhead populations. Prioritized actions will lead to 

more timely and effective results. Our strategic vision recognizes that reversing the decline of 

key populations, life histories, and habitats requires use of well-formulated scientifically sound 

approaches. Since multiple causes are responsible for impaired population viability and disrupted 

ecosystem function, limiting factors and threats throughout the entire life cycle will need to be 

addressed in concert. Efforts must also be focused to protect and enhance populations that are 

critical to achieving DPS recovery. 

As part of this and other planning processes, management actions and strategies were developed 

at multiple scales including tributaries, watersheds, and the Columbia River mainstem and 

estuary to achieve recovery of local populations. This strategic framework is used as strategic 

guidance for where, when, and how actions identified in this plan are implemented to address 

factors and threats limiting viability of extant and extirpated Mid-C steelhead populations. 

Managing for past, current and future adverse impacts of human activities throughout the life 

cycle is critical to achieving recovery goals. Development and implementation of management 

actions that lead to recovery will require a sound understanding of conservation biology 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-2

principles and ecosystem management as well as integration of leadership, planning, funding, 

monitoring, policy and science such that each contributes synergistically in a timely and effective 

manner. The approaches to ecosystem restoration and management actions needed to achieve 

recovery goals will necessarily vary by ecosystem type, management objectives of the various 

lands and ownerships within the ecosystem, and social and economic capacity to support the 

effort. Actions that balance achievement of sustainable environmental, social, cultural and 

economic processes have the best chance of success for the long term. 

The primary goals of the recovery plan are to: 

1) Sustain the ecosystem processes that currently, and will in the future, support high 

quality habitats and their productive capacity. 

2) Enhance ecosystem processes that are impaired but are currently important to 

productive capacity. 

3) Restore habitat and ecosystem processes that were historically important but do not 

currently contribute to productive capacity. 

We identified some key principles (adapted from Meffe and Carrol 2002) that form the basis for 

sound salmon recovery efforts, including: 

1) Set aside or protect the highest quality habitat 

2) Prevent any further habitat degradation 

3) Maintain and restore critical ecological processes 

4) Develop goals and objectives based on thorough understanding of ecological 

processes and properties of the systems 

5) Conserve and restore evolutionary processes 

6) Manage in an adaptive manner that is minimally intrusive 

Conservation of the existing quality habitat that supports core production and primary life history 

types ― as well as quality migration habitats within populations and across the DPS ― is the 

critical first step toward recovery. This needs to include a shared vision of desired ecosystem 

conditions that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional perspectives and identifies 

ways in which all parties can contribute to and benefit from achieving the desired ecosystem 

conditions. Protecting and restoring the normative natural ecological processes throughout the 

entire life cycle is essential for conserving the productive capacity of the habitat. 

These principles provide general guidance but are difficult to apply specifically for prioritizing a 

broad list of actions at the population, major population group, and DPS levels. Because we 

have the need for criteria that deal with setting priorities across broad geographic and ecological 

scales, we propose more detailed prioritization considerations that are formulated from the 

broader conservation principles. In simplistic terms, the order of priority is first to protect and 

conserve high quality habitats and natural processes that currently support productive capacity 

and implement actions that provide immediate abundance and productivity benefits through 

reduction of key limiting factors and threats; second to enhance habitat and restore natural 

processes that are impaired but are currently important to productive capacity; and last to restore 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-3

habitat and natural processes that were historically important but do not currently contribute to 

productive capacity. 

9.1.1 Prioritization Considerations 

Setting priorities for management actions is difficult because of the scientific complexity and 

diverse policy issues and economic implications. Although priorities must be science based, 

they are ultimately policy choices. The following considerations are used as guidance and 

criteria for the development, prioritization, and implementation of management strategies and 

actions for recovery of Mid-C steelhead populations in Oregon. 

We consider actions that achieve the following to be highest priority: 

• Actions that provide long-term protection of habitat conditions and conservation of 

natural ecological processes that support the viability of priority extant populations 

and their primary life history strategies throughout their entire life cycle. A 

population is considered a priority if it is critical for MPG or DPS viability. 

• Actions that protect or enhance viability of multiple steelhead populations. 

• Actions that support conservation of unique and rare functioning habitats, habitat 

diversity, life histories and genetic attributes. 

• Actions that target the key limiting factors and that contribute the most to closing the 

gap between current status and desired future status of priority populations. 

• Actions that provide immediate benefits to enhancing the viability of priority 

populations. 

• Actions that provide critical information needed for assessing success and making 

adaptive management decisions. 

We consider the following types of actions to be high priority but less than highest: 

• Actions that enhance the habitat conditions and restore natural ecological processes of 

priority extant populations and their primary life history strategies throughout the 

entire life cycle. 

• Actions that enhance the viability across the entire life cycle of priority extant 

populations. 

• Actions that are required to protect and enhance habitats for populations that are not 

critical for MPG or ESU viability but must be maintained. 

Other things being equal, actions that demonstrate the following have enhanced priority: 

• Actions where opportunity for success is high (rather than those of limited feasibility). 

• Actions that likely produce a large (rather than small) improvement in viability 

attributes. 

• Actions that support restoration of normative ecological processes rather than shortterm substitutions for normative processes. 

• Actions that are complementary to other land management, water quality, 

environmental management and recreational objectives as specified in fish 

management, conservation, recovery or other plans developed with and supported by 

regional and subbasin stakeholders (rather than those that are isolated, stand-alone 

efforts). 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-4

• Actions that have regional and local support and generate increased participation. 

• Actions that demonstrate cost effectiveness relative to alternative means of achieving 

the same objectives. 

• Actions that have high degree of certainty in effectiveness and outcome. 

9.2 An Integrated Approach 

In previous sections of this plan we identified delisting goals, broad sense recovery goals, current 

status and viability gaps, as well as limiting factors and threats across the entire life cycle. These 

elements serve as essential building blocks for identifying the strategies and actions needed to 

close viability gaps, reach delisting status, and progress toward our broad sense recovery goals. 

The strategies and actions are developed to address the viability gaps and primary threats and 

factors currently limiting recovery of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. Our integrated 

approach is designed to ensure that recovery efforts are developed and implemented in a 

scientifically sound and systematic manner. We strive to ensure that all recovery actions 

effectively complement and support each other in achieving the broad sense recovery goals. 

Recovery strategies are designed to address the twelve types of factors discussed in Section 8, 

Limiting Factors and Threats, that affect steelhead viability throughout their entire life cycle. 

These factors fall into six different categories: tributary habitat; estuary/mainstem habitat; 

mainstem hydropower configurations and operations; in-subbasin and out-of-subbasin harvest; 

hatcheries; and predation and competition. Similarly, strategies and actions described in this 

section address threats and limiting factors in each of these categories. Table 9-1 illustrates the 

kinds of connections that exist between limiting factors, strategies, and actions. 

The integrated approach is also intended to ensure that costs and consequences of achieving 

recovery are equitable across the affected constituencies. Recovery can be achieved with 

different combinations of actions implemented at different intensities among and on varying 

timelines. Thus, the plan defines expectations and direction for the various parties who will 

implement elements of the plan in a broader context of scientific, technical, economic, political, 

social, and cultural considerations. The plan also includes a strategic prioritization framework to 

provide flexibility for implementing parties to select, scale, and adapt regional and local 

strategies and actions to optimize effectiveness and efficiency in plan implementation, while also 

ensuring that steps toward recovery are consistent with regional goals and objectives. 

Recovery of the Mid-C steelhead DPS is predicated on assumptions that: 1) remaining 

populations still retain the inherent characteristics needed to sustain healthy, harvestable levels 

when suitable conditions are provided; 2) declining trends can be reversed with appropriate 

actions; and 3) society is willing and able to implement appropriate strategies and their 

associated actions in a suitable timeframe. Guidance from the ICTRT recognizes that it may not 

be feasible, nor required, to protect and restore all existing populations to viable status. ICTRT 

criteria allow some populations to maintain status below viability standards. The plan assumes 

that a focused and broadly based effort will protect and restore a sufficient number of 

populations to ensure long-term viability and opportunities for harvest. This effort will require 

concerted and substantive action by people throughout the region. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-5

Table 9-1. Integrated approach to address threats and factors limiting recovery of Oregon’s 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead populations. 

Strategies Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats 

Addressed 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes that support the 

viability of populations and their 

primary life history strategies 

throughout their life cycle. 

Protect highest quality habitats through acquisition and 

conservation. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements. 

Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes. 

Degradation of tributary habitat-forming 

processes and functions (loss of channel 

structure, floodplain connectivity, riparian 

vegetation, and LWD recruitment) 

Restore passage and connectivity to 

habitats blocked or impaired by 

artificial barriers and maintain 

properly functioning passage and 

connectivity. 

Provide passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as 

dams, road culverts and irrigation structures. 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions. 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Loss of historical habitat because of 

blocked or impaired fish passage (dams, 

culverts, unscreened diversions) 

Maintain and restore floodplain 

connectivity and function. 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to 

stream channels. 

Restore wet meadows. 

Reconnect floodplain to channel. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and 

function (loss of off-channel habitat, side 

channels, connected hypotheic zone) 

Restore degraded and maintain 

properly functioning channel structure 

and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

Stabilize streambanks. 

Restore natural channel form. 

Degraded channel structure and 

complexity (loss of spawning and rearing 

habitat, LWD, pools) 

Restore riparian condition and LWD 

recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities. 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian 

recovery. 

Degraded riparian condition (native 

riparian vegetative communities, LWD 

recruitment) 

Restore natural hydrograph to 

provide sufficient flow during critical 

periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures. 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream. 

Altered hydrology (low flow, scouring 

peak flows due to degraded watershed 

conditions, streamflow alterations and/or 

withdrawals for irrigation and other uses) 

Improve degraded water quality and 

maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations. 

Restore natural functions and processes through 

remediation actions. 

Degraded water quality (high 

temperatures, nutrients, pesticides and 

other chemicals) 

Restore degraded and maintain 

properly functioning upland 

processes to minimize unnatural 

rates of erosion and runoff. 

Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming. 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads. 

Restore native upland plant communities. 

Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, 

road management and agricultural practices. 

Altered sediment routing and runoff 

patterns due to upland management 

activities. 

Estuarine and Plume Habitat 

Restore degraded estuarine and 

plume habitats and associated 

ecological processes 

Protect/restore riparian areas 

Remove pile dikes 

Protect remaining high-quality off-channel habitat 

Breach or lower dikes and levees 

Identify and reduce sources of pollutants 

Monitor and restore contaminated sites 

Degraded estuarine and nearshore 

marine habitat reduces refugia available 

to juvenile steelhead in Columbia River 

estuary and plume as they prepare for 

ocean life. 

Hydropower Systems 

Operate the FCRPS to more closely 

approximate the shape of the natural 

hydrograph to enhance flows and 

water quality to improve juvenile and 

adult fish survival. 

Draft storage reservoirs (Libby, Hungry Horse, Grand 

Coulee, and Dworshak) in attempt to meet 

seasonal and weekly flow objectives in the lower 

Columbia River during July and August. 

Pursue negotiations with Canada to provide 1 million 

acre feet of storage to augment summer flows. 

Meet Non-Treaty storage refill responsibilities and 

pursue a new long-term agreement on use of nontreaty space in Canadian reservoirs. 

Implement drafts and other measures to improve flows 

Altered steelhead migration conditions 

and delayed passage due to 

hydrosystem development and 

operations in mainstem Columbia River. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-6

Strategies Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats 

Addressed 

during the lowest 20th percentile years. 

Implement Water Quality Plan for Total Dissolved Gas 

and Water Temperature in the Mainstem Columbia 

and Snake rivers. 

Modify Columbia and Snake River 

dams to maximize juvenile and adult 

survival. 

Implement project specific configurations and 

operations at the eight mainstem dams on the lower 

Snake and Columbia rivers. 

Altered juvenile and adult steelhead 

migration conditions due to mainstem 

Columbia River hydrosystem. 

Implement spill and juvenile 

transportation improvements at 

Columbia and Snake River dams. 

Provide spill to improve juvenile fish passage. 

Implement interim transportation program to improve 

survival of transported fish. 

Altered juvenile and adult steelhead 

migration conditions due to mainstem 

Columbia River hydrosystem. 

Operate and maintain juvenile and 

adult fish passage facilities at Corps 

mainstem projects to maintain 

biological performance. 

Corps will operate juvenile and adult passage facilities 

year around with the regionally coordinate Fish 

Passage Plan. 

Altered juvenile and adult steelhead 

migration conditions due to mainstem 

Columbia River hydrosystem. 

Restore sustainable natural steelhead 

production to blocked habitats in the 

Deschutes River Westside, 

Deschutes River Eastside and extinct 

Crooked River populations. 

Develop downstream collection and passage through 

Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Improve flow patterns through reservoir for juvenile 

migration. 

Modify hydro operations to restore water quality. 

Tributary hydrosystem operations and 

configurations block access to historical 

habitats and alter habitat conditions in 

Deschutes River system. 

Improve hydrosystem operations and 

facilities to enhance steelhead 

survival and viability in the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla river systems. 

Modify bypass flows at Boyd Project as needed to 

mimic instream water right. 

Modify fish passage facilities at Boyd Project to meet 

current standards. 

Remove weir panels from diversion dam at Boyd 

Project during non-operation. 

Maintain trash racks at Boyd Project. 

Modify fishway at Twin Reservoirs Project to meet 

juvenile fish passage standards. 

Tributary hydrosystem operations and 

configurations impair passage and alter 

habitat conditions in the Umatilla and 

Walla Walla river systems. 

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low 

impact fisheries and reduce harvestrelated adverse effects in those 

fisheries that have significant 

impacts. 

Maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce 

harvest-related adverse effects in those fisheries that 

have significant impacts. 

Commercial, recreational and tribal 

fisheries in ocean, mainstem Columbia 

River and tributaries 

Utilize tributary harvest to reduce 

abundance and proportion of stray 

hatchery spawners in Deschutes and 

John Day subbasins. 

Develop educational outreach program to promote use 

of selective recreational fisheries to reduce the 

number of out-of-subbasin hatchery strays. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery 

spawners into tributary spawning 

grounds. 

Reduce catch and release mortality 

on natural-origin fish in John Day 

subbasin. 

Promote voluntary curtailment of fishing at higher 

water temperatures (above 21°C) to reduce hookand-release mortality 

Adverse effects of tributary harvest on 

natural steelhead in John Day subbasin. 

Improve quality of harvest and 

natural-origin fish in John Day 

subbasin. 

Expand the creel surveys to monitor fisheries effort 

and catch. 

Adverse effects of tributary harvest on 

natural steelhead in John Day subbasin. 

Hatcheries 

Reduce uncertainty of origin of 

hatchery strays and increase ability to 

recognize hatchery-origin fish. 

Implement representative coded-wire-tagging program 

so all hatchery stocks have adequate CWT groups 

released annually. 

Recommend development of alternative broodstocks 

to reduce stray rates for programs that contribute 

significantly to stray problem. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish into 

natural spawning grounds. 

Reduce uncertainty in abundance 

and proportion of hatchery strays 

spawning naturally with Fifteenmile, 

Deschutes Eastside and Lower John 

Day populations. 

Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish 

on spawning grounds through additional stream 

surveys and other methods. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish into 

natural spawning areas of Fifteenmile, 

Deschutes Eastside and Lower Mainstem 

John Day populations. 

Reduce abundance and proportion of 

stray hatchery fish that spawn 

naturally with Deschutes Westside, 

Deschutes Eastside, Umatilla and 

Construct, improve trapping facilities and expand 

operations. 

Eliminate adult hatchery strays above Nursery Bridge 

Dam. 

Straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish into 

natural spawning areas. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-7

Strategies Types of Actions Limiting Factors and Threats 

Addressed 

Walla Walla populations. 

Reduce genetic risks to Deschutes 

Westside population from Round 

Butte Hatchery Program. 

Investigate opportunities and risks associated with 

incorporating naturally produced Deschutes River 

summer steelhead into RBH broodstock. 

Inside-DPS hatchery genetic risks 

Restore natural production into 

historically utilized habitats in the 

Deschutes Westside and Umatilla 

populations. 

Develop plan for steelhead reintroduction into 

historical habitat above Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex when passage is restored. 

Re-establish natural production in Little Butter and 

Butter creeks and some minor spawning areas. 

Risks related to steelhead reintroductions 

to historical habitat using inside-DPS 

hatchery fish. 

Reduce genetic influence of hatchery 

fish in hatchery broodstock in the 

Umatilla subbasin. 

Eliminate use of hatchery produced adults in the 

broodstock 

Potential divergence in genetic and 

phenotypic traits between hatchery and 

natural-origin steelhead. 

Reduce interactions between residual 

hatchery steelhead and natural 

steelhead in the Umatilla subbasin. 

No consensus actions. Risk of hatchery fish competing with and 

preying on natural steelhead juveniles 

Reduce potential negative ecological 

interactions between coho salmon 

and natural steelhead in the Umatilla 

subbasin. 

Reduce number of hatchery coho released in Umatilla 

River and relocate releases downstream to areas not 

currently important to steelhead production 

Potential for coho smolts to compete with 

juvenile steelhead for prey resources and 

space 

Predation and Competition 

Reduce predation and competition in 

the Columbia River mainstem, 

estuary and plume. 

Reduce predation by pinnipeds 

Redistribute Caspian terns 

Redistribute cormorants 

Increased predation on steelhead due to 

degraded estuarine and plume habitats, 

and to hydrosystem development and 

operations in mainstem Columbia River. 

9.2.1 Building on Current Efforts 

We recognize that many steps have already been taken or are currently underway that will 

improve the status of different Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. In tributary watersheds 

state and federal natural resource managers, tribes, local governments, watershed councils, soil 

and water conservation districts, non-profit organizations, local land owners and others continue 

to improve stream conditions to support viable steelhead populations throughout their freshwater 

life stages. They are also improving land use practices on uplands and floodplains that are 

allowing natural ecosystem functions and processes to recover. State of Oregon Forest Practices 

Rules were adopted in 2002 and provide improved protection through a variety of guidelines. 

The rules address roads built in critical locations, and in addition, private landowners implement 

voluntary actions to address conditions on roads built prior to 2002. Private forest landowners 

have experienced disincentives to active placement of large wood in the past. A recent decision 

has led to the ability of private landowners to place large wood under the authority of the Oregon 

Forest Practices Act without additional permits. This streamlined process has renewed 

landowner enthusiasm to place large wood. Federal lands are managed under PACFISH and 

Northwest Forest Plan guidelines. These guidelines provide significantly improved protection 

and restoration standards on federal lands. 

Oregon Water Resources Department has made progress in enhancement of streamflows. Live 

surface flow is closed to new appropriations in 99% of the Mid-C area during the low flow 

period in the month of August. To date, 1,760 stream miles are protected by in-stream water 

rights, and in 2006, 85 cfs was restored to Mid-C streams. Interest in voluntary flow restoration 

is gradually increasing. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-8

To illustrate the magnitude of effort that is underway and the types of projects completed, we 

compiled a list of habitat projects that have been implemented in each population on all types of 

lands over the past 11 years (Appendix C). Similar efforts are underway in the Columbia River 

estuary that will improve estuarine and plume habitats and reduce predation (Appendix D). In 

the mainstem Columbia River, hydrosystem managers and fish resource mangers continue to 

refine hydropower system operations to address the needs for survival and recovery of the Mid-C 

steelhead DPS and other ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Many hydropower configuration and 

operational improvements have been implemented in recent years that have provided survival 

benefits for Mid-C steelhead (Appendix D). In the Hydro BiOp remand process, new 

hydropower configuration and operational improvements are proposed. 

Hatchery programs operated within the DPS have been modified substantially over the past 10 

years to reduce threats and improve contribution to recovery. Programs have been reduced in 

scope, release locations have been modified, and considerable emphasis has been placed on 

assessing the source and potential impacts of strays. As described earlier, extensive harvest 

management changes in both the mainstem and tributaries have been implemented to reduce the 

impacts of fisheries. 

This plan is designed to build upon past and current efforts that are already improving population 

viability and habitat conditions. Many of these efforts are described in the plan along with their 

sufficiency and gaps so that future actions expand from and improve the effectiveness of the 

efforts. Spreading the responsibility among a range of parties lessens the cost to any one group, 

increases the certainty of success, and compounds the benefits of moderate improvements in 

each factor. 

Together, the strategies and actions identified in the following subsections outline an integrated 

approach that will support the viability of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations and their 

primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. These strategies and actions are 

designed to address threats to population viability from tributary habitat degradation, estuarine 

and nearshore marine habitat degradation, the Columbia River hydropower system, harvest 

management, hatchery management, and predation. 

9.3 Tributary Habitat Strategies and Actions 

The suites of strategies and actions proposed in this section will protect and improve ecosystem 

functions and restore normative ecological processes to levels that support recovery of Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead populations. The strategies and actions were developed by planning teams 

comprised of natural resource specialists for the Fifteenmile, Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and 

Walla Walla watersheds. The actions reflect direction identified in related regional and local 

plans, recent modeling and research findings, and local expert input provided by the planning 

team members. Together, these strategies and actions call for maintaining high quality habitats 

and their productive capacity, improving ecosystem processes and habitats that are impaired but 

are currently important to productive capacity, and habitat restoration through passive and active 

measures. The strategies and actions represent a complete list of needs, somewhat unconstrained 

by logistic and financial concerns. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-9

• Protection of existing high quality habitats is a broad economical approach of ensuring no 

net loss in habitat quality and maintenance of normative ecological processes. Many 

objectives are likely to be met through habitat protection and the associated natural 

recovery of upland and riparian areas. Land acquisitions, easements, cooperative 

agreements, and protective land designations facilitate the accomplishment of high 

quality habitat protection. 

• Maintaining improved habitats and halting further degradation in habitats that are not at 

desired condition but are still important to productive capacity is an important element of 

habitat management. Changes resulting from improved land use practices can be an 

important element to improve habitat management and ecosystem function. Education, 

comprehensive land use planning, and regulations can provide habitat protection and 

support ecosystem functions by managing growth and land use so that critical habitats 

and watershed functions are preserved. Those that are integrated with social and 

economic goals while providing desired protection are most sustainable. 

• Broad opportunities exist to improve habitat conditions for Mid-C steelhead populations 

through restoration. The success of these strategies is enhanced when actions build from 

existing restoration efforts, incorporate a range of project types that address the many 

interrelated habitat impairments, and take into account socioeconomic and institutional 

perspectives. Generally, our strategies and actions stress passive approaches to 

restoration (such as changes in grazing management that promote riparian recovery) over 

active restoration (manual placement of structures) as the preferred approaches to overall 

habitat restoration. In some areas, regulations are expected to provide passive 

restoration; however, we recognize that riparian function may take a long time to fully 

recover. Active restoration can provide improvements in some cases while natural 

processes are being restored through passive approaches. 

We defined eight tributary habitat strategies that are directly linked to the limiting factors. We 

organized the habitat actions and associated information for each population by the habitat 

strategies: 

 Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability 

 of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

 Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

 barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. 

 Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

 Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

 complexity. 

 Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

 functioning conditions. 

 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-10

 Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

 Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

 

 Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

 minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

For each strategy, we examined key programs that currently contribute to actions that serve to 

achieve the strategy, as well as the sufficiency of the existing programs. We identified specific 

actions needed to fill the gaps between what is currently being implemented and what is needed 

in the long term to fully achieve the strategy. Actions differ from strategies in that they address 

specific needs for a specified geographic area, program deficiencies, as well as biophysical 

habitat impairments and threats. 

We also identified priority areas and actions for each population based on relative importance in 

meeting local and regional recovery objectives for Mid-C steelhead (Figure 9-1). Priority 1 

reaches represent the habitats where management actions will yield the greatest benefits towards 

improving the viability. The strategic guidance provided earlier in this section served as the 

basis for identifying priority areas and actions within each population. We realize that the result 

of our process is a long list of priority 1 and priority 2 habitat actions for each population. We 

view the population specific implementation plans as the vehicles for developing the specific 

time and place roadmap for implementation of priority actions. We recognize there is repetition 

in the actions between populations. We envision local groups using the individual population 

action tables for development of specific implementation plans. 

Figure 9-1. Flow chart illustrating the process for development of tributary habitat strategies, 

actions, and programs and their characteristics. 

Tributary Habitat 

Strategies 

 Priority Actions and 

 Geographic Areas 

Strategic Guidance for 

Development and 

Prioritization 

Factors Addressed

Limiting Factors 

Threats 

VSP Parameters 

Life Stages 

Population Specific Limiting Factors, 

 Threats, and Viability Gaps 

Existing Progress

Agency - Program 

Location 

Sufficiency 

Action Implementation

Implementing Entity 

Spatial Coverage 

Implementation and 

Response Timeline 

Certainty 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-11

The following tables show strategies and actions needed to address tributary habitat limiting 

factors and threats for Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. The tributary habitat strategies are 

not presented in priority order. Strategy tables for each population identify specific actions, 

limiting factors and threats addressed, and viability parameters and life stages that are most 

affected. Individual actions are described in terms of the status of current efforts, implementing 

entities, strategies addressed, spatial coverage, implementation timeframe, expected biophysical 

response timeframe and certainty of outcome. Priority locations are stream reaches or areas 

where actions should be implemented first to achieve the greatest benefit. Education and 

outreach actions are discussed in the first strategy only; however, they need to be applied to the 

implementation of all eight of the habitat strategies for all populations. 

The tables also identify key programs that are currently implementing actions and discuss 

program sufficiency and gaps. Program sufficiency, sufficiency rationale, and program 

improvement needs for State of Oregon programs and most Federal programs were assessed 

through a formal process conducted by the State of Oregon and the Federal entities. These 

reviews resulted in independent reports that were then used to compile the sufficiency 

information in the action tables. The Oregon State Agencies program sufficiency report is not 

finalized; therefore, the actual sufficiency ratings were not available for use in this document. 

However, rationale related to the strengths and weaknesses of the State Agency programs is 

available and appended to this plan. For the non-state and non-federal programs, as well as 

federal programs that were not reviewed in the USFS/BLM Program Sufficiency Assessment, 

program sufficiency was assessed by the management action teams in cooperation with the 

implementing entities. Program sufficiency assessments are difficult to conduct. In many cases 

the legal mandates of a specific program were not necessarily developed for the purposes of 

recovering steelhead. The conclusions of an assessment can be biased when the assessment is 

conducted by the managers of the program for a variety of reasons. Unbiased outside reviews 

are probably the best approach, but can be very costly and take considerable time. We caution 

readers not to place too much emphasis on the sufficiency ratings themselves. We view the 

value of the sufficiency assessments primarily in characterizing the constraints, types of 

improvements, and modifications that would result in improved effectiveness of programs 

contributing to recovery of Mid-C steelhead. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-12

9.3.1 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: low flows, high water temperatures, sedimentation, channel confinement, impa

ecosystems, and reduced habitat quality.Primary threats: roads, residential development, agricultural practices and forest uses. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and 

history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation measures 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Hwy 197 upstream to FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 upstream to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (mouth to FS boundary) 2-Fivemile Creek from Hwy 197 upstream to headwaters. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All All All Protecti

cost effegood quexpenshigh quthe habProtectiareas is contribuhabitat easemewill faciprotecti

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Considering the unique winter life history form present for the MaSA, and no other winter steelhead in DPS, they are all unique. Entire MaSA 1-South Fork Mill Cr. (Water treatment to falls) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All All All Protecti

the moshave goSouth Fplant to of few apristine

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

1-Fifteenmile Creek MaSA and MiSA All factors All All All To prev

existing applied 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

1-Entire population All factors All All All Program 

through understconditio
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-13

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation measures. 

CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, USDA FSA, land trusts, NGOs 

Ongoing Population-wide Existing conservation agreements are 

complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 25 years or more 

Conservation benimmediate 

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

Land trusts, CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, NGOs, USFS 

Ongoing Population-wide Immediate Immediate 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

SWCD, USFS, private landowners, ODA, CTWSRO 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term Degradation prev

immediate, impro15-25 years 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers. 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

USFS Fifteenmile Riverkeeper USFS lands and non-forest lands 

under Wyden Amendment Authority 

Likely Positive results where t

implemented, but it couin the population, and blands. Contingent on y

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Private lands throughout 

population 

No Positive results where t

implemented, but fundilimits the amount of avalegal guarantees that la

USFS Northwest Forest Plan All Mt. Hood National Forest lands Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

Wasco County SWCD/USDA FSA CREP, CRP Private riparian areas and qualified 

uplands throughout population 

Uncertain Both programs are effe

and uplands, however aenrolled. CRP program County. Some landownprograms. See State o

Appendix F. 

Oregon Water Trust or other entity Lease or purchase instream water rights Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Fivemile 

MaSA 

No Program has been effe

maintaining water instredifficult. Many landownIt is important to secure instream flow. 

Wasco County SWCD No-till Conversion Uplands throughout population An effective program at 

expanded to additional 

OWEB Watershed Councils Fifteenmile and The Dalles See State of Oregon pr
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-14

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

watershed council 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Fifteenmile population unit See State of Oregon prCTWSRO Watershed Restoration Tribal lands on Fifteenmile Creek No Various programs desig

and upland conditions arestoration and protecti

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forestlands in 

Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile creeks 

See State of Oregon pr

Local Government, irrigation districts 

City and County Planning and Zoning Private lands throughout the entire 

population 

Yes Compliance with zoning 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many programs already in place in the subbasin are designed to restore physical habitat. These programs have proven effective, but it will take years to return the stream to a more natuExisting forest plans include special management designations for riparian reserves. Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation b

and BLM plans have been amended by the Northwest Forest Plan that requires riparian reserve boundaries of two site potential tree heights on both sides of any fish bearing stream standards and guidelines to ensure protection of aquatic and riparian resources. Compliance with riparian reserve standards and guidelines for a variety of land use activities includcattle grazing, and others has been very good. 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancemen

program pays landowners not to farm highly erodible soils and the CREP program pays landowners for setting riparian corridors aside from grazing and farming. The long term effec

limited by the relatively short duration of the contracts which ranges from 10 to 15 years. 

ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trus

on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

1-Barriers that limit adult access: Ramsey Creek (culvert FS 4450 Rd), Ramsey Creek (Olsen Irrigation Diversion RM 3.5), Fifteenmile Tenold 

Diversion (RM 2.0), Culvert at FS Rd. 44, Dam at Boys Scout Camp Baldwin on Ramsey Creek (RM 11.0) 2-Barriers that limit juvenile access: Fifteenmile same as adults Threemile Creek (Hwys. I-84 & 197) Chenowith Creek Bridge at Hwy. 30 Fixed Long, Douglas, Standard Hollows Mays Canyon 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Spatsteeand hostmidd2004

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

1-Additonal survey needed to identify unscreened diversions 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Spatial structure, 

Primarily adults and 

Knowcrite
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-15

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

2-All known diversions are screened in the Fifteenmile MaSA. 

productivity 0+juveniles 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

1-Additional survey needed 2-Fifteenmile all known screens meet criteria. 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected 

Respons

Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, SWCD, ODFW Ongoing At barriers Ongoing Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, BPA, NOAA Fish Ongoing At point of diversion All legal diversions screened in 

Fifteenmile. Need further survey work to determine number of screens in other areas 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW, BPA, NOAA Fish Ongoing At point of diversion Legal diversion meets criteria. Need 

further survey work in MiSA to determine number of screens 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

S

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening—State and 

Federal funded programs 

Unscreened or poorly screened diversions throughout population 

Uncertain Continued fundin

New and replaceAppendix F for S

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Threemile Creek culvert at Hwy. I-84 and Hwy. 

197; Chenowith Creek Bridge at Hwy. 30 

See State of OreAppendix F. 

USFS Culvert replacement USFS lands Likely Funding and prio

Timeframe for co

Wasco County Road Department, OWEB, Wasco County SWCD 

Culvert replacement North Fk Mill Creek (RM 6.0) Funding and prio

State of Oregon 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The technology to provide sufficient passage conditions with screens and culverts is available and in use. Programs implementing these improvements are generally underfunded thus r

ratings. The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005) provides guidance that will help prioritize culvert replacements for this popula

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream 

Abundance, productivity, 

Primarily fry, summer parr, 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-16

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 2-North Fk. Mill Cr. (mouth to FS boundary) 

sediment routing, degraded water quality 

habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

spatial structure winter parr 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 2-North Fk. Mill Cr. (mouth to FS boundary) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

Population-wide Degraded floodplain, 

altered hydrology, altered 

sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expecte

Respon

Reconnect floodplain habitats ODFW, watershed council, 

SWCD, USFS Riverkeeper 

Ongoing Improved connectivity with channel 

will be localized; improved water table will increase streamflow and lower water temperatures downstream. 

Long term 5-15 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS Riverkeeper 

Ongoing Improved connectivity with channel 

will be localized; improved water table will increase streamflow and lower water temperatures downstream. 

Long term 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

ODFW, USFS Ongoing Long Term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

USFS Fifteenmile Riverkeeper USFS lands and non-forest lands under 

Wyden Amendment Authority 

Likely Positive results where 

implemented, but it colands in the populatioforest lands. Contingappropriations. 

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project Private lands in MaSAs from forest service 

boundary downstream to mouth. 

No Additional projects ma

issue. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forestlands in Fifteenmile, 

Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile Creeks 

See State of Oregon 

Wasco SWCD Watershed restoration Areas from forest service boundary Conservation protecti
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-17

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

downstream on private lands. See 

review -- Appendix F. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Fifteenmile population unit See State of Oregon CTWSRO Watershed restoration Reservation lands No Various programs des

and upland conditions restoration and protec

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active resto

 needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form 1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 

1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 2-North Fk. Mill Cr. (mouth to FS boundary)

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily egg, alevins, fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Fifteenmchannesubseqphotos and ste(NPCC 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

1- Fifteenmile Cr.( Mouth to City of Dufur intake) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to Walston Grade (RM19.0)) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily egg, alevins, fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Many lepracticeand inshave le

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 2-North Fk. Mill Cr. (mouth to FS boundary) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily egg, alevins, fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Considewhile hathrough Limited identifie

Stabilize streambanks Limited areas throughout population Degraded channel structure 

and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily egg, alevins, fry, summer parr, winter parr 

Most acprotecte
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-18

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCD, USFS, BPA, 

OWEB, CTWSRO 

Expansion of existing efforts 

Local to treatment area Ongoing Increased habita

years) 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, USFS Expansion of 

existing efforts 

Local to treatment area Ongoing Increased habita

years) 

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

ODFW, USFS Expansion of 

existing efforts 

Local to treatment area Ongoing Increased habita

years) 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, SWCD, USFS Expansion of 

existing efforts 

Local to treatment area Ongoing Increased habita

years) 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

USFS Fifteenmile Riverkeeper USFS lands and non-forest lands 

under Wyden Amendment Authority 

Likely Positive results whe

implemented, but it clands in the populatiforest lands. Continappropriations. 

USFS Northwest Forest Plan All Mt. Hood National Forest lands Yes See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E and USStrategy (USDA-FS

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project Private lands in population from 

forest service boundary downstream to mouth 

Uncertain Additional projects m

an issue. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forestlands in 

Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile creeks 

See State of Oregon F. 

Wasco SWCD Watershed restoration Private agricultural lands Additional opportuni

and education. See review -- Appendix F

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private agricultural lands See State of Oregon 

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Reservation lands No Various programs d

stream, and upland Additional restorationeeded. 

OWEB Watershed Councils Private lands population-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active 

 needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-19

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian communities including vegetative planting 

1-Eightmile Cr (RM 7 upstream RM 17 mostly complete, some opportunities exist) 1-Fivemile Cr. Hwy 197 to RM 5, RM 7 upstream to FS boundary) 2-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mostly fenced or protected from livestock in recovering condition.) 2-Mill Cr. (mouth to forks) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing, agricultural conversion, roads, urban development, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All Ripa

throuare rimple

Apprcurreof ripoppoeasePrimenhafenccontmanreco

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

1-Eightmile RM 8.5 2-USFS grazing allotments 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, flow, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing 

Abundance, productivity 

All Area 

USFhead

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 

1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 

Degraded riparian communities 

Conversion of natural riparian vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Ripa

and noxio

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

1-Eightmile Cr (RM 7 upstream RM 17 mostly complete, some opportunities exist) 1-Fivemile Cr. Hwy 197 to RM 5, RM 7 upstream to FS boundary) 2-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mostly fenced or protected from livestock in recovering condition.) 2-Mill Cr. (mouth to forks) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, flow, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing 

Abundance, productivity 

All A co

fencpopuoppoLong fenc

Install off-stream livestock watering 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (4 sites in Dufur Valley, multiple sites mouth to Hwy 197) 1-Eightmile Cr. Multiple sites needed 1-Fivemile Cr. Multiple sites needed 2-Ramsey Cr. Multiple sites needed 2-Dry Cr. Some sites available 

Degraded riparian communities, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing 

Abundance, productivity 

All Off-s

livesMantechdepl

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

 Bank degradation, degraded 

riparian communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing, agricultural conversion, 

Abundance, productivity 

All Natu

occuoccuCRE
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-20

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

roads, urban development 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophys

Timefra

Restore natural riparian communities including vegetative planting 

ODFW,SWCD, NRCS, FSA, ODF 

Expansion of existing efforts 

Within treated area and downstream 

Ongoing Riparian restoration 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

ODA, SWCD, NRCS, USFS Unknown Within treated area Ongoing Riparian restoration 

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

ODFW, SWCD, Wasco County, USFS 

Expansion of existing effort 

Within treated area Ongoing Immediate 

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

ODFW, SWCD, CTWSRO, NRCS, FSA 

Expansion of existing effort 

Within treated area and downstream 

Ongoing Riparian restoration 

Install off-stream livestock watering ODFW, SWCD, NRCS, FSA Expansion of 

existing effort 

Within treated area and downstream 

Ongoing Riparian restoration 

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

ODFW, SWCD, FSA Expansion of 

existing effort 

Within treated area and downstream 

Ongoing Riparian restoration 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

Wasco SWCD Watershed restoration including all actions Private agricultural lands Additional opportun

and education. See review -- Appendix 

USDA FSA, SWCD, NRCS CREP Qualified private riparian areas 

throughout population 

No Effective at protecti

additional lands neelandowners relucta

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Private lands throughout 

population 

No Positive results whe

implemented, but fulimits the amount olimited legal guaranprogram. 

USFS Fifteenmile River keeper USFS lands and non-forest lands 

under Wyden Amendment Authority 

Likely Positive results whe

implemented, but it in the population, aforest lands. Continappropriations. 

USFS Northwest Forest Plan All Mt. Hood National Forest lands Yes See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E and USStrategy (USDA-FS

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private agricultural lands See State of Orego

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Reservation lands No Various programs d

stream, and upland Additional restorationeeded with additio
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-21

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forestlands in 

Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile Creek 

See State of OregoF. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Constant maintenance of the fence lines must be conducted to keep livestock out and protect the riparian vegetation. Construction of more off channel watering sites or water gaps wou

The Forest Service Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy lim

 it is most needed. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

EDT flows ever

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Conspossirriga

Finish piping Orchard Ridge and Wolf Run diversions 

1- Fifteenmile Cr (Orchard Ridge) 1- Eightmile Cr (Wolf Run)

Impaired flows Irrigation 

diversions 

Spatial structure, productivity 

primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Opethrou

Implement urban conservation measures 

1-Mill Creek (City of The Dalles) 2-Fifteenmile Cr. (City of Dufur) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

All Muc

for d

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

Population-wide. Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Progrightrightlandright

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Annuinten

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-22

strategies to meet long-term needs 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD Expands existing 

program, proposes new projects 

Point of diversion downstream 

Ongoing Immediate increa

streamflow 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, OWEB landowners 

Expands existing program, proposes new projects 

Agricultural lands throughout subbasin 

Ongoing Increased stream

Finish piping Orchard Ridge and Wolf Run diversions 

SWCD, USFS Expansion of 

existing project 

Upper Fifteenmile and Eightmile 

Unknown Potentially less w

a result of water 

Implement urban conservation measures 

SWCD, City of The Dalles Expands existing 

program, proposes new projects 

Mill Cr. MaSA Ongoing Immediate increa

flow, however, inmoderated by urbincreased deman

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Population-wide Unknown Immediate increa

flow 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide Ongoing 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive funding 

ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

USFS Fifteenmile Riverkeeper USFS lands and non-forest lands 

under Wyden Amendment authority 

Likely Positive results where t

implemented, but it coulands in the population, forest lands. Contingeappropriations. 

USFS Northwest Forest Plan All Mt. Hood National Forest lands Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Private lands throughout 

Fifteenmile population 

No Positive results where t

implemented, but fundilimits the amount of avalegal guarantees that la

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow Restoration, 

Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Population-wide See State of Oregon pr
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-23

Oregon Water Trust or other entity Lease or purchase instream water rights Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Fivemile 

MaSAs 

No Program has been effe

continually to maintain river is difficult. Many lenter into program in paincreasingly popular. Yto guarantee instream f

USFS, Wasco Co. SWCD, NRCS, OWEB 

Irrigation conveyance efficiency Population-wide USFS likely Piping open ditches an

decrease irrigation dembe expanded to many aOregon programmatic rand OWEB. 

Wasco Co. SWCD No-till conversion, watershed restoration Uplands population-wide Program has proven ef

additional lands could bprogrammatic review -- 

Wasco County SWCD/USDA FSA CREP, CRP Private riparian areas and 

qualified uplands throughout population 

Uncertain Both programs are effe

and uplands, however aenrolled. CRP program County. Some landownprograms. 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Tribal lands No Various programs desig

and upland conditions arestoration and protecti

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Peak flows are mitigated via upland vegetation, channel and riparian complexity, and closure of excess roads, particularly those with insufficient drainage. Highly successful programs no

conditions. Programs addressing channel complexity and road closure have, to date, only addressed a small portion of the watershed. Low summer flows are affected by the same fare more directly affected by irrigation withdrawals from the stream and associated aquifers. Programs have addressed irrigation efficiency on some but not all farms. They have ad

the Wolf Run Ditch, but not the Orchard Ridge Ditch. Few if any efficiency programs have resulted in conversion to instream water rights. Fifteenmile Creek has 124 miles of stream 

rights. Voluntary restoration projects restored approximately 8.6 cfs in 2006. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

1-Fifteenmile(Underhill return diversion) Altered stream temperatures, 

degraded water quality 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Excebeen factoTemexcesom

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 

Depleted oxygen Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Warm disso
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-24

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 2-North Fk. Mill Cr. (mouth to FS boundary) 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 2-Mill Cr.(Mouth to North Fork) 

Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

 Amo

streadetechempracstrea

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan 

1-Fifteenmile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 1-Ramsey Cr. (Mouth to new FS boundary) 1-Eightmile Cr. (Hwy 197 to FS boundary) 1-Fivemile Cr. (Mouth to FS boundary) 2-Dry Cr.(Mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded upland processes, altered hydrology, water quality, altered sediment routing 

Land conversion and agricultural practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

RecegreahoweelevaFiftethe 3EDT as a prod

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water quality, 

sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Acquire conservation easements or agreements, and important habitats when available. 

Significant properties when they become available. All All Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

ODEQ, OWR, SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing 0-5 years 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

ODEQ, SWCD, FSA, NRCS, ODFW 

Ongoing Ongoing 0-5 years 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs ODEQ, WyEast RC&D, others Ongoing Ongoing 0-5 years Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan 

ODA, SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing variable 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate Acquire conservation easements or agreements, and important habitats when available. 

NGO’s New Subbasin-wide Variable 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-25

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

Wasco Co. SWCD, OWEB, Irrigators 

Irrigation conveyance efficiency Population-wide Piping open ditches 

decrease irrigation could be expanded State of Oregon pro

ODEQ TMDL Development Population-wide See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

ODEQ, Wasco Co. SWCD, ODFW, USFS 

Temperature TMDL Implementation Monitoring Fifteenmile Creek USFS likely Continuation of exis

could be expandedSee State of OregoAppendix F. 

ODEQ, ODA, Wasco SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

Fifteenmile Creek USFS likely See State of Orego

Appendix F. See UAssessment -- App

ODEQ, WyEast RC&D Toxics monitoring program doesn’t actually exist yet Population-wide See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private agricultural lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

WyEast RC&D IFPnet Fifteenmile and Mill Creek No Program needs exp

reducing chemical d

Wasco Co. SWCD No-till conversion, watershed restoration Uplands population-wide Program has prove

additional lands couOregon programma

Wasco County SWCD/USDA FSA CREP, CRP Private riparian areas and qualified 

uplands throughout population 

Both programs are areas and uplands, be enrolled. CRP pcounty. See State Appendix F. Some federal programs. 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Reservation lands No Various programs d

stream, and upland Additional restorationeeded. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forestlands in 

Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile creeks 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 

ODFW Fifteenmile Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Private lands throughout population No Positive results whe

implemented, but fulimits the amount olimited legal guaranprogram. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trust or Reservati

measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-26

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and . unimpaired natur

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

Fifteenmile Creek subbasin uplands Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All Over 

wateseedacre2004

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Develop Integrated Fruit Production (IFPnet) plans 

Orchard lands throughout subbasin Water quality, hydrology, 

sediment 

Pollution Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Promote fuels management Private and federal forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment Conversion of 

vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Supp

regiminten

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

 Population-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, water quality 

Upland land use practices, erosion, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

all

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

SWCD Existing program Croplands, MaSAs Ongoing (completed by 2012) Reduce runoff, se

immediate increa

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation 

SWCD Develop new 

program 

uplands Ongoing Reduce runoff, se

immediately 

Develop Integrated Fruit Production (IFPnet) plans 

WyEast RC&D Existing effort Orchard lands 

throughout subbasin 

Ongoing Reduce chemica

immediately 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, ODF, private forestland owners 

Expansion of existing project 

USFS lands Long term Variable dependi

treatment (5-20 y
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-27

Promote fuels management USFS, ODF, private forestland 

owners 

Expansion of existing project 

USFS lands and private forest lands 

Long term Variable dependi

treatment (5-20 y

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

SWCD, ODA, OSU extension Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Variable lag time 

action taken 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 yea

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, CTWSRO, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

Wasco County SWCD/USDA FSA CREP, CRP Private riparian areas and 

qualified uplands throughout population 

Both programs are areas and uplands, be enrolled. CRP pCounty. Some landfederal programs. Sreview -- Appendix 

Wasco County SWCD No-till conversion, watershed restoration Uplands population-wide Program has prove

additional lands cou

Oregon programma

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest Program Private and state forestlands in 

Fifteenmile, Eightmile, Ramsey , and Fivemile Creek 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

USFS Fifteenmile River keeper USFS lands and non-forest lands 

under Wyden Amendment Authority 

Likely Positive results whe

implemented, but it lands in the populaoff forest lands. Cappropriations. 

USFS Northwest Forest Plan All Mt. Hood National Forest lands Yes See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E and USStrategy (USDA-FS

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private agricultural lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

OSU extension Various Private agricultural lands Uncertain Provide education a

could be expanded 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize active watershed restoration for this population, and helps deploy limited  funding where it is most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-28

9.3.2 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Deschutes River Eastside Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: riparian condition, low flow, temperature, habitat diversity, and lack of fish pas

Primary threats: grazing, roads, residences, and agriculture practices that simplify habitat; irrigation withforest practices, dams and roads. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements. 

1-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to Deep Cr) 1-Buck Hollow Cr (mouth to Macken Canyon) 1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. to headwaters) 

2-Trout Cr. (Degner Cyn to Little Trout Cr.) 2-Deschutes R. (Harris Cr. to Buck Hollow Cr.) 2-Ward Cr. (mouth to Pole Cr.) 2-Deep Cr. (mouth to Cottonwood Cr) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

Overgrazing, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices, fire suppression, 

Abundance, productivity 

All Protec

channability identifin the protec

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

1-Seasonal tributaries 2-Trout Cr. (mouth to Willowdale) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All Abundance, 

productivity 

All Seaso

habitautilize migra

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

1-Entire population All factors All Abundance, 

productivity 

All To pre

and eshould popul

Develop new and manage existing habitat Cooperative Agreements 

Trout Cr. (mouth to headwaters) Degraded floodplain, channel 

structure, riparian areas 

All Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

1-Entire population All factors All All All Progr

througunderhabitapracti
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-29

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements. 

CTWSRO, PGE, DRC, DBLT, NGOs, ODFW, SWCD, USDA FSA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Immediate Variable dependin

condition 

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Land trusts, CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, NGOs, USFS, PGE, BLM 

Ongoing Immediate Immediate halt to d

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

SWCD, USFS, private landowners, ODA, NRCS, CTWSRO, watershed councils, BLM, counties 

 All MaSAs Long term Degradation stop i

habitat recovery 1depending on stat

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Agreements are for 10-15 years Immediate 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

USFS and BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, Special Management Area designations PACFISH 

USFS and BLM lands throughout population 

Yes Continual implementat

Program Sufficiency AsCurrently no additional 

on BLM lands. 

ODFW/BPA Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Private lands in the Trout Creek 

subbasin 

No Additional lands can be 

Conservation agreeme

USDA FSA/SWCDs CREP/CRP Private agricultural lands 

throughout population 

Likely Additional lands can be 

permanent in duration. programmatic review -

CTWSRO Integrated Resources Management Plan Reservation lands Yes Adaptive 10-year manaCTWSRO Watershed Maintenance/ Riparian Fence Program Reservation lands No Need to expand riparia

of those fence lines. 

ODA/SWCDs Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private agricultural lands 

throughout population 

See State of Oregon p

Local Government County Planning and Zoning Private lands throughout 

population 

Uncertain 

PGE Pelton Habitat Mitigation Fund Upper population Uncertain Newly implemented proNGOs (Deschutes Basin Land Trust, Nature Conservancy, Deschutes River Conservancy, Oregon Water Trust etc.) 

Lease or purchase of land or instream water rights Private lands throughout 

population 

No Limited opportunities a

expanded when oppor
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-30

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Watershed Councils Various Watershed Councils Population-wide No Programs can be expa

interested parties in wa

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Existing forest plans include special management designations for riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments 

Congress. The forest plans and BLM plans have been amended by PACFISH which generally requires 300-foot buffers on any fish bearing stream for tree removal with limited exceas well as specific guidelines for livestock grazing and riparian vegetation use. See guidelines for Timber Management for specific rules governing the RHCA. Compliance with the 

operations has been very good. 

FSA programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include the CRP, which pays landowners not to farm highly erodible soils, and the CREP program, which pays landown

side from grazing and farming. The long term effectiveness of both programs is limited by the relatively short duration of the contracts which ranges from 10 to 15 years. 

ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trus

on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Replace or remove barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts, irrigation structures, infiltration galleries 

1-Mud Springs Cr. (at RR culvert in section 15, above Gateway)--Jefferson County 1-Hay Creek (new channel near mouth)--private 2-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters)--not culverts 2-Trout Cr. (mouth to Clover)--not culverts 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Adult passaeffects increastreamTrout bound

Maintain irrigation diversions and screens 

1-Where diversions exist throughout population Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily juveniles, but also adults at facilities with ladders. 

All kngener

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

1-unscreened diversions (all known diversions screened, need comprehensive survey to identify additional needs) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Juveniles All kn

More subba

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected 

Response 

Remove/replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

CTWSRO, USFS, SWCDs, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Access between 

upstream and downstream habitats 

Immediate Immediate 

Maintain irrigation diversions and screens 

ODFW Ongoing Diversions subbasinwide Based on funding Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW Fish Passage and Screening 

Ongoing Access between 

upstream and 

Immediate as need is identified Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-31

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

downstream habitats 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration 

Project (BPA) 

Trout Creek MaSA No Project has made 

fish habitat, needs properties in subbrehabilitation projeTrout Creek have berms, restoring sadditional habitat. 

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration 

Project (BPA) 

Trout Creek MaSA No This companion p

has made significahabitat, needs to bsubbasin. Projecgallery projects an

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening, State program 

and federal funded 

Population-wide Uncertain The program com

per year, but is decooperation and liOregon programm

PGE/CTWSRO Pelton Fish Passage Plan Pelton complex Uncertain Program is curren

success of downs

CTWSRO/ODFW Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction Plan Areas above Pelton complex No Adaptive plan oveODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Population-wide See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

CTWSRO IRMP Reservation Lands Yes Adaptive managemCTWSRO/USFS Culvert replacement Population-wide USFS likely with current 

program. 

Needs expansion. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

 A comprehensive fish screen inventory needs to be completed throughout the population. The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005

 prioritize culvert replacements for this population. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. To Clover Creek) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Creek) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded floodplain, degraded riparian area, channel structure 

Removal of interaction between river and floodplain, grazing, agricultural use, loss of 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

FlobalstreHo
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-32

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr (mouth to headwaters) 

beaver dams live

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. To Clover Creek) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Creek) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr (mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Off reaHolive

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

1-Throughout population Degraded floodplain, 

altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

All As 

rec

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected 

Response 

Reconnect floodplain habitats. CTWSRO, ODFW, watershed 

council, BLM, SWCDs, USFS, PGE, counties 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream from 

site 

Long term 5-15 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels. 

CTWSRO, ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, PGE 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream from 

site 

Long term 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

CTWSRO, ODFW, USFS, BLM Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Within 15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

Sherman and Wasco SWCD, Landowners, Oregon State agencies. 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow Watershed Restoration Projects. 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow Creek 

Likely Project is underwa

planned over a 10transitioning to effof Oregon program

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP/CRP Private lands throughout 

population 

SWCD likely Others uncertain 

An effective programore landowners. programmatic revi

BLM Prineville District Various range and upland restoration projects. BLM lands throughout 

population 

Likely Most lands curren

Guidelines, continensure long-term c

implementation mUSFS/BLM PrograAppendix E. 

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No Project has made 

fish habitat, needs properties in subb
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-33

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No This companion p

has made significahabitat, needs to bsubbasin. 

PGE/CTWSRO Relicensing of Pelton-Round Butte Complex Throughout population No Habitat restoration 

effects of hydro prexist. 

CTWSRO Various projects Reservation lands No Improving riparian 

problematic in somexpansion. 

BLM, Oregon State Parks, CTWSRO 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Deschutes from mouth to 

Trout Creek 

 See State of Oreg

programmatic revi

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands only when 

specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Likely The USFS preferr

managing riparian processes. Prograexpand in scope. Sufficiency AssessRegion’s Aquatic R2005). 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CRP in uplands and riparian protection in the Buckhollow watershed have and will provide short term benefits, but instream physical habitat improvements may not accrue until the longe

benefits accruing from CRP enrollments could be unknown, since economic decisions by the landowners and government entities involved will influence the area under agreementsrestoration and protection measures for Bakeoven Creek are similar to the Buck Hollow project, but began more recently. A draft watershed assessment has been completed and inyear time frame (Clark and Lamson, 2005). 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited acti

most needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form, includes berm and levee removal 

1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. To Clover Creek) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Cr.) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, sediment routing 

Grazing, agricultural practices, channelization, berms, roads, railroad bank armoring, floodplain, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Channelizbank armthe stream 

areas. Large wocomplexitwatershe
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-34

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

1-Trout Cr. (Mouth to Board Hollow Cr.) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area , altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Large womainstem trees dowcurrently upstream upstream 

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

 Degraded channel structure and 

complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Considerwhile habmore pas

Stabilize streambanks with passive restoration processes 

1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. To Clover Creek) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Creek) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain connectivity, degraded riparian areas, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Restore natural channel form, includes berm and levee removal 

CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, USFS, BLM, watershed councils 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, USFS, PGE, CTWSRO, watershed councils 

Ongoing Localized to treatment 

area 

Long term Immediate 

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

ODFW, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing Limited application 

throughout population 

Long term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, 

watershed councils, USFS, BLM, ODA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

Sherman and Wasco SWCD, Landowners, Oregon State agencies, BPA 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow Watershed Restoration Projects 

Bakeoven and Buck Hollow Creeks 

 Effective project, b

private lands. See review -- Appendix 

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP/CRP Riparian and upland 

areas throughout population 

Uncertain An effective progra

protection, but couprivate lands. See review -- Appendix 

BLM Prineville District Various range and upland restoration projects. BLM lands Likely Most lands current
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-35

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Guidelines, continulong-term complian

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No Project has made 

fish habitat, needs in subbasin. 

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No This companion pr

has made significahabitat, needs to bsubbasin. 

PGE/CTWSRO Relicensing of Pelton-Round Butte Complex Throughout population No Habitat restoration 

effects of hydro proexist. 

CTWSRO Various projects Reservation lands No Improving riparian 

problematic in som

BLM, Oregon State Parks, CTWSRO 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Deschutes from mouth to 

Trout Creek 

Likely See State of Orego

Appendix F. See UAssessment -- App

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands only when 

specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Likely The USFS preferre

managing riparian processes. Needs in Trout Creek SubSufficiency AssessRegion’s Aquatic R2005). 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CRP in uplands and riparian protection have and will provide short term benefits, but instream physical habitat improvements may not accrue until the longer term. The upper third of Bu

priority. The future status of habitat benefits accruing from CRP enrollments are unknown, since economic decisions by the landowners and government entities involved will influen

Planning and implementation of restoration and protection measures for Bakeoven Creek are similar to the Buck Hollow project but began more recently. Some riparian areas are sgrazing management plans. Where riparian buffers do exist, habitat complexity will develop over the longer term if buffers are maintained. Some benefits from trees will be slow to a

relatively small, and only when larger age-classes are present, will the biological and physical results of large wood recruitment be realized. 

Recent large scale stream rehabilitation projects in the Trout Creek watershed have been successful at removing berms, restoring stream function, and creating additional habitat, howev

Several landowners with sensitive key spawning and rearing habitats in the Upper Trout Creek may be willing to participate in conservation efforts. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited acti

most needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian 1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. To Clover Bank degradation, degraded riparian Livestock grazing, Abundance, All Rip
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-36

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

communities including vegetative planting 

Creek) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Creek) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Deschutes R. (Harris Cr. to Buck Hollow Cr.) 2-Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr. to Shitike Cr.) 

communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

agricultural conversion, roads, bank armoring, residential development, loss of beaver dams 

productivity Bu

hagrarelanled widdeExcoripseAloarmcauslanarovie

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Limited opportunities may exist throughout the population 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Where opportunities exist throughout the MaSA 

Degraded riparian communities Conversion of 

natural riparian vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Install/maintain fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

1-Trout Cr. (Little Trout Cr. to Clover Cr.) 1-Trout Cr. (sections from mouth to Antelope Cr.) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Bakeoven Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Buck Hollow Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Deschutes R. (Harris Cr. to Buck Hollow Cr.) 2-Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr. to Shitike Cr.) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Ca

Devegero

Install off-stream livestock watering 

Limited opportunities may exist throughout the MaSA 

Degraded riparian communities, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Timefra

Restore natural riparian communities including vegetative 

CTWSRO, USFS, SWCDs, ODFW, watershed councils, 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-37

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

planting BLM, OWEB Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, BLM 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, watershed councils, BLM 

Ongoing Immediate 5-15 years 

Install/maintain fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

SWCDs, NRCS, CTWSRO, ODA, SWCDs, ODFW, BLM 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Immediate Riparian restoration (0-2

streamflow, stabilized hy

Install off-stream livestock watering 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCD, BLM 

Expansion of existing effort 

Private lands Ongoing Riparian restoration (0-5 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

S

CTWSRO Watershed Maintenance Reservation No Needs to be CTWSRO IRMP Reservation No Adaptive maBLM, Oregon State Parks, CTWSRO 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Deschutes from mouth to Trout 

Creek 

Likely See State of 

Appendix F. Sufficiency A

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No Project has m

overall fish hother propertand additiona

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No This compan

Project has moverall fish hother propertadditional fun

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands Likely Needs to be 

Creek SubbaSufficiency ARegional Aqudiscussion in 

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP Throughout population Uncertain An effective p

and restoratioadditional pri

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population See State of 

Appendix F. 

Watershed Councils/OWEB Various restoration projects Throughout population Uncertain Effective prog

restoration/poutreach infoParticipation 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Bakeoven Project is beginning and is planned over a 10-year period. Some riparian areas are still unbuffered through fences or grazing management plans. Habitat complexity will deve

buffers are maintained. Some benefits from trees will be slow because the trees are small. Only when larger age-classes exist will biological and physical results of large wood recru

Riparian improvements in Trout Creek watershed have improved water quality, but additional protection is needed throughout the subbasin. 

Public land managers have implemented PACFISH standards for protection and restoration of USFS and BLM lands. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific N

2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. 

The USFS requires fence maintenance for all grazing allotments. New fencing may be part of adjustments to existing grazing strategies by the USFS/BLM to promote riparian recovery. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-38

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

1-Trout Cr. (mouth to Clover Cr.) 

1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

ConsCreeStreaaver(WPdiverWillointerfall. Trou

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

1-Trout Cr. Forest boundary downstream Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Convirrigaimprincre

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

1-Trout Cr. subbasin (where available) 

2-Buck Hollow Creek 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

One cfs) 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

1-Trout Cr. MaSA low flows, high temperatures Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Most mon

Water retention structures 1-Uplands in Bakeoven and Buck Hollow 

Creeks 

Altered hydrology, low flows Degradation on uplands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, low flows, 

high temperatures, impaired natural functions and processes on uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Flow they scoudivervegeretaiof waBakeupstpass

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-39

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Time

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, CTWSRO, USBOR, irrigation districts, landowners 

Expands existing program, new projects 

Croplands, MaSAs Based on funding Immediate increas

habitat diversity, flconnection (0-5 yr

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, CTWSRO, OWEB, landowners 

Expands existing program, proposes new projects 

High dispersal downstream Ongoing Increased streamf

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, Oregon Water Trust, PGE, DRC, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion to mouth of 

Deschutes 

Long term Immediate increas

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion to mouth of 

Deschutes 

Long term 

Water retention structures SWCDs Ongoing Uplands Intermediate 0-10 years Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, OWEB, ODFW, CTWSRO, landowners 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Sherman and Wasco SWCD, Property Owners, CTWSRO, and Oregon State agencies 

Bakeoven Watershed Project Bakeoven Creek Effective p

results are expanded State of OrAppendix F

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No Project has 

overall fish other propescale streaon propertisuccessful stream funhabitat. Pr

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No This comp

Project has overall fish other prope
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-40

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

assisted in and other pexpansion. 

BLM Various projects related to rangeland improvements in 

uplands 

BLM lands Uncertain Effective p

effectiveneProgram SE. 

NRCS,SWCD, FSA, Private Landowners 

CRP, CREP Riparian and upland areas within 

population 

No An effectiv

riparian proadditional p

FSA, OWEB Lease instream water rights Specific locations determined by 

opportunities 

Both OWElandownerAdditional 

OWRD Stream Flow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Specific locations determined by opportunities 

See State Appendix F

Oregon Water Trust Lease water rights and return instream Specific locations determined by 

opportunities 

Uncertain Program w

more willinthat instrea

Jefferson SWCD, NRCS Various irrigation efficiency improvements, CRP, CREP Specific locations determined by 

opportunities 

Uncertain Needs exp

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State 

Appendix F

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Deschutes subbasin plan’s (NPCC 2004) inventory notes that Buck Hollow "runs clean", intermittent tributaries have become perennial. Opportunities may exist to increase summer 

decrease sedimentation through water development (Lower Deschutes River Management Plan). In 2001, 1 to 1.5 cfs from a headwater well in Buck Hollow Cr. was used to suppledrought (BPA #200105400). The Deschutes River subbasin has 578 miles of stream protected by instream water rights. Voluntary flow restoration restored 13.4 cfs in 2006, of whic

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

1-Trout Cr. (mouth to Clover Cr.) 1-Antelope Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2-Hay Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 

Altered stream temperatures, degraded water quality 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

RathteTtyreS
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-41

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

b

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

1-Trout Cr. (mouth to sagebrush) Depleted oxygen Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Wpo

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

Agricultural lands throughout population Degraded upland processes, 

altered hydrology, water quality, altered sediment routing 

Land conversion and agricultural practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water quality, 

sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophy

Response Timefr

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Less than 5 years Immediate 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

ODA, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Localized and 

downstream 

Long term Long term 

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan 

ODA, SWCD Subbasin-wide Ongoing Variable 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide, high 

dispersal downstream 

Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

Oregon Water Trust, NGOs Lease or purchase instream water rights. Trout Creek MaSA No Program has been effect

rights and keep water insexpanded. 

ODFW Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No Project has made signific

habitat, needs to be expasubbasin. Recent large sconducted on properties successful at removing band creating additional h

Wasco SWCD, Property Owners, CTWSRO, and Oregon State agencies, BPA 

Bakeoven/Buck Hollow Watershed Project Bakeoven Cr. and Buck Hollow 

Cr. 

Uncertain Effective programs that w

available. Program could landowners. 

BLM Various projects related to rangeland improvements in 

uplands 

BLM lands Likely Effective programs. See 

Assessment -- Appendix 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-42

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Jefferson SWCD Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project (BPA) Trout Creek MaSA No This companion project t

made significant improveto be expanded to other assisted in several infiltrapassage issues. Needs e

FSA, NRCS,SWCD, Private Landowners 

CRP, CREP Riparian and upland areas 

throughout population 

Uncertain An effective program for 

protection, but could be elands. See State of OregAppendix F for SWCD. 

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population See State of Oregon proUSFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) USFS lands Uncertain Needs expansion. See U

Assessment -- Appendix Restoration Strategy. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limite

 for riparian planting where it is most needed. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority)

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

1-Buck Hollow Cr. uplands 1-Bakeoven Cr. uplands 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation (CRP) 

1-Buck Hollow Cr. uplands 1-Bakeoven Cr. uplands 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Remove junipers 1-Trout Cr. uplands 

2-Bakeoven Cr. uplands 2-Buck Hollow Cr. uplands 

Altered hydrology Loss of water storage capacity Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Restore native upland plants and remove noxious weeds 

1-Buck Hollow Cr. MaSAs 1-Bakeoven Cr. MaSAs 2-Trout Cr. MaSAs

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

1-Trout Cr. Private Forest Lands 2-Trout Cr. USFS Forest Lands 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Promote reforestation and fuels management 

1-Trout Cr. Private Forest Lands 2-Trout Cr. USFS Forest Lands 

Altered hydrology, sediment Conversion of vegetative 

communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Sup

regiminten
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-43

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, water quality 

Upland land use practices, erosion, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response 

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques which reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

SWCD Existing 

program 

Croplands, MaSAs Ongoing Reduce runoff, s

immediate increa

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation (CPR) 

NRCS, SWCDs Ongoing Croplands Immediate 0-10 years 

Remove junipers SWCDs, NRCS Ongoing Uplands Immediate 0-20 years Restore native upland plants USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, 

watershed councils, CTWSRO, BIA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Juniper control can be quick, other actions such as control of invasive plants may take 20 years or more 

0-20 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODOT, ODF Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Immediate for se

parameters 5-15 

Promote reforestation and fuels management 

CTWSRO, USFS, watershed councils, SWCDs, counties 

Ongoing Forestlands Long term 0-10 yrs 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 ye

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, ODF, BLM, CTWSRO, watershed councils, NRCS, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Suf

NRCS,SWCD, Private Landowners CRP, CREP, Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program (EQUIP) 

Private upland and riparian lands Uncertain An effective progra

protection, but couprivate lands. Condependent on fundprogrammatic revie

SWCDs Voluntary Watershed Restoration Private agricultural lands Dependent on fund

State of Oregon pr

BLM Various projects related to rangeland 

improvements in uplands. 

BLM lands Likely Effective programs 

additional lands. 

CTWSRO IRMP Reservation Lands Yes Adaptive plan coulUSFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH), 

Vegetation Management Programs, Range Management Programs 

USFS forest lands Uncertain Effectiveness of pr

expanded monitoriSufficiency AssessAquatic RestoratioGaps commentary 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest 

Program 

Private and state forestlands throughout population 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-44

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many benefits to steelhead have accrued through changes in upland and riparian management plans since the 1987 Farm Bill. CRP in uplands and riparian protection have and will prov

instream physical habitat improvements may not accrue until the longer term. The upper third of Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks remain restoration priorities. The future status o

CRP and CREP enrollments could be unknown, since economic decisions by the landowners and government entities involved will influence the area under agreements. No areas wHollow watersheds are in a "protected" status. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize active watershed restoration for this population, and helps deploy lim

funding where it is most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-45

9.3.3 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Deschutes River Westside Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: degraded floodplain connectivity and function, altered sediment routing, water t

degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, and degraded fish 

particularly lack of passage over Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Primary threats: road networks (including Hwy 26 Beaver Creek, USFS roads, Tribal road networks), log

grazing practices, removal of overstory trees and bank vegetation from the riparian corridor, stream chann

withdrawal (Whychus Creek).

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

Spawning areas in mainstem Deschutes River below Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All All All Protecti

cost effegood queasememay facrestorat

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Throughout population Degraded floodplain connectivity 

and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All All All 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

MaSAs in Warm Springs River subbasin, MaSA in Shitike Creek, potential MaSAs in Whychus Creek and Metolius River 

All All All All 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

Private and public lands Degraded floodplain, channel 

structure, riparian areas 

All All All 

Special management designations on public lands 

Public lands All All All All 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

1-Entire population All All All All Program 

through understpractice
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-46

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements. 

CTWSRO, PGE, DRC, DBLT, NGOs, ODFW, SWCD, USDA FSA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

Immediate halt to recovery long ter

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

Land trusts, CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, NGOs, USFS 

Ongoing Population-wide Immediate Immediate halt to 

recovery long ter

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

SWCD, USFS, private landowners, ODA, CTWSRO 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 years 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements. 

CTWSRO Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Agreements are for 10-15 years Immediate 

Special management designations on public lands. 

USFS, BLM Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Complete; potentially subject to change in Forest Plan revisions 

Immediate in somlong term for reco

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers. 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Varies depending 

and issues 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

USFS and BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, Special Management Area designations, PACFISH 

Three Sisters Wilderness; Mt Jefferson Wilderness; Metolius River; Whychus Creek 

Uncertain See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E. AdditiWilderness or similPACFISH applies to programs and lands 

ODFW Cooperative Agreements Spring Creek 

Deschutes River 

No The agreements ar

be extended. 

USDA FSA CREP Seekseequa Creek Uncertain The agreements ar

be extended. 

CTWSRO Integrated Resources Management Plan III Warm Springs 5th field HUCs (8) 

Shitike Cr 5th Field HUC 

Yes Managed under 10

CTWSRO Watershed Maintenance/ Riparian Fence Program Warm Springs River RM 0.0 – 3.5 

Warm Springs River RM 27.5 - 30 Lower Deschutes River RM 73-84 Beaver Creek RM 0.25-3.5 

No Need to continue to 

and maintenance o
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-47

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Beaver Creek RM 14-18 Bager Creek RM 0.5-2.5 Skookum Creek RM 0-1.0 Mill Cr. (RM 5.5 to RM 6) 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Whychus Creek floodplain zoning 

- In Progress 

Yes Could be expanded

NGOs Deschutes Basin Land Trust, Nature Conservancy, 

Deschutes River Conservancy, etc. 

Land purchase on Lake Creek Land purchase on Whychus Creek 

Uncertain Need to increase m

through the city of S

SWCD CREP Population-wide Agreements are for 

extended. 

Watershed Councils Upper Deschutes River Watershed Council Upper Deschutes Deschutes River Conservancy or other entity 

Lease or purchase instream water rights Whychus Creek 20cfs secured 

instream flow 

Yes Important to secure 

instream flow, could 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The majoriy of the Deschutes Westside steelhead spawning areas occurs within the CTWSRO boundaries. The CTWSRO has developed and implemented the Integrated Resources Ma

lands. 

Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congress. Existing forest plans include special management designations for RHCA

plans have been amended by PACFISH, which requires 300-foot buffers on any fish bearing stream for tree removal, as well as specific guidelines for livestock grazing and riparian 

the 300-foot buffer for timber harvest operations has been very goods. 

FSA programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include the CRP, which pays landowners not to farm highly erodible soils, and the CREP program, which pays landown

aside from grazing and farming. The long-term effectiveness of both programs is limited by the relatively short duration of the contracts which ranges from 10 to 15 years. 

ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trus

on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Restore passage at PeltonRound Butte Complex 1- Deschutes R. (RM 100, Pelton-Round Butte) Blocked fish passage, altered flows, sediment routing, 

degraded channel structure and complexity 

Dam Spatial 

structure, productivity, abundance 

All Dam co

downstrsteelheaCurrentpassage 

Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

1- Warm Springs R. 1- Beaver Cr. 1- Shitike Cr. There are six culverts that need replacement on CTWSRO lands. 

Impaired fish passage Dams, 

culverts, instream structures 

Spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Irrigatiothe projinventoReserva
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-48

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

1-Whychus Cr. – Three Sisters irrigation diversion 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily smolts and 0+juveniles 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

1-Whychus Cr. Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily smolts and 0+juveniles 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Restore passage at PeltonRound Butte Complex PGE, CTWSRO, ODFW, Expansion of existing project Historical steelhead range Unknown Immediate increa

flow 

Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

CTWSRO, USFS, SWCDs, watershed councils 

Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, replacing all culverts expected to take 20 years 

Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Number of screens needs to be 

determined 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Number of screens needs to be 

determined 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Suf

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening Whychus Creek – Three Sisters irrigation 

diversion Whychus Creek – Sokol Diversion Whychus Creek – Baker Ranch Irrigation Pond 

No The program comple

year, but is dependeand limited funding. adequate funds to qavailable. 

PGE, CTWSRO Pelton Fish Passage Plan Whychus Creek 

Deschutes River Metolius River 

Uncertain Program not implem

Considerable uncertsurvival. 

CTWSRO, ODFW Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction 

Plan 

Whychus Creek Metolius River 

Uncertain Adaptive plan over l

uncertainty regardin

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Uncertain See State of Oregon 

F. 

CTWSRO IRMP Warm Springs River Yes Adaptive managemeCTWSRO, USFS Culvert replacement Metolius River 5th field HUC 

Oak Creek Rm 0.01 

USFS Yes Timeframe to compl

program could use eleft to be replaced in 8 culverts in last 4 y

Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 

Various passage projects Lake Creek 

Whychus Creek 

Yes Projects currently on 

could be expanded 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The major issue for this strategy is passage above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. A new FERC license was issued in June of 2005. A main component of the license is the reintrodu

above the PRB. New facilities, evaluation, modifications will need to be implemented. Juvenile out plants, downstream fish passage efficiencies and timelines have been defined in 

Reintroduction and Conservation Plan in draft written by ODFW and CTWS. 

The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005) provides guidance that will help prioritize culvert replacements for this population. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-49

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr) 1- Deschutes R. (Trout Cr. to PRB) 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 31) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 1- Beaver Cr. (mouth to RM 26) 1- Mill Cr. (RM 5 to RM 6.5) 2- Quartz Cr. (Mouth to RM 5) 2- Coyote Cr. (Mouth to RM 11) 1- Potential MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 2- Potential MaSAs in Metolius

Degraded floodplain, degraded riparian area, channel structure 

Removal of interaction between river and floodplain, grazing, agricultural use, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr) 1- Deschutes R. (Trout Cr. to PRB) 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 31) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 1- Beaver Cr. (mouth to RM 26) 2- Quartz Cr. (Mouth to RM 5) 2 - Coyote Cr. (Mouth to RM 11) 1- MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 2- Potential MaSAs in Metolius 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

1- Beaver Cr. (RM 11 to RM 22) Degraded floodplain, 

altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Reconnect floodplain habitats CTWSRO, ODFW, watershed 

council, SWCD, USFS 

Ongoing Improved connectivity with channel 

will be localized; improved water table will increase streamflow and lower water temperatures downstream. 

Long term 5-15 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

CTWSRO, ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS 

Ongoing Improved connectivity with channel 

will be localized; improved water table will increase streamflow and lower water temperatures downstream. 

Long term 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural 

CTWSRO, ODFW, USFS Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Within 5 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-50

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

ecological processes. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Su

USFS, BLM, Grasslands Stream enhancement program (PACFISH/NWFP) Metolius River 5th field HUCs 

Whychus Creek 5th Field HUCs. 

Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working. 

Yes The USFS/BLM p

restoration; manachannel-forming pare limited, projecSufficiency AssesRegion’s Aquatic 2005). 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Whychus Creek RM 16.5 Uncertain Only if specific ne

passive restoratio

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Population-wide Only if specific ne

passive restoratio

CTWSRO IRMP Warm Springs 5th field HUCs (8) 

Shitike Creek 5th Field HUC

Yes Adaptive manage

expanded. See Sreview -- Appendi

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

NRCS, SWCD, private landowners CREP Beaver Creek (RM 0.25 to RM 3.5 

and RM 14 to RM 18) Warm Springs River (RM 0 to RM 3.5 and RM 27.5 to RM 30) 

Yes Could be expande

Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 

Various restoration projects Upper Deschutes subbasin Uncertain Program needs a

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

 is most needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form 1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr) 

1- Deschutes R. ((Trout Cr. to PBR) 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 31) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 1- Beaver Cr. (RM 0.25 to RM 4, RM 14 to RM  15, and RM 18 to RM 26) 2 - Quartz Cr. (Mouth to RM 5) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area 

Removal of interaction between river and floodplain, grazing, agricultural use, loss of beaver 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

HabShitiby chprachave 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-51

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

2 - Coyote Cr. (Mouth to RM 11) 1- MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 2- MaSAs in Metolius 2- Mill Cr. (RM 5 to RM 7.5)

dams 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr) 1- Deschutes R. (Trout Cr. to PBR) 1- Metolius R. 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 37 and RM 41  to RM 42) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 1- Beaver Cr. (RM 14 to RM 15 and RM 18 to  RM 26) 2- Quartz Cr. 2- Coyote Cr. 1- MaSA in Shitike Cr. 1- MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area , altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Remand increthe afor g

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

2- Metolius R. 1- Shitike Cr. RM 0-5 1- Quartz Cr. RM 1-RM 2 1- Whychus Cr. RM 0.0-RM 32 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

large wood removal 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Consrestoresto

Stabilize streambanks 1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr to Shitike Cr) 

1- Deschutes R. (spawning areas below PRB) 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 31) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 1- Beaver Cr. (mouth to RM 26) 2- Quartz Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 2- Coyote Cr. (mouth to headwaters) 1- Potential MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 2- Potential MaSAs in Metolius 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain connectivity, degraded riparian areas, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Restore natural channel form CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, 

USFS, watershed councils 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, USFS, PGE, CTWSRO, watershed councils 

Ongoing Treated area Long term Immediate 

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

ODFW, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing Treated area Long term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, 

watershed councils, USFS, ODA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

PGE, CTWSRO Lower Deschutes Gravel Study Lower Deschutes Yes Possibly, based upo
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-52

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

PGE, CTWSRO Large Wood Management Plan Lower Deschutes Yes Adapt as program i

expansion. 

USFS Stream enhancement program (PACFISH) Population-wide, only when 

specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Yes The USFS preferre

managing riparian aprocesses. ProgramUSFS/BLM SufficieUSFS Region’s AquFS, 2005). 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Population-wide Uncertain Only if specific need

restoration techniqu

SWCDs Watershed restoration Population-wide Only if specific need

restoration techniquprogrammatic revie

CTWSRO IRMP Reservation Yes Adaptive managem

expanded. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State of Orego

F. 

NRCS, SWCD, private landowners CREP Population-wide Likely Could be expanded Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 

Various restoration projects Upper Deschutes subbasin Uncertain Could be expanded

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Large wood placement in the lower Deschutes, gravel augmentation studies and evaluation will be conducted by PRBC licensees. The area of study and implementation will occur betwe

Shitike Creek. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and h

restoration funding where it is most needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian communities 

1- Deschutes R. (Eagle Cr. to Shitike Cr.) 1- Deschutes R. (Trout Cr. to PBR) 2 - Metolius R. 1- Warm Springs R. (mouth to RM 31., Ka-Nee-Ta  resort area) 1- Shitike Cr. (mouth to RM 5, Community of Warm  Springs, near Hwy 26) 1 - Beaver Cr. (mouth to RM 26) 2- Quartz Cr. (mouth to RM 5) 2 - Coyote Cr. (mouth to RM 11) 1- Potential MaSAs in Whychus Cr. 2- Mill Cr. (RM 5 to RM 6.5) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing, noxious Weeds 

Livestock grazing, agricultural conversion, roads, bank armoring, residential development, loss of beaver dams, noxious weeds 

Abundance, productivity 

All Man

expevegeripar(NPC
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-53

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

1- Whychus Cr.- RM 4 to RM16 2- Seekseequa Cr. 5th field HUC 

1- Warm Springs R. 5th field HUCs 

1- Shitike Creek 5th field HUC 

2- Lower Deschutes River RM 74 to RM 100 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Sign

graz

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Lower Warm Springs River 5th field HUC 

Mill Creek 6th Field HUC 

Shitike Creek 5th field HUC 

Deschutes River RM 87 to Rm 100 Beaver Creek 5th field HUC 

Degraded riparian communities 

Conversion of natural riparian vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

Warm Springs River RM 0.0 – 3.5 Warm Springs River RM 27.5 - 30 Lower Deschutes River RM 73-84 Beaver Creek RM 0.25-3.5 Beaver Creek RM 14-18 Badger Creek RM 0.5-2.5 Skookum Creek RM 0-1.0 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Spec

signi

Install off-stream livestock watering 

Badger Creek (RM 2.2) Warm Springs River (RM 28) 

Degraded riparian communities, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Off-c

in ch

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

Beaver Creek Warm Springs River (mouth to Schoolie Creek, Ka-Nee-Ta resort area) Shitike Creek (mouth to RM 5, City of Warm Springs, near Hwy 26) Deschutes River (Eagle Creek to Shitike Creek) Deschutes River (Trout Creek to PBR) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing, agricultural conversion, confinement in Ka-Nee-Ta area, roads, development 

Abundance, productivity 

All Ripa

rate 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Restore natural riparian communities 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, ODFW, watershed councils 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, BLM 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, watershed councils, BLM 

Ongoing Localized Long term After multiple yea

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

CTWSRO, ODA, SWCDs, ODFW 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Riparian restorat

Install off-stream livestock watering 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCD 

Expansion of existing effort 

Private lands Ongoing Riparian restorat

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCDs, ODFW, watershed councils 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

CTWSRO Watershed maintenance Warm Springs River RM 0.0 – 3.5 Likely Needs to be contin
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-54

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Warm Springs River RM 27.5 - 30 Lower Deschutes River RM 73-84 Beaver Creek RM 0.25-3.5 Beaver Creek RM 14-18 Badger Creek RM 0.5-2.5 Skookum Creek RM 0-1.0 

CTWSRO IRMP Warm Springs 5th field HUCs 

Shitike Creek 5th field HUC 

Yes Adaptive managem

be expanded. 

SWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private land Program could be e

programmatic revie

ODFW ODFW COID mitigation and enhancement program Upper Deschutes River, Whychus 

Creek 

 No Limited to small geo

downstream effects addressed. 

USFS Allotment Management Plan, Forest Management Plans Metolius 5th field HUCs 

Whychus 5th field HUCs 

Yes See USFS/BLM Su

and USFS Region’s (USDA-FS, 2005). 

NRCS EQUIP, CRP, CREP Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC Yes Programs for prope

upland. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private land See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 

Various restoration projects Whychus Creek Yes Could be expanded

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The CTWSRO has erected and maintains nearly 70 miles of riparian exclusion fences, constructed water gaps, and off channel watering station for livestock. Constant maintenance of t

to keep livestock out and protect the riparian vegetation. Construction of more off channel watering sites or water gaps would help to address part of the issue. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

is most needed. 

The USFS requires fence maintenance for all grazing allotments. New fencing may be part of adjustments to existing grazing strategies by the USFS/BLM to promote riparian recovery. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

1-Whychus Creek 1-Upper Deschutes River

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

1-Whychus Creek 1-Upper Deschutes River 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 

IrrigaCree
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-55

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

loss during conveyance 

summer parr 

durin

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

1-Whychus Creek 1-Upper Deschutes River 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Smaintersuma ma

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, CTWSRO, landowners Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream 

Long term Immediate increa

streamflow 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, CTWSRO, OWEB, landowners 

Expands existing program, proposes new projects 

High dispersal downstream 

Ongoing – Long term Increased stream

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, Oregon Water Trust, PGE, DRC, DBLT, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion to 

mouth of Deschutes 

Long term Immediate increa

flow 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion to 

mouth of Deschutes 

Long term Immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive funding 

ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

CTWSRO IRMP, water quality standards Warm Springs 5th Field HUCS 

Shitike Creek 5th field HUC 

Seekseequa Creek 5th field HUC 

Yes in some areas, no in others 

Program could be e
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-56

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

ODFW Habitat Program, riparian improvements Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC Uncertain Needs expansion. OWRD Stream Flow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Upper Deshcutes 4th field HUC See State of Orego

F. 

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC Uncertain Program needs expSWCDs Improve irrigation efficiency, upland improvements, 

riparian improvements 

Population-wide See State of Orego

F. 

ODEQ Water quality management plans Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC See State of Orego

F. 

USFS, BLM Water quality restoration plans (WQRP), PACFISH Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC Uncertain WQR Plans identify 

implementation of pSufficiency AssessmRegion’s Aquatic R2005). 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Whychus Creek, Lake Creek No Program needs addNRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Population-wide Uncertain Program could be eDRC Flow restoration projects Upper Deschutes River 

Whychus Creek 

No Currently have proje

be expanded. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The CTWSRO, ODFW, Watershed Councils, NRCS and Soil and Water Districts have implemented riparian improvements on federal, tribal, state, and private lands to improve base stre

parameters, primarily through construction of riparian corridor fences that exclude livestock grazing and development of off channel watering devices. Public land managers have imfor protection and restoration of USFS and BLM lands. Primary constraints on more riparian improvements are personnel and funding. The Deschutes River subbasin has 578 miles 

water rights. Voluntary flow restoration restored 13.4 cfs in 2006, of which 3.2 cfs was permanent. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Regi

prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce elevated stream temperatures 

2- Warm Springs R. 2- Mill Cr. 1- Whychus Cr. 1-Deschutes R. 

Altered stream temperatures, degraded water quality 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

1- Warm Springs R. (RM 7) 1- Shitike Cr. (RM1.5) 

Depleted oxygen Nutrient enrichment Bacteria increase 

Point source inputs Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Wadiswa

Reduce chemical pollution inputs 

Agricultural lands throughout population Chemical pollution Pesticides, fertilizers, 

herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-57

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

point source inputs 

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

Agricultural lands throughout population Degraded upland processes, 

altered hydrology, water quality, altered sediment routing 

Land conversion and agricultural practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Regre

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

1- Deschutes R. Pelton Dam to Trout Cr. 1- Warm Springs MaSAs and MiSAs 1- Shitike Cr. MaSAs and MiSAs 2- Potential MaSAs in Metolius 1- Potential MaSAs in Whychus 

Degraded upland processes, floodplains, riparian areas, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Spawning, incubation, fry dispersal, rearing, overwintering 

The weinclist The temreaDareaShmid waas Shsev200negExcredSplowCo

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water quality, sediment 

routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Less than 5 years Immediate 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

ODEQ, municipalities Ongoing Dispersal downstream Ongoing – Long term Variable 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs ODEQ, WyEast RC&D, others 

Municipal sewage treatment plants 

 Dispersal downstream Ongoing – Long term Reduce chemica

immediately 

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

ODA, SWCD Subbasin-wide Ongoing – Long term Long term 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide, high 

dispersal downstream 

Long term Up to 15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-58

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

ODEQ CWA Section 401 Upper Deschutes 4th field HUC See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

CTWSRO CWA Section 401, Water Quality Standards, Integrated 

Resource Management Plan 

Warm Springs 5th field HUCs 

Shitike Creek 5th field HUC 

Likely Needs expansion. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Middle Deschutes River 

Whychus Creek 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 

USFS, BLM Stream Restoration Program (PacFish/NWFP) Metolius River/5th field HUCs 

Whychus Creek5th field HUCs Middle Deschutes River 5th field HUCs 

Yes See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E and USStrategy (USDA-FS

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trus

on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

is most needed. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and run

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Restore native upland plants Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Utilize appropriate fire suppression techniques, implement mitigation measures 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment Conversion of 

vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Appr

minimhabi

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Supp

regiminten
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-59

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and run

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, water quality 

Upland land use practices, erosion, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response T

Continue to promote no-till and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

SWCD Existing 

program 

Croplands, MaSAs Ongoing Reduce runoff, se

immediate increa

Restore native upland plants USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, 

watershed councils, CTWSRO, BIA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Juniper control can be quick, other actions such as control of invasive plants may take 20 years or more 

0-20 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODOT, ODF Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Immediate for se

parameters 5-15 

Utilize appropriate fire suppression techniques, implement mitigation measures 

CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Ongoing Areas where fires have 

occurred 

Long term 5-15 yrs 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 yea

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, ODF, BLM, CTWSRO, watershed councils, NRCS, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

NRCS,SWCD, Private Landowners CRP, CREP, EQUIP, WHP Middle Deschutes 5th field HUC 

Metolius 5th field HUCs 

Warm Springs 5th field HUCs 

Lower Deschutes River RM 74-100 Whychus Creek 

Likely Needs expansion. 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Coyote Creek / Quartz Creek 5th

field watershed Beaver Creek 5th field watershed 

Shitike Creek 5th field watershed

No Program needs add

scope. 

ODFW Watershed Restoration Whychus Creek 

Metolius River 

Uncertain Needs expansion. 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest Program Private and state forestlands 

throughout population 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

USFS, BLM Stream Restoration Program (PacFish/NWFP) Metolius River 5th field HUCs 

Whychus Creek 5th field HUCs 

Yes See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-60

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and run

Middle Deschutes River 

CTWSRO IRMP Warm Springs 5th field HUCs 

Shitike Creek 5th field HUC

Yes Guided by adaptive 

years--may need ex

CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Fire suppression mitigation approaches Population-wide Likely See USFS/BLM Pro

Appendix E and USStrategy (USDA-FS

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

 is most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-61

9.3.4 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Crooked River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: degraded channel structure and complexity and floodplain connectivity, degrade

high water temperature, low flows, altered hydrology sediment routing and lack of fish passage. 

Primary threats: grazing and agricultural practices, urban development, off highway vehicle use, irrigatio

lack of floodplain connectivity. 

Geographic area designations: Allen Cr-1 (Rm 0 – Rm 4); Crooked MS-1 (Rm 6 – Rm 7); Crooked MS-2 (Rm 7 

MS-3 (Rm 14 – Rm 30); Crooked MS-4 (Rm 31 – Rm 45); Crooked MS-5 (Rm 45 – Rm 46); Crooked M51); Crooked MS-7 (Rm 51 – Rm 55); Crooked MS-8 (Rm 55 – Rm 62); Crooked MS-9 (Rm 62 – Rm 70Bowman Dam; Little McKay Cr-1 (Rm 0 – Rm 3); McKay Cr-1 (Rm 0 – Rm 5); McKay Cr-2 (Rm 5 – R(Rm 10 – Rm 14); McKay Cr-4 (Rm 14 – Rm 16); McKay Cr-5 (Rm 16 – Rm 19); Ochoco Cr-1 (Rm 0 – 

(Rm 5 – Rm 10); Ochoco Cr. above Ochoco Dam. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority, 3-third priority)

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

1- Crooked MS-1,8,9 1- McKay Cr-1,3 1- Ochoco Cr-2 2- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6 2- McKay Cr-2 2- Ochoco Cr-1 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All Abundance, 

productivity 

All Additi

and Oimprorecrui

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

Private and public lands Degraded floodplain 

connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All Abundance, 

productivity 

All Contin

City oand d
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-62

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

1- Crooked MS-1,2,9 2- McKay Cr-4,5 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-7 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

All Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

1- Entire population All factors All Abundance, 

productivity 

All Apply 

protecto pre

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

1- Entire population All factors All All All Progr

knowlhydromana

Special management designated on public lands 

1- Crooked MS-1,2,9 All factors All All All Mana

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

BLM, USFS, Crooked River Watershed Council (CRWC), City of Prineville, Deschutes Basin Land Trust 

Ongoing McKay MASA, Lower 

Crooked MASA, Lower Ochoco MASA 

Immediate Variable dependin

condition 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

CRWC, City of Prineville, private landowners, ODFW, Ochoco lumber, 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable dependin

condition 

Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

BLM, USFS, ODFW Ongoing 1- Crooked MS-1,2,9 

2- McKay Cr-4,5 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-7 

Immediate Variable dependin

condition 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, NRCS, CRWC, BLM, counties, private landowners 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Degradation stop i

habitat recovery 1depending on stat

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

ODFW, CRWC, BLM, USFS, NOAA Fisheries, SWCD's, OSU extension, CTWSRO, PGE 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

USFS and BLM Special Management Area designations PACFISH, Wild 

and Scenic River Corridors 

Crooked MS-1,2,-9 McKay Cr-4, Cr-5 Little McKay Cr-1 

Likely Continual implementat

Program Sufficiency AsCurrently no additional 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-63

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

on BLM lands. 

USDA FSA/SWCD's CREP/CRP Agricultural lands throughout 

population 

Likely Additional programs ca

not permanent in duratProgrammatic review -

ODA/SWCD’s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Agricultural lands throughout 

population 

 Uncertain See State of Oregon P

Local Government County planning and zoning, City of Prineville 

Comprehensive Plan 

Private lands throughout population 

Uncertain Riparian protection not 

treated wastewater fro

PGE Lower Crooke MASA, Lower Ochoco MASA Upper Population Uncertain Newly implemented proNGOs Lease or purchase of land or instream water rights Private lands throughout 

population 

No Limited opportunities a

expanded when oppor

Watershed Councils CRWC Population-wide Uncertain Water council currently 

success and future is dprocuring funds. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFISH S

and BLM grazing management remains challenging in some locations. 

FSA programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include CRP, which pays landowners not to farm highly erodible soils, and the CREP program that pays landowners for 

grazing and farming. The long-term effectiveness of both programs is limited by the relatively short duration of the contracts, which ranges from 10-15 years. 

ODA's Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion on non-Federal and non-Tribal Trus

on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Replace or remove barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts, irrigation structures, infiltration galleries 

1- Rice Baldwin Dam 1- Stearns Dam 1- Seamus Dam 1- Parga Dam 2- Ochoco Creek (Prineville Country Club) 2- Bowman Dam 2- Ochoco Dam 2- Opal Springs Dam 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

PassaCrookIrrigatpassaParga dams challe

Maintain irrigation diversions and screens 

1-Where diversions exist throughout population Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Primarily juveniles, but also adults at facilities with ladders. 

All kngener

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

1-Peoples Irrigation 2-private irrigation diversions 

Entrainment in canals Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, spatial structure, productivity 

Juveniles Scree

plannSignif
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-64

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

recenIrrigatremai

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected 

Response 

Remove/replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

 CRWC, BLM, USFS, ODFW, private landowners 

Ongoing Access between 

upstream and downstream habitats 

Immediate Immediate 

Maintain irrigation diversions and screens 

ODFW, private landowners, irrigation districts 

Ongoing Diversions subbasinwide Based on funding Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW Fish Passage and Screening 

Ongoing Access between 

upstream and downstream habitats 

Immediate as need is identified Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

CRWC, BLM, ODFW, BOR, NRCS, Ochoco Irrigation, private landowners 

Fish passage and screening, state funding and federal funding 

Rice Baldwin Dam, Stearns Dam, Seamus Dam, Parga Dams, Ochoco Creek, Bowman Dam, Ochoco Dam, Opal Springs Dam. 

Likely Passage has been 

Central and Peoplthat passage will bDams by 2011. Pdiversions will be a 

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening, State program 

and federal funded 

Population-wide Uncertain The program com

per year, but is decooperation and liOregon programm

CTWSRO/ODFW Salmon and Steelhead Reintroduction Plan Areas above Pelton complex No Adaptive plan oveODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Population-wide See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

USFS and BLM Culvert replacement Population-wide USFS likely with current 

program. 

Needs expansion. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

 A comprehensive fish screen inventory needs to be completed throughout the population. The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005

 prioritize culvert replacements for this population. Fish will not be able to pass beyond Crooked MS-1 without passage at Opal Springs Dam, successful construction of a fish ladder 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to 1- Crooked MS-4,5,6 Degraded floodplain, Removal of interaction Abundance, Primarily 0 to Flo
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-65

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

channels 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4 

2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-3,7,8 2- McKay Cr-5,6 2- Allen Cr-1 2-Ochoco Cr-1,2 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

degraded riparian area, channel structure 

between river and floodplain, grazing, agricultural use, loss of beaver dams 

productivity 2-age rearing 

and 2-age migrants 

balstregranecFloMSlan

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

1- Crooked MS-4,5,6 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-3,7,8 2- McKay Cr-5,6 2- Allen Cr-1 2-Ochoco Cr-1,2 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Off reagranecFloMSlan

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

1-McKay Cr 1,2,3,4,5 1-Little McKay Cr 1 1-Ochoco Cr 1,2 2-Allen Cr 1 3-Crooked above Bowman 3-Ochoco Cr above Ochoco Dam 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

All As 

rec

Restore wet meadows and wetlands 

1- Crooked MS-4,5,6 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-3,7,8 2- McKay Cr-1,4 2- Allen Cr-1 2-Ochoco Cr-1,2 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands and wet meadows 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and age 0+ 

Reweflooresmasta

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected 

Response 

Reconnect floodplain habitats. CTWSRO, ODFW, CRWC, 

BLM, SWCD’s, USFS, PGE, ODOT, City of Prineville 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream from 

site 

Long term 5-15 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream 

CTWSRO, ODFW, CRWC, SWCD, USFS, BLM, PGE, 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream from 

site 

Long term 5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-66

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

channels. ODOT Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

CTWSRO, ODFW, USFS, BLM Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Within 15 years 

Restore wet meadows and wetlands 

CTWSRO, ODFW, CRWC, BLM, SWCD’s, USFS, PGE, ODOT, City of Prineville 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Within 15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

CRWC, City of Prineville Crooked River stream channel restoration Crooked MS-5 No Engineering for pr

expected summer stream segment, mreach and others. connectivity in othwere not successfchannel condition, design. 

CRWC, Ochoco Lumber, ODFW Ochoco Creek Enhancement, Ochoco Mill Site Ochoco CR-1 No Although this proje

the project boundain Ochoco CR-1 a

CRWC, private landowners, ODFW Middle McKay passage protection, stream restoration McKay Cr-2,3 

Allen Creek Cr-1 

Uncertain Projects will create 

stream channels. is necessary for pneeds to be expansome tributaries. 

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP/CRP Private lands throughout 

population 

Uncertain An effective progra

more landowners. programmatic revi

BLM, Oregon State Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers Crooked MS-1,2,3 (RM 6-17) 

Crooked MS-9 

Yes See State of Oreg

programmatic revi

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands No See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands only when 

specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Likely The USFS preferr

managing riparian processes. Prograexpand in scope. Sufficiency AssessRegion’s Aquatic R2005). 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CRP in uplands and riparian protection provide short-term benefits, however longer periods are required to restore stream channel and habitat. Habitat benefits of CRP enrollments are 

between participating agencies and landowners. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-67

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

The success of all stream channel and riparian restoration is dependent on cooperation between landowners and government agencies. Proper land management practices must be ad

resource managers to assure that further habitat degradation does not occur. 

Channel and floodplain restoration projects in the recovery area will require long-term monitoring agreements between the CRWC and landowners. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority, 3-

third priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form, includes berm and levee removal 

1- Crooked MS-4,5,6 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4, 1- Ochoco Cr 2 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-3,7,8 2- McKay Cr-5,6 2- Allen Cr-1 2-Ochoco Cr-1, 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, sediment routing 

Grazing, agricultural practices, channelization, berms, roads, railroad bank armoring, floodplain, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Channelizbank armthe stream 

areas. Lahabitat coEfforts to in other renot succechannel cproject de

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

1- McKay CR-1,2,3,4,5 1- Little McKay Cr-1 1- Ochoco CR-1,2 2- Crooked MS- 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 2- Allen Cr-1 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain, degraded riparian area , altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Limited olarge wooRiver. Ageliminate areas and necessarCR-1,2,3Bowman recruitme

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1- Little McKay Cr-1 1- Ochoco Cr 1,2 2- Allen Cr-1 2- Crooked MS- 3,4,5,6,7,8 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Considerwhile habmore pas

Stabilize streambanks with passive restoration processes 

1- Crooked MS-4,5,6 1- McKay Cr-1,2,,4.5 1- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-3,7,8 2- McKay Cr-3 2- Allen Cr-1 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, floodplain connectivity, degraded riparian areas, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 0 to 2-age rearing and 2-age migrants 

Passive r

lower CrorestoratioBowman steelhead 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-68

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

2-Ochoco Cr-1,2 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Restore natural channel form, includes berm and levee removal 

CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CRWC, City of Prineville 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, USFS, BLM, PGE, CTWSRO, CRWC 

Ongoing Localized to treatment 

area 

Long term Immediate 

Increase instream habitat through manual placement of structures 

ODFW, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, CRWC, private landowners 

Ongoing Limited application 

throughout population 

Long term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, 

CRWC, USFS, BLM, ODA, City of Prineville 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP/CRP Riparian and upland 

areas throughout population 

Uncertain An effective progra

protection, but couprivate lands. See review -- Appendix 

BLM Prineville District Various range and upland restoration projects. BLM lands Likely Most lands current

Guidelines continulong-term complian

BLM, Oregon State Parks, CTWSRO 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Crooked MS-1,2,3, 9 (RM 

6-17, 62-70) Crooked MS-9 

Likely See State of Orego

Appendix F. See UAssessment -- App

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population No See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands only when 

specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Likely The USFS preferre

managing riparian processes. Needs in Trout Creek SubSufficiency AssessRegion’s Aquatic R2005). 

CRWC Various restoration projects Entire Crooked River 

Subbasin 

Uncertain Project capacity cu

of council personn

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CRP in uplands and riparian protection provide short-term benefits, however longer periods are required to restore stream channel and habitat. Habitat benefits of CRP enrollments are 

between participating agencies and landowners. Riparian fencing must be maintained to assure that the riparian vegetation can re-establish and eventually provide a source of LWD

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-69

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Channel and floodplain restoration projects in the recovery area will require long-term monitoring agreements between the CRWC and landowners. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority, 3-

third priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian communities including vegetative planting 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 1- Allen Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-1,2,9 2- Little McKay Cr-1 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Livestock grazing, agricultural conversion, roads, bank armoring, residential development, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All Pa

sudethorechadeverecStrripunthr

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 1- Allen Cr-1 2- Little McKay Cr-1 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Sig

gra

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Where opportunities exist throughout the subbasin 

Degraded riparian communities Conversion of 

natural riparian vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Install/maintain fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1- Ochoco Cr -2 2- Allen Cr-1 2- Little McKay Cr-1 2- Ochoco Cr-2 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All Sev

live

Install off-stream livestock watering 

Throughout entire subbasin Degraded riparian communities, 

sediment routing 

Overgrazing Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 

Bank degradation, degraded riparian 

communities, LWD recruitment, temperatures, flow, sediment routing 

Overgrazing, agricultural conversion, roads, 

Abundance, productivity 

All Na

gensom
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-70

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

1- Allen Cr-1 2- Crooked MS-1,2,9 2- Little McKay Cr-1 3- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

urban development fen

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Timefra

Restore natural riparian communities including vegetative planting 

USFS, SWCD’s, ODFW, CRWC, BLM, OWEB, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Riparian restoration (10-

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

 USFS, ODA, SWCD’s, BLM, CRWC, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Riparian restoration (10-

Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODA, SWCD’s, CRWC, BLM, private landowners 

Ongoing Immediate Riparian restoration (10-

Install/maintain fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas 

 NRCS, , ODA, SWCD’s, ODFW, USFS, BLM, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Immediate Riparian restoration (10-

Install off-stream livestock watering 

USFS, ODA, SWCD, CRWC, private landowners 

Expansion of existing effort 

Private lands Ongoing Riparian restoration (10-

Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate 

USFS, SWCD’s, ODFW, CRWC, BLM, OWEB, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Riparian restoration (10-

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

S

BLM, Oregon State Parks, CTWSRO 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Crooked MS-1,2,3 (RM 6-17) 

Crooked MS-9 

Likely See State of 

Appendix F. Sufficiency A

USFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) Forest lands Likely Needs to be 

Creek SubbaSufficiency ARegional Aqudiscussion in 

NRCS,SWCD, USDA FSA, Private Landowners 

CREP Throughout population Uncertain An effective p

and restoratioadditional pri

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population See State of 

Appendix F. 

CRWC/OWEB Various restoration projects Throughout population Uncertain Effective prog

restoration/poutreach infoParticipation 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy lim it is most needed. Public land managers have implemented PACFISH standards for protection and restoration of USFS and BLM lands. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific N
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-71

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. 

The USFS/BLM requires fence maintenance for all grazing allotments. New fencing may be part of adjustments to existing grazing strategies by the USFS/BLM to promote riparian reco

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3 1- Allen Cr-1 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 2- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 2- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

MajotribupurpCrooand woulpopucould alloc

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

1- Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3 1- Allen Cr-1 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 2- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 2- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Convirrigaimprwoul

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

1- Reallocation of Prineville Reservoir 1- Where available 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Most mon

Water retention structures Population-wide Altered hydrology, low flows Degradation on uplands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

Mannot bleft inmanreten

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, low flows, 

high temperatures, impaired natural functions and processes on uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and summer parr 

JunipconsgrasretenFlow they scoudiver

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity, spatial 

All stages New 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-72

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

structure, diversity 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Time

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, , BOR, irrigation districts, landowners, OWRD 

Expands existing program, new projects 

Croplands throughout subbasin 

Based on funding Immediate increas

habitat diversity, flconnection (0-5 yr

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, OWEB, landowners, CRWC 

Expands existing program, proposes new projects 

High dispersal downstream Ongoing Increased streamf

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, Oregon Water Trust, PGE, DRC, BOR 

Ongoing Point of diversions to mouth 

of Crooked 

Long term Immediate increas

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversions to mouth 

of Crooked 

Long term 

Water retention structures SWCD’s Ongoing Uplands Intermediate 0-15 years Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, OWEB, ODFW, CTWSRO, landowners 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

BLM Various projects related to rangeland improvements in 

uplands 

BLM lands Uncertain Effective p

effectiveneProgram SE. 

NRCS,SWCD, FSA, Private Landowners 

CRP, CREP Riparian and upland areas within 

population 

No An effectiv

riparian proadditional p

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use 

Specific locations determined by opportunities 

See State Appendix F
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-73

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Oregon Water Trust Lease water rights and return instream Specific locations determined by 

opportunities 

Uncertain Program w

more willinthat instrea

SWCD, NRCS Various irrigation efficiency improvements, CRP, CREP Specific locations determined by 

opportunities 

Uncertain Needs exp

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State 

Appendix F

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many landowners have adopted modern irrigation techniques; however downstream irrigators generally take unused water. Monitoring of irrigation withdrawals with flow gauges is essen

conservative water management are realized. However, irrigation waters should not be returned to streams if they will compromise the water quality of essential habitats. 

The BOR, as required in the Columbia River Biological Opinion, is required to identify and assist with passage improvement design and flow restoration. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Manage irrigation return flow and wastewater effluent to improve water quality 

1- Crooked MS-1,2,3,4,5,6,7 1- McKay Cr-1,2,3 1- Ochoco Cr-1,2 2- Allen Cr-1 2- Crooked R. (above Bowman Dam) 2- Ochoco Cr. (above Ochoco Dam) 

Altered stream temperatures, degraded water quality 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, raw sewage 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Reinpre

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

Agricultural lands throughout population Degraded upland processes, 

altered hydrology, water quality, altered sediment routing 

Land conversion and agricultural practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry dispersal and rearing 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Degraded upland processes, 

floodplains, riparian areas, altered hydrology, altered 

sediment routing 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Tirfrnst

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water quality, 

sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality 

Population-wide Water quality Land use practices Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All D

othp
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-74

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophy

Response Timefr

Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCD’s, Irrigation Districts Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Less than 5 years Immediate 

Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan 

ODA, SWCD Subbasin-wide Ongoing Variable 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide, high 

dispersal downstream 

Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, SWCD, ODEQ, CRWC Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality 

ODA, SWCD, Municipalities, CDs, USFS, BLM, Irrigation Districts, private landowners, ODEQ 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

BLM Various projects related to rangeland improvements in 

uplands 

BLM lands Uncertain Effective programs. See 

Assessment -- Appendix 

FSA, NRCS,SWCD, Private Landowners 

CRP, CREP Riparian and upland areas 

throughout population 

Uncertain An effective program for 

protection, but could be elands. See State of OregAppendix F for SWCD. 

ODA/SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Throughout population Uncertain See State of Oregon proUSFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH) USFS lands Uncertain Needs expansion. See U

Assessment -- Appendix Restoration Strategy. 

ODEQ Water Quality Subbasin-wide Likely See State of Oregon proODEQ/EPA Pesticides/Toxics Subbasin-wide Likely See State of Oregon pro

for ODEQ 

Municipalities Public Works Crooked MS- 3,4,5,6 No Treatments of sewage re

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limite

 for riparian planting where it is most needed. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs, in conjunction with Forest Plan Management Area allocations, has been highly successful for passive u this population’s area. The TMDLs set loading capacity to achieve water quality standards. To address high summer water temperatures, near stream vegetation disturbance, channel widening and low flows a increased solar radiation loading. Achievement of the TMDL targets is dependent of determination of system potential vegetation. During TMDL development, the best professional jud

 the potential streamside shade-producing vegetation broadly, as continuous tree-belts on each side of the river. While permit processes implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers are thorough and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, the program lacks personnel resource

 conditions of permitted actions are followed. In addition, this agency lacks resources to adequately monitor waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations re

 private parties. See State of Oregon programmatic review -- Appendix F for ODSL.
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-75

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority,

3- third priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Remove junipers 1-Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8 

1-McKay Cr-3,4,5 1-Allen Cr-1 1- Ochoco Cr-2 2- Crooked above (Bowman Dam) 2- Ochoco (above Ochoco dam) 

Altered hydrology Loss of water storage capacity Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Restore native upland plants and remove noxious weeds 

1-Crooked MS-3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1-McKay Cr-1,2,3,4,5 1-Allen Cr-1 1- Ochoco Cr-2 2- Ochoco Cr-1 3- Crooked above (Bowman Dam) 3- Ochoco (above Ochoco dam)

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

1- McKay Cr-4,5 1- Little McKay Cr-1 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Promote reforestation and fuels management 

1- McKay Cr-4,5 1- Little McKay Cr-1 

Altered hydrology, sediment Conversion of vegetative 

communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Sup

regiminten

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, water quality 

Upland land use practices, erosion, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Apply BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing

Forestry, roads, overgrazing, Agricultural practices, noxious weeds 

Abundance, productivity

All Upla

the hwaterathbe imwategivethe w

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected B

Response 

Remove junipers SWCD’s, NRCS Ongoing Uplands Immediate 0-20 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-76

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Restore native upland plants USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCD’s, 

watershed councils, CTWSRO, BIA 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Juniper control can be quick, other actions such as control of invasive plants may take 20 years or more 

0-20 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

CTWSRO, USFS, ODOT, ODF Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long term Immediate for se

parameters 5-15 

Promote reforestation and fuels management 

CTWSRO, USFS, watershed councils, SWCD’s, counties 

Ongoing Forestlands Long term 0-10 yrs 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 ye

Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, ODF, BLM, CTWSRO, watershed councils, NRCS, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices

SWCD, USFS, ODA, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of water quality management plans and other plans. 

0-20 years, depetreatments applie

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Suf

NRCS,SWCD, Private Landowners CRP, CREP, Environmental Quality Incentive 

Program (EQUIP) 

Private upland and riparian lands Uncertain An effective progra

protection, but couprivate lands. Condependent on fundprogrammatic revie

SWCD’s Voluntary Watershed Restoration Private agricultural lands Dependent on fund

State of Oregon pr

BLM Various projects related to rangeland 

improvements in uplands. 

BLM lands Uncertain Effective programs 

additional lands. 

CTWSRO IRMP Reservation Lands Likely Adaptive plan coulUSFS Stream Restoration Program (PACFISH), 

Vegetation Management Programs, Range Management Programs 

USFS forest lands Uncertain Effectiveness of pr

expanded monitoriSufficiency AssessAquatic RestoratioGaps commentary 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest 

Program 

Private and state forestlands throughout population 

See State of OregoAppendix F. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Orego

Appendix F. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-77

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many benefits to steelhead have been seen in upland and riparian management plans since the 1987 Farm Bill. CRP in uplands and riparian protection provide short-term benefits, how

restore stream channel and habitat. Habitat benefits of CRP enrollments are dependent upon agreements between participating agencies and landowners. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize active watershed restoration for this population, and helps deploy lim

funding where it is most needed. 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs, in conjunction with Forest Plan Management Area allocations, has been highly successful for passive u

 this population’s area. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-78

9.3.5 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Lower Mainstem John Day River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), alte

water temperature, and altered hydrology. Impaired fish passage is also a high priority limiting factor in BMuddy, Rock, and Thirtymile creeks. Primary threats: agricultural and grazing practices, removal of overstory trees and bank vegetation from water withdrawals, wetland draining and conversion, and stream channelization and diking. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

Mountain Cr. (2); Pine Cr. (1); Cottonwood Cr. (1); Bridge Cr (1). Reaches are either designated 

roadless areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or designated Wilderness Areas within the watershed. John Day River, Parrish Cr to Tumwater Falls (a Wild and Scenic River) (2); Butte Cr, lower 8 miles (2) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

Many threats including livestock overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices (fertilizers, herbicides, sediments, changes in plant communities), water

withdrawals, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All P

tehoqtMjuauacfaa

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

For those stream reaches already under either CREP or ODFW cooperative agreements on Alder (2), Pine Hollow (1), Rock (Gilliam Co) (2), Mountain (1), Cottonwood (1), Squaw (2) and Butte (1) crs 

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Convert Wilderness Study Areas on public lands to Wilderness at Spring Basin (1), Pat’s Cabin (1), Sutton Mountain (2), North Pole Ridge (2), Thirtymile (1), and Lower John Day mainstem (2) 

Same as above Land use practices Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Special management designations in forest and BLM 

Bridge Cr, adjacent to the Sutton Mt. WSA (1), and on Ochoco National Forest (2) 

Same as above Livestock grazing of 

riparian area, changes in 

Abundance, productivity 

All T

R
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-79

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

plans plant communities A

E

Protect access to key habitats None identified at this time, although ODFW 

periodically reviews proposals that could block 

passage into spawning and rearing habitat. 

Passage barriers, altered hydrology, channel structure 

 Abundance, 

productivity, distribution 

All T

mOfotmW

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

Population-wide All Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

Population-wide All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expe

Resp

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

CTUIR, TNC, RMEF, John Day Basin Trust, SWCDs 

Ongoing Water quality improvement have 

high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 yrestor

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW, SWCDs, FSA Ongoing Water quality improvement have 

high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Agreements are for 10-15 years Imme

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

USFS, Oregon State Parks Ongoing as 

identified 

Water quality and flow improvements would have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements confined to the specific site 

unknown 5-15 y

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

USFS, BLM Ongoing as 

identified 

Same as above Many complete, potentially subject to 

change in Forest Plan revisions 

Imme

Protect access to key habitats None identified at this time, although 

ODFW periodically reviews proposals that could block passage into spawning and rearing habitat. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-80

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

NRCS, SWCDs, USFS, ODFW, ODF, DSL, BLM, ODOT, CTWSRO, ODA, FSA, private landowners 

ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 y

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

ongoing Population-wide Long term Variab

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

USFS and BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild 

and Scenic River corridors, Special Management Area designations, PACFISH 

Bridge Cr, Cottonwood Cr, Pat’s Cabin, North Pole Ridge, Lower John Day, Spring Basin, Thirtymile, and Sutton Mountain for Wilderness, all streams within National Forest and BLM lands for PACFISH 

Yes Se

AsAdfor areBLan

ODFW Cooperative Agreements Alder, Cottonwood, Squaw and 

Mountain crs 

Uncertain Th

ye

FSA CREP Rock, Pinehollow, and Butte crs Uncertain Th

ye

NGOs Lease or purchase of lands or instream water rights Yes Im

an

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program The entire lower subbasin Se

rev

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Pine Cr Likely CoODF Oregon Forest Practices Act All private and state owned lands Se

rev

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Private land and population-wide Varies by county, Grant County 

currently has 100’ riparian setbacks. 

Altnothe oc

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The John Day River has 248.6 miles designated as Federal Wild and Scenic River and 317 miles designated as State Wild and Scenic, including the John Day River from Tumwater Fall

State designated reaches include the John Day mainstem from Tumwater Falls (RM 10) to Parrish Cr (RM 170). Although wild and scenic designation does not preclude developmeconsistent with protecting the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV’s) for which the river was designated, requires review of any activity that may affect ORV’s within the 1⁄4 mile r

flowing condition of the river. Designation as W&S essentially precludes construction of any major dam. A Management Plan adopted by BLM and Oregon State Parks Department segments identifies specific management actions including development of livestock grazing management plans for each allotment. Grazing management plans for most of the allotm

complete; all BLM grazing plans are complete. 

Existing forest plans include special management designations for RHCAs. Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congre

plans have been amended by PACFISH, which requires 300-foot buffers on any fish bearing stream for tree removal, as well as specific guidelines for livestock grazing and riparian 

the 300-foot buffer for timber harvest operations has been very good. In areas where trees were harvested before the rules went into effect, it will take decades for them to grow big and contribute to LWD. Forest practices rules for private and state owned forest lands have guidelines for protection of riparian function, although they are not nearly as restrictive a
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-81

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Designating additional RMAs or adding to the current restrictions within RHCAs will be revisited during the Forest Plan Revision process that is currently underway. 

Cooperative and conservation agreements on private land are tools for protecting high quality habitats. ODFW has used cooperative agreements over the last 21 years to protect riparian 

to exclude livestock grazing. Unfortunately those agreements are for only 15 years and there have not been funds or personnel needed to extend them for longer time periods. 

CTWSRO owns mitigation property near Clarno on the mainstem John Day River. It encompasses 33,557-acres and includes approximately 20 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing 

will be in conservation status perpetually. 

FSA programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include the CRP, which pays landowners not to farm highly erodible soils, and the CREP program, which pays landown

aside from grazing and farming. The long term effectiveness of both programs is limited by the relatively short duration of the contracts which ranges from 10 to 15 years. 

NRCS programs that protect riparian areas and upland watersheds include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). T

not to farm highly erodible soils and the CREP program pays landowners for setting riparian corridors aside from grazing and farming. The long term effectiveness of both programs 

duration of the contracts which ranges from 10 to 15 years. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

Rock (1); Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (1), Lone Rock (1), Thirtymile (1), Butte (1), Big Muddy (2), and Rock/Mountain crs (2) 

Impaired fish passage Push up dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push up irrthroughout common in Annual mapush up dadownstreaand other sloads. 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Rock (1), Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (1), Lone Rock (1), Thirtymile (1), Butte (1), Kahler (1), Big Muddy (2), and Rock/Mountain crs (2) 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Concrete dand road centire subblocated priDay) drainof structureof the subbPassage pthroughout 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

Rock Cr (Gilliam Co.) (1), Keeton Cr. (Wheeler Co.) (2), Bridge Cr. (Wheeler Co.) (1), Lower John Day mainstem pumping sites (2) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry Adequately 

immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

Rock Cr (Gilliam Co.) (1), Keeton Cr. (Wheeler Co.) (2), Bridge Cr. (Wheeler Co.) (1), Lower John Day mainstem pumping sites (2) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry Screening 

1950s and 1970s. Mareplaced to entrainmen
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-82

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysi

Response Timefram

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

SWCD Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, but all push up dams not expected to be corrected for at least 15 years 

Immediate 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, watershed councils, SWCDs, ODOT 

Ongoing Access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, replacing all culverts blocking fish passage expected to take 50 years 

Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 16 diversions need to 

be screened, should take 5-10 years 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 10 screens need to 

be replaced, should take 5-10 years 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Su

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Irrigation dam improvements, culvert replacement or retrofits 

Unscreened or poorly screened diversions throughout population 

 The Soil and Wa

construction windcould expand the funding and persprogrammatic rev

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening state program 

and federally funded 

Unscreened or poorly screened diversions throughout population 

No The program com

per year, but is dcooperation and 

USFS Culvert replacement Throughout population on Federal land Uncertain Program progres

sufficient. BLM hMonitoring needepassage for juve

Watershed Councils Road Crossing Passage improvements, 

passage improvements 

Throughout population Uncertain Programs need a

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Throughout population See State of Ore

Appendix F. 

BOR John Day Basin Program Yes CTWSRO John Day Basin Program No The tribe contrac

assist with consu

program. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The mainstem passage problems for the Lower Mainstem John Day population have been addressed, but there are many tributaries where adult passage is blocked and more areas wh

occur. Irrigation dams, stock ponds, and road culverts are the primary causes of passage issues. Soil and Water Districts are correcting passage at irrigation diversions and improp

constrained by funding and by personnel needed for construction oversight. An inventory of road crossings on state and county roads in 1999 indicated 23 culverts on state owned r

owned roads did not meet fish passage criteria in the Lower Mainstem John Day River population. Appendix G presents an inventory of known passage problems associated with croads. Some of those culverts have been replaced with structures that do meet the fish passage criteria, but much work remains. Watershed councils and ODOT, who are the prin
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-83

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

are constrained primarily by funding. An inventory of road crossings on federal lands indicates juvenile passage problems are pervasive, particularly on National Forests, with appro

passage criteria on National Forest land. The US Forest Service and BLM are constrained primarily by funding and the personnel needed for NEPA analysis. At the current rate of c

over 50 years to correct all passage problems on National Forests in all five John Day populations. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Regi

prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. Another constraint is that existing state laws do not re

existing barriers unless there is a major change in the structure, such as reconstruction or significant modifications, so landowner cooperation is critical for improving passage throug

US Bureau of Reclamation is required in the Columbia River Biological Opinion to identify and assist with passage improvement design and flow restoration. Currently, the ODFW Fish Passage and Screening program replaces about 20 irrigation diversion screens per year in the John Day subbasin. With over 120 diversions in the John Day 

current screening criteria or are unscreened, it would take at least 6 years to replace them all. Of the 120 diversions, 26 need screens or screens replaced in this population. Curren

diversions that are unscreened with lower priority given to diversions that have screens, but do not meet the criteria. The program is constrained primarily by funding and personnel. water users to screen diversions less than 30 cubic feet per second and virtually all diversions in the John Day are less than 30 cfs, so landowner cooperation is essential to success 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Rock (2), Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (1), Thirtymile (1), Butte (1), Bridge (1) Kahler (1), Mountain (1), Pinehollow (1), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Restore wet meadows Thirtymile (1), Butte (1), Bridge (1), Kahler (1), 

Mountain (1), Rock (2), Upper Rock (2), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (2), Pinehollow (2), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of wetlands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

Upper Rock (1), Rock (2), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (2), Thirtymile (2), Butte (1), Bridge (1), Kahler (2), Mountain (1), Pinehollow (2), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Tctsf

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

Rock (2), Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (1), Thirtymile (2), Butte (1), Bridge (1), Kahler (1), Mountain (1), Pinehollow (1), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysic

Response Timefram

Reconnect floodplain habitats ODFW, watershed council, 

SWCD, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing For the treated stream reach Short term, once identified Physical response will be 

immediate, biological respmay take 5-10 years 

Restore wet meadows TNC, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing and Benefits of improved channel Intermediate 5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-84

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

planned morphology localized, improved 

water table and resulting increased streamflow and lower water temperatures have high dispersal downstream 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depending upfrequency and duration of channel altering flows 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM 

ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, due to acceptance by landowners and widespread need 

Within 5 years once the dare built 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODFW BPA Habitat Program None completed to date No If specific needs canno

restoration techniques

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Population-wide on Federal 

land, only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Likely The USFS/BLM prefer

managing riparian areprocesses. See USFSAssessment -- AppendRestoration Strategy (

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Population-wide Dependent upon 

need and funding 

Only if specific needs restoration techniques 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Population-wide See State of Oregon p

Nature Conservancy and other NGOs 

Restoration projects Population-wide Uncertain Yes 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State of Oregon pCTWSRO, CTUIR Watershed restoration Pine Cr Uncertain Program could be exp

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

 is most needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Rock (1), Upper Rock (2), Middle Rock (1), Degraded channel Stream channelization, Abundance, Primarily Pass
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-85

Lone Rock (2), Thirtymile (2), Butte (2), Bridge (2), Kahler (2), Mountain (2), Pinehollow (1), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

productivity eggs, fry 

and 0+ 

riparimethand stechnreach

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

Rock (2), Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (2), Thirtymile (1), Butte (1), Bridge (1), Kahler (1), Mountain (1), Pinehollow (2), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (2) crs 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal  channelization 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

More such reconthese 

Stabilize streambanks Rock (1), Upper Rock (2), Middle Rock (1), 

Lone Rock (2), Thirtymile (1), Butte (2), Bridge (2), Kahler (2), Mountain (2), Pinehollow (1), Grass Valley (2), and Hay (1) crs 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Some beneactiveproceto red

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Response Timefra

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, 

watershed councils 

Ongoing and planned 

For the treated stream reach 

Short term, once identified Physical response will b

immediate, biological remay take 5-10 years 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

ODFW, USFS, watershed councils, BLM, SWCDs 

As needed For the immediate 

stream reach 

Once identified, short term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, USFS, watershed 

councils, BLM, SWCDs 

Ongoing For the treated stream 

reach, physical benefits dispersed downstream 

Passive stabilization techniques are referred and take longer to implement 

With passive restoration response may take 15 y

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

Uncertain If specific needs cannot 

restoration techniques t

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

Uncertain The USFS/BLM preferre

managing riparian areaprocesses. May need eUSFS/BLM Program SuE and USFS Region’s A(USDA-FS, 2005). 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

Dependent upon need and funding 

If specific needs cannot restoration techniques n

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

 See State of Oregon pro

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

Dependent upon need and funding 

If specific needs cannot restoration techniques n
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-86

NGOs Watershed restoration Only used where passive restoration has not 

been successful. To date, no structural work has been identified 

Dependent upon need and funding 

If specific needs cannot restoration techniques n

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the management action planning team except when identified as a need for specific sites. 

more passive approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities that would improve floodplain function and channel migration pro

of rootwads, whole trees, or boulder clusters to improved habitat complexity and habitat diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive res

would be to construct boulder or log weirs to raise the water table, but only where a passive approach has not worked. Currently little instream structure placement has been identifiService’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active re

needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Lower John Day River mainstem below Cottonwood Bridge and above Service Cr (2); Rock Cr (2); Upper Rock (2); Middle Rock (2); Lone Rock (1); MaSAs (Gilliam Co) (2); Grass Valley Canyon (2); some reaches of Mountain Cr (Wheeler Co) (1); portions of Parrish Cr (1), Cherry Cr (1); some reaches of Kahler Cr (1), Ferry Cr (2), upper Hay Cr (2); portions of Bridge Cr (1), Thirtymile Cr (1), Horseshoe Cr (2), Johnson Cr(2), Butte Cr (1), Franks Cr (2), and upper reaches of Pine Hollow Canyon Cr (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Livestock overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, cutting of trees in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Primary include livestocmanagrecove

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Lower John Day River mainstem below Cottonwood Bridge and above Service Cr (2); Rock Cr (2), Upper Rock (1), Middle Rock (2), Lone Rock (1); MaSAs (Gilliam Co) (2), Grass Valley Canyon (2); some reaches of Mountain Cr (Wheeler Co) (1); portions of Parrish Cr (1), Cherry Cr (1); some reaches of Kahler Cr (1), Ferry Cr (2), upper Hay Cr (2); portions of Bridge Cr (1), Thirtymile Cr (1), Horseshoe Cr (2), Johnson Cr (2), portions of Butte Cr (1), Franks Cr (2), and upper reaches of Pine Hollow Canyon Cr (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Livestock overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 

fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophysical Respo

Timeframe

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

ODFW, Watershed Councils, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be limited 

to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, (see above) 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-87

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

dispersal downstream from site 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

NRCS, AFS, USFS, BLM, SWCDs, ODFW, Watershed Councils, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be limited 

to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depending upon grazplan adopted. Riparian corridor fencing and removal of riparian ghas the fastest recovery rate. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Alder, Squaw, Cottonwood, and Mountain crs No PrograSWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Service, lower Rock, Lone Rock, Pinehollow, 

Grass Valley, Hay, Alder, Butte 

Yes in some areas, no in others 

Expans

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Service, lower Rock, Lone Rock, Pinehollow, 

Grass Valley, Hay, Alder, Butte 

No Expans

USFS, BLM Upland improvements, riparian improvements Lower John Day mainstem from Kimberly to 

Tumwater Falls, Cottonwood, Bridge, Thirtymile, Ferry, Hay, Squaw 

Likely Expans

USFS/AssessRegion(USDA

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Pinehollow, Grass Valley, Ferry, Hay, 

Thirtymile, Butte 

Yes Progra

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program All See St

-- Appe

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Pine Cr Uncertain Needs 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

In the last 20+ years ODFW, Watershed Councils, NRCS and Soil and Water Districts have implemented hundreds of miles of riparian improvements on private lands, primarily through c

fences that exclude livestock grazing and development of off channel watering devices. Public land managers have implemented PACFISH standards for protection and restoration though hundreds of miles of riparian improvements have been completed there are many more miles of stream occupied by steelhead within the Lower Mainstem John Day populati

current rate of implementation it could take 50 years to complete restoration actions. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FSrestoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. Bank stabilization using some rock is still infrequently occurring aJohn Day River, primarily along irrigated pastures and on Rock Cr (Gilliam County). These bank stabilization projects have historically relied on riprap and large rock, however in rececological cost of bank armoring with riprap and of channelization has been recognized, so the emphasis has shifted toward a more passive approach for stabilization, primarily throimprovements. Overgrazing of riparian areas by livestock continues in some reaches; however it is not as widespread as historically. Interest by private landowners and public land 

remains high. 

Other projects that have been well accepted and will improve riparian condition are restoring historical cover types by removing juniper, reintroducing fire, enrollment into CREP, and con

Primary constraints on implementing additional projects for more riparian improvements are funding and personnel needed for planning, promotion, education of landowners, and im

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Life 

Stages 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-88

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Addressed Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Rock (1), Bridge (1), Butte (2), Cherry (2), Big Muddy (2), Cottonwood (2), Rock/Mountain (1), Alder (2), lower Parrish (1), and Kahler (1)crs 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry and 0+ 

Rock, BCottonwParrishirrigatio

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Rock (1), Bridge (1), Butte (2), Cherry (2), Big Muddy (2), Cottonwood (2), Rock/Mountain (1), Alder (2), lower Parrish (1), and Kahler (1) crs. 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry and 0+ 

Rock Cmiles dirrigatiodry durreache

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

Grass Valley Canyon (2), Pinehollow Canyon (1), Rock (1), Bridge (1), Butte (1), Cherry (1), Big Muddy (2), Cottonwood (1), Rock/Mountain (1), Alder (2), Johnson (2), Horseshoe (2), Ferry (2), Hay (1), Thirtymile (1), Service (2), Parrish (1), and Kahler (1) crs 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Channel incision, loss of water table 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream water rights 

Rock (1), Bridge (2), Butte (2), Cherry (2), Big Muddy (2), Cottonwood (2), Rock/Mountain (1), Alder (2), lower Parrish (1), and Kahler (1)crs 

Low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry and 0+ 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry and 0+ 

Annual intensif

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, low 

flows, high temperatures, impaired natural functions and processes on uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry and 0+ 

Changedue to and cowheat fprecipiresults flows. Sthey jolarge wincreasthe abigraduaRestorPineholonger 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New pro
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-89

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Implement agricultural water conservation measures. 

SWCD, OWRD, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

SWCD, OWEB, OWRD, watershed councils, NRCS, landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

SWCD, ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream Long term Immediate increase in 

instream flow, 5-15 years for full functional role 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream water rights. 

OWRD, FSA, OWEB, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and highly dependent upon landowner willingness to lease. 

Immediate 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term, dependent upon OWRD enforcing the requirement to measure water usage 

Immediate 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD, USFS, OWRD, OWEB, ODFW, CTWSRO, landowners 

Ongoing Population-wide Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, riparian 

improvements 

Alder, Cottonwood, Squaw, Rock/Mountain No Yes 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-90

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Population-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

Oregon Water Trust, BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights Lower John Day River near Twickenham, Pine Cr Uncertain Dependent on availaSoil and Water Conservation Districts 

Improve irrigation efficiency, upland 

improvements, riparian improvements 

Butte, Pinehollow, Lower Mainstem John Day River below Service Cr 

 Could be expanded i

Oregon programmat

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian 

improvements 

Most of Gilliam, Sherman, and parts of Wasco counties in dryland wheat country, juniper treatments in Wheeler County 

No Wheat field terracing

of sediment retention rate of implementatio

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian 

improvements 

Most of Gilliam, Sherman, and parts of Wasco counties in dryland wheat country, juniper treatments in Wheeler County 

No Wheat field terracing

of sediment retention rate of implementatio

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many landowners have converted from flood to sprinkler or gated pipe irrigation, which makes more efficient use of the water and grows more palatable forage, but there has not been an 

saved water from being used by another irrigator downstream. Water measuring devices are just beginning to be required on irrigation withdrawals and while progress is being made 

from irrigators. Extensive work by Watershed Councils and NRCS in the Lower John Day has concentrated on preventing erosion of valuable topsoil by terracing wheat fields, buildin

enrollment of highly erodible soils into the CRP program, and using no-till planting techniques, all of which increases precipitation infiltration rates and reduces the rate of runoff. Otare restoring historical cover types by removing juniper, reintroducing fire, enrollment into CRP, and control of invasive/noxious plants. Primary constraints on implementing addition

water rights that are junior to most irrigation rights, and water laws that sometimes conflict with conservation practices. 

Approximately 76 miles of stream in the lower John Day River are protected with either existing or pending instream water rights. The instream water rights do not preclude further appro

affected reach drop down to the instream water rights as adopted by OWRD. Voluntary efforts restored 25.5 cfs instream in 2006. 

US Bureau of Reclamation, as required in the Columbia River Biological Opinion, is required to identify and assist with passage improvement design and flow restoration. They have par

several water leases with one recent permanent acquisition of 10 cfs in the Middle Fork that will be left instream after July 20. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Increase riparian shading Thirtymile (1), Rock (2), Butte (1), Service (2), 

Kahler (1), Parrish (1), Upper Rock (1), and Lone Rock (1) crs; upper Butte (1), Cottonwood (1), Squaw (2), Horseshoe (2), Johnson (2), Bridge (2), 

Ferry (2), Pinehollow (1), Grass Valley (2), Mountain (1), Kahler (1), Parrish (1), Cherry (1), 

Hay (1), Alder(1), and Shoefly (2)crs 

High water temperatures 

Degraded riparian forests Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry, 0+, adults 

Elevmosfor tpoplisteAddlisteava

Reduce chemical pollution inputs 

None currently identified Chemical pollution Pesticides, fertilizers, 

herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, 0+, adults 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-91

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

Lower Rock Cr (1) Degraded water quality Animal feed operations Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry, 0+, adults 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Degraded upland 

processes, floodplains, riparian areas, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, 0+, adults 

UsinredureturesureacRedto inbiolobloo

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water 

quality, sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, 0+, adults 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophy

Response Timef

Increase riparian shading ODFW, Watershed Councils, 

SWCDs, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing water quality benefits will 

have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs ODEQ, others Ongoing Ongoing Reduce chemical p

immediately 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

ODA Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Some treatments could be done immediately. There are few animal feeding operations within the subbasin, only one of which has been identified as a problem 

5-15 years 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD Ongoing Subbasin-wide, high 

dispersal downstream 

Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

FSA CREP, CRP Gilliam, Sherman and portions of 

Wasco counties for CRP, Butte, lower Rock, Pinehollow, and Grass Valley tributaries for CREP 

No Program needs expans

ODA Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), 

Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

Rock Cr See State of Oregon pr

ODEQ, ODA, SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

Population-wide See State of Oregon pr

See USFS/BLM PrograAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 20
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-92

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Extensive grain fields in the Lower John Day River area have contributed to relatively high sediment loads in the lower river and tributaries. NRCS and FSA programs in this area (prima

been used extensively by landowners on the most erodible soils, but the removal of perennial grasses to plant annual crops still contributes unnatural levels of sediment. Other sour

high road densities on forested lands. Low streamflows during the hottest part of the year exacerbate the already warm water temperatures. Opportunities for increasing streamflow 

which often results in cooler water over a longer stream reach, are being pursued by Oregon Water Trust and US Bureau of Reclamation. Constraints for future projects include accsecure, long term funding source. ODA‘s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program is designed to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil eros

Trust or Reservation lands. ODA relies on voluntary measures to protect water quality, but also enforces pollution and streamside vegetation requirements. The Forest Service’s Aq

Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. 

Reducing water temperatures through the use of improved riparian vegetation and more efficient methods of irrigation may take several years to provide measurable results. Many proje

reducing irrigation return water have been completed. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Continue to promote no-till farming and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

Rock (1), Grass Valley (1), Ferry(1), Thirtymile (2), 

Pinehollow (2), Jackknife (2) crs, 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+ 

No till sShermaother ereduce 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Thirtymile (1), Rock (2), Butte (1), Service (2) , Kahler (2), Parrish (2), Upper Rock (2), and Lone Rock (1) crs, Pinehollow (1), Ferry(1), Horseshoe (2), Service (2), Squaw (2), Bridge (1), 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+ 

Upland native invasivprecipiultimateincludin

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Thirtymile (1), Upper Rock (2), Alder (2), Parrish (2) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Road network Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+ 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Thirtymile (2), Rock (2), Butte (2), Service (1), Kahler (1), Parrish (1), Upper Rock (1), and Lone Rock (2) crs 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

Thirtymile (2), Rock (2), Butte (1), Service (2), Kahler (1), Parrish (1), Upper Rock (2), and Lone Rock (2) crs 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Invasive plants Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppre

regimeintensit
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-93

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Thirtymile (1), Rock (2), Butte (1), Service (2), Kahler (2), Parrish (1), Upper Rock (1), and Lone Rock (2) crs 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Upland land use practices 

Productivity Eggs, fry, 

and 0+

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Continue to promote no-till farming and other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions are suitable 

SWCD, NRCS Ongoing High dispersal downstream Long Term 5-15 years 

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 5-30 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, ODF Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

5-15 years 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, Watershed Councils 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Juniper control can be done relatively quickly, other strategies such as control of invasive plants may take more than 20 years 

5-30 years 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 years 

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

SWCD, VSFS, ODA, CTWSRO, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans 

0-20 years, depending upon treatments applied 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-94

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

NRCS, Farm Service Agency CRP Lower and Middle Rock, 

Thirtymile, Grass Valley, Pinehollow, Ferry, and Butte crs 

No Program needs expan

SWCDs Juniper control Butte, Service, Bridge crs Uncertain More effective if expaODFW Green Forage Uncertain Very small program, cUSFS, BLM Individual Forest or Area Management Plans, PACFISH Bridge, Cottonwood, Lower John 

Day, Butte, Hay, Rock/Mountain, Upper Rock, and Kahler crs 

Yes, but dependent on consistent implementation 

See USFS/BLM ProgAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Population-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest Program Private and state forestlands 

throughout population 

See State of Oregon F. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon 

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Pine Cr Yes, where 

implemented 

More acreage needs 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Programs initiated by the NRCS, SWCDs and ODFW are relatively small, with the CRP program the largest and best funded. CRP has been in existence for 20 years and has been one 

programs for watershed restoration. The CRP program has focused on the Lower John Day River (primarily below Thirtymile Cr) where dry land grain crops are grown and where si

soil exist. Juniper control programs have focused on areas where extensive juniper encroachment has occurred. Juniper control can be completed using several different methods, 

with chainsaws, or by removing with bulldozers or trackhoes. Although controlled burns are probably the most effective at controlling the spread of juniper, they are the most difficult threat of the fire getting out of control and costs. Another drawback to controlled burns is that livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas for at least two growing seaso

recovery of desirable perennial grasses. There are opportunities to expand the juniper control program but the lack of a pasture to put livestock into for two years after burning has l

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize FS restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

is most needed. 

The ODFW Green Forage program provides a wildlife seed mixture of native grasses and desirable forage to landowners who have recently completed juniper clearing projects, logging 

activities. The primary purposes are to provide additional forage for deer and elk and to reduce deer and elk damage complaints; however it also has benefits to watershed health bperennial ground cover. 

The limitations to all the programs are funding and, to a lesser extent, acceptance by landowners. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-95

9.3.6 Habitat Strategies and Actions for North Fork John Day River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: Degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity, diversity and chan

sediment routing, water temperature, altered hydrology, degraded floodplain function and connectivity. Primary threats: riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road withdrawals, mining, and dredging. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

Tributaries of the North Fork John Day River within the NF John Day Wilderness (1); North Fork John Day River, from Big Cr upstream to headwaters (1); Granite Cr (2); South Fork Desolation Cr (1); upper Clear Cr (1); upper Hidaway Cr. (2) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing 

Many threats including livestock overgrazing of riparian area, mining, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices (fertilizers, herbicides, sediments, changes in plant communities), water withdrawals, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All Prot

the mhigh expehigh degrestoeaseagre

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

Cottonwood (1); Deer (1), and Rudio crs (2); North Fork John Day River, below Wall Cr (2) 

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Recently acquired BLM parcels on the North Fork John Day River, between Monument and Camas Cr (1); areas identified in existing Forest Plans (2) 

Same as above Livestock overgrazing of 

some riparian areas, changes in plant communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Those areas identified in the Umatilla National Forest Plan Revision and in the BLM Management Plan currently being developed (2) 

Same as above Livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Protect access to key habitats 

The lower reaches of Hideaway (1), Cable (1), Desolation (1), Owens (2), Camas (2), Meadowbrook (2), Rudio (2), and Cottonwood (1) crs 

Passage barriers, altered hydrology, channel structure 

 Abundance, 

productivity, distribution 

 Curr

reviemodpassaccetempChamod
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-96

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

Population-wide All Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysic

Response Timefram

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

CTUIR, TNC, RMEF, John Day Basin Trust, SWCDs 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 years with passivrestoration approache

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW, SWCDs, FSA Ongoing Same as above Agreements are for 10-15 years Long term 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

USFS, BLM Ongoing 

as identified 

Same as above Many complete, potentially subject to 

change in Forest Plan revisions 

Immediate and long te

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

UDFS, BLM Oregon State Parks Ongoing 

as identified 

Water quality and flow improvements would have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements confined to the specific site 

Unknown 5-15 years 

Protect access to key habitats SWCDs, Watershed Councils, BLM, 

USFS 

Ongoing Immediate area only Long term 5-15 years 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

NRCS, SWCDs, USFS, ODFW, ODF, DSL, BLM, ODOT, CTWSRO, ODA, FSA, private landowners 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

USFS, BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, Special Management Area designations, PACFISH 

FS and BLM lands for PACFISH, North Fork Wilderness, North Fork Wild and Scenic Corridor 

Yes, PACFISH standards are good, but implementation is inconsistent between forests. See discussion below. 

See USFSAssessme

ODFW Cooperative Agreements Privately owned lands, 

Camas, Cottonwood/Fox, Granite creeks 

No The agree

and need 

FSA CREP Privately owned lands, 

primarily on Cottonwood/Fox Creek 

No The agree

and need 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-97

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

NGOs Lease or purchase of lands Cottonwood Creek 

conservation easement 

Yes Important 

water righ

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands throughout the 

North Fork watershed 

See State Appendix 

CTUIR Watershed Restoration Camas and Desolation 

creeks 

Uncertain Needs exp

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state owned 

lands 

See State Appendix 

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Private lands Uncertain Needs exp

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The North Fork John Day River from Camas Cr (RM 57) to the headwaters (RM 112) is designated as a Federal Wild and Scenic River. The North Fork John Day from near Monument 

wilderness boundary (RM 76.5) is designated a State Wild and Scenic River. A wild and scenic designation requires development to be consistent with protecting the ORVs for whicrequires review of any activity that may affect ORVs within the 1⁄4 mile river corridor, and protects the free flowing condition of the river. Designation as W&S essentially precludes coManagement Plan was adopted by BLM and Oregon State Parks Department in 2001 for the designated rivers segments. Implementation of all the actions identified in the plan will 

grazing management plans for most of the allotments within corridor are complete. All BLM allotments have grazing plans, except recently acquired lands. 

Wilderness areas within the boundaries of the North Fork population include the North Fork John Day Wilderness (85,000 acres). The primary rationale for designating the North Fork W

anadromous fish habitat. Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congress. 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs, including grazing management, has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but imp

Standards and Guides for FS grazing management programs remains challenging in a few locations. 

Cooperative and conservation agreements on private land are tools for protecting high quality habitats. ODFW has used cooperative agreements over the last 21 years to protect riparian 

 to exclude livestock grazing. Unfortunately those agreements are for only 15 years and there have not been funds or personnel needed to extend them for longer time periods. In th

 conservation agreement to prevent subdividing a 10,000 acre parcel is in place on Gilmore and Straight crs and includes approximately 3.3 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing See discussion for Strategy 1, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

Cottonwood Cr/Fox drainage (1) Impaired fish passage Push up dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push uCottonwproblemthroughAnnual push udownstpools asedime

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

For irrigation related passage issues: Cottonwood Cr/Fox drainage (1) For culverts: SF Trail, Meadowbrook (1), Upper Granite (2) crs 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push udiversioroad cuentire s
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-98

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams, or remove the barrier 

None currently identified Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

A compnot beeso thernot cur

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

Cottonwood/Fox Cr (1). Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry, juveniles, and smolts 

All unk

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Ti

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

SWCD Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, but all push up dams not expected to be corrected for at least 15 years. A comprehensive barrier assessment has not bee completed. 

Immediate 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, watershed councils, SWCDs, ODOT 

Ongoing Access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, replacing all culverts blocking fish passage expected to take 50 years (see Appendix G) 

Immediate 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, providing passage at all diversion and pond barriers will take many years. A comprehensive barrier assessment has not bee completed. 

Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 3 diversions need to be 

screened 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Irrigation dam improvements, culvert replacement or retrofits 

Unscreened or poorly screened diversions throughout populations 

Likely The Grant Soil and Wa

construction window oexpand the program b

personnel. See State 

Appendix F. 

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening Unscreened or poorly screened diversions 

throughout populations 

No The program complete

year, but is dependent limited funding. Rate oaccelerated. 

USFS Culvert replacement Federally owned lands, Meadowbrook Creek Uncertain Based on total numbe

federal lands, will take complete culvert replaGaps section. 

Watershed Councils Road Crossing Passage improvements, 

passage improvements 

Privately owned lands, primarily in North Fork John Day and tributaries below and including Wall Creek 

No Rate of implementatio

deal with threats. 

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit State and Federal highway systems Uncertain See State of Oregon pBOR John Day Basin Program Privately owned lands as identified by SWCDs 

and Watershed Councils 

Yes Program rate sufficien
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-99

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

CTWSRO, CTUIR John Day Basin Program Privately owned lands, primarily in Camas, 

Desolation, and lower NF tributaries 

No The tribes contract wit

with consultation, permefforts needed to addr

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Most of the mainstem passage problems have been addressed, but there are many tributaries where adult passage is blocked and more areas where juvenile passage problems occur. 

road culverts are the primary causes of passage issues. Soil and Water Districts are correcting passage at irrigation diversions and improperly installed culverts, but are constrained 

needed for construction oversight. Watershed councils and ODOT, who are the principal entities working on culverts are constrained primarily by funding. An inventory of road cros

juvenile passage problems are pervasive, particularly on National Forests, with approximately 200 culverts not meeting passage criteria in this population. The BLM has no adult ba

needed to determine if upstream passage for juveniles is an issue. The US Forest Service and BLM are constrained primarily by funding and the personnel needed for NEPA analys

replacements, it will take over 50 years to correct all passage problems on National Forests. Another constraint is that existing state laws do not require passage improvements at e

major change in the structure, such as reconstruction or significant modifications, so landowner cooperation is critical for improving passage throughout the subbasin. 

The Malheur, Wallowa Whitman, Umatilla and Ochoco National Forests have culvert inventories for their lands. The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strat

guidance that will help prioritize culvert replacements for this population. ODFW has an inventory of culverts on state and county-owned roads. Appendix G presents an inventory o

problems on state, county, and USFS owned roads. The inventory shows there are three culverts on state owned roads and one culvert on county owned roads that do not meet fisFork population boundary. There has not been an inventory of road culverts on private lands. 

US Bureau of Reclamation, as required in the Columbia River Biological Opinion, is required to identify and assist with passage improvement design and flow restoration. 

See discussion for ODFW Fish Passage and Screening program in Strategy 2, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Camas Cr, from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr (2), Owens Cr (1), Clear Cr below Ruby Cr (2), Beaver Cr below Olive Cr (1), Bull Run Cr (1), Crane Cr above Forest Rd 73 (2), lower Boulder Cr (Granite Cr trib) (2), Cottonwood Cr below EF Cottonwood (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels and reconnect surface flow/restore fish passage in tributaries. 

Camas Cr from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr (2), Owens Cr (1), Clear Cr below Ruby Cr (1), Beaver Cr below Olive Cr (2), Bull Run Cr (1), Crane Cr above Forest Rd 73 (2), lower Boulder Cr (Granite Cr trib) (2), Cottonwood Cr below EF Cottonwood (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Tctsf

Restore wet meadows Cottonwood/Fox, Granite (1), Owens (2), Camas 

from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr (2), Upper Wilson Cr (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of wetlands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

Camas Cr from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr (1), Owens Cr (1), Clear Cr below Ruby Cr (2), Rudio (1), Wall (1), Wilson (2), Beaver Cr below Olive Cr (2), Bull Run Cr (2), Boulder Cr (2), Crane Cr above Forest Rd 73 (2), lower Boulder Cr (Granite Cr trib) (2), Cottonwood (1), Fox Cr (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-100

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Bioph

Response Time

Reconnect floodplain to channel ODFW, watershed council, 

SWCD, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing For the treated stream reach Short term, once identified Physical response w

immediate; biologicresponse up to 5-10 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, because of widespread need 

5-15 years, dependfrequency and durachannel altering flow

Restore wet meadows TNC, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing and 

planned 

Benefits of improved channel morphology localized, improved water table and resulting increased streamflow and lower water temperatures have high dispersal downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, due to acceptance by landowners and widespread need 

Within 15 years oncbeavers are well established 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Cottonwood/Fox Creek, other privately 

owned lands when specifically identified 

No If specific needs canno

restoration techniques Program has limited re

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Granite Creek, NF John Day between Big 

and Desolation creeks for USFS and blocks of BLM on NF and tributaries between Camas Creek and Monument, but only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Yes in some areas, no in others due to limited funding 

The USFS/BLM prefermanaging riparian areprocesses. See USFSAssessment -- AppendRestoration Strategy (in Gaps commentary b

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Private lands between Camas Creek and 

Kimberly 

Uncertain Dependent on future fu

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Private lands between Camas Creek and 

Kimberly 

 See State of Oregon p

Nature Conservancy and other NGOs 

Restoration projects None currently identified, but may be 

opportunities in the future 

Yes Sufficiency yes when o

CTUIR Watershed restoration Camas Creek, Desolation Creek, and other 

privately owned lands 

Uncertain Program could be exp

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-101

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Camas Cr, from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr (1), 

Owens Cr (2), Clear Cr below Ruby Cr (1), Beaver Cr below Olive Cr (1), Bull Run Cr (1), Crane Cr above Forest Rd 73 (2), lower Boulder Cr (Granite Cr trib) (2), Cottonwood Cr below EF Cottonwood (1). 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Passriparimethand stechnreach

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

Camas Cr (2), Owens Cr (2), Clear Cr (1) below Ruby Cr, Beaver Cr (1) below Olive Cr, Bull Run Cr (1), Crane Cr (2) above Forest Rd 73, lower Boulder Cr (1) (Granite Cr trib), Cottonwood/Fox Cr (1), Desolation Cr (2), Rudio (2) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal,  channelization 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

More such reconthese techn

Stabilize streambanks Camas Cr (1) from Wilkins Cr to Cable Cr, 

Owens Cr (2), Cottonwood Cr below EF Cottonwood (1). 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Some beneactiveproceto red

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, 

watershed councils 

Ongoing and planned 

For the treated stream reach 

Short term, once identified Physical response w

immediate, biologicamay take 5-10 years 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

ODFW, USFS, watershed councils, BLM, SWCDs 

As needed For the immediate 

stream reach 

Short term, once identified Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, USFS, watershed 

councils, BLM, SWCDs 

Ongoing For the treated stream 

reach, physical benefits dispersed downstream 

Passive stabilization techniques are preferred and take longer to implement 

With passive restoraresponse may take 1

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Cottonwood/Fox, Granite, Rudio, and Deer 

creeks, NF below Monument, but only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

No Program has limited re
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-102

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program NF between Camas and Big Creek for USFS 

and BLM blocks between Kimberly and Camas Creek, but only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Yes in some areas, no in others due to limited funding. 

The USFS/BLM preferrmanaging riparian areaprocesses. See USFSAssessment -- AppendRestoration Strategy (Uin Gaps commentary b

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration NF between Wall Creek and Kimberly, Rudio, 

Cottonwood/Fox, and Deer creeks. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Uncertain Depends on availability 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Granite Creek, NF John Day between Wall 

Creek and Kimberly. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

 See State of Oregon p

CTWSRO, CTUIR Watershed restoration Granite, Camas, and Desolation, Creeks. Only 

when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working 

Uncertain Funding future uncerta

NGOs Watershed restoration None currently identified. Only when specifically 

identified that passive restoration is not working 

Uncertain No current activities. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the subbasin plan team except when identified as a need for specific sites. The planning te

approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities that would improve floodplain function and channel migration processes would 

whole trees, or boulder clusters to improved habitat complexity and habitat diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive restoration. Ano

construct boulder or log weirs to raise the water table, but only where a passive approach has not worked. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northweprioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Rudio (2), Cottonwood below Fox Cr (1), Deerhorn (2), Jericho (2), Camas above Wilkins Cr (1), and Desolation from the mouth to Park Cr (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, tree harvest in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Primary include livestocmanagrecove

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Rudio (2), Cottonwood below Fox Cr (1), Deerhorn (2), Jericho (2), Camas above Wilkins Cr (1), and Desolation from the mouth to Park Cr. (2), recently acquired BLM parcels on the North Fork John Day River, between Monument and Camas Cr (1) 

Same as above Livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 

fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-103

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

ODFW, Watershed Councils, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will 

be limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years (see abo

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

NRCS, AFS, USFS, BLM, SWCDs, ODFW, Watershed Councils, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will 

be limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, dependgrazing plan adoptecorridor fencing and riparian grazing has recovery rate. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Cottonwood/Fox, Camas, and Granite 

creeks 

No Insufficient resources

SWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on Rudio, and 

Cottonwood creeks, NF John Day between Monument and Kimberly 

May need additional rprogrammatic review 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on Rudio, and 

Cottonwood creeks, NF John Day between Monument and Kimberly 

No Need additional resou

USFS and BLM Upland improvements, riparian improvements NF John Day between Wall and Camas 

Creek for BLM and NF John Day and tributaries above and including Camas Creek for USFS 

Uncertain See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E and RegiSee discussion in Ga

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on NF John Day below 

Wall Creek 

Yes Deemed sufficient. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands within the NF watershed See State of Oregon 

F. 

CTUIR Watershed restoration Camas, Desolation, and Deer creeks 

on private land. 

Uncertain Limited by resources. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 5, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides has been highly successful over most of this population’s 

 PACFISH Standards and Guides for FS grazing management programs remains challenging in a few locations. Forest Services’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northw

 prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed.
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-104

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Cottonwood/Fox (1), lower Rudio Cr (1), Mainstem North Fork below Wall Cr (2) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Cottonw

the tribwithdrabelow Wwithdratemperusing fo

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Cottonwood/Fox (1), lower Rudio Cr (1), Mainstem North Fork below Wall Cr (2) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Cottonwood/Fox (1), Rudio (1), Granite (2), Olive (2), Clear (2), Owens (1), Desolation (2), Wilson (1), and Wall(1) crs, Camas Cr above Wilkins Cr (1) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Floodplain aquifer recharge Camas Cr above Wilkins Cr (1) Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Cottonwood/Fox (1), lower Rudio Cr (2), Mainstem North Fork below Wall Cr (2) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

 Fry and 0+ 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Annual 

intensif

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, low flows, 

high temperatures, impaired natural functions and processes on uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Change

due to and cowheat fprecipiresults flows. Sthey jolarge wincreasthe abigradua

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New pr
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-105

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, OWEB, watershed councils, NRCS, landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

SWCD, ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream unknown Immediate increase in 

instream flow 

Floodplain aquifer recharge CTWSRO, SWCDs Planned, 

some ongoing 

Potentially high dispersal from recharge project site downstream for many miles 

Long term, although opportunities for pilot projects is dependent upon willing landowner 

Immediate 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, FSA, OWEB, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and highly dependent upon landowner willingness to lease. 

Immediate 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term, dependent upon OWRD enforcing the requirement to measure water usage 

Immediate 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD, USFS, BLM, OWRD, OWEB, ODFW, CTWSRO, landowners 

Ongoing MaSAs Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-106

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, riparian improvements Private lands on 

Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, Camas, and Granite creeks 

No Program has limited r

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, NF John Day below Wall Creek and other streams with water withdrawals 

See State of Oregon F. 

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights No existing sites identified Uncertain Depends on opportunSoil and Water Conservation Districts 

Improve irrigation efficiency, upland improvements, riparian improvements 

Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, Deer and Granite creeks, and NF John Day below Wall Creek 

 See State of Oregon 

F. 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, Deer 

and Granite creeks, and NF John Day below Wall Creek 

No Program has limited r

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, Deer 

and Granite creeks, and NF John Day below Wall Creek 

No Program needs expan

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Approximately 170 miles of stream in the North Fork are protected with either existing or pending instream water rights. The instream water rights do not preclude further appropriation o reach drop down to the instream water rights as adopted by OWRD. Voluntary efforts restored 1.2 cfs instream in 2006. 

See discussion for Strategy 6, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Increase riparian shading North Fork John Day River below Camas Cr (2), 

Camas Cr. (1), Lower Cottonwood Cr. (1), Rudio Cr. (1), Owens Cr. (1), lower reaches of Wall (2), Desolation(2), and Wilson (2) Crks. 

High water temperatures Degraded riparian 

forests 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

ElevapervaNorth with 3quality probadata wand Cof Warelativthat adue to 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-107

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

lower North Fork John Day River (2) Camas Cr. (1), Cottonwood Cr. (1), Rudio Cr. (1), Owens Cr. (2) 

High water temperatures Water withdrawals Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Address contamination from mine related discharge 

Granite Cr and tributaries (1) Chemical contaminants Heavy metal and 

mine waste pollution 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs 

None currently identified Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

None currently identified Degraded water quality Animal feed 

operations 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

Population-wide Degraded upland 

processes, floodplains, riparian areas, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing 

Degradation and conversion of uplands, floodplains, riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

While North to use which water in fewreachand itloads quality dema

Continue TMDL monitoring Population-wide Degraded water quality, 

sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Increase riparian shading ODFW, Watershed Councils, 

SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing water quality benefits 

will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs, watershed councils Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Less than 5 years, once the project has been identified 

Immediate 

Address contamination from mine related discharge 

ODEQ, USFS Ongoing Primarily in 

contaminated reaches, with intermediate dispersal downstream 

Long term, although actual treatment may take only a matter of days. 

Immediate in the sreach. 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs ODEQ, others Ongoing Ongoing Reduce chemical 

immediately 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

ODA Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Some treatments could be done immediately. There are few animal feeding operations within the subbasin, only one of which has been identified as a problem 

5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-108

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Restore natural functions and processes through actions identified in strategies 1,3,4,5,8 

SWCD, USFS, BLM Ongoing Subbasin-wide, high 

dispersal downstream 

Intermediate Up to 15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

FSA CREP, CRP Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, and 

Camas creeks, NF John Day below Wall Creek 

No Program needs expand

ODFW Riparian Enhancement Program Cottonwood/Fox, Rudio, and 

Camas creeks. 

No Constrained by funding 

ODEQ Mine Waste Program Granite Creek See State of Oregon pODA Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), AgWQM None currently identified Likely See State of Oregon pODEQ, ODA, SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

Watershed-wide See State of Oregon p

See USFS/BLM PrograAppendix E and RegioSee discussion in Gap

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Heavy metal and other contaminants coming from historical and ongoing mining activity in the Granite Cr drainage has resulted in elevated levels of these contaminants found in sedime

observed dead fish and adult fish with gill lesions in the streams of this watershed. Although the cause of this mortality is not certain, elevated iron and heavy metal concentrations m

Although recent surveys conducted by the UNF and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that mercury was not present in high enough concentrations known to ca

conditions at abandoned mine sites and abatement ponds may change yearly, increasing the amount of heavy metals released (NMFS 2004/0008). Low stream flows during the hot

already warm water temperatures. Opportunities for increasing streamflow through leasing of water rights, which often results in cooler water over a longer stream reach, are being 

and US Bureau of Reclamation. Constraints for future projects include acceptance by landowners and a secure, long term funding source. Forest Services’s Aquatic Restoration St

Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize stream enhancement actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding for riparian planting where it is most nee

Reducing water temperatures through the use of improved riparian vegetation and more efficient methods of irrigation may take several years to provide measurable results. Many proje

reducing irrigation return water have been completed. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Cottonwood/Fox Cr (1), upper Rudio Cr (1), Deer Cr (1), Wilson Cr (2), Wall Cr (2). 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, and 0+ 

Uplannative invasiprecipultimainclud

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Upper North Fork John Day River and tributaries above and including Trail Cr (1), Wilson Cr (2), 

Same as above Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry, and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-109

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Upper Camas Cr tributaries (2), Clear Cr and tributaries (1), Granite Cr (2) 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Population-wide Same as above Upland land use 

practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, and 0+

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

Cottonwood/Fox Cr (1), upper Rudio Cr (2), Deer Cr (2), Wall Cr (1), Wilson Cr (2) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Invasive plants Abundance, 

productivity 

Eggs, fry, and 0+

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppr

regimintens

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, 

floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, and 0+

Suppryears normathreat intensdamaintensNationdegrasupprquant

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, ODF, ODOT Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

5-15 years 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, Watershed Councils 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Juniper control can be done quickly, other strategies such as control of invasive plants may take more than 20 years 

5-30 years 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 year

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road 

SWCD, USFS, BLM, ODA, CTWSRO, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans 

0-20,years, depentreatments applied 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-110

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

management and agricultural practices 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

NRCS, Farm Service Agency CRP Rudio, Lower Cottonwood, NF 

John Day below Wall Creek 

No Needs expansion. 

SWCDs Juniper control Rudio and Cottonwood creeks No Needs expansion. ODFW Green Forage Rudio and Cottonwood creeks No Very small program. USFS, BLM Forest Plan, Resource Management Plan, PACFISH All FS/BLM lands throughout 

watershed 

Likely See USFS/BLM Program 

Appendix E and RegionaSee discussion in Gaps 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest Program Private and state forestlands 

throughout population 

See State of Oregon pro

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon proODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands throughout the 

watershed 

See State of Oregon pro

CTUIR Watershed Restoration Camas and Desolation creeks on 

private lands 

Uncertain Limited resources. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 8, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides (BMPs) to Forest and BLM programs, has been highly successful for passive upland restoration over most of this population’s area. F

 Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize active watershed restoration for this population, and helps deploy limited active watershed res

 needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-111

9.3.7 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Middle Fork John Day River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), deg

function and connectivity, altered sediment routing, altered hydrology, and water temperature. Primary threats: riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, road barriers, irrigation withdrawals, mining, and dredging. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

Upper reaches of Big, Big Boulder, and Granite Boulder crs that originate in the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area (1); Other areas with high potential for protection once they are restored include the Middle Fork mainstem from Ragged Cr to the upper end of Phipps Meadow (2), and streams that drain the north side of Dixie Butte --

Davis (2), Butte (2), Placer Gulch (2), and Greenhorn (2) crs. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing, 

Many threats including livestock overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices (fertilizers, herbicides, sediments, changes in plant communities), water

withdrawals, loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All Protec

approfunctioquality Protecmost have acquiscoopefacilitarestor

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

Middle Fork between Placer Gulch and Caribou Cr (1); through Phipps Meadow (1), from Ragged to Tincup Cr (1), from Paradise Canyon to below Lick 

Cr.(2), Granite Cr (2) 

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas identified in existing Forest Plans 

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified in the Forest Plan Revision process 

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Phipps Meadow (1) Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All It is m

term tis to drestor
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-112

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Protect access to key habitats 

None identified at this time, although ODFW periodically reviews proposals that could block passage into spawning and rearing habitat. 

Passage barriers, altered hydrology, channel structure 

High water temperatures, low flow, channelization 

Abundance, productivity, distribution 

All Thoro

block policy passameets ExemFish a

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

Population-wide All Same as in first cell 

above 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

CTUIR, TNC, RMEF, John Day Basin Trust, SWCDs 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 years with parestoration approa

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Land trusts, CTWSRO, ODFW, SWCD, NGOs, USFS 

Ongoing Same as above Existing conservation agreements are 

complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 years with parestoration approa

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW, SWCDs, FSA Ongoing Same as above Agreements are for 10 to 15 years Immediate 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

USFS, BLM Ongoing as 

identified 

Same as above Subject to Forest Plan Revision 

timeframe for designation 

Immediate 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified in the Forest Plan Revision process 

Same as above 

Same as above Intermediate, depending on sociopolitical acceptance 5-15 years 

Protect access to key habitats ODFW, USFS, BLM, Watershed 

Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Same as above Immediate Immediate 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

NRCS, SWCDs, USFS, ODFW,ODF, DSL, BLM, ODOT, CTWSRO, ODA, FSA, private landowners 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

USFS/ BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, Special Management designations, PACFISH 

Indian Rock/Vinegar Hill Scenic Area and buffers on FS and BLM lands 

Yes, PACFISH standards are good, but implementation is inconsistent between forests. See discussion below. 

See USFAssessm
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-113

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

ODFW Cooperative Agreements Middle Fork private lands with 

cooperative agreements, Camp Creek and Phipps Meadows 

No The agre

and need 

FSA CREP Middle Fork on Oxbow and 

Forrest Ranch properties owned by CTWRSO 

No The agre

and need 

NGOs Lease or purchase of lands or instream water rights Conservation easement on 

Middle Fork John Day RPB property and The Nature Conservancy Middle Fork Preserve 

Yes Importan

water rigarise. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands See Stat

- Append

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Oxbow and Forrest Ranch 

properties and other private lands 

Likely Could be 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state owned 

timber lands 

See Stat- Append

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Private lands Uncertain 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The John Day River has 317 miles designated as State Wild and Scenic. State designated reaches include the Middle Fork John Day River from its mouth to Crawford Cr Bridge (RM 71

Scenic Area in the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests is managed primarily for its scenic value, which offers good protection for watershed and fish habitat parameters. Adding a

wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congress. 

Cooperative and conservation agreements on private land are tools for protecting high quality habitats. ODFW has used cooperative agreements over the last 21 years to protect riparian 

to exclude livestock grazing. Unfortunately those agreements are for only 15 years and there have not been funds or personnel needed to extend them for longer time periods. Ove

the subbasin have been protected under this program. Additional opportunities will be limited by availability of funds and by willingness of landowners to sign conservation easement

Conservation agreements and acquisitions by conservation organizations are another recently used tool that can protect high quality habitat. The Middle Fork John Day River has five pa

easements or conservation organizations as the owners. A perpetual riparian conservation agreement restricting development and grazing is currently in place on a 310 acre private river mile 40. Another conservation property is the Nature Conservancy Dunstan Preserve (approx. 1,200 acres) near RM 50. It is managed primarily for fish benefits. The Oxbow and the Forrest Conservation Area (approx 867 acres) both owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon are managed as mitigation for the loss o

associated with hydroelectric development on the Columbia River. Another privately owned parcel has a perpetual water lease agreement to prevent water withdrawals after July 20

10 cfs being left in the stream, primarily for the benefit of salmon and steelhead. 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFISH S

grazing management programs remains challenging in some locations. 

See discussion for Strategy 1, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-114

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams Long Cr and tributaries (1)

Impaired fish passage Push up dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Annuapush downspools sedim

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Irrigation or water storage related issues: Long Cr and tributaries (1) Culverts: Camp (2), Long (1), Vinegar (2), Butte (1), Crawford (2), Granite Boulder (1), and Little Boulder (1) crs 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push diversroad centire culversubba

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams (complete barrier inventory) 

None identified Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

A comhas ncompfield videntif

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

Beaver (2), Big, Butte (2), Granite Boulder (2), Long (1), MF John Day (1) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry All kn

are cuwithin boundaddreentraitrout. additio

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Ti

Remove or minimize use of push up dams (complete comprehensive survey) 

SWCD Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, but all push up dams not expected to be corrected for at least 15 years. A comprehensive survey has not been completed. 

Immediate 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage -- dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, BLM, watershed councils, SWCDs, ODOT 

Ongoing Access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, replacing all culverts blocking 

fish passage expected to take 50 years. See Appendix G. 

Immediate 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, providing passage at all diversion and pond barriers will take many years. 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 14 diversions need to 

be replaced, should take - years 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-115

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Su

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Irrigation dam improvements, culvert replacement or retrofits 

Middle Fork John Day, Big Boulder Creek, and other private lands 

 The Grant Soil and 

the construction wcounties could expconstrained by funOregon programm

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening Private lands throughout the MF watershed, 

Bridge Creek 

No The program com

per year, but is decooperation and li

USFS Culvert replacement Federal lands, and specifically Granite Boulder 

and Beaver creeks. See Appendix G for list of the 223 culverts needing replacement. 

No Limited resources 

timeline for comple

Watershed Councils Road Crossing Passage improvements, 

passage improvements 

Butte and Bridge creeks, others as identified in Appendix G. 

No Needs additional r

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Bridge Creek, Summit Creek, Clear Creek See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

BOR John Day Basin Program Private lands throughout the MF watershed as 

identified by SWCD or Watershed Council. 

Yes Program sufficient

CTWSRO John Day Basin Program Oxbow and Forrest Ranch properties and other 

private lands as later identified. 

No The tribe contracts 

assist with consultAdditional resourc

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Most of the mainstem passage problems have been addressed, but there are many tributaries where adult passage is blocked and more areas where juvenile passage problems occur. 

road culverts are the primary causes of passage issues. Soil and Water Districts are correcting passage at irrigation diversions and improperly installed culverts, but are constrained 

needed for construction oversight. An inventory of road crossings on state and county roads in 1999 indicated 14 culverts on state owned roads and 4 culverts on county owned roacriteria within the Middle Fork population boundary. Appendix G presents an inventory of culverts with known passage problems on state, county, and USFS owned roads. Some structures that do meet the fish passage criteria, but much work remains. Watershed councils and ODOT, who are the principal entities working on culverts are constrained primarily 

crossings on federal lands indicates juvenile passage problems are pervasive, particularly on National Forests, with approximately 223 culverts not meeting passage criteria in this pand BLM are constrained primarily by funding and the personnel needed for NEPA analysis. At the current rate of culvert replacements, it will take over 50 years to correct all passa

however, the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005), provides guidance that will help prioritize culvert replacements for this popu

barriers at culverts. Monitoring is needed to determine if upstream passage for juveniles is an issue. Another constraint is that existing state laws do not require passage improvem

there is a major change in the structure, such as reconstruction or significant modifications, so landowner cooperation is critical for improving passage throughout the subbasin. 

See discussion for Strategy 2, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr upstream to Idaho Cr (1), Lower Vinegar (2), Vincent (2), and 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-116

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Long (1) crs altered sediment 

routing, degraded water quality 

habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr upstream to Idaho Cr (1), Lower Vinegar (2), Vincent (2), and Long (1) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Tctsf

Restore wet meadows Long Cr (2), Phipps Meadow (1), Middle Fork 

between Ragged Cr and Phipps Meadow (1), Flood Meadow (2), Keeney Meadow (2), Camp Cr (1) Coxie Meadow (2) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of wetlands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr upstream to Idaho Cr (2), Lower Vinegar (2), Vincent (2), and Long crs (1), Camp Cr (1), Placer Gulch (1), Davis Cr (1), Indian Cr (2) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophys

Response Timefra

Reconnect floodplain to channel ODFW, watershed council, 

SWCD, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing For the treated stream reach Short term, once 

identified 

Physical response will bimmediate, biological remay take 5-10 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depending ufrequency and duration channel altering flows 

Restore wet meadows TNC, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing and 

planned 

Benefits of improved channel morphology localized, improved water table and resulting increased stream flow and lower water temperatures have high dispersal downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, due to acceptance by landowners and widespread need 

Within 5 years once the are built 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Su

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Private lands throughout the MF 

watershed, Phipps Meadow, Rush Creek, and Eightmile Creek 

No Program limited pr
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-117

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

USFS/BLM Stream enhancement program Federal lands, Middle Fork John 

Day, Summit Creek. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working. 

Yes in some areas, no in others due to limited funding 

The USFS preferremanaging riparian processes. See UAssessment -- AppAquatic Restoratiodiscussion in Gaps 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Private lands throughout the MF 

Watershed, Rush Creek has been specifically identified 

Uncertain Active restoration o

addressed by passadditional resource

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Private lands throughout the MF 

Watershed 

 See State of Orego

Appendix F. 

Nature Conservancy and other NGOs 

Restoration projects TNC Middle Fork Preserve and 

conservation easement on RPB property 

Yes where applied Program could exp

CTWRSO Watershed restoration Oxbow and Forrest Ranch 

properties 

Likely Program could exp

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the subbasin plan team except when identified as a need for specific sites. The planning te

approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities would include placement of rootwads, whole trees, or boulder clusters to impro

diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive restoration. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr 

upstream to Idaho Cr (1), Lower Vinegar (2), Vincent (2), and Long (2) crs Channel reconfiguration work needed: mouth of Granite Boulder Cr to Ragged Cr (1), between Big Boulder Cr and Camp Cr (1), between Elk Cr and Bear Cr (2), and near the mouth of Mosquito Cr (1); Rush Cr (2)

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Pasas rmetstrurestappHistreacbetwhas The worcha

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in 

Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr upstream to Idaho Cr (1), Lower Vinegar (2), 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, 

large wood removal  channelization 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Morsuch 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-118

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

streambeds and in floodplains 

Vincent (2), and Long (2) crs; Big Boulder Cr (1), Rush Cr (2) 

habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

recothes

Stabilize streambanks Upper mainstem Middle Fork from Big Cr 

upstream to Idaho Cr (1),Lower Vinegar (2), Vincent (2), and Long (2) crs 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Sombenactivprocnee

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, 

watershed councils 

Ongoing and planned 

For the treated stream reach 

Short term, once identified Physical response w

immediate, biologicmay take 5-10 year

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

ODFW, USFS, watershed councils, BLM, SWCDs 

As needed For the immediate 

stream reach 

Once identified, short term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, USFS, watershed 

councils, BLM, SWCDs 

Ongoing For the treated stream 

reach, physical benefits dispersed downstream 

Passive stabilization techniques are preferred and take longer to implement 

With passive restorresponse may take 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Big Boulder Creek and those 

specifically identified as deficient in habitat diversity 

No Program could expan

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Those streams specifically 

identified as deficient in habitat diversity 

Yes in some areas, no in others due to limited funding 

See USFS/BLM ProgAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2commentary below. 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Those streams specifically 

identified as deficient in habitat diversity 

Uncertain Restricted by resourc

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Those streams specifically 

identified as deficient in habitat diversity 

 See State of Oregon p

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Big Boulder Creek and those 

specifically identified as deficient in habitat diversity 

Uncertain Scope of program lim

NGOs Watershed restoration TNC Middle Fork Preserve and 

RPB conservation easement property 

Uncertain 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the subbasin plan team except when identified as a need for specific sites. The planning te

approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities that would improve floodplain function and channel migration processes would 

whole trees, or boulder clusters to improved habitat complexity and habitat diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive restoration. Ano

construct boulder or log weirs to raise the water table, but only where a passive approach has not worked. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-119

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Mainstem Middle Fork John Day between Crawford and Bridge crs (1), between Horse and Camp crs (1), below Highway 395 (2); and Long (1), Slide (2), Eightmile (2), Sixmile (2), Twelvemile (2), Granite (2), Camp (!), and Crawford (2) crs 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, tree harvest in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Primary include livestocmanagrecove

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Mainstem Middle Fork John Day between Crawford and Bridge crs (1), between Horse and Camp crs (1), below Highway 395 (2); and Long (1), Slide (2), Eightmile (2), Sixmile (2), Twelvemile (2), Granite (2), Camp (!), and Crawford (2) crs 

Same as above Livestock 

overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 

fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophy

Response Timef

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

ODFW, Watershed Councils, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will 

be limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, (see ab

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

NRCS, AFS, USFS, BLM, SWCDs, ODFW, Watershed Councils, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will 

be limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, dependupon grazing plan adopted. Riparian cfencing and removariparian grazing has fastest recovery rat

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Big Boulder Creek, MF John Day, No Program limited by fu
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-120

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Phipps Meadow 

SWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands throughout the 

watershed 

Could be expanded. 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Eightmile and Rush Creek, and 

others as later identified 

No Limited by resources, 

USFS/BLM Upland improvements, riparian improvements Federal lands, Long Creek 

specifically identified 

Uncertain Funding is limited. Se

Assessment -- AppenRestoration Strategy in Gaps commentary 

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands as identified by 

SWCD and Watershed Council 

Yes Program sufficient. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands, specifically Granite 

Creek 

See State of Oregon F. 

CTWRSO Watershed restoration Oxbow and Forrest Ranch 

properties 

Likely where implemented 

Program could be imp

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 5, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

 most needed. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementa

 Guides for FS grazing management program remains challenging in some locations. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Long Cr and its tributaries (1); Mainstem Middle Fork, Coyote Cr. to Camp Cr. (2) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Water 

withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Most o

with counder c

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Long Cr and its tributaries (1); Mainstem Middle Fork, Coyote Cr. to Camp Cr. (2)

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Long Cr and its tributaries (1), Camp (1), Crawford (1), Deerhorn (2), Davis (2), Placer Gulch (2), Granite (1), Rush (2), Twelvemile (2), Slide (1), Sixmile(2), Squaw (1), Idaho (1), Lick (2), Mainstem Middle Fork, Coyote Cr. to Camp Cr. (2) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

Loss of wet meadows 

Abundance, productivity 

All freshwater life stages 

Floodplain aquifer recharge Granite Boulder Cr (1) Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Pilot pr
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-121

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Long Cr. and its tributaries (2); Mainstem Middle Fork, Coyote Cr. to Camp Cr. (1) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Annual 

intensif

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New pr

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Response Timefra

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, OWEB, watershed councils, NRCS, landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

SWCD, ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream Unknown Immediate increase 

instream flow 

Floodplain aquifer recharge CTWSRO, SWCDs Planned, 

some ongoing 

Potentially high dispersal from recharge project site downstream for many miles 

Long term, although opportunities for pilot projects is dependent upon willing landowner 

Immediate 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, FSA, OWEB, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and highly dependent upon landowner willingness to lease. 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-122

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term, dependent upon OWRD enforcing the requirement to measure water usage 

Immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, riparian improvements Camp Creek, Phipps Meadow, 

Oxbow property 

No Limited by funding, ap

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Where irrigation withdrawals occur throughout the MF John Day watershed 

See State of Oregon F. 

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights Middle Fork John Day, Vinegar 

and Clear creeks 

No Program limited by fu

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Improve irrigation efficiency, upland improvements, riparian improvements 

Middle Fork John Day, Vinegar and Clear creeks 

 See State of Oregon 

F. 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Rush and Eightmile creeks No Limited resources. NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Those identified by SWCD and 

Watershed Council 

No Limited resources. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Oxbow and Forrest Ranch 

properties 

Likely in areas of implementation 

Program could expan

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Approximately 66 miles of stream in the Middle Fork are protected with either existing or pending instream water rights. The instream water rights do not preclude further appropriation o

reach drop down to the instream water rights as adopted by OWRD. Voluntary efforts restored 5.7 cfs instream in 2006. 

The Oregon Water Trust has made good progress at restoring flows in the Middle Fork with a total of over 20 cfs of water being converted to instream flow and water leases for another a

streams throughout the subbasin. 

See Strategy 6, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-123

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Increase riparian shading Mainstem: between Crawford and Caribou crs (1), 

between Tincup and Ragged crs (1), between Balance and Camp crs (1), below Highway 395 (2); Long Cr and tributaries (1); Indian Cr (2), Twelvemile (2), Sixmile (2) and Slide (2) crs 

High water temperatures Degraded 

riparian forests 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Elevate

result oloss of storageElevatepervasMiddle with 21 quality probabdata we

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Mainstem: between Highway 7 and Caribou Cr (1), and between Horse and Camp crs (2); Long Cr (1) 

High water temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

None identified at this time Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Using m

should pastureAlthougextensactivitycontam

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

Granite Cr (1) Degraded water quality Animal feed 

operations 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Continue TMDL monitoring For sediment: Mainstem Middle Fork above Camp 

Cr (2), Long Cr and tributaries (1), Butte Cr (2), Indian Cr (2), and Slide Cr (2). For temperature: Mainstem: between Highway 7 and Caribou Cr (1), below Camp Cr (2); Long Cr 

(1); Indian Cr (2) 

Degraded water quality, sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles, adults 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Increase riparian shading ODFW, Watershed Councils, 

SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing water quality benefits 

will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs, watershed councils Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Less than 5 years, once the project has been identified 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-124

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

ODEQ, others Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Ongoing Reduce chemical p

immediately 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

ODA Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Some treatments could be done immediately. There are few animal feeding operations within the subbasin, only one of which has been identified as a problem 

5-15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

FSA CREP, CRP Middle Fork John Day, Granite 

Creek 

No Yes 

ODEQ Mine Waste Program None currently identified, 

although extensive mining activity occurred on Middle Fork and tributaries 

See State of Oregon F. 

ODA Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), AgWQM Granite Creek, others as later 

identified 

See State of Oregon F. 

ODEQ, ODA, SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

Throughout the Middle Fork watershed 

 See State of Oregon 

F. See USFS/BLM ProgAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2commentary below. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Low streamflows during the hottest part of the year exacerbate the already warm water temperatures. Opportunities for increasing streamflow through leasing of water rights, which ofte

longer stream reach, are being pursued by Oregon Water Trust and US Bureau of Reclamation. Constraints for future projects include acceptance by landowners and a secure, long 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 

Reducing water temperatures through the use of improved riparian vegetation and more efficient methods of irrigation may take several years to provide measurable results. Many proje

reducing irrigation return water have been completed. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

MaSAs; Middle Fork and north side tributaries 

below Highway 395 (1), Long Cr (1), Slide Cr (2) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+ Uplan

native invasi
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-125

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

degradation, water quality capacity precip

ultimainclud

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Forest lands, 46 miles on Camp Cr and five miles on the Upper MF have been identified for treatment 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry and 0+ 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

None identified Same as above Upland land use 

practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

Middle Fork and north side tributaries below Highway 395 (1), Long Cr (1), Slide Cr (2) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Invasive plants Abundance, 

productivity 

Fry and 0+

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppr

regimintens

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation; livestock grazing; roads; and agricultural practices 

Middle Fork and north side tributaries below Highway 395 (1), Long Cr (1), Slide Cr (2) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry and 0+

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, ODF, ODOT Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

15 years 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, Watershed Councils 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Juniper control can be done quickly, other strategies such as control of invasive plants may take more than 20 years 

5-30 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-126

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 year

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation; livestock grazing; roads; and agricultural practices 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, CTWSRO, BLM, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans 

0-20,years, depenupon treatments a

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

NRCS/Farm Service Agency CRP Long Creek, Basin Creek No Program needs expansSWCDs Juniper control Long Creek, Basin Creek No More areas need treatmODFW Green Forage Long Creek, Basin Creek No Very small program. USFS/BLM Forest Plan, PACFISH, Resource Management Plan Federal lands within the Middle 

Fork watershed 

Uncertain See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 20commentary below. 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest Program Private and state forestlands 

throughout population 

See State of Oregon p

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon pODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands within the Middle 

Fork watershed 

See State of Oregon p

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Oxbow and Forrest Ranch 

properties 

Likely where implemented 

Could be expanded. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See Strategy 8, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs, has been highly successful for passive upland restoration over most of this populati
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-127

9.3.8 Habitat Strategies and Actions for South Fork John Day River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: altered sediment routing, degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat qualtered hydrology and low flow, water temperature, and impaired fish passage. Primary threats: riparian disturbance, stream channelization and relocation, grazing, forest practices, roapassage barriers (culverts, and other seasonal barriers), and irrigation withdrawals. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

Lower Murderers Cr tributaries draining the south side of Aldrich Mountain: Todd (1), Cabin (1), Dry Cabin (1), Duncan (1) and Dry Duncan (1); Black Canyon Cr (1); mainstem South Fork, north boundary of PW Schneider WMA to Izee Falls (2) 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing, 

Many threats including livestock overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices (fertilizers, herbicides, sediments, changes in plant communities), water

withdrawals, loss of beaver dams 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

ProfurimpexiProthe enshabeasagrimppro

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

South Fork, north boundary of PW Schneider WMA to Dayville (1); South Fork above Izee Falls (2) 

Same as above Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Public lands as identified in Forest Plan Revision Same as above livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified as meeting the criteria during the Forest Plan Revision process 

Same as above livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Protect access to key habitats 

Black Canyon Cr (1) Passage barriers, 

altered hydrology, channel structure 

 Productivity, 

abundance, distribution 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Thblopolpasmitof happCo
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-128

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

Population-wide All Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

CTUIR, TNC, RMEF, John Day Basin Trust, SWCDs, CTWSRO, USFS, ODFW 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 years with parestoration approa

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW, SWCDs, FSA Ongoing Same as above Agreements are for 10 to 15 years Immediate 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

USFS, BLM Ongoing as 

identified 

Same as above Many complete, potentially subject to 

change in Forest Plan revisions 

Immediate 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified as meeting the criteria in the Forest Plan Revision process and BLM Resource Management Plan revision. 

Same as above 

livestock overgrazing of riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Immediate depending on socio-political acceptance 

5-15 years 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

NRCS, SWCDs, USFS, ODFW, ODF, DSL, BLM, ODOT, CTWSRO, ODA, FSA, private landowners 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

USFS, BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic River corridors, Special Management designations, PACFISH 

Black Canyon, SF Wild and Scenic Corridor, and other FS and BLM lands 

Yes, PACFISH standards are good, but implementation is inconsistent between forests. See discussion below. 

See USFAssessm

ODFW Cooperative Agreements and PW Schneider Wildlife 

Management Area 

Murderers Creek, SF John Day between Murderers Cr and Dayville, Upper SF on private lands 

No The agre

and need 

FSA CREP Upper SF John Day No The agre

and need 

NGOs Lease or purchase of lands or instream water rights None currently identified Yes, although limited by acceptance 

from landowners 

Importanwater rig

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands, primarily in 

upper SF (above Izee Falls) 

See Stat- Append
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-129

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Upper SF in cooperation with 

SWCD 

Yes Funding 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state owned 

timberlands 

Likely See Stat

- Append

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Private lands Likely, riparian setbacks are 

sufficient when enforced 

Monitorinincreased

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Federally designated Wild and Scenic River reaches include the South Fork John Day River from Smokey Cr (RM 6.5) to the Malheur National Forest boundary (RM 52.5). State designa

Fork from the PW Schneider Wildlife Management Area Boundary (RM 5.5) to County Road 63 (RM 35). Although wild and scenic designation does not preclude development, it reconsistent with protecting the ORVs for which the river was designated, requires review of any activity that may affect ORVs within the 1⁄4 mile river corridor, and protects the free flowDesignation as W&S essentially precludes construction of any major dam. A Management Plan was adopted by BLM and Oregon State Parks Department in 2001 for the designateImplementation of all the actions identified in the plan will likely take many years; however, grazing management plans for most of the allotments within corridor are complete. BLM a

One of the reasons for purchase of ODFW’s Philip W. Schneider Wildlife Management Area in the South Fork John Day River subbasin was for its value as a steelhead spawning and re

and ODFW owned lands, along with the adjoining Malheur National Forest lands are under a Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). The mainstem South Fork John DaCRMP lands, has shown remarkable riparian recovery in the last 30 years, with 100% canopy closure on some reaches. Unfortunately several of the tributaries have not benefited amanagement strategy. 

Wilderness designation essentially prevents any development and offers the greatest opportunity for protection of high quality habitat. Wilderness areas within the South Fork populatio

Wilderness (13,400 acres). Other special designated areas include the Utley Butte and Dry Cabin wildlife emphasis areas. 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFISH S

grazing management programs remains challenging in some locations. 

See Strategy 1, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

South Fork John Day River mainstem (1); Wind Cr (2) 

Impaired fish passage Push up dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push umainstwithin maintedams downspools asedime

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Culverts on Deer, Murderers (1), SF Murderers 

(2), Tex (1) and Thorn (2) crs; head cut on SF Murderers Cr (1) A total of 74 culverts need replacement (see Appendix G). 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

None identified below Izee Falls Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-130

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

South Fork below PW Schneider boundary (1) Impaired fish passage Irrigation diversions Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry All kno

curren

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

South Fork John Day River (1) Impaired fish passage Irrigation diversions Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry Most ir

Upper been treplaccriteria

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

SWCD Ongoing Provide access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, but all push up dams not expected to be corrected for at least 15 years 

Immediate 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage -- dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, BLM, watershed councils, SWCDs, ODOT 

Ongoing Access to upstream habitat Ongoing, replacing all culverts 

blocking fish passage expected to take 50 years (see Appendix G) 

Immediate 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing Provide access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, providing passage at all diversion and pond barriers will take many years (none below Izee falls) 

Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing At point of diversion No screening currently needed Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately four screens need to 

be replaced 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Su

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Irrigation dam improvements, culvert replacement or retrofits 

Private land on SF John Day and tributaries below Izee Falls 

 The Grant Soil an

the construction wof Oregon progra

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening Private and state owned lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries below Izee Falls 

Likely The program com

per year, but is dcooperation and upgrades current

USFS, BLM Culvert replacement Federal lands, BLM previously corrected the 

Smokey Creek culvert. The BLM has no adult barriers at culverts. Monitoring is needed to determine if upstream passage for juveniles is an issue. 

Uncertain Slow pace will tak

USFS/BLM ProgAppendix E and URestoration Stratdiscussion in Gap

Watershed Councils Road Crossing Passage improvements, 

passage improvements 

Private land on SF John Day and tributaries below Izee Falls 

No Program needs e

BOR John Day Basin Program Private land on SF John Day and tributaries below 

Izee Falls 

Yes No 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-131

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

CTWSRO John Day Basin Program Private land on SF John Day and tributaries below 

Izee Falls in cooperation with SWCD 

No The tribe contrac

assist with consu

program needs a

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion in Strategy 2, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. Most of the mainstem passage problems have been addressed, but there are many tributaries where adult passage is blocked and more areas where juvenile passage problems occur. 

 correcting passage at irrigation diversions and improperly installed culverts, but are constrained by funding and by personnel needed for construction oversight. An inventory of road c in 1999 indicated no culverts on state owned roads and 10 culverts on county owned roads did not meet fish passage criteria within the South Fork population boundary. Appendix G p

 with known passage problems on state or county owned roads. The US Forest Service and BLM are constrained primarily by funding and the personnel needed for NEPA analysis. A

 replacements it will take over 50 years to correct all passage problems on National Forests, however the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USD that will help prioritize culvert replacements for this population. The BLM has no adult barriers at culverts. Monitoring is needed to determine if upstream passage for juveniles is an i

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Murderers Cr, Chickenhouse Gulch to Todd Cr (2); South Fork mainstem, Izee Falls upstream to Malheur NF boundary (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+. 

The upstis no and abovhave rear

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

Murderers Cr, Chickenhouse Gulch to Todd Cr (2); South Fork mainstem, Izee Falls upstream to Malheur NF boundary (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily, fry and 0+. 

Theand provrear

Restore wet meadows SF Murderers (1); Murderers (2); 

Upper Deer Cr. (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of wetlands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+. 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

Murderers Cr, Chickenhouse Gulch to Todd Cr (2); South Fork mainstem, Izee Falls upstream to Malheur NF boundary (1); SF Murderers (1); Wind 

(2); and Deer (1) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily, fry and 0+. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Reconnect floodplain to channel 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing For the treated stream reach Short term, once identified Physical response will 

immediate, biological may take 5-10 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-132

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depending frequency and duratiochannel altering flows 

Restore wet meadows TNC, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing and 

planned 

Benefits of improved channel morphology localized, improved water table and resulting increased streamflow and lower water temperatures have high dispersal downstream 

Intermediate 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, due to acceptance by landowners and widespread need 

Within 5 years once thare built 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Private and state owned lands on 

SF John Day above Izee Falls, SF John Day below Izee Falls, Murderers Cr 

No Sufficient approach, r

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program SF John Day and tributaries above 

and below Izee Falls on Federal land. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working. 

Yes in some areas, no in others 

The USFS preferred smanaging riparian areprocesses. May neeProgram Sufficiency AUSFS Region’s AquaFS, 2005). See discu

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above Izee Falls 

Uncertain Active approaches on

addressed by passive 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above and below Izee Falls 

 Active approaches on

addressed by passive 

Nature Conservancy and other NGOs 

Restoration projects None currently identified Uncertain Needs expansion. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Private lands in SF John Day and 

tributaries above and below Izee Falls in cooperation with SWCD and Watershed Council 

Likely Could be expanded to 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

 most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-133

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Murderers Cr, Chickenhouse Gulch to Todd Cr 

(2); South Fork mainstem, Izee Falls upstream to Malheur NF boundary (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, riparian area degradation, connectivity with floodplain, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+. 

The upsis no and 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

Murderers Cr, Chickenhouse Gulch to Todd Cr (1); South Fork mainstem, Izee Falls upstream to Malheur NF boundary 92); Deer (1); SF Murderers (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

large wood removal  channelization 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+. 

Morsuch recothesincluwhoapp

Stabilize streambanks South Fork mainstem from Izee Falls upstream 

to Malheur NF boundary (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+. 

Sombenactivprocnee

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, 

watershed councils 

Ongoing and planned 

For the treated stream reach 

Short term, once identified Physical response w

immediate, biologicmay take 5-10 year

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains 

ODFW, USFS, watershed councils, BLM, SWCDs 

As needed For the immediate 

stream reach 

Once identified, short term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, USFS, watershed 

councils, BLM, SWCDs 

Ongoing For the treated stream 

reach, physical benefits dispersed downstream 

Passive stabilization techniques are preferred and take longer to implement 

With passive restorresponse may take 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program None currently identified. No When specific needs 

restoration techniques

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Deer, Wind and Murderers 

creeks on Federal lands, but only 

Yes in some areas, no in others 

The USFS preferred smanaging riparian are
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-134

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

when specifically identified as deficient in habitat diversity and that passive restoration is not working 

processes. See USFAssessment -- AppenRestoration Strategy in Gaps commentary 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration None currently identified. Uncertain Only if specific needs 

restoration techniques

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration None currently identified. See State of Oregon p

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration None currently identified. Uncertain No opportunities curreNGOs Watershed restoration None currently identified. Uncertain No opportunities curre

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the subbasin plan team except when identified as a need for specific sites. The planning te

approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities that would improve floodplain function and channel migration processes would 

whole trees, or boulder clusters to improved habitat complexity and habitat diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive restoration. Ano

construct boulder or log weirs to raise the water table, but only where a passive approach has not worked. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

mainstem South Fork John Day above Izee Falls (1); Murderers Cr between the lower USFS boundary up to Tex Cr (2); SF Murderers (1); Deer Cr, mouth to headwaters (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, tree harvest in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Primary include livestocmanagrecove

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

mainstem South Fork John Day above Izee Falls (1); Murderers Cr between the lower USFS boundary up to Tex Cr (2); SF Murderers (1); Deer Cr, mouth to headwaters (1) 

Same as above Livestock 

overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 

fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities 

ODFW, Watershed Councils, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be limited 

to specific reach; water quality 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-135

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

NRCS, AFS, USFS, BLM, SWCDs, ODFW, Watershed Councils, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be limited 

to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depending upon grazing plan adopted. Riparian corridofencing and removal of riparian grazing has the fastest recovery rate. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Indian and Murderers creeks, SF 

John Day below Izee Falls 

No Limited by resources. 

SWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on SF John Day 

and tributaries above and below Izee Falls. Active program on SF above Izee Falls 

See State of Oregon F. 

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on SF John Day 

and tributaries above Izee Falls 

No Resource limited. 

USFS, BLM Upland improvements, riparian improvements Federal lands on SF John Day 

and tributaries above and below Izee Falls. Murderers and Wind creeks 

Likely See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2commentary below. 

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Indian Creek, SF John Day 

above Izee Falls 

Yes Program sufficient. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program SF John Day above Izee Falls See State of Oregon 

F. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Private lands on SF John Day 

and tributaries above and below Izee Falls in cooperation with SWCD and Watershed Council 

Uncertain Limited opportunities 

program. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 5, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. In the last 20+ years ODFW, Watershed Councils, NRCS and Soil and Water Districts have implemented hundred of miles of riparian improvements on private lands, primarily through co fences that exclude livestock grazing, and development of off channel watering devices. Public land managers have implemented PACFISH standards for protection and restoration  Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFIS

 grazing management programs remains challenging in some locations. The Forest Services Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps p

 population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed. Primary constraints on implementing additional projects for more riparian improvements are f

 planning, promotion, education of landowners, and implementation. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-136

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Mainstem South Fork John Day above Izee Falls (1); Murderers Cr between the lower USFS boundary up to Tex Cr (2); SF Murderers (1); Deer Cr, mouth to headwaters (1) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

 Primarily fry and 0+ 

The lowFork Joirrigatiopresen

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

South Fork John Day River below PW Schneider WMA boundary (1); Upper South Fork John Day River (1); Wind (2) and Murderers (2) crs 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Lower South Fork John Day River (2); Upper South Fork John Day River (1); Wind (2); Deer (1); SF Murderers (1); and Murderers (1) crs 

Habitat complexity Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Floodplain aquifer recharge Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Lower South Fork John Day River (2); Upper South Fork John Day River (1); Wind (2) and Murderers (2) crs 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

All MaSAs Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New pr

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysica

Response Timeframe

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, OWEB, watershed councils, NRCS, landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-137

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

projects 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

SWCD, ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Unknown Immediate increase in 

instream flow 

Floodplain aquifer recharge CTWSRO, SWCDs Planned, 

some ongoing 

Potentially high dispersal from recharge project site downstream for many miles 

Long term, although opportunities for pilot projects is dependent upon willing landowner 

Immediate 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, FSA, OWEB, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and highly dependent upon landowner willingness to lease. 

Immediate 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term, dependent upon OWRD enforcing the requirement to measure water usage 

Immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, riparian improvements Private land on SF John Day 

above Izee Falls, private and state lands on Murderers and Indian creeks 

No Limited by resources. 

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

SF John Day and tributaries where irrigation withdrawals occur 

See State of Oregon F. 

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights None currently identified, 

dependent upon cooperating landowner 

No No program currently 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-138

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Improve irrigation efficiency, upland improvements, riparian improvements 

Private lands on SF John Day and tributaries above and below Izee Falls 

 Could increase in sco

Watershed Councils Upland improvements, riparian improvements SF John Day above Izee Falls No Needs expansion. NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements SF John Day above Izee Falls No Needs expansion. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Approximately 22 miles of stream in the South Fork are protected with either existing or pending instream water rights. The instream water rights do not preclude further appropriation of 

reach drop down to the instream water rights as adopted by OWRD. Voluntary efforts restored 0.6 cfs instream in 2006. 

 See Strategy 6, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Increase riparian shading Upper South Fork and tributaries above Izee Falls 

(1); Lower South Fork near the town of Dayville (2); Deer (2); SF Murderers (1); Murderers (2) crs 

High water temperatures Degraded 

riparian forests 

Abundance, productivity 

 Primarily fry and 0+ 

ElevatepervasSouth Fwith 6 squality probabdata we

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Upper South Fork and tributaries above Izee Falls (1); Lower South Fork near the town of Dayville (2); Wind (2) and Murderers (1) crs 

High water temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

Upper South Fork and tributaries above Izee Falls (1); Lower South Fork near the town of Dayville (2) 

Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Using mwhich rwater rresult ireachinand tribwill conby reduand alg

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

South Fork John Day River above Izee Falls (1) Degraded water quality Animal feed 

operations 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry, juveniles 

Continue TMDL monitoring Upper South Fork and tributaries above Izee Falls 

(1) Lower South Fork near the town of Dayville (2) 

Degraded water quality, sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-139

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Increase riparian shading ODFW, Watershed Councils, 

SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing water quality benefits 

will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs, watershed councils Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Less than 5 years, once the project has been identified 

Immediate 

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

ODEQ, others Ongoing Ongoing Reduce chemical p

immediately 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

ODA Ongoing Water quality 

improvement would have high dispersal downstream 

Some treatments could be done immediately. There are few animal feeding operations within the subbasin, only one of which has been identified as a problem 

5-15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

FSA CREP, CRP Private lands on SF John Day 

above Izee Falls 

No Could be expanded w

ODA Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), AgWQM SF John Day above Izee Falls See State of Oregon 

F. 

ODEQ, ODA, SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

Throughout SF John Day watershed 

 See State of Oregon 

F. See USFS/BLM ProgAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2commentary below. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Low streamflows during the hottest part of the year exacerbate the already warm water temperatures. Opportunities for increasing streamflow through leasing of water rights, which ofte

longer stream reach, are being pursued by Oregon Water Trust and US Bureau of Reclamation. Constraints for future projects include acceptance by landowners and a secure, long 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritization restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited a

is most needed. 

Reducing water temperatures through the use of improved riparian vegetation and more efficient methods of irrigation may take several years to provide measurable results. Many proje

reducing irrigation return water have been completed.
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-140

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

South Fork mainstem above Izee Falls (1); Deer Cr (1); Murderers Cr (1) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Upland native invasivprecipiultimateincludin

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Forest lands Same as above Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

South Fork mainstem above Izee Falls (1); Deer Cr (2); Murderers Cr (1) 

Same as above Upland land use 

practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

South Fork mainstem above Izee Falls (1); Deer Cr (2); Murderers Cr (1) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Invasive plants Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppre

regimeintensit

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Throughout population Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response Tim

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, ODF, ODOT Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-141

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Mange vegetation, including juniper removal 

USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, Watershed Councils 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Juniper control can be done quickly, other strategies such as control of invasive plants may take more than 20 years 

5-30 years 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 years 

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

SWCD, VSFS, ODA, CTWSRO, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans 

0-20,years, dependtreatments applied 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

NRCS/Farm Service Agency CRP Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above Izee Falls 

No Could be expanded. 

SWCDs Juniper control Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above and below Izee Falls 

Could be expanded. 

ODFW Green Forage Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above Izee Falls, PW Schneider WMA 

No Very small program. 

USFS, BLM Forest Plan, PACFISH Federal lands Likely See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 2commentary below. 

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest 

Program 

Private and state forestlands throughout population 

See State of Oregon 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management 

Program 

Private lands on SF John Day and tributaries above and below Izee Falls 

See State of Oregon 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Private lands on SF John Day and 

tributaries above Izee Falls in cooperation with SWCD and Watershed Council 

Uncertain Currently limited in sc

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 8, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. NRCS, SWCD and ODFW programs are relatively small, with the CRP program the largest and best funded. 

Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding wheImplementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful for passive upland restoration over most of this population’s area. The 

funding and, to a lesser extent, acceptance by landowners. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-142

9.3.9 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Upper Mainstem John Day River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: degraded channel structure and complexity (habitat quantity and diversity), deg

and LWD recruitment, altered sediment routing, water temperatures, altered hydrology and degraded flooconnectivity. Impaired fish passage is also a priority limiting factor in Beech and Laycock creeks. 

Primary threats: agricultural practices, overgrazing by livestock, removal of large trees from the riparian draining and conversion, stream channelization and diking, mining, and dredging. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

EF and Middle Fork of Canyon Cr (1), tributaries draining the north side of Strawberry Wilderness (2), upper McClellan Cr (tributary to John Day River) (2), McClellan Cr (tributary to EF Beech Cr) (2), upper Fields Cr (2), John Day River above Blue Mt. Hot Springs (1) and tributaries Rail (1), Roberts (1), Reynolds (1), Deardorff (1), and Call (1) crs. 

Degraded floodplain connectivity and function, degraded channel structure and complexity, degraded riparian area, altered hydrology, degraded water quality, altered sediment routing, 

Many threats including livestock overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, agricultural practices (fertilizers, herbicides, sediments, changes in plant communities), water

withdrawals, loss of beaver dams 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

ProfurimpexiProthe enshabeasagrimppro

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

Grub Cr (2), John Day River between John Day and Blue Mt. Hot Springs (1), Indian Cr (2), Beech Cr (2), Cummings Cr (2), Canyon Cr (1) 

Same as above Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas identified in existing Forest Plans 

Same as above Livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified in the Forest Plan Revision process 

Same as above Livestock overgrazing of 

riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Productivity, abundance 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Protect access to key habitats 

Mainstem John Day River above Prairie City (1) Passage barriers, 

altered hydrology, channel structure 

Irrigation withdrawals, channelization 

Productivity, abundance, distribution 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Thblopol
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-143

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

pasmitof happCo

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

Population-wide All Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

CTUIR, TNC, RMEF, John Day Basin Trust, SWCDs, USFS, CTWSRO, ODFW 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5-15 years with parestoration approa

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements 

ODFW, SWCDs, FSA Ongoing Same as above Agreements are for 10 to 15 years Immediate 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

USFS, BLM Ongoing as 

identified 

Same as above Many complete, potentially subject to 

change in Forest Plan revisions 

Immediate 

Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status 

Public lands identified in Forest Plan Revision 

Same as above 

livestock overgrazing of riparian area, changes in plant communities 

Long term Long term 

Protect access to key habitats ODFW, SWCD, Oregon Water 

Resources 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term Long term 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

NRCS, SWCDs, USFS, ODFW, ODF, DSL, BLM, ODOT, CTWSRO, ODA, FSA, private landowners 

Ongoing Population-wide Long term 5-15 years 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

USFS, BLM Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild 

and Scenic River corridors, Special Management designations, PACFISH 

Strawberry Mt. Wilderness, scattered BLM parcels and Malheur National Forest 

Yes, PACFISH standards are good, but implementation is inconsistent between forests. See discussion below. 

See USFAssessm

ODFW Cooperative Agreements Private lands on John Day River 

above John Day, Grub, Indian, Beech, and Canyon crs 

No The agre

and need 

FSA CREP Private lands on John Day River 

above Dayville, Indian and Beech crs 

No The agre

and need 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-144

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

NGOs Lease or purchase of lands or instream water 

rights 

Private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville. Current conservation agreements exist on Dry and Widows creeks 

Yes Importan

water rig

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands on John Day River and 

tributaries above Dayville 

See Stat- Append

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Forrest Ranch and private lands in 

cooperation with SWCD 

Likely Expand a

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act State and private timberlands See Stat

- Append

Local Government City and County Planning and Zoning Private lands Uncertain 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Federally designated Wild and Scenic River reaches include the mainstem John Day from Tumwater Falls (RM 10) to Service Cr (RM 157). State designated reaches include the mainste

to Parrish Cr (RM 170). 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFISH S

grazing management program remains challenging in some locations. 

The CTWSRO owns a mitigation property (3,365 acres) on the Mainstem John Day River above Prairie City that is managed for the benefit of fish and wildlife. See Strategy 1, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

Warrens (2), Bridge (2), Birch (2), Belshaw (2), 

Fields (1), Moon (2), McClellan (2), Beech (1), Canyon (1), Strawberry (1), Dixie (1), Isham (2), Dads (2), and Reynolds (1) crs. 

Impaired fish passage Push up dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Push Uppemaintup dadownspools sedim

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Irrigation or water storage related issues: Warrens (2), Bridge (2), Birch (2), Belshaw (2), 

Fields (1), Moon (2), McClellan (2), Beech (1), Canyon (1), Strawberry (1), Dixie (1), Isham (2), Dads (2), and Reynolds (1) crs Culverts: Canyon Cr and tributaries (1), Reynolds Cr (1), John Day River above Blue Mt Hot Springs (2), and Fields Cr (2) A total of 120 culverts have been identified in this population as needing replacement (see Appendix G) 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+ juveniles 

Push diversroad centire culversubba
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-145

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

Beech Cr (1) Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Concrin the drainastructparts Cr. an

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

Dans (2), Jeff Davis (2), Strawberry (2), Pine (1), Ingles (2), Moon (1), Canyon (1), Cummings (1), Widows (2), Laycock (1) crs 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry, smolts 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

Beech (1), Canyon (1), Dixie (2), Fields (1), Indian (1), Upper John Day River (1), Roberts (1) crs 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Emergent fry Most 

Uppebeen replac

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

SWCD Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, but all push up dams not expected to be corrected for at least 15 years. A comprehensive survey has not been completed 

Immediate 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage -- dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

USFS, BLM, watershed councils, SWCDs, ODOT 

Ongoing Access to upstream 

habitat 

Ongoing, replacing all culverts blocking 

fish passage expected to take 20 years (see Appendix G) 

Immediate 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing Provide access to 

upstream habitat 

Ongoing, providing passage at all diversion and pond barriers will take many years 

Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, SWCDs Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 39 diversions need to 

be screened 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW Ongoing At point of diversion Approximately 47 screens need to be 

replaced, should take many years 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Su

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Irrigation dam improvements, culvert replacement or retrofits 

Private lands on John Day R and steelhead bearing tributaries above Dayville 

 The Grant Soil and 

the construction w

ODFW Fish Passage/Screening Private lands on John Day R and steelhead 

bearing tributaries above Dayville 

No The program com

per year, but is decooperation and li

USFS, BLM Culvert replacement Federal lands on Canyon Creek, Little Pine have 

been recently emphasized, others may be identified 

Uncertain See USFS Region

(USDA-FS, 2005)commentary below

at culverts. Monitoupstream passage 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-146

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Watershed Councils Road Crossing Passage improvements, 

passage improvements 

Private lands on John Day R and steelhead bearing tributaries above Dayville 

No Yes 

ODOT Culvert replacement or retrofit Pine and Beech creeks, others may be identified See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

BOR John Day Basin Program As identified by SWCD, ODFW, and others Yes No CTWSRO John Day Basin Program Private lands on John Day R and steelhead 

bearing tributaries above Dayville in cooperation with SWCD 

No Yes, the tribe cont

to assist with cons

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Most of the mainstem passage problems have been addressed, but there are many tributaries where adult passage is blocked and more areas where juvenile passage problems occur. 

road culverts are the primary causes of passage issues. In the Upper John Day subbasin, the Grant SWCD has implemented many passage improvement projects and currently ha

want them to correct passage problems at irrigation diversions on tributaries as well as the few remaining mainstem problem areas. The Grant SWCD is currently constrained by a r

(4-6 weeks), so it will likely take another 10 years to address most of the tributary passage problems. Other Soil and Water Districts are also correcting passage at irrigation diversio

culverts, but are constrained by funding and by personnel needed for construction oversight. An inventory of road crossings on state and county roads in 1999 indicated 14 culverts 

culverts on county owned roads within the Upper Mainstem John Day population boundaries did not meet fish passage criteria. Appendix G presents an inventory of culverts with kor county owned roads. Some of those culverts have been replaced with structures that do meet the fish passage criteria, but much work remains. Watershed councils and ODOT, 

working on culverts are constrained primarily by funding. An inventory of road crossings on federal lands indicates juvenile passage problems are pervasive, particularly on National 

culverts not meeting passage criteria in this population. The US Forest Service and BLM are constrained primarily by funding and the personnel needed for NEPA analysis. At the cit will take over 50 years to correct all passage problems on National Forests, however, the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA-FS, 2005

prioritize culvert replacements for this population. The BLM has no adult barriers at culverts. Monitoring is needed to determine if upstream passage for juveniles is an issue.Anothe

laws do not require passage improvements at existing barriers unless there is a major change in the structure, such as reconstruction or significant modifications, so landowner coop

passage throughout the subbasin. 

See Strategy 2, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

MainstemJohn Day River from Dayville to Blue Mt. 

Hot Springs (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

RpwplC

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

MainstemJohn Day River from Dayville to Blue Mt. 

Hot Springs (1), Canyon (1), Indian (2), and Pine (2) crs 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Tctsf

Restore wet meadows Canyon (2), EF Beech (2), Upper Belshaw (1) Degraded floodplain, 

altered hydrology 

Removal of wetlands Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-147

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

 Canyon (1), Fields (1), Belshaw (2), Dixie (2), Strawberry (2) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bioph

Response Time

Reconnect floodplain to channel ODFW, watershed council, 

SWCD, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing For the treated stream reach Short term, once identified Physical response w

immediate, biologicamay take 5-10 years 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, watershed council, SWCD, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, because of widespread need 

5-15 years, dependinfrequency and duratichannel altering flow

Restore wet meadows TNC, USFS, CTWSRO Ongoing and 

planned 

Benefits of improved channel morphology localized, improved water table and resulting increased streamflow and lower water temperatures have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 5-15 years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes 

ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS, BLM Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, due to acceptance by landowners and widespread need 

Within 5 years once are built 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Su

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Private lands on John Day River and 

tributaries above Dayville 

No Active measures u

be addressed by pprogram limited by 

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Federal lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working. 

Yes in some areas, no in others due to limited funding 

The USFS preferremanaging riparian processes. May nProgram SufficiencUSFS Region’s AqFS, 2005). See disbelow. 

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Private lands on John Day River and 

tributaries above Dayville 

Dependent upon need and funding 

Active measures ube addressed by plimited by funding. 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Private lands on John Day River and 

tributaries above Dayville 

 See State of Orego

Appendix F. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-148

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Nature Conservancy and other NGOs 

Restoration projects None currently identified, but 

conservation easement exist on Dry and Widows creeks 

Yes No actions current

opportunities. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Forrest Ranch and private lands in 

cooperation with SWCD 

Uncertain Dependent on fund

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Bank stabilization using some rock is still infrequently occurring after high water events in the Upper John Day River, primarily along irrigated pastures. These bank stabilization projects 

and large rock, however in recent years the high economic and ecological cost of bank armoring with riprap and of channelization has been recognized, so the emphasis has shifted 

for stabilization, primarily through riparian vegetation improvements. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form MainstemJohn Day River from Dayville to Blue 

Mt. Hot Springs (1), Indian (1), Pine (1), lower Beech (1), lower McClellan (2), lower Moon (2), lower Laycock (2), middle Canyon (1), lower Fields (2), lower Strawberry (1), lower Dixie (2), lower Isham (2), lower Dans (2) crs 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, riparian area degradation, connectivity with floodplain, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, beaver removal, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

ReprowilpalimCT

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

MainstemJohn Day River from Dayville to Blue 

Mt. Hot Springs (2), Indian (1), Pine (1), lower Beech (1), lower McClellan (2), lower Moon (2), lower Laycock (2), middle Canyon (1), lower Fields (2), lower Strawberry (1), lower Dixie (2), lower Isham (2), lower Dans (2), crs 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Large wood removal channelization 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Mosuchapstrcluwh

Stabilize streambanks MainstemJohn Day River from Dayville to Blue 

Mt. Hot Springs (1), lower Beech (2), lower Indian (2), 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, berming, bank armoring, overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily eggs, fry and 0+ 

Sobeis aunmase

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, 

watershed councils 

Ongoing and planned 

For the treated stream reach 

Short term, once identified Physical response 

immediate, biologimay take 5-10 yea
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-149

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, USFS, watershed councils, BLM, SWCDs 

As needed For the immediate 

stream reach 

Once identified, short term Immediate 

Stabilize streambanks ODFW, USFS, watershed 

councils, BLM, SWCDs 

Ongoing For the treated stream 

reach, physical benefits dispersed downstream 

Passive stabilization techniques are preferred and take longer to implement 

With passive restoresponse may tak

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries, once identified as deficient 

No Active measures use

addressed by passivlimited by funding. 

USFS, BLM Stream enhancement program Federal lands on John Day River 

and tributaries, once identified as deficient. Only when specifically identified that passive restoration is not working. 

Yes in some areas, no in others 

The USFS preferred managing riparian arprocesses. PACFISfor passive restoratiolimited. See USFS/BAssessment -- AppeRestoration Strategy discussion in Gaps c

Watershed Councils Watershed restoration Population-wide Uncertain Limited resources. Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Watershed restoration Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries, once identified as deficient 

 Active management, 

addressed by passiv

CTWSRO Watershed restoration Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries, once identified as deficient in cooperation with SWCD 

Uncertain 

NGOs Watershed restoration None currently identified Uncertain No actions currently 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Instream activities have not been identified as a high priority by the recovery planning team or the subbasin plan team except when identified as a need for specific sites. The planning te

approaches, such as riparian and upland improvements be emphasized. Typically, instream activities that would improve floodplain function and channel migration processes would 

whole trees, or boulder clusters to improved habitat complexity and habitat diversity where those parameters are deficient and not expected to improve with passive restoration. Ano

construct boulder or log weirs to raise the water table, but only where a passive approach has not worked. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-150

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Some reaches of the upper mainstem John Day River (1) and Ingle (2), Harper (2), Beech (1), Bear (1), Birch (2), Dans (2), and Reynolds (2) crs; the lower reaches of Fields (1), Belshaw (1), Cummings (2), Moon (2), Riley (1), Strawberry (2), Pine (2), and Laycock (2) crs 

Degraded riparian area, channel structure and complexity, floodplain degradation, altered hydrology, sediment, water quality 

Overgrazing of riparian area, channelization, stream bank armoring, tree harvest in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry and 0+ 

Primaenhanfencegrazinripariashrub

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Some reaches of the upper mainstem John Day River (1) and Ingle (2), Harper (2), Beech (1), Bear (1), Birch (2), Dans (2), and Reynolds (2) crs; the lower reaches of Fields (1), Belshaw (1), Cummings (2), Moon (2), Riley (1), Strawberry (2), Pine (2), and Laycock (2) crs 

Same as above Livestock 

overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily 

fry and 0+ 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities 

ODFW, Watershed Councils, SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be 

limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, (see a

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

NRCS, AFS, USFS, BLM, SWCDs, ODFW, Watershed Councils, CTUIR 

Ongoing Riparian function will be 

limited to specific reach; water quality benefits will have high dispersal downstream from site 

Long term because of widespread need 

5-15 years, depengrazing plan adopcorridor fencing anriparian grazing harecovery rate. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

No Limited by funds. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-151

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

SWCDs Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

USFS and BLM Upland improvements, riparian improvements Federal lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

Uncertain PACFISH BMPs are 

restoration, but activSee USFS/BLM ProAppendix E and USFStrategy (USDA-FS, commentary below. 

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

Yes Program sufficient. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Programs Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

See State of Oregon F. 

CTUIR Watershed restoration Forrest Ranch property and 

private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville in cooperation with SWCD 

Uncertain Program approach s

increased. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Overgrazing of riparian areas by livestock continues, however it is not as widespread as historically. Interest by private landowners and public land managers in riparian improvement re

See Strategy 5, Lower Mainstem John Day River population for further discussion. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for most Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful over most of this population’s area, but implementation of PACFISH S

grazing management program remains challenging in some locations. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps ppopulation, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed.

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Fields (1), Indian (1), McClellan (2), Pine (1), Beech (1), Bear (2), Strawberry (1), Isham (2), Dean (2), Moon (2), Laycock (1), Dog (2), Ingle (2), and Riley (2)crs; John Day River, Dayville to Mt. Vernon (1) 

Altered hydrology, low flows, high temperatures 

water withdrawals, land conversion on uplands, road network 

Abundance, productivity 

 Primarily, fry and 0+ 

FieldsBear, LaycoUpper than ndry or due to During John Verno

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Fields (1), Indian (1), McClellan (2), Pine (1), Beech (1), Bear (2), Strawberry (1), Isham (2), Dean (2), Moon (2), Laycock (1), Dog (2), Ingle (2), and Riley (2)crs; John Day River, Dayville to Mt. Vernon (1) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals, loss during conveyance 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-152

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Fields (2), Indian (1), McClellan (2), Pine (1), Beech (1), Bear (1), Strawberry (2), Isham (2), Dean (2), Moon (2), Laycock (1), Dog (2), Ingle (2), and Riley (1)crs 

 Primarily, 

fry and 0+ 

Floodplain aquifer recharge Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Fields (1), Indian (1), McClellan (2), Pine (1), Beech (1), Bear (2), Strawberry (1), Isham (2), Dean (2), Moon (2), Laycock (2), Dog (2), Ingle (2), and Riley (2)crs; John Day River, Dayville to Mt. Vernon (1) 

Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

The Umeet flows SepteSome the Jo

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily, fry and 0+ 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New p

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCD, watershed councils, NRCS 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, OWEB, watershed councils, NRCS, landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and dependent upon landowner willingness to participate and availability of projects 

Immediate 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

SWCD, ODFW, CTWSRO, USFS 

Ongoing High dispersal downstream Unknown Immediate increase in 

instream flow 

Floodplain aquifer recharge CTWSRO, SWCDs Planned, 

some ongoing 

Potentially high dispersal from recharge project site downstream for many miles 

Long term, although opportunities for pilot projects is dependent upon willing landowner 

Immediate 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, FSA, OWEB, Oregon Water Trust, others 

Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term and highly dependent upon landowner willingness to lease. 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-153

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing Point of diversion 

downstream to mouth of John Day River 

Long term, dependent upon OWRD enforcing the requirement to measure water usage 

Immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, riparian improvements Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

No Limited in scope. 

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow Restoration, 

Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville where irrigation withdrawals occur 

Uncertain See State of Oregon 

F. 

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights John Day River and above John 

Day and tributaries above Dayville. Leases currently exist on Dixie Creek and John Day River above Mt Vernon. 

No Sufficient where app

additional funding. 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Improve irrigation efficiency, upland improvements, riparian improvements 

Private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville 

 See State of Oregon 

F. 

NRCS Upland improvements, riparian improvements Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

No Limited in scope. 

CTWSRO Watershed restoration program Forrest Ranch property and 

private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville in cooperation with SWCD 

Uncertain Approach sufficient, 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Many landowners have converted from flood to sprinkler or gated pipe irrigation that makes more efficient use of the water and grows more palatable forage, but there has not been an e

saved water from being used by another irrigator downstream. Water measuring devices are just beginning to be required on irrigation withdrawals and while progress is being made 

from irrigators, particularly in the Upper John Day. Flows are also improving because of projects that restore historical cover types by removing juniper, reintroducing fire, enrollmen

invasive/noxious plants. Primary constraints on implementing additional projects are funding, instream water rights that are junior to most irrigation rights, and water laws that somet

practices. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-154

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Approximately 120 miles of stream in the Upper Mainstem are protected with either existing or pending instream water rights. The instream water rights do not preclude further appropria

affected reach drop down to the instream water rights as adopted by OWRD. 

US Bureau of Reclamation, as required in the Columbia River Biological Opinion, is required to identify and assist with passage improvement design and flow restoration. They have par

several water leases, most notably in Standard Creek, tributary to Dixie Creek. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Increase riparian shading Mainstem John Day River (1), Beech (1), EF Beech 

(2), Canyon (1), Grub (2), Indian (1), Pine (1), Laycock (2), Belshaw (1), Fields (1), Strawberry (2), lower Dans (2), Riley (1), Ingle (1), Harper (1), and Bear (2) crs 

High water temperatures Degraded 

riparian forests 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

ElevapervaUpper 27 strquality probadata w

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Mainstem John Day River, from South Fork to Blue Mt Hot Springs (1). 

High water temperatures Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

Many by redbeen the toForesSpring

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

Mainstem John Day River from the South Fork to Blue Mt Hot Springs (1). 

Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides, vehicle hydrocarbons, etc. 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

Using which water result reachnutriewater oxyge

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

John Day River between the South Fork and Blue Mt. Hot Springs (1) 

Degraded water quality Animal feed 

operations 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

There signifiwinter 

Continue TMDL monitoring Temperature: Mainstem John Day River (1), 

Beech (1), EF Beech (2), Canyon (2), Grub (2), 

Indian (1), Laycock (1), Belshaw (2), Fields (2), and Bear (2) crs Sediment: Indian Cr (from burned area) (1) 

Degraded water quality, sediment routing 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Increase riparian shading ODFW, Watershed Councils, Ongoing Water quality benefits will have Long term because of widespread 5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-155

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

SWCDs, USFS, BLM, CTUIR high dispersal downstream 

from site 

need 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

SWCDs, watershed councils Ongoing Water quality improvement 

would have high dispersal downstream 

Less than 5 years, once the project has been identified 

Immediate 

Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 

ODEQ, others Ongoing Ongoing Reduce chemical 

immediately 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

ODA Ongoing Water quality improvement 

would have high dispersal downstream 

Some treatments could be done immediately. There are few animal feeding operations within the subbasin, only one of which has been identified as a problem 

5-15 years 

Continue TMDL monitoring USFS, ODFW, SWCD, ODEQ Ongoing Basinwide Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

FSA CREP, CRP Resource need is widespread, 

but acceptance is lacking 

No Limited by acceptance 

ODEQ Mine Waste Program None currently identified, 

although extensive gold mining has occurred on John Day River near the town of John Day, on Canyon Creek and Dixie Creek 

See State of Oregon p

ODA Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), 

Agricultural Water Quality Management Program 

None currently identified See State of Oregon p

ODEQ, ODA, SWCD, USFS Sedimentation Monitoring (TMDL Development and 

Implementation) 

John Day River and tributaries above Dayville 

 See State of Oregon p

See USFS/BLM PrograAppendix E and USFS Strategy (USDA-FS, 20commentary below. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Reducing water temperatures through the use of improved riparian vegetation and more efficient methods of irrigation may take several years to provide measurable results. Many proje

reducing irrigation return water have been completed. Opportunities for additional irrigation return water cooling projects exist above and below the town of John Day. Low streamf

year exacerbate the already warm water temperatures. Opportunities for increasing streamflow through leasing of water rights, which often results in cooler water over a longer streOregon Water Trust and US Bureau of Reclamation. Constraints for future projects include acceptance by landowners and a secure, long term funding source. 

The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

most needed. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-156

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Bear (2), Grub (1), Beech (1), Belshaw (1), Cummings (1), Pine (2), Indian (2), Strawberry (2), and Laycock (2) crs 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, 

floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

Upresanwilratwahyd

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Forest lands Same as above Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Bear (2), Grub (1), Beech (1), Belshaw (1), Cummings (1), Pine (2), Indian (2), Strawberry (2), and Laycock (2)crs 

Same as above Upland land use 

practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

Bear (2), Grub (1), Beech (1), Belshaw (1), Cummings (1), Pine (2), Indian (2), Strawberry (2), and Laycock (2) crs 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing 

Invasive plants Abundance, 

productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Su

reginte

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Population-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

Primarily fry, juveniles

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bio

Response T

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, BLM ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

USFS, BLM, ODF, ODOT Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

5-15 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-157

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTWSRO, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

USFS, BLM, NRCS, SWCDs, Watershed Councils 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Juniper control can be done quickly, other strategies such as control of invasive plants may take more than 20 years 

5-30 years 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 year

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, CTWSRO, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans 

0-20,years, depentreatments applied 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, no) 

Su

NRCS/Farm Service Agency CRP Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

No Limited in scope. 

SWCDs Juniper control Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

 Needs expansion. 

ODFW Green Forage Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

No Very small progra

USFS/BLM Forest Plan, PACFISH, Resource Management 

Plan 

Federal lands on John Day River above Forest boundary, and tributaries on Malheur National Forest 

Yes, but highly dependent upon funding and monitoring 

Particularly monitoUSFS/BLM PrograAppendix E and UStrategy (USDA-Fcommentary below

ODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest 

Program 

Private and state forestlands throughout population 

See State of OregAppendix F. 

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oreg

Appendix F. 

ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Private lands on John Day River 

and tributaries above Dayville 

See State of OregAppendix F. 

CTWSRO Watershed Restoration Forrest Ranch property and 

private lands on John Day River and tributaries above Dayville in cooperation with SWCD 

Uncertain Continued funding 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-158

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion for Strategy 8, Lower Mainstem John Day River population. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 2005) helps prioritize restoration actions for this population, and helps deploy limited activ

 most needed. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs has been highly successful for passive upland restoration over most of this populati

The limitations to all the programs are funding and, to a lesser extent, acceptance by landowners. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-159

9.3.10 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Umatilla River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: high water temperature, sediment routing, impaired fish passage, degraded chan

complexity and altered hydrology (low flow). Primary threats: current land use practices that reduce habitat quality, quantity and disrupt ecosystem fun

Table 9-2, behind the habitat strategy and action tables for the Umatilla, provides a cross reference of GeographiMaSAs/MiSAs. Table 8-35 identifies stream barriers to upstream steelhead passage in the Umatilla watershed. Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 

North Fork Umatilla R (1); Umatilla R., Meacham Cr. to forks (1); Buck Creek (1); NF Meacham Cr. (1); E. Meacham Cr (1); Thomas Cr.(1); W. Birch Cr., Bear Cr. to headwaters (1); E. Birch Cr., California Gulch to headwaters (1); SF Umatilla R., mouth to Thomas Cr.(1); Umatilla R., Butter Cr. to Westland Dam and Stanfield Dam to McKay Cr.(2); Umatilla R., Three Mile Dam to Butter Cr. (2) 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity, channel stability, sediment, low flow and high temperatures 

Cultivation, forestry, grazing, urban development 

Abundance, productivity 

All Agreements (c

cooperative agwith private lanhabitats exist tvalues. Agreements in include: Puttinon agricultural up to the chanbuffer widths aprotecting unstypes of mana

Continue existing protections and/or increase protection of Federal lands; implement Forest Practices Act and PACFISH 

North Fork Umatilla R (1); Umatilla R., Meacham Cr. to forks (1); Buck Creek (1); NF Meacham Creek (1); East Meacham Cr (1); Thomas Cr. (1); West Birch Cr., Bear Cr. to headwaters (1); E. Birch Cr., California Gulch to headwaters (1); SF Umatilla R., mouth to Thomas Cr. (1) 

Same as above Forestry, cultivation, 

grazing, urban development 

Abundance, productivity 

All Current protec

Riparian Habit

continued and lands may be process or ES

issues are addActions may inchanging manareas, and ideAll the options directed througprogram/manaconsidered “Nthe need is ide
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-160

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

direction (landwildlife managare unlikely to future. 

Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function 

Umatilla R., Meacham Cr. to forks ; Thomas Creek (1); West Birch Cr., Bear Cr. to headwaters (1); Bear Creek (West Birch) and tribs (1); E. Birch Cr., mouth to headwaters (1); SF Umatilla R., mouth to Thomas Cr. (1); Umatilla R., Butter Cr. to Westland Dam and Stanfield Dam to McKay Cr (2); Umatilla R., Three Mile Dam to Butter Cr. (2); Birch Cr., mouth to forks (2); Umatilla R., Mission Br. To Meacham Cr. (1); Meacham Cr., mouth to North Fork (1); West Birch Cr., mouth to Bear Cr. (1); Buckaroo Cr (1); Meacham Cr., Sheep Cr. to headwaters (1)

Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All Setbacks coul

buffers on agrcultivated up to riparian buffer areas, protectiother types of 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

Subbasin-wide Same as above Same as above Abundance, 

productivity 

All To prevent de

management protect aquatic the subbasin whigh quality. 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues 

Subbasin-wide Same as above Urban development Abundance, 

productivity 

All Enforce existin

habitat and upadequate prot

Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

Umatilla R., Meacham Cr. to forks (1); W. Birch Cr., Bear Cr. to headwaters (1); Bear Creek (West Birch) and tribs (1); E. Birch Cr., mouth to headwaters (1); Umatilla R., Butter Cr. to Westland Dam and Stanfield Dam to McKay Cr. (1); Umatilla R., Three Mile Dam to Butter Cr. (1); Birch Cr., mouth to forks (1); Umatilla R., Mission Br. To Meacham Cr. (1); Meacham Cr., mouth to North Fork (1); West Birch Cr., mouth to Bear Cr. (1); Iskuulpa Cr., Bachelor Cyn to headwaters(1); Buckaroo C (1); Meacham Cr., Sheep Cr. to headwaters(1) 

Same as above Urban development Abundance, 

productivity 

Abundance, productivity 

Incorporating Mareas into the provision of thOrdinance woto be protected process for rev

Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation 

NF Umatilla R (1); Umatilla R., Meacham Cr. to forks (1); Buck Creek (1); NF Meacham Cr (1); East Meacham Cr (1); Thomas Cr (1); West Birch Cr., Bear Cr. 

Same as above Rural and urban 

development 

Abundance, productivity 

All Look for oppor

would incorpopriority habitat 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-161

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

to headwaters (1); E. Birch Cr., California Gulch to headwaters (1); SF Umatilla R., mouth to Thomas Cr. (1); Umatilla R., Butter Cr. to Westland Dam and Stanfield Dam to McKay Cr. (1); Umatilla R., Three Mile Dam to Butter Cr. (1) 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysica

Timeframe

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 

CTUIR, ODFW, UBWC, TNC, RMEF, SWCDs 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5 years to decades with restoration approaches 

Continue existing protections and/or increase protection of Federal lands; implement Forest Practices Act and PACFISH 

USFS, ODF Ongoing Benefits accruing since 

1995 for all streams in Umatilla subbasin on USFS lands, including priority GAs. Forest Practices Act applies to all commercial timber operations on private lands 

Long term Maintenance/improvem

existing conditions 

Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function 

CTUIR, ODFW, USFS, FSA, NRCS, SWCD 

When need identified 

Riparian areas associated with priority habitat areas 

Long term Immediate with continu

improvement for up to 5After 50 years habitat ewill be maintained. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

USFS, SWCDs, ODA, FSA, NRCS, CTUIR, ODSL, USACE 

Ongoing All priority areas within the 

Umatilla subbasin 

Long Term Maintenance of existing 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues. 

Municipalities Unknown Mid and lower subbasin; 

High dispersal downstream 

Ongoing - unknown Response is uncertain 

Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

Umatilla County, CTUIR, ODFW When 

possible 

All priority areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Short term Immediate with continu

improvement for up to 5After 50 years habitat ewill be maintained. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-162

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation. 

ODFW, CTUIR When 

funding is available and amendment is possible 

All priority areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Long term Immediate with continu

improvement for up to 5After 50 years habitat ewill be maintained. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Sufficien

CTUIR CTUIR Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish 

Habitat Enhancement Projects – Riparian Function 

Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, Umatilla River 

No Yes, there is still potential for 

ODFW Umatilla River Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement 

Program, Fish Management Program 

Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, Umatilla River 

No Yes, there is still potential for 

USFS North Fork Umatilla River Wilderness and other 

specific Forest Plan management area allocations 

Meacham Creek, North and South Fork Umatilla River and tribs 

Yes See USFS/BLM Program Suf

E. 

USFS Land Exchange Program Meacham Creek, North and 

South Fork Umatilla River and tribs, Pearson Creek (East Birch Creek) 

No See discussion below. 

USFS PACFISH/Umatilla Forest Plan Meacham Creek, North and 

South Fork Umatilla River and tribs, West Birch Creek, Pearson Creek and other East Birch Creek tribs 

Yes See USFS/BLM Program Suf

E. 

USFWS Umatilla Wildlife Refuge Umatilla Wildlife Refuge Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/401 water alteration permitting Subbasin-wide No Compliance validation and en

lack of resources 

ODSL Waterway alteration permitting Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon programODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon programFSA, NRCS, SWCD CREP, CCRP, CSP, EQIP Subbasin-wide No The potential coverage of the

in Umatilla County. 

CTUIR Iskuulpa Creek Iskuulpa Creek Yes Program meeting objectives. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CTUIR and ODFW conservation easement programs have been effective at protecting and improving riparian habitat condition in the Umatilla subbasin. There is potential for considerab

Emphasis should be placed on priority habitat areas for establishing easements. These agreements are typically 10 or 15 years in duration. Continuation of management and deri

agreements expire. 

The Umatilla National Forest should emphasize protecting priority areas during project planning and implementation. Ongoing management actions sufficiently protect high priority aqua

protections should be continued. PACFISH/Forest Plan Programs per se are sufficiently protective for lands in current ownership and require changing management or increasing bsite-specifically (“New” actions). Most of FS lands (Meacham watershed, SF and NF Umatilla R. are already essentially fully protected under Forest Plan by protective managemen

Wilderness and Wildlife Emphasis Management Areas that prohibit road building and forest practices except in rare circumstances; PACFISH protections apply to all such activities. 

watersheds (FS) are essentially unroaded and unharvested, majority of existing road system is located on ridgetops, very little in stream bottoms. When/if needs are identified, additincreased protective status and a “new action”. Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congress. Priority areas for ha

reside within the Umatilla National Forest should be assessed as to whether administrative designations apply to the areas that will support protection of these areas over the long te

While permit processes implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers are thorough and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, the program lacks personnel resource

conditions of permitted actions are followed. In addition, the agency lacks resources to adequately monitor waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations private parties. See State of Oregon programmatic review -- Appendix F for comments on ODSL. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-163

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

The USFS land exchange program has the potential to bring existing private lands under federal ownership and PACFISH protections. However, this program is completely voluntary on 

landowner would acquire public land and could very likely lower standards of resource protection. The land exchange is, however, a tool that could be used under very controlled cir

protection of important aquatic habitats. But the purpose of the program is focused on consolidating land holdings and not necessarily protection of habitat. 

The Umatilla and Walla Walla Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Rules require that management on agricultural lands allow the establishment, growth and mainten

vegetation, consistent with site capability, to promote habitat and protect water quality by filtering sediment, stabilizing streambanks, naturally storing water, and providing shade. T

based rather than prescriptive, therefore allows landowners the flexibility to achieve water quality goals using available equipment, technology and innovation. The rules for each Ma

enforceable backstop to the voluntary initiatives. The SWCDs are the local management agencies that provide the outreach, education and technical assistance. ODA is responsibenforcement actions. Technical and financial assistance is available through state and federal programs to landowners for establishing adequate riparian areas. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Per Table 8-35 Priority (1) Butter Creek system priority (2) See Appendix G that identifies 25 culverts in need of replacement 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

See Tabbarriers. barriers River hawatershpassage 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

Per Table 8-35 Priority (1) Butter Creek system priority (2) 

Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

Unscreened diversions within current steelhead distribution (1); Butter Creek system priority (2) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity 

All There is 

known to areas thHowevepump di

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

Diversions within current steelhead distribution (1); Butter Creek system priority (2) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Operate and maintain fish passage facilities to meet criteria 

Within current steelhead distribution (1); Butter Creek system priority (2) 

Impaired fish passage and entrainment 

Dams, culverts and irrigation diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All There a

the Umamaintain biologicamaintain 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bi

Response T

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as 

ODFW, CTUIR, SWCD, UBWC, USFS, ODOT, Umatilla County, 

Ongoing Access upstream of 

obstruction 

Within 5 years Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-164

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Municipalities, private landowners 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams 

ODFW, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Access upstream of 

obstruction 

5-10 years Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, private landowners Ongoing Point of diversion 10-20 years Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW, private landowners Ongoing Point of diversion 10-20 years Immediate 

Operate and Maintain fish passage facilities to meet criteria 

CTUIR, ODFW, WID, private landowners 

Ongoing Facility site Ongoing Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Suff

ODFW BPA Habitat Program, Fish Management 

Program 

Subbasin-wide No More funding/implem

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Subbasin-wide No More funding/implemODFW Fish Screening Program Subbasin-wide Yes for gravity 

diversions 

Need to inventory an

Westland Irrigation District Fish facilities O and M Lower Umatilla River Yes Program meeting obCTUIR/ODFW Fish passage operations Lower Umatilla River Yes Program meeting obUSFS Road Maintenance Upper subbasin No More funding neede

problems. Timefram

funding. See comm

SWCD, UBWC Watershed Improvement Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

McKay, Butter and Willow creeks all historically supported summer steelhead, but steelhead are not currently present due to passage obstructions, inadequate screening and low flow pr

to store water for irrigation in the 1920’s, completely blocks upstream passage of fish at RM 6 on McKay Creek. Until recent years, McKay Creek downstream of McKay Dam was coreservoir was being filled. Butter Creek has a series of large diversion dams that block upstream passage throughout the subbasin. In addition, water withdrawal for irrigation is so s

mouth for only a few days or weeks in any given year. Willow Creek Dam Was constructed in 1980 on Willow Creek just upstream of Heppner (RM 56) for flood control. Willow Cree

upstream passage of fish. In addition, to Willow Creek Dam, numerous irrigation diversion dams throughout the Willow Creek watershed block passage. The lowest barrier in Willow 

passage exists at RM 11. Steelhead are occasionally seen holding downstream of this dam. While the general condition of passage in these streams (McKay, Butter and Willow cre

inventory and assessment is needed. This information can be used to pursue passage improvement for redband trout and to assess the feasibility of restoring passage for steelhead

The USFS has identified passage barriers in addition to the ones listed in Table 8-35. The Forest Service’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA-FS, 20

actions for this population, and helps deploy limited active restoration funding where it is most needed within the ESU. 

Screening of gravity-feed irrigation diversions within currently occupied steelhead habitat is thought to be adequate, with the exception of the lower six miles of McKay Creek and one site 

is known to not meet criteria. There is now documented use of steelhead juveniles in lower McKay Creek, but no efforts have been made in the past or present to screen water dive

what extent pump-feed irrigation diversions are adequately screened. There is a critical need to inventory and screen all pump-feed irrigation diversions within currently occupied steinventory of water diversions and screening needs has never been done in the Umatilla subbasin. Thus, while it is not likely that there are gravity feed diversions that are not screen

lacking a thorough assessment of the situation. A comprehensive inventory of all water diversions should be done and inspection of these diversions to ensure adequate screening. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-165

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Umatilla R., Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Cr., mouth to North Fork (1); Birch Creek (1); West Birch, mouth to gorge (1); East Birch Creek mouth to Pearson Cr. (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, off-stream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All W

ripbe ch

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

Umatilla R., Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Cr., mouth to North Fork (1); Birch Creek (1); West Birch, mouth to gorge (1); East Birch Creek mouth to Pearson Cr. (1) 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, habitat quantity and diversity 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

All M

bo

Remove dikes and levies Umatilla R., Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Cr., 

mouth to North Fork (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity 

Stream channelization, bank armoring 

Abundance, productivity 

All M

bo

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Bio

Response Tim

Reconnect floodplain habitats ODFW, UBWC,, SWCD, USFS, 

CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Short term, once identified Physical response 

immediate for somdevelop over years 

Remove dikes and levies CTUIR, UBWC, CDs When 

opportunity identified 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

10+ years Improved stream a

functions - some berealized immediatewill develop over ye

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, UBWC, SWCD, USFS, CTUIR 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Short term, once identified Physical response 

immediate for somdevelop over years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-166

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suf

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, 

Umatilla River 

No Additional implemen

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, 

Umatilla River 

No Additional implemen

SWCD, UBWC Watershed Restoration Subbasin-wide Involvement is curre

programmatic review 

Watershed Council Watershed Restoration Subbasin-wide No There is a continuin

insure that issues a

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Intensive land uses within Umatilla subbasin flood plains and upslope habitats have led to dramatic changes in waterway characteristics since arrival of Euro-American pioneers to the ar

(Nagel 1997, unpublished; Beschta 1994). Channel alterations in the Umatilla subbasin have resulted in 1) straight, incised channels with minimal woody riparian vegetation, and 2) 

dynamics and minimal woody riparian vegetation. There is a need for continued implementation of measures to address limiting factors. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); 

Meacham Creek, mouth to North Fork (1); Birch Creek (2); West Birch Creek (1), mouth to Gorge; East Birch Cr. (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, loss of beaver dams, removal of riparian vegetation, livestock overgrazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

All Strea

instrecorreWherare p

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Creek, mouth to headwaters (1); North Fork Meacham Cr. (1); Birch Creek (1); West Birch Creek, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Creek (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Removal of large wood, beaver, trees in riparian areas; channelization and streambank armoring, livestock grazing 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry to adult Aside 

of larpervaUmatremofrom areas beneaddreplacefunctlarge deficqualithese 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-167

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Stabilize and protect streambanks 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Birch Creek (1); W. Birch Creek, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr. (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, livestock grazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry and adults 

StreahumaremoChanhave elevawell asuita

Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Cr, mouth to North Fork (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Creek (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Large wood removal, trees in riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry to adult Pools 

strateare nconstproceenhaperfoparamwould be re

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Response Timefra

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, CTUIR, UBWC Ongoing; some 

needs identified in ODFW/CTUIR fiveyear action plan 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

25 years Improved riparian vege

and associated attributeimproved stream and floodplain structure and function – response timimmediate to 10 years 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, UBWC, CTUIR, SWCDs Ongoing as 

needed 

Reach affected Short term Improved instream cha

habitat diversity - some benefits will be realized immediately and others develop in 1-5 years 

Stabilize and protect streambanks 

ODFW, CTUIR, SWCD, UBWC, private landowners 

Ongoing; when specific opportunity identified 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

10+ years Improved water quality 

response time 1-5 year

Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 

ODFW, CTUIR Ongoing; current 

action planned for Meacham Cr. 

Treatment site 25 years Increased quantity of po

habitat and channel and floodplain function – restime immediate to 5 yea

Remove dikes and levies ODFW, CTUIR, SWCD, UBWC When specific 

opportunities identified 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

Once specific action planned, short term 

Some benefits will be reimmediately and others develop over years to d
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-168

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, 

Umatilla River 

No Additional implementat

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, 

Umatilla River 

No Additional implementat

SWCD Watershed Restoration Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon prWatershed Council Watershed Restoration Subbasin-wide No There is a continuing n

insure that issues are d

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Intensive land uses within Umatilla subbasin flood plains and upslope habitats have led to dramatic changes in waterway characteristics since arrival of Euro-American pioneers to the ar

(Nagel 1997, unpublished; Beschta 1994). Channel alterations in the Umatilla subbasin have resulted in 1) straight, incised channels with minimal woody riparian vegetation, and 2) 

dynamics and minimal woody riparian vegetation. There is a need for continued implementation of measures to address limiting factors. 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Creek, mouth to headwaters (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1); Iskuulpa Cr. (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation, sediment, water temperature 

Livestock grazing, channelization, stream bank armoring, cutting of trees in riparian areas, changes in plant communities (including invasive plants), loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All Historic

channestream vegetathe higbank achannethe empassive primariimprov

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Creek, mouth to headwaters (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1); Iskuulpa Cr. (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability 

Livestock overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All Grazin

should recovePermalivestocsurest where impact

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural lands and establish riparian setbacks for structures in 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to Meacham (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation, sediment, water 

Degradation of riparian areas and function; residential 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All In area

that deset bacinterrup
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-169

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

areas where activities could upset riparian function 

temperature development and 

cultivation 

Maintain existing widths of RHCAs on USFS lands 

Umatilla R. and tribs, Meacham Cr. to Forks (1); South Fork Umatilla and tribs (1); Buck Cr. and tribs (1); Thomas Cr. and tribs (1); North Fork Meacham and tribs (1); East Meacham and tribs (1); Butcher Creek and tribs (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation 

cutting of trees in riparian areas, changes in plant communities 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All 

Riparian exclosure fencing Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham 

Creek, mouth to headwaters (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability 

Livestock grazing Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All Exclud

remainmitigat

Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (1); Meacham Creek, mouth to headwaters (1); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, sediment 

Roads Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All In man

riparian vegetaand cochanneroad reallow n

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical Re

Timeframe

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

ODFW, CTUIR, NRCS/FSA , UBWC, SWCD, ODA, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

25 years Improved riparian vegetation 

associated attributes – respo5 years to decades 

Develop/implement grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

ODA, NRCS, FSA, USFS, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

Long term Improved riparian vegetation 

associated attributes – respo5 years to decades 

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural in areas where activities could upset riparian function 

CTUIR, landowners, FSA/NRCS, ODFW 

Ongoing Cultivated land in close 

proximity to priority habitat areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Long term Immediate with continued 

improvement for up to 50 yeuntil easement ends and management changes. Afteyears habitat effectiveness wmaintained 

Maintain existing widths of RHCAs on USFS land 

USFS Ongoing Benefits accruing since 

1995 for all streams in Umatilla subbasin on USFS lands, including priority GAs. 

Long Term Maintenance/improvement o

conditions 

Riparian exclosure fencing ODFW, CTUIR, NRCS/FSA, 

Watershed Council, SWCD, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

25 years Improved riparian vegetation 

associated attributes – respo5 years to decades 

Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms 

USFS, ODOT, Umatilla County, private landowners 

Ongoing Riparian areas within 

the subbasin where potential for riparian road closure and removal exists 

Based on opportunity and need 

Improved water quality – restime immediate with continueresponse for up to 50 years 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-170

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suff

ODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

FSA, NRCS, SWCD CREP, CCRP, CSP, EQIP Subbasin-wide No The potential coverag

realized in Umatilla C

ODFW, CTUIR BPA Habitat Program No Many additional miles USFS Grazing management Upper subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E. 

USFS Vegetation management Upper subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E. 

ODEQ TMDL Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

Municipalities Land use planning ordinances Subbasin-wide No Needs expansion. USFS Road management Upper subbasin See USFS/BLM Prog

Appendix E. 

ODOT Road maintenance Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

ODF Forest Practices Act, Road management Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon 

F. 

Umatilla County Road maintenance Subbasin-wide No Needs expansion to b

routing to waterways. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Umatilla and Walla Walla AgWQM Area Rules require that management on agricultural lands allow the establishment, growth and maintenance of riparian or stream-side vegetation

promote habitat and protect water quality by filtering sediment, stabilizing streambanks, naturally storing water, and providing shade. The AgWQM program is outcome-based rathe

allows landowners the flexibility to achieve water quality goals using available equipment, technology and innovation. The rules for each Management Area provide the enforceable binitiatives. The SWCDs are the local management agencies that provide the outreach, education and technical assistance. ODA is responsible for complaint investigations and enfofinancial assistance is available through state and federal programs to landowners for establishing adequate riparian areas. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree

Continued development adjacent to waterways is not suitable to the recovery of Mid. Columbia steelhead. Fish managers need to review the issue with Umatilla County and municipalitie

problems with current regulations or their implementation. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 

Umatilla River from mouth to McKay Cr. (1) Flows, water 

temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 

Umatilla River from mouth to Thornhollow (1) Flows, water 

temperatures, habitat 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, 

Parr to adult 

Agriculturalower Umat

dewatering 

summer anBasin Wate
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-171

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

quantity/diversity diversity restoration 

Umatilla Rivsteelhead i

not fully resmaintenancproviding m

File for additional ISWRs Butter Creek system (2); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1); 

South Canyon Cr. (East Birch) (1); Westgate Canyon (East Birch) (1); East Fork Meacham Cr. (1); Twomile Cr. (2); Butcher Cr. (1) 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Most imporcurrently uthave instreinstream wsystem 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Butter Creek system (2); Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (2); Birch Creek (1); West Birch Creek, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Creek (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch)(1)

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity, spatial

structure 

All The primary 

withdrawals of steelheawatersheds

are so sevecurrently nocontinues twithdrawals and migrati

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Butter Cr system (2); Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (2); Birch Cr (1); West Birch Cr, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Cr (1); Bear Cr. (W Birch) (1) 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity, spatial

structure 

Parr to adult 

Downstream water rights transfers 

Umatilla River, Mission Br. to forks (2); Birch Creek (1); West Birch Creek, mouth to Gorge (1); East Birch Creek (1); Bear Cr. (West Birch) (1) 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Subbasin-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Parr to adult 

Many strea

are now intbarriers in tdue to wate

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New progra

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysic

Response Timefram

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 

BPA, BOR, OWRD, WEID, HID, SID, CTUIR, ODFW 

Ongoing From McKay Reservoir to 

mouth of the Umatilla River 

Long Term Improved water quality and 

– immediate response 

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 

BPA, BOR, OWRD, WEID, CTUIR, ODFW 

In-planning From McKay Reservoir to 

mouth of the Umatilla River 

Long Term Uncertain 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-172

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

File for additional ISWRs ODFW On hold Specific to the stream reach Unknown Maintenance of existing 

conditions 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

SWCDs Ongoing Depends on means used to 

protect instream flows 

Short Term Improved instream flow – 

response immediate 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD., Oregon Water Trust, water right holders 

Ongoing, when opportunities arise 

From point of diversion downstream 

Long term Improved instream flow – 

response immediate 

Downstream water rights transfers 

OWRD, private landowners Ongoing Reach between old and 

new point of diversion 

Long Term Improved instream flow – 

response immediate 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD Ongoing From the point of diversion 

downstream to the mouth of the Umatilla River 

Long term Maintenance or improveme

existing conditions – respoto regulation immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

BOR/BPA Umatilla Basin Project Lower Umatilla River No Additional water is nee

established for the bas

OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Regulation, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon p

Oregon Water Trust and BOR Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights Umatilla River, Birch Cr. system 

and Butter Cr. system 

No Additional implementat

restoration needs 

SWCD, ODFW, CTUIR, Watershed Council 

Improve irrigation efficiency Umatilla River, Birch Cr. system 

and Butter Cr. System 

No Additional implementat

restoration needs 

UBWC, SWCD, ODFW, CTUIR, NRCS 

Upland improvements, riparian improvements Subbasin-wide Uncertain Additional implementat

restoration needs 

Umatilla County Noxious weed control Subbasin-wide Yes ODF Forest Practices Act Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pUSFS Forest Management Upper Subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Phase I and II of the Umatilla Basin Project are currently meeting critical flow needs in the mainstem of the Umatilla River. This program should be continued to support migration and re
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-173

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

for the Umatilla River mainstem were established as part of the Basin Project to the life history needs of Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead. The Basin Project as currently im

adequate water to meet the target flows throughout the times needed by these species, and fails to provide any flow mitigation for a significant length of the river in July and August. currently seeking to expand the Basin Project (Phase III) to better meet flow needs for migration and rearing. As Phase III of the Basin project is developed, priority should be given 

time and locations to meet the needs of MCR steelhead. 

Significant efforts have been made in the lower Umatilla subbasin to use more efficient means of applying water to agricultural crops. There has been less emphasis on irrigation efficien

Efforts should be taken to improve irrigation efficiency in areas such as the Birch Creek watershed where flow is a primary limiting factor. There are approximately 238 stream miles in the Umatilla subbasin. Voluntary flow restoration projects restored 14.9 cfs instream during 2006. 

The Oregon Water Trust has put significant effort into gaining instream water leases in the Umatilla subbasin, with limited success. While it is unlikely that this approach could make a si

Umatilla River, tributary habitats could benefit substantially from water leasing. The Oregon Water Trust should maintain a “presence” in the subbasin to be in a position to capitalize 

While instream water rights have been established on many of the important spawning and rearing stream in the subbasin, some have not. Where important spawning and rearing strea

instream water rights, appropriate instream flow studies should be conducted and instream water rights applied for. In addition, consideration should be given to protecting and restodrainage, where steelhead are currently extinct. 

Projects to improve summer and fall streamflow and temperature by recharging shallow aquifers have been proposed, but none have been implemented to date. These types of projects 

and should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring and evaluation to determine the net benefits of the action. 

 The primary tributaries in need of flow restoration actions are Birch and Butter creeks. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Address point sources of water pollution 

Umatilla River (1); Birch Creek (1) Chemical pollution Sewage, 

Pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

Egg to Smolt 

Point soimpacts implemeassociatplan. 

Implement water quality management plans 

Subbasin-wide Degraded water quality, 

flows, sediment routing, water quality 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All The Um

managequality p

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Address point sources of water pollution 

ODEQ, others Ongoing Specific point location Ongoing Reduce chemical po

immediately 

Implement water quality management plans 

ODA, SWCD, Municipalities, Umatilla County, USFS, ODF, Irrigation Districts, private landowners, Industry, ODEQ 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Ongoing Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-174

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

FSA, NRCS, SWCD CREP, CCRP, CRP, EQIP, CSP Subbasin-wide Uncertain The potential coverage 

realized in Umatilla Co

ODFW BPA Habitat Program Umatilla R. Birch Cr., Meacham 

Cr. 

No There is a need for add

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Umatilla R. Birch Cr., Meacham 

Cr. 

No There is a need for add

ODEQ TMDL, NPDES Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pODF Forest Practices Act Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pUSFS PACFISH Upper Subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

SWCD Landowner cost share programs for conservation 

farming practices 

Subbasin-wide More landowners could 

available. See State oAppendix F. 

Umatilla County Noxious weed control Subbasin-wide Yes Program sufficient. US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/401 water alteration permitting Subbasin-wide No Compliance validation 

due to lack of resource

ODSL Waterway alteration permitting Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon p

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Although this threat is partially addressed by the Umatilla River Water Quality Management Areas Plan (WQMAP), the guidance provided to landowners on management of riparian area

some uncertainty regarding the implementation of this plan’s requirements, as enforcement is based on a complaint-driven system. There is a continuing need to establish more ripaTMDL targets is dependent of determination of system potential vegetation. During TMDL development, the best professional judgment of the team described the potential streamsi

broadly, as continuous tree-belts on each side of the river.

The Umatilla and Walla Walla AgWQM Rules require control of sediment delivery to streams to acceptable levels, control of irrigation runoff, management of livestock grazing to prevent 

establishment and maintenance of riparian and streamside vegetation. Beginning in 2008, these land conditions will be enforceable by ODA. SWCD provides technical and financlandowners. 

The SWCD, in partnership from OSU Extension Service and NRCS, has been a leader in promoting adoption of high tech conservation farming practices. They have received grants to 

adopt direct seeding, variable rate fertilizer placement and selective weed control. This technology reduces tillage that results in less erosion and healthier soils, applies only the neeand reduces the application of herbicides. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree

While permit processes implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers are thorough and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, this program lacks personnel resource

conditions of permitted actions are followed. In addition, the agency lacks resources to adequately monitor waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations private parties. See State of Oregon programmatic review -- Appendix F for ODSL. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-175

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices, loss of water storage capacity 

Abundance, productivity 

All There ar

the Uma

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppres

regimes intensity 

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophy

Response Timefr

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, NRCS, private landowners 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term Decades 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

BLM, ODF, private landowners Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. Decommissioning may take many years 

5-15 years 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, USFS, CTUUIR, Watershed Councils, SWCDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-176

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 years 

Employ BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

SWCD, USFS, ODA, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, dependent on implementation of water quality management plans and other plans 

0-20,years, dependintreatments applied 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

FSA, NRCS, SWCD EQIP, CRP, CREP, CCRP Subbasin-wide Uncertain The potential coverage 

realized in Umatilla Cou

USFS Forest Management Upper subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

ODFW/CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Umatilla R., Birch Cr., Meacham 

Cr. 

No Additional implementati

SWCD, Watershed Council Watershed Restoration, OWEB Subbasin-wide Additional implementatiODF Private land protection from fire, Private Forest 

Program 

Private and state forestlands throughout population 

See State of Oregon pr

ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon prODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pr

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The degree to which upland vegetation management issues are being addressed has not been summarized subbasin-wide so sufficiency is currently not well understood. The AgWQM Area Plan addresses upland conditions, both on rangeland and cropland that must be met to prevent and control erosion and improve overall watershed health to achieve w

Rules require control of soil erosion to acceptable levels, allowing riparian and stream-side vegetation to establish for bank stability, filtering and shade, and management of livestock animal wastes. SWCD and NRCS programs are providing incentives to landowners to adopt farming practices that are more environmentally protective. 

Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest programs has been highly successful for passive upland and riparian restoration in this population’s area. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-177

Table 9-2. Umatilla Subbasin Geographic Areas 

GA Stream Segment MaSA MiSA 

1 Umatilla River Mouth to Three Mile Dam 

2 Umatilla River Three Mile Dam to Butter Creek 

3 North Hermiston Drain All 

4 Butter Creek Mouth to Madison diversion Butter 

5 Butter Creek Madison Diversion to East Butter Creek Butter 

6 Little Butter Creek All Little Butter 

7 East Fork Butter and tributaries All Butter 

8 Butter Creek East Fork to Headwaters and Johnson Creek Butter 

9 Umatilla River Butter Creek to Westland Dam and Stanfield Dam to McKay Creek 

10 Stage Gulch All 

11 Umatilla River Westland Dam to Stanfield Dam 

12 Birch Creek Mouth to forks including Stewart Creek Birch, Stewart 

13 West Birch Creek Mouth to Bear Creek West Birch 

14 Bear Creek All, including tributaries West Birch 

15 West Birch Creek Bear Creek to top of gorge, including tributaries West Birch 

16 West Birch Creek Gorge to headwaters West Birch 

17 East Birch Creek Mouth to California Gulch East Birch 

18 East Birch Creek California Gulch to headwaters, including tributaries except Pearson Cr. East Birch 

19 Pearson Creek All East Birch 

20 McKay Creek Mouth to McKay Dam McKay 

21 McKay Creek McKay Dam to North Fork 

22 North Fork McKay All, including tributaries McKay 

24 McKay Creek North Fork to headwaters, including tributaries McKay 

25 Umatilla River McKay Creek to Mission Bridge 

26 Wildhorse Creek Mouth to Athena, including tributaries Wildhorse 

27 Widlhorse Creek Athena to headwaters, including tributaries Wildhorse 

28 Umatilla River Mission Bridge to Meacham Creek Middle Umatilla 

29 Umatilla Tributaries Mission, Cottonwood, Moonshine and Coonskin creeks Middle Umatilla

30 Buckaroo Creek All Middle Umatilla

31 Iskuulpa Creek Mouth to Bachelor Canyon Middle Umatilla

32 Iskuulpa Creek Bachelor Canyon to headwaters, including tributaries Middle Umatilla

33 Meacham Creek Mouth to North Fork Meacham 

34 Meacham Creek Tributaries from mouth to North Fork Meacham

35 North Fork Meacham All, including tributaries Meacham

36 Meacham Creek North Fork to Twomile Creek, including Sheep Creek Meacham

37 East Meacham All including tributaries and Butcher Creek Meacham

38 Meacham Creek Twomile Creek to headwaters, including Twomile Creek Meacham

39 Beaver Creek All, including tributaries Meacham

40 Umatilla River Meacham Creek to forks Upper Umatilla 

41 Ryan Creek All Upper Umatilla 

42 North Fork Umatilla Mouth to headwaters, including tributaries Upper Umatilla 

43 South Fork Umatilla Mouth to Thomas Creek Upper Umatilla 

44 Buck Creek All, including tributaries Upper Umatilla 

45 Thomas Creek All Upper Umatilla 

46 South Fork Umatilla Thomas Creek to headwaters, including Shimmiehorn Creek Upper Umatilla 

 Note: Minor spawning areas within the Umatilla Subbasin not represented include Cold Springs, Alkali, Speare, Mud Spring and Little McKay. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-178 

9.3.11 Habitat Strategies and Actions for Walla Walla River Steelhead Population 

Primary limiting factors: high water temperature, sediment routing, impaired fish passage, degraded chan

complexity, degraded floodplain connectivity and function, and altered hydrology (low flow). Primary threats: current land use practices that reduce habitat quality and quantity and disrupt ecosystem 

Several tables are included after the habitat strategies and actions for the Walla Walla River steelhead population

show priorities for steelhead habitat restoration and protection. This prioritization was developed by applying th

Diagnosis and Treatment Model that determined limiting factors and the areas where the greatest increase in fish realized from restoration and protection actions. Table 9-5 provides a cross reference of geographic areas and MStrategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to headwaters (1); SF Walla Walla Tribs (1) ; NF Walla Walla Little Meadows to headwaters (1); Walla Walla, Dry Cr. to Mill Cr.(2); Yellowhawk mainstem (2); Couse Cr. drainage (2) 

Loss of habitat quantity and diversity, channel stability, sediment, low flow and high temperatures 

Cultivation, forestry, grazing, urban development 

Productivity, abundance 

All Agreements (c

cooperative agwith private lanhabitats exist tvalues. Agreements in include: Puttinon agricultural up to the chanbuffer widths aprotecting unstypes of mana

Implement Forest Practices Act 

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to headwaters; SF Walla Walla Tribs; NF Walla Walla Little Meadows to headwaters; All are first priority (1) 

Same as above Forestry Productivity 

abundance 

All 

Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function 

SF Walla Walla, mouth to headwaters (1); SF Walla Walla Tribs (1); NF Walla Walla mouth to headwaters (1); Walla Walla, Dry Cr. to forks (1); Yellowhawk mainstem (1); Couse Cr. drainage (1); Little Walla Walla System (2) 

Same as above Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

 Setbacks coul

buffers on agrcultivated up to riparian buffer areas, protectiother types of 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-179 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Upper South Fork Walla Walla (1) Same as above Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

All Priority areas c

protective actio

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes 

Subbasin-wide Same as above Same as above Productivity, 

abundance 

All To prevent de

management Pprotect aquatic the subbasin whigh quality. 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues 

SF Walla Walla, mouth to headwaters (1); SF Walla Walla Tribs (1); NF Walla Walla mouth to headwaters (1); Walla Walla, Dry Cr. to forks (1); Yellowhawk mainstem (1); Couse Cr. drainage (1); Little Walla Walla System (2) 

Same as above Urban development Productivity, 

abundance 

All Enforce existin

habitat and upadequate prote

Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

SF Walla Walla, mouth to headwaters (1); SF Walla Walla Tribs (1); NF Walla Walla mouth to headwaters (1); Walla Walla, Dry Cr. to forks (1); Yellowhawk mainstem (1); Couse Cr. drainage (1); Little Walla Walla System (2) 

Same as above Urban development Productivity, 

abundance 

Productivity, abundance 

Incorporating Mareas into the provision of thwould allow thprotected while for reviewing la

Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation. 

SF Walla Walla, mouth to headwaters (1); SF Walla Walla Tribs (1); NF Walla Walla mouth to headwaters (1); Walla Walla, Dry Cr. to forks (1); Yellowhawk mainstem (1); Couse Cr. drainage (1); Little Walla Walla System (2) 

Same as above Rural and urban 

development 

Productivity, abundance 

All Examine oppo

increase prote

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 

CTUIR, ODFW, WWBWC, WDFW,TNC, RMEF, SWCDs, CD’s 

Ongoing Water quality 

improvement have high dispersal downstream, stream corridor and function improvements would be confined to the specific site 

Existing conservation agreements are complete. Full implementation of conservation measures will take 5-15 years or more 

5 years to decades wrestoration approach

Implement Forest Practices Act and PACFISH 

ODF, WDOE Ongoing Forest Practices Act 

applies to all commercial timber operations on private lands 

Long term Maintenance/improv

existing conditions 

Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function 

CTUIR, ODFW, WDFW, WDOE, USFS, FSA, NRCS, SWCD, CD’s, WWBWC 

When need identified 

Riparian areas associated with priority habitat areas 

Long term Immediate with cont

improvement for up tAfter 50 years habitaeffectiveness will be 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-180 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

USFS, BLM Protection 

ongoing 

Affected area Long term Immediate – maintai

high quality conditionfound; maintain or imexisting conditions e

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

USFS, BLM, SWCDs, WDOE, WDFW, ODFW, ODA, FSA, NRCS, CTUIR, ODSL, USACE, private landowners 

Ongoing All priority areas within 

the Walla Walla subbasin 

Long term Maintenance of exist

conditions 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues. 

Municipalities, Counties Unknown Mid and lower 

subbasin; high dispersal downstream 

Ongoing - unknown Response is uncerta

Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

Counties, CTUIR, ODFW, WDFW When 

possible 

All priority areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Short term Immediate with cont

improvement for up tAfter 50 years habitaeffectiveness will be 

Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation. 

ODFW, CTUIR, WDFW, WDOE When 

funding is available and amendment is possible 

All priority areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Long term Immediate with cont

improvement for up tAfter 50 years habitaeffectiveness will be 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Sufficien

CTUIR CTUIR Walla Walla River Basin Anadromous Fish 

Habitat Enhancement Projects – Riparian Function 

No Yes, there is still potential for 

USFS Roadless Areas Yes See USFS/BLM Program Suf

E. 

ODF Forest Practices Act See State of Oregon programBLM South Fork Walla Walla ACEC Yes See USFS/BLM Program Suf

E. 

USFS PACFISH, Umatilla Forest Plan Yes Existing actions are adequate 

protection areas should be ad

CTUIR Rainwater Yes Maintain current project. USACE, ODSL Waterway work permitting No Funding is not adequate. ODA, SWCD Walla Walla Ag.WQM rules See State of Oregon programSWCD/CDs/WWBWC/Tr-state Steelheaders 

Watershed restoration No Programs have inadequate re

Municipalities Land use ordinances No Counties Comprehensive plan No 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-181 

Strategy 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies thro

FSA, NRCS, SWCD CREP, CCRP, CSP, EQIP Uncertain The potential coverage of the

in Umatilla County. 

OLCD Statewide planning goals See State of Oregon program

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

CTUIR conservation easement programs have been effective at protecting and improving riparian habitat condition in the Walla Walla subbasin. There is potential for considerable expa

should be placed on priority habitat areas for establishing easements. 

The Umatilla National Forest should emphasize protecting priority areas during project planning and implementation. Ongoing management actions sufficiently protect high priority aqua

protections should be continued. PACFISH/Forest Plan Programs per se are sufficiently protective for lands in current ownership and require changing management or increasing bsite-specifically (“New” actions). Most of FS lands are already essentially fully protected under Forest Plan by protective management direction - Roadless and Wilderness and Wild

that prohibit road building and forest practices except in rare circumstances; PACFISH protections apply to all such activities. When/if needs are identified; additional aquatic habitat status and a “new action”. Priority areas for habitat protection as listed above that reside within the Umatilla National Forest should be assessed as to whether administrative designsupport protection of these areas over the long term. Adding additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments would require designation by Congress. 

Actions implemented under PACFISH on Federal lands allow for a near natural rate of recovery. An individual action may result in a short-term disturbance with minor effects. This assu

 over the long term. While permit processes implemented by the US Army Corps are thorough and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, the program lacks personnel resources to insure th

permitted actions are followed. In addition, this agency lacks resources to adequately monitor waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations reported by See State of Oregon programmatic review -- Appendix F for ODSL. 

The USFS land exchange program has the potential to bring existing private lands under federal ownership and PACFISH protections. However, this program is completely voluntary on 

landowner would acquire public land and could very likely lower standards of resource protection. The land exchange is, however, a tool that could be used under very controlled cir

protection of important aquatic habitats. But the purpose of the program is focused on consolidating land holdings and not necessarily protection of habitat. 

The Umatilla and Walla Walla Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Rules require that management on agricultural lands allow the establishment, growth and mainten

vegetation, consistent with site capability, to promote habitat and protect water quality by filtering sediment, stabilizing streambanks, naturally storing water, and providing shade. T

based rather than prescriptive, therefore allows landowners the flexibility to achieve water quality goals using available equipment, technology and innovation. The rules for each Ma

enforceable backstop to the voluntary initiatives. The SWCDs are the local management agencies that provide the outreach, education and technical assistance. ODA is responsibenforcement actions. Technical and financial assistance is available through state and federal programs to landowners for establishing adequate riparian areas. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-182 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and mafunctioning passage and connectivity. 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life Stages 

Affected 

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, bridges, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Priorities shown in Table 8-38. See Appendix 

G for the 22 culverts that need replacement. 

Impaired fish passage Dams, culverts, 

instream structures 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

A comprpassage the subbpassage habitat sfashion. 

Construct ladders over existing permanent irrigation diversions 

Priorities shown in Table 8-38 Impaired fish passage Dams Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Primarily adults and 0+juveniles 

Operate and Maintain fish passage facilities 

Diversions within current steelhead distribution are first priority (1) 

Impaired fish passage and entrainment 

Dams, culverts and Irrigation diversions 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All There a

the Wallphysicalprovide operated conditio

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

Unscreened diversions within current steelhead distribution are first priority (1) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity 

All In Orego

diversioIt is not diversioof the sube invenpossiblescreenediversiosteelheaup the ocurrently 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

Diversions within current steelhead distribution are first priority (1) 

Impaired fish passage Irrigation 

diversions 

Abundance, productivity 

All There a

the Wallfacilities operated conditio

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Bi

Response T

Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, bridges, road culverts 

ODFW, CTUIR, WWBWC, CDs, TSS, road departments, private landowners 

Ongoing Fish access upstream 

of obstruction 

Known issues addressed within 10 years 

Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-183 

Strategy 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain properly functioning passage 

and irrigation structures Construct ladders over existing permanent irrigation diversions 

ODFW, CTUIR, WWBWC, CDs, TSS, private landowners 

Ongoing Fish access upstream 

of obstruction 

Known issues addressed within 10 years 

Immediate 

Operate and Maintain fish passage facilities 

CTUIR, ODFW, HBDIC, GFID,, private landowners 

Ongoing Facility site ongoing Immediate 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions 

ODFW, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion Status of most pump diversions 

unknown, remediation up to10-20 yrs 

Immediate 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria 

ODFW, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Point of diversion Status of most pump diversions 

unknown, remediation up to 10-20 yrs 

Immediate 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, uncertain, 

no) 

Suff

CTUIR BPA Fish Passage program No More funding needeODFW Fish Screening Program Yes, for gravity diversions Need to inventory an

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

It is currently unknown to what extent pump diversions in the Oregon portion of the subbasin are adequately screened. Pump diversion should be inventoried to determine screening sta

NOAA criteria. Washington currently has an initiative underway to provide landowners with funding to screen their diversions. This effort should be continued until all diversions are also a need for a comprehensive inventory of screening needs throughout the Oregon portion of the basin as this has not been done to date. 

Table 8-38 is a list of known passage barriers in the Walla Walla subbasin in the area occupied by the Walla Walla steelhead population. These barriers should be addressed in a priorit

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla 

mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (2). 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, altered sediment routing, degraded water quality 

Removal of wetlands, side channels, offstream habitat; conversion of floodplain for agricultural use; roads; loss of beaver dams 

Abundance, productivity 

All Wate

manaconschan

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla 

mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (2); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2). 

Degraded floodplain, altered hydrology, habitat quantity and diversity, 

Removal of side channels, off-stream habitat 

Abundance, productivity 

All Chan

instredebrirestofunctWatemanaconschanareas 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-184 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

beneaddreplaceIn aredeficqualifocus 

Remove dikes and levies Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1) Degraded floodplain 

connectivity, channel structure and complexity 

Stream channelization, bank armoring 

Abundance, productivity 

All Many 

borde

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

Subbasin-wide Degraded floodplain 

connectivity, channel structure/complexity, flow, water quality, sediment 

Loss of beaver dams Abundance, 

productivity 

all 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Reconnect floodplains to channels 

ODFW, WWBWC, SWCD, USFS, CTUIR, WDFW, BLM, Tri-state Steelheaders (TSS) 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Short term, once identified Physical response will be 

immediate for some, others will develop over years to decades 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels 

ODFW, WWBWC, SWCD, USFS, CTUIR, , WDFW, BLM, Tri-state Steelheaders 

Ongoing Effect on physical habitat features 

will be localized, but effects on water quality will have high dispersal downstream 

Short term, once identified Physical response will be 

immediate for some, others will develop over years to decades 

Remove dikes and levies CTUIR, WWBWC, COE, 

private landonwers 

When opportunity identified 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

10+ years Improved stream and 

floodplain functions - Some benefits will be realized immediately and others will develop over years 

Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological processes. 

ODFW, WDFW, private landowners 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Undefined 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Subbasin-wide No More funding needed. SWCD, CD’s, WWBWC/TSS Watershed Restoration Subbasin-wide Uncertain More funding/implementODOT, County road depts, Municipalities 

Bridge maintenance Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pro

FSA, NRCS, SWCD, CD’s CREP, CCRP, CRP, EQIP Subbasin-wide Varies by 

program 

Additional implementatio
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-185 

Strategy 3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Intensive land uses within Walla Walla subbasin flood plains and upslope habitats have led to dramatic changes in waterway characteristics since arrival of Euro-American pioneers durin

common outcomes of intensive land use activities in the subbasin include: 1) straight, incised channels with minimal woody riparian vegetation, and 2) wide channels with increased 

riparian vegetation. 

Site specific measures will be implemented within the context of an overall hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration actions. As implementation actions are planned, consideration 

address watershed processes and passive techniques, but artificial enhancement methods will be used where previous watershed assessment (2004) indicate that such work will lea

steelhead and alternative approaches are not available. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural channel form Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla 

Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2)

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, large wood removal, loss of beaver damsl, removal of riparian vegetation areas 

Abundance, productivity 

All Strea

instrecorreWherare p

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, water temperature 

Removal of large wood, trees in riparian areas; channelization and streambank armoring, livestock grazing 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry to adult Large

with aare mprefeproceelemwherpools 

Stabilize and protect streambanks 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

Stream channelization, bank armoring, livestock grazing in riparian areas 

Abundance, productivity 

Eggs, fry and adults 

Incisechanshouactive is curspaw

Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1) 

Degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat diversity, sediment routing, flows 

large wood removal, loss of recruitment trees in riparian area 

Abundance, productivity 

Fry to adult Pools 

strateare nconstproceenhaperfoparamallow realiz
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-186 

Strategy 4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and complexity. 

Implement bridge maintenance BMPs 

Subbasin-wide Degraded channel 

structure and complexity 

Stream channelization, bank armoring 

Abundance, productivity 

All Many 

borde

Educate landowners on importance of LWD 

Subbasin-wide Loss of pool habitat, 

channel structure and complexity 

Large wood removal Abundance 

and productive 

all 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation 

Timeframe

Expected Biophys

Response Timefr

Restore natural channel form ODFW, SWCDs, CTUIR, 

WWBWC, CDs, WDFW, BLM 

Ongoing; some needs identified in ODFW/CTUIR fiveyear action plan 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

25 years Improved riparian veg

and associated attribuimproved stream and floodplain structure anfunction; response timimmediate to 10 years 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds 

ODFW, WWBWC, CTUIR, CDs, WDFW, TSS, BLM 

Ongoing as needed Reach affected Short term Improved instream ch

habitat diversity - Sombenefits will be realizeimmediately and othedevelop in 1-5 years 

Stabilize and protect streambanks 

ODFW, CTUIR, SWCD, CDs, WWBWC, BLM, private landowners 

Ongoing; when specific opportunity identified 

Within the stream reach and reaches downstream for temp and sediment 

10+ years Improved water qualit

response time 1-5 yea

Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 

ODFW, CTUIR, CDs, WWBWC, TSS 

Ongoing; current action planned for Meacham Cr. 

Treatment site 25 years Increased quantity of 

habitat and channel afloodplain function – response time Immed5 years 

Implement bridge maintenance BMPs 

USFS, ODOT, WDOT, County road departments 

Ongoing Site specific Long term Improved LWD and w

quality; slow response 

Educate landowners on importance of LWD 

Stellar, WWBWC, ODFW, BLM, CTUIR 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Variable lag time depe

on actions 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program No More funding needed. SWCD, CD’s Watershed Restoration Likely Involvement is currently 

programmatic review – 

WWBWC/Tri-state Steelheaders Watershed Restoration No There is a continuing n

insure that issues are d

ODOT, County road depts. Bridge maintenance See State of Oregon prFSA, NRCS, SWCD, CD’s CREP, CCRP, CRP, EQIP Varies by program Additional implementat

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

See discussion in Strategy 3, Walla Walla River population. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-187 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning condition

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation, sediment, water temperature 

Livestock grazing, channelization, stream bank armoring 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All Historica

channelstream bvegetatihigh ecoarmoring has beeshifted tfor stabivegetatibioengin

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability 

Livestock overgrazing of riparian area 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All Grazing 

should brecovery Permanlivestock surest wwhere livimpact. 

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural lands and establish riparian setbacks for structures in areas where activities could upset riparian function 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation, sediment, water temperature 

Degradation of riparian areas and function; residential development and cultivation 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All In areas 

that devback fronatural spertinenmust be 

Riparian exclosure fencing Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla 

Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability 

Livestock grazing Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All Excludin

remains mitigatin

Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, sediment 

Roads Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All In many 

subbasinriparian channelsedimenoutside eliminatisensitive steelheariparian 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-188 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Protect high quality riparian habitats and unstable areas 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr. (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. (1); Little Walla Walla System (2); Yellowhawk System (2) 

Degraded riparian area, channel stability, floodplain degradation, sediment, water temperature 

All Abundance, 

productivity, diversity 

All 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biop

Response Tim

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities including vegetative planting 

CTUIR, NRCS/FSA, WWBWC, SWCD, CDs, TSS, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

25 years Improved riparian ve

and associated attribresponse time 5 yeadecades 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

ODA, NRCS, USFS, CDs, private landowners 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

Long term Improved riparian ve

and associated attribresponse time 5 yeadecades 

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural in areas where activities could upset riparian function 

CTUIR, ODFW, WWBWC, WDFW, WDOE, private landowners, TSS, FSA/NRCS 

Ongoing Cultivated land in close 

proximity to priority habitat areas within the Umatilla subbasin 

Long term Immediate with cont

improvement for up tor until easement enmanagement changeyears habitat effectivbe maintained. 

Riparian exclosure fencing CTUIR,ODFW, NRCS/FSA, 

WWBWC, SWCD, CDs, private landowners, TSS 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream from site 

25 years Improved riparian ve

and associated attribresponse time 5 yeadecades 

Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms 

USFS, ODOT, WDOT, counties, private landowners 

Ongoing Riparian areas within 

the subbasin where potential for riparian road closure and removal exists 

Based on opportunity and need Improved water qual

response time immecontinued response years 

Protect high quality riparian habitats and unstable areas 

CTUIR, ODFW, NRCS/FSA, BLM, SWCD, USFS, WWBWC, CDs 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Long Term Depends on specific 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pFSA, NRCS, SWCD, CD’s, WWBWC 

CREP, CCRP, CSP, EQIP Subbasin-wide Varies by program Greater participation b

Many more stream milOregon programmatic 

ODFW Fish Management Program Subbasin-wide Yes CTUIR BPA Habitat Program No Many additional miles ODEQ TMDL See State of Oregon pODF Forest Practices Act See State of Oregon pUSFS, BLM Grazing management, Forest Plan, Resource 

Management Plan, PACFISH 

Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-189 

Strategy 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly functioning conditions. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

The Oregon Walla Walla River Water Quality Management Areas Plan (WQMAP) provides general guidance to landowners on management of riparian areas and there is some uncertai

of this plan’s requirements, as enforcement is based on a complaint-driven system. While there are ongoing programs to restore riparian vegetation, determination of limiting factors indicates that additional coverage is necessary. 

The Umatilla and Walla Walla AgWQM Area Rules require that management on agricultural lands allow the establishment, growth, and maintenance of riparian or stream-side vegetation

promote habitat and protect water quality by filtering sediment, stabilizing streambanks, naturally storing water, and providing shade. The AgWQM program is outcome-based rathe

landowners the flexibility to achieve water quality goals using available equipment, technology and innovation. The rules for each Management Area provide the enforceable backstoSWCDs are the local management agencies that provide the outreach, education and technical assistance. ODA is responsible for complaint investigations and enforcement action

assistance is available through state and federal programs to landowners for establishing adequate riparian areas. 

The CREP program agreements are for durations of 10 or 15 years. There is no guarantee that the benefits and management actions will be continued beyond the duration of the agree

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Investigate feasibility of water storage or exchange to improve instream flows for steelhead 

Walla Walla River, mouth to Little Walla Walla diversion (1) 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Close areas to appropriation of new water uses 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). Little Walla Walla System (1)

Flows Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Surface wain many are

various legincrease stindicate thasteelhead p

File for additional ISWRs Pine Cr. (2), Birch Cr. (1), Cottonwood Cr. (1), 

Walla Walla R. downstream of Little Walla Walla (1) 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Set criteria to protect flows for fish habitat from new appropriations 

Subbasin-wide in Washington Flows, water quality Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Parr to adult 

High flow equality instrWith increaagriculturaluses, the pincreases. the importamaintenancquality, and 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1); Little Walla Walla System

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Enhance hyporheic flows and spring inputs 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2); NF Walla Walla R., 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, 

All 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-190 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). quantity/diversity diversity, spatial

structure 

Implement shallow aquifer recharge 

Little Walla Walla system (1) Flow, temperature Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Aquifer storage and recovery Lower Mill Cr. (1) Flow, temperature Water 

withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity, spatial

structure 

Parr to adult 

Downstream water rights transfers 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). 

Flows, water temperatures, habitat quantity/diversity 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

Parr to adult 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Subbasin-wide (1) Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity 

Parr to adult 

While progr

historically 

creating fisreaches. Mwithdrawals 

and domes

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet long-term needs 

Population-wide Low flows, high 

temperatures 

Water withdrawals 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

All stages New progra

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical 

Response Timeframe

Investigate feasibility of water storage or exchange to improve instream flows for steelhead 

USACE, CTUIR Ongoing Mid and lower Walla Walla Uncertain Improvements to flow depen

on timing, magnitude and location of flow enhancemen

Close areas to appropriation of new water uses in Washington 

WDOE On hold Affected reaches and 

downstream 

Uncertain Maintenance of existing 

conditions 

File for additional ISWRs ODFW, OWRD On hold Specific to the stream 

reach 

Unknown Maintenance of existing 

conditions 

Set criteria to protect flows for fish habitat from new appropriations 

WDOE, WDFW Ongoing Affected reaches and 

downstream 

Uncertain Maintenance of existing 

conditions 

Enhance hyporheic flows and spring inputs 

WWBWC, CTUIR, CDs Ongoing On site and downstream Long term Improved instream flow and 

water quality – response timdepends on specific action 

Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

SWCD, WWBWC, private landowners, irrigation districts 

Ongoing Depends on means used 

to protect instream flows 

Short term Improved instream flow; 

response immediate 

Implement shallow aquifer recharge 

WWBWC, WDOE, HBDIC, GDID, WWRID, private landowners 

 Down gradient Long term Improved instream flow – 

uncertain response time 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-191 

Strategy 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Aquifer storage and recovery City of Walla Walla Ongoing Downstream of Mill Creek 

POD 

Long term Improved instream flow – 

uncertain response time 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

OWRD, Oregon Water Trust, water right holders 

Ongoing, when opportunities arise 

Depends on means used to protect instream flows 

10-15 years Immediate 

Downstream water rights transfers 

OWRD, private landowners, irrigation districts 

Ongoing Reach between old and 

new point of diversion 

Long term Improved instream flow; 

response immediate 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

OWRD, WDOE Ongoing From the point of 

diversion downstream to the mouth of Walla Walla River 

Long term Maintenance or improvemen

existing conditions; responsregulation immediate 

Assess existing and future water needs, complete statewide inventory of above and below ground potential storage, complete assessment of conservation opportunities, provide incentive funding to develop strategies to meet longterm needs 

OWRD Ongoing Population-wide 2007-2009 except incentive 

funding ongoing 

Long term 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

USACE, CTUIR Flow Restoration Feasibility Study Lower Walla Walla Unknown OWRD Streamflow Monitoring and Restoration, Flow 

Restoration, Lease/Transfer Water Rights, Administration of Water Rights, Water Use Measurement, Water Needs Assessment, Storage Assessment, Conservation Assessment 

Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon p

Oregon Water Trust, BPA Leasing and Purchase of Water Rights Walla Walla River No Needs expansion. SWCD, Watershed Council, WWRID, HBDIC, GFID 

Improve irrigation efficiency Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks; 

SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr; NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. 

Varies by program Needs expansion. 

NRCS, Watershed Council Upland improvements, riparian improvements Subbasin-wide No Needs expansion. ODF Forest Practices Act Subbasin-wide Likely See State of Oregon pBPA Columbia Basin Water Transaction Prgm Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks; 

SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr.; NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn. 

No Needs expansion. 

WDOE Water Management Initiative Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Significant progress has been made regarding flow issues on the mainstem Walla Walla River as a result of the Civil Penalty Agreement between the USFWS and three irrigation district

remain along the Walla Walla River, NF Walla Walla R., Couse Cr., Dry and Pine creeks (Oregon) and Mill Creek. The Walla Walla subbasin has approximately 50 miles of stream p

Voluntary flow restriction projects restored 4.4 cfs of flow in 2006. 

The Walla Walla subbasin has approximately 50 miles of stream protected by instream water rights. Voluntary flow restoration projects restored 4.4 cfs of flow in 2006. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-192 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Address point sources of water pollution 

Pine Creek (1), Walla Walla River (1) Chemical pollution Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All Point so

impacts implemeassociatplan. 

Implement pest management plans for fruit growers 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (1); NF Walla Walla (1) 

Water quality Pesticides, 

fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Improve municipal stormwater management and treatment 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1) Water quality Stormwater 

management 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Permit waterway alteration activities and enforce rules 

Subbasin-wide 

Implement water quality management plans 

Walla Walla River (1) Degraded water quality, 

flows, sediment routing, water quality 

Land use practices, water withdrawals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality 

Subbasin-wide Water quality Land use 

practices, 

Abundance, productivity, diversity 

All Directed 

thermal addressimprove

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophysical Resp

Timeframe

Address point sources of water pollution 

ODEQ, WDOE Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Reduce chemical pollution 

immediately 

Implement pest management plans for fruit growers 

ODEQ, OSU, Ext. WWBWC, fruit growers 

Ongoing NF, SF, mainstem Walla 

Walla and Little Walla Walla system 

Long Term Reduced mortality of food items 

issues with fish toxicology – miresponse expected 

Improve municipal stormwater management and treatment 

municipalities Ongoing Within city limits. High 

dispersal downstream 

Long term Improved water quality – imme

response 

Permit waterway alteration activities and enforce rules 

USACE, ODSL Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Variable lag time depending on 

actions 

Implement water quality management plans 

ODA, SWCD, Municipalities, CDs, USFS, BLM, ODF, Irrigation Districts, private landowners, Industry, ODEQ 

Ongoing High dispersal 

downstream 

Ongoing Immediate 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-193 

Strategy 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality 

ODEQ, WDOE Ongoing Subbasin-wide Ongoing Variable lag time depending on 

actions 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffi

ODA, SWCD Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pFSA, NRCS, SWCD, CD, WWBWC CREP, CCRP, CSP, EQIP Subbasin-wide Varies by program Greater participation b

Many additional miles or Oregon programma

CTUIR BPA Habitat Program Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks 

(1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (2).; NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). 

No Many additional miles 

USFS, BLM Grazing management, Forest Plan, PACFISH Upper Subbasin Yes See USFS/BLM Progra

Appendix E. 

USACE/ODSL Waterway work permitting Subbasin-wide Uncertain See State of Oregon p

for ODSL. 

ODF Forest Practices Act Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pODEQ Water Quality Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon pODEQ, EPA Pesticides/Toxics Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon p

for ODEQ. 

Municipalities Public Works No 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

This threat is partially addressed by the Oregon Walla Walla River WQMAP, see discussion for Strategy in Section 5. Implementation of PACFISH standards and guides for Forest and BLM programs, in conjunction with Forest Plan Management Area allocations, has been highly successful for passive 

this population’s area. 

The TMDLs set loading capacity to achieve water quality standards. To address high summer water temperatures, near stream vegetation disturbance, channel widening and low flows 

increased solar radiation loading. Achievement of the TMDL targets is dependent of determination of system potential vegetation. During TMDL development, the best professional 

the potential streamside shade-producing vegetation broadly, as continuous tree-belts on each side of the river. 

While permit processes implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers are thorough and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, the program lacks personnel resourc

conditions of permitted actions are followed. In addition, this agency lacks resources to adequately monitor waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations private parties. See State of Oregon programmatic review -- Appendix F for ODSL. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural runoff. 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Strategic Actions and Impacts on Limiting Factors, Threats, and Population 

Actions Geographic Locations 

(1-first priority, 2-second priority) 

Factors Addressed Threats 

Addressed 

VSP 

Parameters 

Addressed 

Life 

Stages 

Affected 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (1); NF Walla Walla R., 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, 

Forestry, roads, overgrazing, 

Abundance, productivity 

All 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-194 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1). floodplain and riparian area 

degradation, water quality 

agricultural practices, noxious weeds 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

NF Walla Walla (1), SF Walla Walla (1) Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Road network Abundance, 

productivity 

All 

Control noxious weeds through physical removal and chemical and biological agents 

Subbasin-wide Loss of native vegetation and 

watershed function 

Noxious weed Abundance, 

productivity 

All Control o

issue thaadequat

Implement CREP and CCRP buffers 

Walla Walla R., Mill Cr. to forks (1); SF Walla Walla mouth to Elbow Cr (1); NF Walla Walla R., mouth to Little Meadows Cyn (1) 

Altered hydrology, sediment routing, channel stability, 

floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Agricultural practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing, channel stability, floodplain and riparian area degradation, water quality 

Upland land use practices 

Abundance, productivity 

All 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

Private and state forest lands Altered hydrology, sediment, 

water quality, riparian functions, LWD recruitment 

Conversion of vegetative communities 

Abundance, productivity 

All Suppres

regimes intensity 

Apply BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Subbasin-wide Altered hydrology, sediment 

routing 

Forestry, roads, 

overgrazing, agricultural practices, noxious weeds 

Abundance, productivity 

All Upland l

the hydrby causiinfiltratioto insure potentiainfluence 

Action Implementation 

Actions Implementing Entity Status Spatial Coverage Implementation Timeframe Expected Biophys

Response Timefra

Restore native upland plant communities 

SWCD, USFS, NRCS, BLM, ODF, Counties, private landowners 

Ongoing Effects of higher 

precipitation infiltration rates will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

BLM, ODF, private landowners Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term, many forest roads have legacy issues with regard to sediment transport and routing of runoff. 

5-15 years 

Control noxious weeds through physical removal and chemical and biological agents 

County public works dept., public and private landowners, USFS, BLM 

Ongoing Subbasin-wide Long term Improvements to wat

quality expressed in decades 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

9-195 

Strategy 8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and ru

Implement CREP and CCRP buffers 

FSA, NRCS, SWCD, CDs, private landowners 

Ongoing, when opportunities available 

High dispersal downstream 

Depends on funding availability 5 years to decades 

Initiate upland improvement demonstration projects 

ODFW, WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTUIR, WWBWC, WDOE, SWCDs, CDs, TSS 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

Conduct outreach to resource users, managers, general public 

ODFW, WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, USFS, BLM, CTUIR, WWBWC, WDOE, SWCDs, CDs 

Ongoing Entire subbasin Long term Variable lag time 

depending on actions 

Demonstration projects to restore forest health and resilience to wildfire 

ODF Ongoing Private and state forest 

lands 

Long term Variable 5-20 years 

Apply BMPs to forest practices including fuels management and fire suppression mitigation, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

NRCS, ODF, USFS, BLM, WDOE, SWCD, CDs, ODA, CTUIR, private landowners 

Ongoing Reduced sediment and 

improved hydrologic function will have high dispersal downstream 

Long term Improvements to wat

quality expressed in to decades; improvein riparian vegetation all associated attriburesponse time 5 yeadecades 

Status of Existing Programs through which Actions are Implemented 

Agency/Organization Program Name Geographic Locations Sufficient* 

(yes, likely, 

uncertain, no) 

Suffic

CTUIR Rainwater Subbasin-wide Yes Maintain current project. County Public Works Weed Control Subbasin-wide No Funding not adequate to ODA Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Subbasin-wide See State of Oregon progODF Oregon Forest Practices Act Private and state forest lands See State of Oregon progSWCD/CD’s Watershed restoration Subbasin-wide Uncertain FSA,NRCS, SWCD, CD’s CREP,CCRP,CRP,EQIP Subbasin-wide Varies Needs more coverage. S

review -- Appendix F for S

ODOT Weed control Subbasin-wide Program reviewed in StaMunicipalities Public Works Subbasin-wide No Additional improvements SWCD Direct Seed Program Additional landowner assUSFS, BLM Forest Plan, Resource Management Plan, PACFISH Federal lands Yes See USFS/BLM Program 

Appendix E. 

Program Sufficiency and Gaps (including current and near-term efforts, and additional efforts needed, constraints) 

Additional effort is needed to protect native plant communities and associated watershed functions. Vegetation management across the watershed varies in approach widely. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-196

Table 9-3. Restoration Priority Geographic Areas from the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (NPCC 

2004). 

GA Description 

27 Walla Walla River, Mill Cr. to East Little Walla Walla 

31 Walla Walla River, East Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridge 

35 Walla Walla River, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge 

36 Walla Walla River, Nursery Bridge to Little Walla Walla Diversion 

37 Walla Walla River, Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks 

41 South Fork Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek 

39 North Fork Walla Walla, mouth to Little Meadows Canyon (plus Little Meadows Can.) 

3 Coppei Drainage 

4 Touchet River, Coppei to forks 

10 South Fork Touchet Mainstem 

11 South Fork Touchet Tribs 

6 North Fork Touchet Mainstem 

7 North Fork Touchet Tribs (excluding Wolf Fork) 

8 Wolf Fork, mouth to Coates (plus Robinson and Coates) 

9 Wolf Fork, Coates to access limit (plus Whitney) 

Table 9-4. Protection Priority Geographic Areas from the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (NPCC 

2004). 

GA Description 

 All Priority Restoration Geographic Areas 

43 South Fork Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit 

45 Skiphorton and Reser Creek Drainages 

42 Lower SF Wall Walla Tribs (Flume Canyon, Elbow) 

44 Upper SF Walla Walla Tribs (excluding Skiphorton and Reser) 

40 North Fork Walla Walla, Little Meadows to access limit (plus Big Meadows) 

5 Patit Drainage 

17 Walla Walla River, Dry to Mill 

32 Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source) 

 Headwaters** 

38 Couse Creek Drainage 

**Headwaters is an assemblage of reaches covering the bull trout bearing (present or potential) waters upstream of the present reaches 

designated through the EDT process. 

Table 9-5. Walla Walla Subbasin Geographic Areas. 

GA Stream Segment MaSA MiSA 

1 Walla Walla River Mouth to Touchet River 

2 Touchet River Mouth to Coppei Creek NA NA 

3 Coppei Drainage Mouth to presumed Steelhead access limit NA NA 

4 Touchet River Coppei to forks, including Whiskey Creek NA NA 

5 Patit Drainage Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit NA NA 

6 North Fork Touchet Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit NA NA 

7 North Fork Touchet tribs Rodgers, Jim, Weidman, Lewis and Spangler 

creeks; all from mouths to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

NA NA 

8 Wolf Fork Mouth to Coates Creek; also includes Robinson Cr 

and Coates Cr; mouths to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

NA NA 

9 Wolf Fork Coates Cr to presumed steelhead access limit; 

also includes Whiskey Cr mouth to presumed 

steelhead access limit 

NA NA 

10 South Fork Touchet Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit NA NA 

11 South Fork Touchet tribs Dry Fork SF Touchet, Griffin Fork, North Griffin 

Fork, Beaver Slide, Green Fork and Burnt Fork; 

mouths to presumed steelhead access limits 

NA NA 

12 Walla Walla River Mouth Touchet River to Dry Cr, including Mud Cr 

mouth to presumed steelhead access limit 

 

13 Pine Creek Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit and 

Swartz Cr mouth to presumed steelhead access 

limit 

Pine 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-197

GA Stream Segment MaSA MiSA 

14 Dry Creek Drainage 

(Pine) 

Dry Cr (trib to Pine) mouth to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

Pine 

15 Lower Dry Cr Dry Cr (trib to Walla Walla), mouth to Sapolil Rd 

crossing 

Dry 

16 Upper Dry Cr Dry Cr (trib to Walla Walla). Sapolil Rd crossing to 

confluence of NF and SF Dry creeks 

Dry 

17 Dry Cr tribs Mud Cr (trib to Lower Dry Cr) , Mud Cr (trib to 

Upper Dry Cr, NF Dry Cr and SF Dry Cr; mouths to 

presumed steelhead access limit 

Dry 

18 Walla Walla River Dry Cr to Mill Cr 

19 West Little Walla Walla West Little Walla Walla River Drainage and Walsh 

Cr drainage 

 

20 Mill Cr Mouth to start of US Army Corps of Engineers 

project at Gose St near Walla Walla 

Mill 

21 Mill Cr Gose St to Bennington Dam Mill 

22 Mill Cr Bennington Dam to Blue Cr and Titus Cr drainage Mill 

23 Blue Cr Drainage Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit and 

Little Blue Cr mouth to presumed steelhead access 

limit 

Mill 

24 Mill Cr Blue Cr to City of Walla Walla water intake Mill 

25 Middle Mill Cr tribs Henry Canyon Cr, Webb Canyon Cr, Tiger Canyon 

Cr; mouth to presumed steelhead access limit 

Mill 

26 Mill Cr City of Walla Walla Water intake to presumed 

steelhead access limit 

Mill 

27 Upper Mill Cr tribs NF Mill Cr, Low Cr, Broken Cr, paradise Cr; mouth 

to presumed steelhead access limit 

Mill 

28 Walla Walla River Mill Cr to East Little Walla Walla River and McEvoy 

Cr and Springbranch 

 

29 Garrison Cr Drainage Includes Bryant Cr and all Walla Walla Urban 

streams 

Cottonwood 

30 Stone Cr Drainage All Cottonwood 

31 East Little Walla Walla 

Drainage 

East Little Walla Walla Drainage; Unnamed Spring; 

Big Spring Cr, mouth to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

 

32 Walla Walla River East Little Walla Walla To Tumalum Bridge Walla Walla 

33 Yellowhawk mainstem Yellowhawk drainage mouth to source Cottonwood 

34 Cottonwood Cr Drainage Including NF, MF and SF, mouth to presumed 

steelhead access limit 

Cottonwood 

35 Birch Creek Drainage Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit Walla Walla 

36 Walla Walla River Tumalum Br to Nursery Br Walla Walla 

37 Walla Walla River Nursery Br to Little Walla Walla Diversion Walla Walla 

38 Walla Walla River Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks Walla Walla 

39 Couse Cr Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit Walla Walla 

40 North Fork Walla Walla Mouth to Little Meadows Canyon and Little 

Meadows Canyon mouth to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

Walla Walla 

41 North Fork Walla Walla Little Meadows Canyon to Big Meadows Canyon 

and Big Meadows Canyon mouth to presumed 

steelhead access limit 

Walla Walla 

42 South Fork Walla Walla Mouth to Elbow Cr Walla Walla 

43 Lower SF Walla Walla 

tribs 

Flume Canyon Cr and Elbow Cr, mouth to 

presumed steelhead access limit 

Walla Walla 

44 South Fork Walla Walla Elbow Cr to presumed steelhead access limit Walla Walla 

45 Upper South Fork Walla 

Walla tribs 

Bear Cr, Kees Canyon Cr, Burnt Cabin Gulch, 

Swede Canyon, Table Cr, Husky Spring Cr, Bear 

Trap Springs; mouth to presumed steelhead 

access limit 

Walla Walla 

46 Skiphorton & Reser Creek 

drainages 

Mouth to presumed steelhead access limit Walla Walla 

Note: Minor spawning areas within the Walla Walla subbasin not represented include: Woodward Canyon, Switzler, Vansyckle 

Canyon, Juniper, Spring Valley and Below Spring Valley. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-198

9.4 Hydrosystem Strategies and Actions 

Hydropower system operations and configurations on the mainstem Columbia remain a major 

factor limiting the viability of the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. The ICTRT (2006) 

ranked the mainstem hydrosystem as one of the key limiting factors. Tributary dams that 

provide hydroelectric power also block and/or impair steelhead passage and habitats in several 

populations. 

9.4.1 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Operations and Configurations 

Recovery strategies and actions address both configurations and operations of the Columbia 

River hydroelectric system. Actions range from improving passage at particular dams to 

addressing flow and temperature issues. The following mainstem hydropower strategies and 

management actions include actions from the May 2008 Biological Opinion for the Federal 

Columbia River Power System (NOAA Fisheries 2008), as well as additional and alternative 

actions recommended by the State of Oregon. It is the position of the State of Oregon that 

additional or alternative actions should be taken in mainstem operations of the FCRPS for ESAlisted salmon and steelhead. Some additional or alternative actions recommended by Oregon, 

while considered, were not included in the FCRPS action agencies’ proposed action or NOAA’s 

FCRPS Biological Opinion. At the time this proposed recovery plan was being finalized, 

Oregon was a plaintiff in litigation against various federal agencies, including NOAA, 

challenging the adequacy of the measures contained in the current FCRPS Biological Opinion. 

Mainstem hydrosystem actions that improve survival are considered high priority because the 

survival benefits will be realized by all populations in the Mid-C DPS. We have provided a 

summary of strategies and reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) taken directly from the 

FCRPS BiOp followed by the additional and alternative actions sought by the State of Oregon. 

 Hydropower Strategy 1: Operate the FCRPS to provide flows and water quality to 

 improve juvenile and adult fish survival. 

 RPA 4: The action agencies will operate the FCRPS storage projects for flow 

 management to aid anadromous fish. 

 RPA 5: The action agencies will operate the FCRPS run-of-river mainstem lower 

 Columbia River and Snake River projects to minimize water travel time through the 

 lower Columbia and Snake rivers to aid in juvenile fish passage. 

 RPA 6: In-season water management via water management plans and by the Regional 

 Forum. 

 RPA 7: To address forecasting and climate change/variability the action agencies will 

 hold annual forecast performance reviews and report on effectiveness of experimental or 

 developing/emerging technologies. 

 RPAs 8-9: Manage for operations and fish emergencies. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-199

 RPAs 10-13: Columbia River Treaty and non-Treaty storage management, agreements, 

 and coordination. 

 RPA 14: Manage flow during dry years to maintain and improve habitat conditions for 

 ESA-listed species. 

 RPA 15: The action agencies will continue to update the Water Quality Plan for Total 

 Dissolved Gas and Water Temperature temperature in the mainstem Columbia and Snake 

 rivers, and implement water quality measures to enhance ESA-listed juvenile and adult 

 fish survival and maintain spawning and rearing habitat. 

 Hydropower Strategy 2: Modify Columbia and Snake river dams to maximize juvenile 

 and adult fish survival. 

 RPAs 18-21: The Corps will prepare, in cooperation with NOAA Fisheries and con-

 managing agencies, configuration and operational plans for the Bonneville Project 

 (2008), The Dalles Project, John Day Project (2008) and McNary Project (2009). 

 RPA 27: The action agencies will operate turbine units to achieve best fish passage 

 survival (currently within 1% of best efficiency at mainstem dams on the lower Columbia 

 and lower Snake rivers. 

 RPA 28: The Corps will implement structural improvements to adult passage at the 

 mainstem Columbia River and Snake River projects. 

 Hydropower Strategy 3: Implement spill and juvenile transportation improvements at 

 Columbia River and Snake River dams. 

 RPA 29: The Corps and BPA will provide spill to improve juvenile fish passage while 

 avoiding high TDG supersaturation levels or adult fallback problems. 

 RPA 30: Continue the juvenile fish transportation program toward meeting system 

 survival performance metrics. 

 

 Hydropower Strategy 4: Operate and maintain facilities at Corps’ mainstem projects to 

 maintain biological performance. 

 RPA 32: The Corps will prepare annually a fish passage plan in coordination with 

 NOAA and the Regional Forum. The Corps will operate its projects year around in 

 accordance with the criteria in the fish passage plan. 

At the time this proposed recovery plan was finalized, it was the position of the State of Oregon 

that additional or alternative actions should be taken in mainstem operations of the FCRPS for 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-200

The State of Oregon recommends the following additional and alternative actions to better 

address survival and recovery needs of Mid-Columbia steelhead (see State of Oregon (2008) 

comments on Draft 2007 FCRPS Biological Opinion and State of Oregon’s Supplemental 

Complaint-In-Intervention For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (July 22, 2008) for detailed 

actions included here by reference). 

• Draft storage reservoirs to meet lower Columbia summer flow and velocity equivalent 

objectives on a seasonal and weekly basis. 

• Operate reservoirs at rule curves and seek additional flow augmentation volumes from 

Snake River and Canadian reservoirs to better meet spring and summer flow and velocity 

objectives. 

• Operate John Day reservoir at minimum operating pool during spring and summer as 

long as barge transport and irrigation needs are met. 

• Provide spill to total dissolved gas limits of water quality waivers or biological 

constraints at all dams, except maximize transportation at Snake River collector projects 

during lowest (10th percentile) flow years. 

• Maintain approximately 50/50 in-river and transportation proportions for spring and 

summer migrants in the Snake River by optimizing spill and surface-oriented routes of 

dam passage and transporting fish collected in the turbine screen bypass systems. 

• Continue to provide spill and bypass all fish at McNary Dam at all flows during the 

spring migration period. 

• Before reducing full spill, test removable spillway weirs and temporary spillway weirs to 

ensure they provide equal or better benefits than full spill. 

• Establish more rigorous research, monitoring, and evaluation to assure that fish survival 

is increasing and to inform adaptive management. 

• Identify and prepare contingency actions for implementation if necessary to meet fish 

performance standards linked to survival and recovery requirements of listed fish. 

9.4.2 Tributary Hydropower Operations and Configurations 

Hydropower development and operations affect the viability of four existing Mid-C steelhead 

populations in Oregon: Deschutes River Eastside, Deschutes River Westside, Umatilla River and 

Walla Walla River. The dams are also key factors affecting the potential recovery of now extinct 

steelhead populations in the Crooked River and Willow Creek systems. 

Deschutes River Populations 

The following strategies and actions are for the Deschutes Westside, Deschutes Eastside and 

extinct Crooked River populations. They focus on developing effective downstream collection 

and passage of steelhead smolts through the Pelton-Round Butte Complex on the Deschutes 

River. The passage strategy at the complex is to construct a Selective Water Withdrawal (SWW) 

and a Fish Collection Facility. The SWW is designed to modify flow patterns in the reservoir so 

that fish will be attracted to the entrance of the facility during their out-migration. The fish will 

them be enumerated, marked and transported to the lower Deschutes River, to continue their outmigration. The construction of the selective water withdrawal is scheduled for completion in 

2009. The SWW will also have an intake near its bottom, so it can draw cold water during 

summer and fall to mix with warmer surface water. This will maintain appropriate downstream 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-201

temperatures in the lower Deschutes River. An adaptive management strategy will continue to 

be used to implement facility improvements based on monitoring and evaluation with the goal of 

achieving high passage efficiencies at the barrier. 

Strategy 1: Restore sustainable natural steelhead production to blocked habitats in the 

Deschutes River Westside, Deschutes River Eastside, and the extinct Crooked River 

populations. 

Management actions 

1. Develop effective downstream collection and passage for smolts through the PeltonRound Butte Complex. 

2. Improve flow patterns through the reservoir to provide effective juvenile migration. 

3. Modify Pelton-Round Butte Complex operating procedures to restore downstream water 

quality to meet State and Tribal water quality criteria. 

Success in re-establishing runs of summer steelhead above Pelton-Round Butte Complex will 

depend substantially on the degree to which the new SWW and fish collection facility enable the 

steelhead to migrate effectively from the mouths of tributary streams and past Lake Billy 

Chinook during their out-migration. Adaptive fish management and improvements to altered 

streams above LBC will both be important, but effective fish passage through the reservoir will 

be a necessary prerequisite to any success in establishing runs that can sustain themselves. With 

this in mind, reintroductions of steelhead will occur in two phases. Phase 1 will emphasize 

introductions of pathogen-screened juveniles above Pelton-Round Butte Complex, to test the 

ability of the new SWW facility to change surface currents in LBC and collect out-migrant 

smolts. Actions taken during Phase 1 will also (1) begin to test recent estimates of fish 

production potential in habitat above Pelton-Round Butte Complex, (2) examine fish stock 

performance in the available habitat, (3) continue rehabilitating altered habitats, and (4) produce 

modest returns of adult fish. When smolt passage through LBC and into the fish collection 

facility meets agreed-upon measures of success1

, the reintroduction program will transition into 

Phase 2 in which adults returning to the upper basin (i.e., after rearing as juveniles above Round 

Butte Dam) are passed upstream and continued releases of pathogen-screened juveniles into the 

upper basin will use fish of the fittest lineages available. The exact timing and/or duration of 

shifts toward more or less intense releases of juvenile fish during this second phase of the 

reintroduction effort may differ for each subbasin. 

Reintroduction Phase 1. During Phase 1 of the reintroduction effort for summer steelhead, the 

numbers of fish released into specific upper basin streams will be based on interactions between 

 

1

 Measures of success include changes in reservoir surface currents, effective migration patterns of radio-tagged 

smolts (a biological response to the currents), and passage efficacy of about 50 percent for one or more species from 

one or more arms of the reservoir. The 50 percent reservoir survival target identified in the Settlement Agreement 

and in Table 4-1 of this Plan was originally intended to be a trigger for constructing permanent downstream passage 

facilities at Round Butte Dam, not as the single determining factor for permitting upstream adult passage at PRB. 

Consistent with adaptive management provisions included in the Settlement Agreement the decision to make the 

transition to upstream adult passage of known-origin fish will be based on numerous indicators and mitigating 

factors, and will be well-founded on sound biological principles. The indicators will include the 50 percent survival 

value, a value that modeling by Beamesderfer (2002) suggested was an approximate threshold for population 

sustainability. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-202

statistical needs of fish passage studies (Skalski and Townsend 2007), habitat capability (Cramer 

and Beamesderfer 2006), and realistic assumptions about the opportunity to trap smolts after they 

have been produced in habitats above the reservoir. In the watersheds (Whychus Creek, and/or 

Crooked River) where it is reasonable to expect that adequate numbers of naturally-reared smolts 

could be produced, trapped, and marked prior to entering Lake Billy Chinook, fry releases will 

meet or exceed those estimated to be needed to produce the required numbers of marked 

naturally produced smolts for reservoir passage tests. Where fry releases into a particular major 

subbasin appear unlikely to provide enough naturally-produced smolts to meet the statistical 

demands of fish passage tests, releases will be less intense but sufficient to begin testing habitat 

suitability, begin evaluating fish performance, and (potentially) to produce small numbers of 

returning adults. 

During Phase I there will also be direct releases into the upper basin of tagged hatchery-produced 

smolts that have been pathogen-screened. These fish will be given unique marks that can be 

distinguished from naturally-reared smolts , and released in numbers that will be large enough to 

meet the statistical demands of reservoir passage tests for smolts leaving each of the three major 

subbasins tributary to Lake Billy Chinook. Releases of hatchery smolts for reservoir passage 

tests will either provide information supplemental to that obtained from tests of naturally reared 

smolts or enable statistically meaningful passage tests where they would otherwise be infeasible. 

Each naturally-reared smolt that successfully negotiates Lake Billy Chinook and leaves the upper 

basin via the SWW facility during Phase 1 will either be given a PIT-tag or will be marked with 

unique fin clips. The PIT-tags will allow additional data collection on fish as they migrate to and 

from the ocean. The tag or unique fin clips will allow managers to assure that the fish will (1) 

avoid directed harvest and therefore experience lower harvest rates as they pass through fisheries 

when returning as adults, and (2) be identified as having upper basin origins when they arrive as 

adults at the Pelton Trap. Naturally-reared adults arriving at the trap will be passed upstream 

during Phase 2. 

Reintroduction Phase 2. The criteria for moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2 is when 50% of the 

smolts captured at one of the reservoir arms migrating through Lake Billy Chinook are 

subsequently recaptured at the SWW fish collection facility. Once this criteria is reached the 

reintroduction program will transition into Phase 2. In this phase adult fish returning to the 

Pelton Trap, after having reared as juveniles above Pelton-Round Butte Complex, will be passed 

into the upper basin, including those fish that reared in the upper basin during Phase 1. A small 

fraction of the returnees may be used as broodstock. Natural-origin fish will be used during 

Phase 2 if possible. 

Fish releases above Round Butte Dam during this phase of the program will be intended to 

develop locally adapted populations, with the numbers of young fish released into specific upper 

basin areas reflecting information acquired on the developing anadromous runs. As an early 

approximation, releases of fry during the first fish generation of Phase 2 will be of magnitudes 

estimated to be sufficient by themselves to produce about 50 percent of the maximum smolt 

carrying capacity of a particular stream. If the number of returning adults and the anticipated 

progeny exceeds expectations, the percentage of fry released will be reduced. This first cycle of 

fry releases during Phase 2 will also be supplemented with releases of hatchery smolts produced 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-203

from natural-origin broodstock, if smolts can be produced from an appropriate group of parents. 

Fry releases after the first fish generation of Phase 2 will diminish as rapidly as can be justified, 

to avoid a situation in which an extended hatchery supplementation program works against 

natural selection processes. During Phase 2 of the reintroduction effort, fish releases into the 

upper basin will be consistent with the suitability and productive capacity of available habitat. If 

habitat in a particular area proves to have greater capacity than initially predicted, fish releases 

there might be adjusted upwards, depending on broodstock availability. If habitat has less 

capacity, greater emphasis will be placed in the near term on habitat rehabilitation efforts and 

fish releases may be adjusted downward until habitat improves. 

Marking of smolts at the SWW facility will continue until disease or other concerns have been 

addressed sufficiently to allow all adult fish arriving unmarked at the Pelton Trap (those naturalorigin fish that are either returning to the upper basin or migrating toward areas other than the 

spawning locations of their parents) to be passed upstream. 

Umatilla River Population 

The following strategy and actions address flow and passage problems due to hydrosystem 

operations and facilities at the Boyd Hydro Project between RM 9-10 on the Umatilla River. 

Strategy: Improve hydrosystem operations and facilities at the Boyd Project to reduce 

impacts. 

Management actions 

1. If possible, bypass reach flows for the Boyd Hydro Project should be modified to mimic 

the instream water right. 

2. Fish passage facilities associated with the dam should be modified to meet current 

ODFW and NMFS fish passage standards. 

3. Implement timely removal of weir panels from the diversion dam during period of nonoperation to facilitate upstream passage. 

4. Conduct timely and thorough maintenance of trash racks during periods of non-operation. 

Walla Walla River Population 

The following strategy and actions improve operations at Twin Reservoirs Hydro Project in the 

Walla Walla drainage. 

Strategy: Improve hydrosystem operations and facilities at Twin Reservoirs Project to reduce 

impacts. 

Management action 

1. Conduct an assessment of the fishway at the dam. If the fishway does not meet ODFW 

standards, then it should be modified to meet standards for passage of juvenile fish. 

9.5 Estuarine and Plume Habitat Strategies and Actions 

The complex relationships that exist between species and habitat conditions in the Columbia 

River plume, estuary, and lower mainstem are poorly understood. The Columbia River Estuary 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-204

Recovery Plan Module (LCREP 2006) identifies 23 management actions that, together, address 

the range of threats salmonids in the estuary face including: altered habitat-forming processes; 

altered habitat structure in the estuary; changes in the food web dynamics; and poor water 

quality. The Mid-C Expert Panel identified impacts of bird predation in the estuary as a 

secondary threat in the past and present land use threat category. Based on our guidance, actions 

in the estuary that provide survival benefits are considered high priority because the benefits 

would likely be realized by all populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. Actions 

addressing predation concerns are shown in Section 9.7. 

Strategy: Restore degraded estuarine and plume habitats and associated ecological processes. 

Management actions 

The following management actions that were identified by the LCREP (2006) are considered 

important to the survival of Mid-C steelhead during their migration and residency in the 

estuary and plume. 

1. Protect intact riparian areas in the estuary and its tributaries and restore riparian areas 

that are degraded.

2. Modify hydrosystem operations to reduce the effects of reservoir surface heating, or 

conduct mitigation measures. 

3. Adjust the timing, magnitude and frequency of flows (especially spring freshets) 

entering the estuary and plume to provide better transport of sediments and access to 

habitats in the estuary, plume, and littoral cell. 

4. Remove pile dikes that have low navigational value but high impact on estuary 

circulation and/or juvenile predation effects. 

5. Protect remaining high-quality off-channel habitat from degradation through education, 

regulation, and fee simple and less-than-fee acquisition. 

6. Breach or lower dikes and levees to improve access to off-channel habitats. 

7. Identify and implement actions to reduce salmonid predation by pinnipeds. 

8. Implement projects to redistribute part of the Caspian tern colony currently nesting on 

East Sand Island. 

9. Implement projects to reduce double-crested cormorant habitats and encourage dispersal 

to other locations. 

10. Identify and reduce industrial, commercial, and public sources of pollutants. 

11. Monitor the estuary for contaminants and/or restore contaminated sites.

9.6 Harvest Strategies and Actions 

Harvest strategies and actions address threats to Mid-C steelhead from mainstem Columbia River 

and tributary fisheries. Few steelhead from any Columbia River populations are caught in ocean 

fisheries under current management regulations. 

9.6.1 Mainstem Harvest 

We have not proposed any actions related to mainstem harvest, which we considered a secondary 

threat to Mid-C steelhead. We have, however, identified a strategy that should be adopted within 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-205

the management regulation processes to implement actions in those fisheries that pose the most 

significant threats to Mid-C steelhead in Oregon. New harvest biological opinions will come 

into effect starting in 2008 and the following strategy should be considered. 

Strategy: Manage to maintain current low impact fisheries and reduce harvest-related adverse 

effects in those fisheries that have significant impacts. 

9.6.2 Tributary Harvest 

The current level of impact of tributary sport fisheries in all populations is quite low, thus we 

have concluded that tributary fisheries do not pose a significant threat to viability of any Mid-C 

populations. Additional harvest management actions are recommended, however, to address 

threats from the straying of out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead in the Deschutes River and John 

Day River populations. 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

No additional harvest actions are necessary, as long as current regulations continue to be 

implemented. 

Deschutes River Westside and Eastside Populations 

Fishery impacts on adult and juvenile steelhead in the Deschutes River have been minimized 

under the fishing regimes established in the FMEP. The following harvest strategy addresses 

threats from out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead strays. 

Strategy: Utilize harvest to reduce the abundance and proportion of stray hatchery spawners. 

Management action 

1. Develop an educational outreach program to promote the use of selective recreational 

fisheries to reduce the number of out-of-subbasin hatchery strays. Action is designed to 

increase the removal of hatchery steelhead in the fisheries by promoting the increased 

retention of hatchery fish caught in the fisheries. Currently, many anglers release marked 

hatchery fish that have been hooked and landed. Fisheries managers should encourage 

retention of hatchery steelhead by developing an education outreach program describing 

the benefits to the natural populations from the retention of marked hatchery fish. 

John Day River Populations 

Overall, fishery impacts on adult and juvenile steelhead in the John Day River have been 

minimized under the fishing regimes established in the FMEP. Harvest is proposed as a tool to 

address the current threat from out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead strays. 

Strategy 1: Utilize harvest to reduce the abundance and proportion of stray hatchery 

spawners. 

Management action 

1. Develop an education outreach program to promote the use of selective recreational 

fisheries to reduce the number of out-of-subbasin hatchery strays. Action encourages 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-206

retention of all hatchery fish caught in the fisheries. Currently, a large number of anglers 

continue to release marked hatchery fish that have been hooked and landed. Fisheries 

managers should develop an education outreach program describing the benefits to the 

natural populations from the retention of marked hatchery fish. 

Strategy 2: Reduce catch and release mortality on natural-origin fish. 

Management action 

1. Promote a voluntary curtailment of fishing at higher water temperatures (above 21° C) as 

a measure to reduce hook-and-release mortality. Action addresses potential fisheries 

impacts for steelhead in the John Day River subbasin when water temperatures are over 

21° C. This may occur at the opening of the steelhead fishery in September primarily in 

the lower section of the river below Cottonwood Creek that is open year around. 

Strategy 3: Improve quality of harvest and natural-origin fish. 

Management action 

1. Expand the creel surveys to monitor fisheries effort and catch in the areas from Tumwater 

upriver to the area deadline. In addition to the effort and catch data, creel surveys could 

be used to recover tagged hatchery steelhead and as a mechanism to communicate with 

the public regarding management actions 1 and 2 above. The surveys, in combination 

with increased marking of Columbia River Basin hatchery steelhead, should provide 

better data of location of recovery and origin of hatchery strays. 

Umatilla River Population 

Fisheries are believed to have a relatively small impact on steelhead in the Umatilla River as 

managed under regulations described in the FMEP and CTUIR regulations. Tributary fisheries 

are not considered a threat to viability of the Umatilla River steelhead population. Consequently, 

no additional harvest actions are proposed for the Umatilla River at this time. 

Walla Walla River Population 

Current fisheries are not considered a threat to viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead 

population as managed under the current FMEP and CTUIR fishing regulations. Because of the 

relatively small impact rate of the fisheries, no additional actions are recommended. 

9.7 Hatchery Strategies and Actions 

Strategies and actions address ecological and genetic effects resulting from current hatchery 

management programs in and outside the DPS. 

9.7.1 Overall Hatchery Strategy and Actions 

We are proposing a number of management actions that address impacts to Oregon Mid-C 

steelhead populations from hatchery programs outside the DPS that are providing the source of 

out-of-DPS strays. These management actions are common to all Mid-C populations and are 

therefore presented in this section. Unlike management actions for all the other H’s, in some 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-207

cases the Sounding Board could not reach consensus on the proposed hatchery actions. We 

present all the alternatives that were considered and characterize each recommendation as either 

a consensus or non-consensus recommendation. In addition, we provide information related to 

concerns expressed by the Sounding Board members who could not support specific 

recommendations. Many of the proposed actions will require development of agreements within 

the Columbia Basin decision, management and funding processes, such as, US vs. Oregon, BiOp 

Remand, and the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Program. 

The Hatchery Scientific Review Group completed a review of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead 

population hatchery programs and released their recommendations on January 31, 2009 (HSRG 

2009). The HSRG report was released after this recovery plan, including proposed management 

actions, was released for public comment in the Federal Register. We provide a comparison of 

the HSRG recommendations with the recovery plan proposed actions for each population to 

assess the degree of consistency. 

Strategy: Reduce the uncertainty of origin of hatchery strays and increase ability to recognize 

hatchery-origin fish. 

Management actions 

1. Implement a representative coded-wire-tagging program so that all hatchery stocks have 

adequate CWT groups released on an annual basis. [This will improve the ability to 

determine origin of strays in all populations. This is a consensus recommendation.] 

2. Mark all hatchery steelhead releases in the Columbia River Basin with, at a minimum, an 

adipose clip or other distinguishing mark. [This action would facilitate recognition of 

hatchery fish at weirs and on the spawning grounds providing for removal and better 

hatchery proportion estimates. This is a non-consensus recommendation.] 

3. Recommend development of alternative broodstocks that will stray at lower rates for the 

hatchery programs that contribute significantly to the stray problem. [Currently, ODFW 

is evaluating an alternative broodstock approach for the Wallowa stock, which strays at 

high rates, to specifically reduce straying into Mid-C populations. If this alternative 

broodstock management strategy proves successful it should be considered for other 

Snake River steelhead hatchery programs. This is a consensus recommendation.] 

4. Reduce the proportion of Snake River hatchery smolts that are transported from Lower 

Granite and Little Goose dams. [Recent evidence from Perry et al. (2006 unpublished 

data) indicates that transported smolts may stray at significantly higher rates than in-river 

migrants. There are limited data available to examine the relationship. This is a nonconsensus action that the Sounding Board indicated should be examined in more detail 

when additional data are available.] 

9.7.2 Tributary Hatchery Strategies and Actions 

Out-of-subbasin hatchery strays were identified as a key threat to a number of Mid-C 

populations. In addition, hatchery fish escaping and spawning naturally in the Walla Walla 

population was also identified as a key threat. There is lesser concern regarding the impacts of 

the Round Butte Hatchery program and the Umatilla Hatchery Program on populations in these 

subbasins. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-208

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

There are no plans to use artificial propagation to support fisheries or enhance natural production 

in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin. Consequently, the main hatchery-related threat to the 

Fifteenmile steelhead population is from out-of-DPS strays. However, since the source of most 

hatchery fish passing Fifteenmile Creek are summer steelhead, there is little chance of 

introgression. There was considerable uncertainty in the proportion of hatchery fish in the 

natural spawner estimates for viability assessment. The Mid-C Expert Panel did not identify this 

as major risk for Fifteenmile Creek winter and steelhead; however, it could become a factor in 

the future if improved water quality attracts stray hatchery fish into the subbasin. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of hatchery strays spawning 

naturally. 

Management action 

1. Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on spawning grounds through 

additional stream surveys. 

Additional surveys would increase the precision of the current estimates. Information 

gathered would be used to provide a better estimate of the hatchery fraction. This is a 

consensus recommendation. 

The HSRG recommendations are entirely consistent with the proposed actions for the 

Fifteenmile Creek population. 

Deschutes River Eastside Population 

Actions are proposed within the Deschutes River subbasin to address hatchery-related threats 

resulting from stray out-of-subbasin hatchery steelhead. 

Strategy 1: Reduce the abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish that spawn naturally. 

Management actions 

1. Construct trapping facilities in Buck Hollow and Bakeoven creeks and conduct a study to 

determine the effects of hatchery strays on production, productivity, and life history. 

A detailed study proposal has been completed to conduct a control-treatment study in 

Buck Hollow and Bakeoven. Once the study is completed Facilities can be used to 

remove strays. This is a consensus recommendation. 

2. Improve trapping facilities and expand trapping operations on Trout Creek to trap and 

remove all strays. 

This is a consensus recommendation. 

3. Modify and operate the trap at Sherars Falls to collect and remove out-of-subbasin 

hatchery fish which will reduce the number of hatchery steelhead that could spawn 

naturally. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-209

This action has substantial cost and would result in the handling of most of the Deschutes 

natural-origin fish. In addition, there are considerable social concerns of how best to deal 

with the trapped strays. The Sounding Board concluded that this action should be 

reconsidered at a later time after all the other hatchery actions in the Deschutes 

populations had been implemented and evaluated. 

Strategy 2: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of hatchery strays spawning 

naturally. 

Management action 

1. Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on spawning grounds through 

additional stream surveys. 

 Additional surveys would increase the precision of current estimates. This is a consensus 

 recommendation. 

The HSRG recommendations are entirely consistent with the proposed actions for the 

Deschutes River Eastside population. 

Deschutes River Westside Population 

Hatchery actions for the Deschutes River Westside population aim to improve the Round Butte 

Hatchery summer steelhead program and address concerns regarding out-of-subbasin strays. The 

ICTRT and the Mid-C Expert Panel consider straying of out-of-DPS hatchery steelhead a key 

threat to steelhead in the Deschutes Westside population. In addition, we identified stray 

hatchery steelhead as a high risk for the diversity metric in the viability assessment. Strategy 1 

and Strategy 2 are specific to the Westside population. Actions in Strategy 3 are proposed to 

support steelhead reintroduction above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex to restore sustained 

natural production. 

Strategy 1: Reduce the genetic risks associated with the Round Butte Hatchery Program. 

Management action 

1. Investigate opportunities and risks associated with incorporating naturally produced 

Deschutes River summer steelhead into the RBH broodstock. 

 The current practice of using only known RBH summer steelhead for broodstock has the 

potential for the RBH program steelhead to diverge from the naturally produced Westside 

steelhead population. This divergence can lead to potential adverse genetic effects from 

naturally spawning RBH summer steelhead. Methods to genetically identify Deschutes 

River origin steelhead will need to be developed to insure that only naturally produced 

steelhead from within the population are used in the broodstock. This is a consensus 

recommendation. 

Strategy 2: Reduce the abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish that spawn naturally. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-210

Management action 

1. Begin collecting and removing hatchery steelhead at the Shitike Creek Trap. 

 The trap is currently used to monitor the reproductive success of hatchery spring Chinook 

salmon and evaluate bull trout life histories. The trap needs to be modified to support 

more efficient collection and removal of hatchery steelhead. The current trapping effort 

is planned to stop in a few years. There are concerns regarding the logistic feasibility and 

costs of building and operating a more permanent structure. This is a consensus 

recommendation. 

 

Strategy 3: Restore natural production to blocked areas above Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

(for both Westside and Crooked River populations). 

Management action 

1. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the reintroduction of steelhead into the 

upper Deschutes River subbasin above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Hatchery production will play a crucial role during the initial phases of reintroduction. 

The hatchery will operate with dual objectives: (1) produce fish for harvest mitigation 

and (2) produce fish to achieve conservation objectives. Under the conservation 

objectives, (OAR 635-007-0545(11)), goals associated with reintroduction would aim to 

meet objectives for supplementation and restoration to areas upstream of the complex. 

Round Butte Hatchery stock steelhead will be used for initial steelhead releases due to 

their availability and to concerns with impacts of collecting native stock steelhead. 

Native stock steelhead will be used once it has been determined that passage efficiencies 

through the complex are suitable. A genetic assessment has been initiated to characterize 

Deschutes River steelhead and redband trout populations. Results from this work will be 

used to help identify appropriate broodstock for reintroduction. This approach, including 

a reduction of hatchery releases as naturally produced fish return, should lead to an 

adapted and productive natural steelhead stock. 

Steelhead fry or smolt releases will provide the primary means to re-establish adult 

returns to historical habitats during Phase 1 of reintroduction. Initial efforts to 

reintroduce steelhead will focus most strongly on productive habitats along Whychus 

Creek. Whychus Creek once supported steelhead runs in the range of about 500-1,000 

adults, and was by far the strongest producer of these fish when passage efforts at Round 

Butte were abandoned in the late-1960s (ODFW and CTWSRO 2007). No steelhead will 

be released directly into the mainstem Deschutes River above the complex and in the 

Metolius subbasin because habitat in these areas is thought to be better suited to resident 

rainbow trout than to steelhead (Cramer and Beamesderfer 2006). Colonization of this 

habitat by steelhead, should it occur, will be a consequence of straying by naturally 

produced fish. Release sites are prioritized for key spawning and rearing areas 

downstream of significant passage barriers or unscreened surface water diversions. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-211

The first steelhead smolt releases occurred in 2007. These releases were made in 

anticipation of the new surface intake and collection facilities becoming operational in 

the spring of 2009. Table 9-6 shows proposed release numbers and locations. 

Downstream migrants will be collected and marked before release below the hydropower 

complex so they can be readily distinguished from unmarked out-of-subbasin strays. 

Returning adults from the outplants will be specifically identified as upper subbasin 

origin fish. Adults originating from upper Deschutes habitats will also be differentiated 

from other in-subbasin or out-of-subbasin stocks through the use of unique fin-clips, PIT 

tags, or other tags. 

A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan will be implemented to assess the 

success of reintroduction and provide the critical information needed to make adaptive 

management changes. 

Crooked River Population 

The following strategy and action are designed to restore natural production in the Crooked 

River population. 

Strategy: Restore natural production to blocked areas above Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Management action 

1. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the reintroduction of steelhead into the 

upper Deschutes River subbasin above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 

Hatchery production will play a crucial role during the initial phases of reintroduction. 

The hatchery will operate with dual objectives: (1) produce fish for harvest mitigation 

and (2) produce fish to achieve conservation objectives. Under the conservation 

objectives, (OAR 635-007-0545(11)), goals associated with reintroduction would aim to 

meet objectives for supplementation and restoration to areas upstream of the complex. 

Round Butte Hatchery stock steelhead will be used for initial steelhead releases due to 

their availability and to concerns with impacts of collecting native stock steelhead. 

Native stock steelhead will be used once it has been determined that passage efficiencies 

through the complex are suitable. A genetic assessment has been initiated to characterize 

Deschutes River steelhead and redband trout populations. Results from this work will be 

used to help identify appropriate broodstock for reintroduction. This approach, including 

a reduction of hatchery releases as naturally-produced fish return, should lead to an 

adapted and productive natural steelhead stock. 

Steelhead fry or smolt releases will provide the primary means to re-establish adult 

returns to historical habitats during Phase 1 of reintroduction. Initial efforts to 

reintroduce steelhead will focus on productive habitats in McKay and Ochoco creeks and 

the mainstem Crooked River between River Mile 51 and River Mile 56. McKay Creek 

contains some of the better steelhead habitat in the lower Crooked subbasin (i.e., below 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-212

Bowman and Ochoco Dams). Release sites are prioritized for key spawning and rearing 

areas. 

Under the present schedule, the first steelhead fry and smolt releases occurred in 2008 

and 2009 respectively. These releases were made in anticipation of the new surface 

intake and collection and handling facilities going operational in the spring of 2009. 

Table 9-6 shows proposed release numbers and locations. 

Downstream migrants will be collected and marked before release into the Deschutes 

River below the hydropower complex so they can be readily distinguished from 

unmarked out-of-subbasin strays. Returning adults from the outplants will be specifically 

identified as upper subbasin origin fish. Adults originating from upper Deschutes 

habitats will also be differentiated from other in-subbasin or out-of-subbasin stocks 

through the use of unique fin-clips, PIT tags, or other tags. 

A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan will be implemented to assess the 

success of reintroduction and provide the critical information needed to make adaptive 

management changes. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-213

Table 9-6. Initial estimates of annual releases of summer steelhead to occur within specific areas 

of the drainage basin upstream of PRBC as the reintroduction effort moves forward. Parental 

origin (brood) is identified as being Hatchery (H), Mixed (M), or Natural (N; this category 

includes steelhead parents that are the first-generation, hatchery-reared offspring of naturalorigin fish). 

Fry Smolts 

 Species 

Phase of 

reintroduction 

Stream area 

Brood 

Number Brood Number 

Deschutes R. --- 0a --- 0a

 Whychus Cr. H 286,000b H 5,000b

Crooked R. system H 288,000 – 

708,000 H 7,500 Phase 1 c

All H 574,000 – 

994,000 H 12,500 

Deschutes R. --- 0a --- 0a

 Whychus Cr. N, M, H 100,000-

596,000d W 7,700d 

(one generation)

Crooked R. system N, M, H 222,000-

1,417,000d W 13,000d 

(one generation)

Summer 

steelhead 

Phase 2 

All N, M, H 322,000 -

2,013,000 W 20,700 

a There will be no releases of steelhead directly into the Deschutes R., nor into the Metolius R. system. Habitat in 

these areas is believed to be better suited to resident than anadromous rainbow trout production (Cramer and 

Beamesderfer 2006), and colonization of this habitat by steelhead, should it occur, will be a consequence of straying 

by naturally-produced fish. 

b

 Initial annual releases into Whychus Cr. will be intended to supply enough marked smolts (both naturallyproduced and hatchery produced) to test fish passage effectiveness downstream through LBC and into the SWW fish 

collection facility. The releases of fry assume 10 percent of the smolts naturally produced in the stream will be 

trapped and reach the head of the reservoir bearing detectible marks, and have been increased by 20 percent above 

the minimum number estimated to be needed for adequate statistical precision in the fish passage tests (238,000). 

Initial fry releases will also test fish performance in the habitat above PRBC and produce the first generation of adult 

steelhead to have reared as juveniles in that habitat for about 40 years. Numbers of fry to be released assume smolt 

production only in suitable habitat below the TSID diversion dam and not above that dam. 

c Initial annual releases into the Crooked R. system below Prineville will be intended to supply enough marked 

hatchery smolts to test fish passage effectiveness downstream, and to provide naturally produced smolts that can be 

marked and pooled with those from Whychus Cr. to potentially make fish passage tests based on naturally-produced 

smolts more robust. The releases of fry will also be intended to help test fish performance in the habitat above 

PRBC and to produce returning adults that reared as juveniles in that habitat. As currently envisioned, the scope of 

steelhead fry releases during Phase 1 will be relatively limited. 

d Annual releases during Phase 2 will supplement natural fish production associated with returns of adult steelhead 

that reared as juveniles above PRBC. Releases of fry will initially be of a magnitude estimated to be sufficient by 

themselves to produce about 50 percent of the maximum number of smolts, including that in areas of Whychus Cr. 

above the TSID diversion dam, and will diminish through time (note: the percentage will be reduced very early in 

Phase 2 if the number of returning adults exceeds expectations and there is a potential that fry outplants might 

otherwise overwhelm the offspring of these adults). There may be exceptions to this basic pattern in the Crooked R. 

system, however. Actual annual releases of fry will depend on broodstock availability and, in the Crooked R. 

system early in Phase 2, anticipated post-release environmental conditions. Hatchery produced smolts derived from 

disease-screened natural-origin parents collected below PRBC will also be released into these areas for a 5-year 

period, if available, in numbers equivalent to 50 percent of maximum natural smolt production, so that adults 

returning from the releases can also begin to supplement the developing natural runs. Hatchery support of the 

natural runs will diminish through time and end as soon as the runs can sustain themselves. Barring unforeseen 

circumstances, it will not continue for more than three fish generations in a given subbasin before the fish are given 

an opportunity to sustain themselves without artificial support. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-214

John Day Populations (Lower Mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, Upper 

Mainstem) 

The following strategy and action address threats to natural spawning steelhead populations in 

the John Day subbasin from straying hatchery steelhead from outside the subbasin. 

Strategy: Reduce uncertainty in abundance and proportion of stray hatchery fish that spawn 

naturally. 

Management action 

1. Increase efforts to monitor incidence of hatchery fish on spawning grounds through 

additional stream surveys and other methods. 

There are currently two types of surveys conducted during steelhead spawning times, 

index counts and Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Protocol (EMAP) surveys. 

Index counts are done once and EMAP surveys done at least three times during the 

spawning time period. Of the two types of surveys conducted, the EMAP surveys 

provide the best opportunity to document stray hatchery steelhead. However, currently 

the 50 EMAP surveys are done at the subbasin scale. Better information would be 

gathered if more surveys were done at the population scale. Additional methods such as 

kelt trapping could also be used. This is a consensus recommendation. 

The HSRG recommendations are entirely consistent with the proposed actions for all five John 

Day River populations. 

Umatilla River Population 

Although hatcheries were not identified as a key threat to the Umatilla River steelhead 

population, several management actions are proposed to reduce the risk of out-of-subbasin strays 

and the risks associated with ongoing hatchery programs in the subbasin. 

Strategy 1: Reduce abundance and proportion of out-of-subbasin strays spawning naturally. 

Management action 

1. Uniquely mark Umatilla Hatchery steelhead and remove other hatchery strays at Three 

Mile Falls Dam to limit out-of-subbasin strays from reaching the spawning grounds. 

 In recent years, out-of-DPS strays comprised a mean of 4.8% of steelhead returning to 

 TMFD. These strays mostly originate from lower Snake River hatchery programs. 

 Uniquely marking Umatilla hatchery steelhead would allow removal of out-of-subbasin 

 stray steelhead at TMFD and eliminate the potential for outbreeding depression and 

 impaired diversity. Major logistical constraints include the additional costs of applying 

 an identification mark to 150,000 steelhead smolts. In addition, 100% of fish escaping 

 past TMFD would need to be trapped and identified, as opposed to the current practice of 

 enumerating a portion of the run through video analysis of adults swimming past the 

 viewing window in the adult ladder. Due primarily to concerns related to additional 

 stress of handling all fish at TMFD, this is a non-consensus recommendation. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-215

Strategy 2: Re-establish natural production into historically utilized habitats. 

Management action 

1. Re-establish natural production in Little Butter and Butter creeks (MaSAs) and some 

minor spawning areas by outplanting adults and/or releasing juveniles into the tributaries 

after habitat, flow and passage is restored to a level that will support steelhead 

production. 

 The loss of occupancy in the Butter Creek system was identified as a significant spatial 

 structure gap. Re-establishing natural production in these historically occupied areas will 

 lower the risk levels by expanding spatial extent/range and decreasing gaps between 

 spawning areas. Re-establishing spatial extent and reducing gaps will reduce 

 vulnerability to local catastrophes, enhance historical life history diversity, and enhance 

 gene flow and the ability to recolonize extirpated areas. Any effort to re-establish 

 production in formerly occupied areas should follow habitat restoration actions to address 

 passage constraints, loss of instream flow, and degraded water quality and habitat. Once 

 habitat, flow and passage are restored to the point that tributaries can again provide 

 spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead, reintroduction can proceed. The benefits 

 extend to the population in re-establishing the population across its historical range and 

 decreasing gaps between spawning areas. The timeline for this action is dependent on the 

 extent and rate of recovery of degraded habitat and successful removal or alteration of 

 passage impediments. This is a consensus recommendation. 

Strategy 3: Reduce the genetic influence of hatchery fish in hatchery broodstock. 

Management action 

1. Eliminate the use of hatchery produced adults in the broodstock to reduce potential for 

divergence in genetic and phenotypic traits between hatchery and natural-origin 

steelhead. 

 Sufficient natural-origin adults have been available in all years to meet broodstock needs; 

 however, hatchery fish are used in some years. Implementing this action will eliminate 

 the use of adults that have undergone domestication selection and reduce genetic and 

 phenotypic divergence from the natural-origin stock. A potential downside of this 

 management action would be further reducing the abundance of natural-origin steelhead 

 spawners and increasing abundance of hatchery steelhead on the spawning grounds. 

 This is a non-consensus recommendation. 

Strategy 4: Reduce interactions between residual hatchery steelhead and natural steelhead to 

limit competition with and potential predation on natural steelhead juveniles. 

Management action 

1. Conduct volitional releases steelhead smolts and remove the fish that do not migrate. 

 Reducing interactions between hatchery and natural steelhead reduces the threat that 

natural juveniles rearing in the Umatilla River will experience reduced survival or 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-216

mortality from competition with hatchery smolts. To further reduce competition between 

natural and hatchery juveniles, smolts remaining in the acclimation ponds after the 

volitional release period could to retained rather than forced into the Umatilla River. 

This technique has been used in other subbasins (e.g., Tucannon, Grande Ronde, 

Imnaha), usually according to guidelines on the sex ratio and numbers of smolts 

remaining in the acclimation pond. Research on the Tucannon River, Washington 

demonstrates that juveniles remaining in acclimation ponds after volitional release 

periods are predominantly male and few exhibit smolt characteristics and that retaining 

these fish reduced the abundance of residuals in the river (Viola and Schuck 1995). The 

management action could be implemented at the two existing acclimation facilities on the 

Umatilla River. This is a non-consensus recommendation due to logistical concerns 

expressed by Facility operators. 

Strategy 5: Reduce potential negative ecological interactions between coho salmon and 

natural steelhead. 

 

Management action 

1. Reduce the number of hatchery coho released in the Umatilla River and relocate releases 

downstream to areas not currently important for steelhead production. 

Currently, approximately 1.5 million coho salmon smolts are released into the Umatilla 

River annually from the Pendleton Acclimation Facility. These coho salmon smolts have 

the potential to compete with juvenile steelhead for prey resources or space. This 

competition may reduce survival or result in direct mortality of steelhead juveniles, 

affecting productivity and abundance. Several steps could be taken to reduce potential 

interactions between coho salmon and steelhead smolts. Actions range from eliminating 

the Umatilla coho salmon program to changing the numbers, locations or methods of 

release of coho salmon. Because steelhead rearing habitat occurs downstream of McKay 

Creek where the colder water released from McKay Reservoir enters the Umatilla River, 

one potential solution would be to release coho salmon downstream of steelhead rearing 

habitat in the lower Umatilla River. Pendleton is the most downstream acclimation 

facility, so implementing this action would require either direct stream releases of coho 

salmon or construction of another acclimation facility on the lower Umatilla River. If 

implemented, the action would affect rearing habitat in the lower Umatilla River between 

Pendleton, where coho salmon are currently released, and the new release location. The 

largest logistical constraint would be locating and funding a new acclimation facility on 

the lower Umatilla River. No logistical constraints would exist for directly releasing 

coho salmon into the lower Umatilla River. There was consensus on reducing the 

number of coho released annually to at least 1 million. However, changing location of 

release was not a consensus recommendation. 

The HSRG had no recommendations for the Umatilla population and related hatchery programs. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-217

Walla Walla River Population 

Several hatchery management actions and proposals to manage and reduce hatchery risks to the 

Walla Walla summer steelhead population were developed and are presented below. Consensus 

could not be reached to identify a preferred alternative. 

Strategy: Reduce the abundance and proportion of non-local-origin hatchery strays spawning 

naturally. 

Management actions 

1. Eliminate adult hatchery strays above Nursery Bridge Dam by resuming trapping 

operations and removing hatchery fish. 

Removing hatchery strays above NBD would eliminate the threats and resulting diversity 

risk caused by introgression of hatchery steelhead into the natural population. Sorting 

and removing hatchery produced adults at NBD would greatly reduce or eliminate these 

threats. However, resumption of trapping activities would cause handling stress on 

natural-origin adults and may result in a small amount of mortality. This is a nonconsensus recommendation due to concerns of handling natural-origin fish and associated 

risks. 

2. Alter the release strategy of Lyons Ferry Hatchery smolts released into the lower Walla 

Walla River from direct stream to acclimated releases and implement trap and removal 

near the acclimation site.

 Changing the release strategy of smolts in the lower Walla Walla River from a direct 

stream to an acclimated release has the potential to reduce wandering of returning 

hatchery adults into the upper Walla Walla River. If lower stray rates were realized, it 

would reduce risks. The action would require construction of an acclimation facility on 

the lower Walla Walla River to hold smolts in natural stream water before release. While 

the action would be implemented on the lower Walla Walla River, effects could be 

realized throughout the subbasin. There was considerable concern expressed about the 

costs of this action as well as the logistics of separating natural-origin and hatchery-origin 

fish in the adult trapping component. This is a non-consensus recommendation. 

3. Develop local broodstock to replace Lyons Ferry stock for use in the current harvest 

augmentation program. 

Developing local broodstock for use in the current program would reduce the risks to the 

natural population because the hatchery fish that stray and spawn naturally would have 

similar genetic characteristics to the natural fish. However, the initial stages of 

broodstock development would require mining natural-origin fish from the natural 

population reducing the effective number of spawners. This is a non-consensus 

recommendation due to concerns of removing natural-origin fish to initiate the 

broodstock. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-218

4. Develop local broodstock to replace Lyons Ferry stock and initiate a natural production 

supplementation program. 

 Develop local broodstock from natural-origin fish collected at Nursery Bridge Dam. 

Move the smolt release location upriver someplace near the Oregon-Washington state 

line. Allow hatchery fish to intentionally escape into natural production areas and spawn 

naturally. This action would potentially reduce the genetic risks because hatchery fish 

would have similar genetic characteristics as natural fish. However, hatchery fish will 

comprise a much larger proportion of natural spawners than under current scenarios. 

Considerable concern was expressed about this action due to lack of demonstrated 

success of supplementation, the number of studies demonstrating negative viability 

affects of hatchery fish, and the fact that current abundance and productivity are very 

near viable criteria. This is a non-consensus recommendation. 

5. Maintain current Lyons Ferry harvest augmentation program and initiate endemic local 

broodstock supplementation program in upper mainstem Walla Walla River and Mill 

Creek. 

This proposal maintains the 100,000 Lyons Ferry direct stream smolt release into the 

mainstem Walla Walla River. In addition, local broodstock would be collected at 

Nursery Bridge to initiate a supplementation program. An initial target of 35 pairs would 

be collected to produce 100,000 smolts annually. The smolt production would be split 

for release with 50,000 direct stream into Mill Creek and 50,000 direct stream into the 

upper Walla Walla River near the North Fork. This action would result in an increased 

proportion of hatchery fish in the natural spawners because of the additional hatchery 

spawners produced from the endemic supplementation program. The overall benefits and 

risks to viability are dependent on a number of performance factors for which the 

outcomes are uncertain. This is a non-consensus recommendation due to concerns of 

increased hatchery proportions and lack of demonstrated success of supplementation. 

Some elements of the HSRG recommendations are consistent with the proposed management 

actions and some are inconsistent. The HSRG recommended to “Eliminate the annual 

importation and release of out-of-basin fish and develop within basin adult collection to promote 

locally adapted hatchery broodstock.” Management actions numbers three and four are 

consistent with this recommendation. The HSRG also recommended “Under any scenario, 

facilities to acclimate and release juveniles and recapture returning adults will need to be 

developed.” Management actions numbers one and two are consistent with this HSRG 

recommendation. 

Development and implementation of a preferred alternative will require co-manager agreements 

developed through the Columbia Basin decision processes, such as US v. Oregon, Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, as well as, state 

and tribal planning processes. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-219

9.8 Predation and Competition Strategies and Actions 

Predation strategies and actions are discussed below. No actions are currently proposed to 

address potential competition related threats. 

 

9.8.1 Predation Strategies and Actions 

Predation by pinnipeds, birds, and piscivorous fish in the mainstem Columbia River has become 

a contributing factor affecting the viability of the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. We 

present the following strategies and management actions to address predation concerns. These 

include actions from October 2007 Proposed Action for the Federal Columbia River Power 

System (NOAA Fisheries 2007a), as well as, additional actions being considered that would 

contribute to improving survival. Presentation of the BiOp proposed actions in no way implies 

endorsement of the adequacy of the actions for recovery. 

Predation by Pinnipeds 

The following actions will reduce predation by Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and 

California sea lions on salmon and steelhead in the lower Columbia River. 

Strategy: Reduce the seasonal abundance of pinnipeds at Bonneville Dam. 

Management actions 

1. Continue with hazing program at Bonneville Dam to reduce pinniped seasonal abundance 

and predation near the dam. 

2. Provide and improve sea lion excluder devices (SLEDs) to prevent pinnipeds from 

entering fishways. 

3. Maintain acoustic devices to move pinnipeds away from fishway entrances, project 

facilities, and navigation locks. 

4. Pursue authorization under Section 120 of the MMPA to remove problem California sea 

lions. 

Predation by Avian Predators 

The following actions are proposed to reduce predation by native bird species, such as Caspian 

terns and double-crested cormorants, in the Columbia River estuary. 

Strategy 1: Relocate Caspian tern colonies in the Columbia River away from corridors that 

increase the vulnerability of juvenile salmon and steelhead out-migrants. 

Management actions (actions in addition to those in the FCRPS proposed actions are 

presented in italics) 

1. Maintain habitat conditions on Rice Island unsuitable or undesirable for nesting terns. 

2. Reduce nesting habitat on East Sand Island and relocate most of the Caspian tern colony 

to areas outside of the Columbia River Subbasin. 

3. Develop and implement an avian management plan to address predation from the Caspian 

tern colony on Crescent Island. 

4. Modify dredge spoil disposal practices to avoid creating habitat suitable for Caspian tern 

nesting. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-220

5. Modify hydropower operations to provide sufficient river flow to decrease travel times 

and water clarity for migrating juvenile salmonids. 

6. Implement rearing practices that would enhance predator avoidance behavior in 

 hatchery salmonids. 

Strategy 2: Begin to address predation by double-crested cormorants in the Columbia River 

estuary and mid-Columbia. 

Management actions 

1. Continue to conduct research on predation impacts of double-crested cormorants on 

migrating juvenile salmonids, bioenergetics modeling, and habitat/population 

management strategies. 

2. Develop an avian management plan to address predation by double-crested cormorant 

colonies on East Sand Island and Foundation Island (mid-Columbia). 

Strategy 3: Deny predation opportunities to other avian predators such as California gulls. 

Management action 

1. Implement and improve deterrent devices and activities (e.g. bird wire, water cannons, 

hazing) at dams to keep avian predators away from bypass outfalls and other areas of 

juvenile salmonid concentration. 

Predation by Piscivorous Fishes 

The following actions are proposed to reduce predation by northern pikeminnow and a wide 

variety of introduced species (such as walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish) that prey 

on juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River. 

Strategy 1: Continue to implement the NPMP with exploitation rates at 10-20% to maintain 

reduced predation rates on juvenile salmonids. 

Management actions (actions in addition to those in the FCRPS proposed actions are 

presented in italics) 

1. Implement the sport-reward program with increased rewards similar to the enhanced 

reward structure in 2001 and 2004-2006. 

2. Evaluate the effectiveness and relative efficiency of a hook-and-line fishery at select 

dams on the mainstem Columbia to remove northern pikeminnow in areas inaccessible to 

sport-reward anglers. 

Strategy 2: Begin to address the management of non-indigenous piscivores as a means of 

reducing predation on juvenile salmonids. 

Management actions (actions in addition to those in the FCRPS proposed actions are 

presented in italics) 

1. Organize a workshop to review and evaluate predation by non-indigenous species 

(consumption rates and abundance), and develop strategies to reduce predation. 

2. Implement transplant or removal programs in select areas. 
Section 9, Recovery Strategies and Management Actions 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

9-221

3. Adopt regulatory changes that encourage harvest of target species. 

4. Implement hydro-operation changes to reduce recruitment of non-indigenous predators. 

9.8.2 Competition Strategies and Actions 

As discussed in Section 8, steelhead abundance and capacity in the Deschutes Westside 

population may be significantly reduced by competition with resident rainbow trout. However, 

no management actions are proposed because a reduction in steelhead capacity due to resident 

trout abundance is considered a potential natural interaction effect. If, in the future, additional 

studies confirm this reduction in capacity in waters with abundant larger rainbow trout, then the 

abundance criteria for the Deschutes River Westside steelhead should be reevaluated. 

 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-1

Section 10 Management Action Effectiveness 

This section presents an analysis of the effects of actions on the performance of Oregon 

populations in the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. Projected levels of effectiveness in 

improving abundance and productivity for the actions described in the previous section are 

analyzed using modeling tools. Results are expressed as changes to population abundance and 

productivity parameters, as they were defined by the ICTRT for baseline conditions for each 

population (Section 6). The analysis was performed in sequential steps, first by projecting 

outcomes for tributary actions alone, then sequentially adding in hatchery fish genetic effects, 

then types of out-of-subbasin actions, and finally actions to manage stray hatchery fish. Results 

of each of these steps provide a means of comparing relative benefits of the proposed actions and 

assessing the overall benefits of the combined actions. We recognize that there is uncertainty 

associated with many of the input parameters and model assumptions used in our assessment of 

management action effectiveness. The models we used do not have the capability to characterize 

statistical certainty. We examined combinations of different temporal response periods, 

alternative tributary habitat action implementation priority scenarios, and alternative ocean 

conditions in an attempt to characterize the range of potential population responses to the 

management actions. The results of our effectiveness analyses should not be viewed as predicted 

responses, rather as ranges of potential outcomes. We were not able to assess spatial structure/ 

diversity effectiveness in a quantitive manner. Therefore, we assess the spatial structure/ 

diversity effectiveness by describing how the specific actions which target gaps will improve 

status. 

The section is presented in four parts: 

1. Methods. 

2. Results of the abundance/productivity analysis of tributary habitat actions. 

3. Results of the abundance/productivity analysis of all other actions by integrating 

effectiveness across actions, including tributary actions. 

4. Results of the spatial structure/diversity effectiveness. 

10.1 Methods 

We performed our analysis of action effectiveness for abundance and productivity using two 

modeling platforms that have been widely applied in the Columbia basin: EDT and All-H 

Analyzer (AHA). These modeling approaches are discussed below. Action effectiveness for 

spatial structure and diversity was assessed qualitatively by describing the specific actions and 

how the actions are expected to address the spatial structure/diversity impairments. 

10.1.1 Approach 

EDT and AHA address different life stages in the life cycle and thus the different limiting factors 

that affect salmonid population performance (Figure 10-1). We incorporated several refinements 

to the modeling procedures for each platform as they are usually employed in the region to 

improve application for our objectives. For EDT, we formulated an auxiliary tool for defining 

action effectiveness to better ensure that we considered the distinct elements of effectiveness 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-2

consistently between actions and subbasins, and we incorporated an implementation timeframe 

element. For AHA, we disaggregated the life cycle into more segments than used in the standard 

AHA in order to completely incorporate the effects of habitat conditions in the juvenile life 

stages following emigration from the subbasin through the adult life stages, until return to the 

subbasin. We also formulated a module for AHA to provide an efficient way of processing the 

large number of action combinations—both in tributaries and the mainstem Columbia—of 

interest to this analysis. In addition, we modified the default settings in AHA for genetic fitness 

to produce results that appear to be more consistent with how the populations of interest are 

currently performing. 

We used the modeling results to assess relative changes in population performance due to 

management actions compared to performance under a baseline set of conditions (both within 

and out of subbasin). We then applied these relative changes to the baseline performance 

measures as derived empirically for each population by the ICTRT. In applying the results in this 

way, we assume that each modeling platform provides a useful and appropriate assessment of 

how actions can be expected to affect performance relative to the baseline. We avoid the 

question of how well EDT output parameters represent actual performance levels if measured 

accurately over a sufficient period of time (e.g., as addressed by Rawding 20042

). 

The EDT model was used to analyze the potential benefits of tributary habitat actions. The model 

is designed to estimate salmonid population performance based on characteristics of the aquatic 

habitat (Mobrand et al. 1997; Blair et al. in press). While it considers conditions at all life 

stages—producing population parameters for the entire life cycle—it was originally built to 

address factors that affect freshwater survival. In the Columbia basin, it has been used to focus 

on habitat conditions within subbasins, being applied in nearly every subbasin that currently 

supports anadromous salmonids. It was the principal modeling tool used to formulate many of 

the recently completed subbasin plans, including those that support the populations in the MidColumbia River steelhead DPS. The EDT analyses for these subbasins provide one part of the 

limiting factors assessment of subbasin habitat conditions described in Section 8 of this plan. The 

stream reach and habitat characterizations used in those analyses were applied as part of the 

baseline conditions for the analysis presented herein.3

The EDT model is particularly well suited for analyzing effects of habitat actions on salmonid 

population performance. As part of its setup, it requires characterizations of both historical and 

existing habitat conditions for all stream reaches used by the population of interest (see 

Lichatowich et al. 1995). This provides a simple, logical framework for considering the 

effectiveness of future habitat actions. The Scenario Builder tool, one of the suite of EDT 

modeling tools, is then used to explicitly define the extent that an action might be expected to 

 

2

 / Rawding (2004) compared EDT model output with observed data for several salmon and steelhead populations in 

the lower Columbia River. He concluded that spawner-recruit performance results were comparable between 

observed data and EDT outputs when recruits were measured as smolts (EDT does not incorporate variation in 

marine survival). 

3

 / All of the data inputs completed as part of the subbasin planning process were unchanged for the analysis 

reported herein with two exceptions. It was discovered that the population age structure for Fifteenmile winter 

steelhead was incorrect, requiring an update to this input. Secondly, the spawning distributions specified for the 

Deschutes Eastside and Westside populations were not consistent with those defined by the ODFW steelhead 

distribution database and ICTRT. These inputs were updated to reflect ODFW and ICTRT information. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-3

move reach-specific habitat characteristics back toward the pre-development state (Thompson et 

al. in press). Scenario Builder also allows for defining actions that represent future watershed 

development, as would occur over time with human population growth. In this case, the tool can 

be used to identify the extent that reach characteristics move further away from the predevelopment state and toward a fully developed one. This aspect of the tool is used extensively 

as part of recovery planning in areas where human population growth is rapidly increasing, such 

as in the Puget Sound region (Thompson et al. in press), but it was not applied here. Growth is 

expected to be relatively slow in the subbasins of interest here and patterns of future 

development are not well defined. Actions intended to give protection against further habitat loss 

can be analyzed with Scenario Builder when habitat loss actions are also defined. 

Within 

subbasin

Mainstem 

passage Ocean

Subbasin 

migration

Mainstem 

passage

Spawn - 

incubation

Rearing

Adult entrypassage

Smolt 

emigration

Adults to 

subbasin

Marine 

residence

Estuarine

Smolt 

passage

EDT Model

AHA Model

Figure 10-1. Use of EDT and AHA modeling platforms for different segments of steelhead life 

cycle. The EDT model covers the life stages from adults to subbasin through smolt emigration 

and AHA covers smolt passage through adult entry. 

Four scenarios were modeled using the EDT model, reflecting two priorities for where actions 

would be implemented at two future times: 

1. High priority action areas only at 25 years in the future; 

2. High priority action areas only at 100 years in the future; 

3. All priority action areas at 25 years in the future; and 

4. All priority action areas at 100 years in the future. 

Each scenario for each population consisted of a large number of diverse actions aimed at 

improving habitat conditions for the affected population (see Section 9). In addition to these four 

scenarios, the Deschutes Westside population was modeled with and without passage at the 

Pelton-Round Butte Complex to illustrate the added benefit of passage and restoration of natural 

production in the blocked areas.. 

The standard output from EDT consists of Beverton-Holt population parameters for smolt yield 

(leaving subbasin during smolt migration window) and spawners (virgin spawners successfully 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-4

spawning). The parameters are productivity (progeny per parent at low density), carrying 

capacity, and equilibrium abundance (i.e., average). Repeat steelhead spawners are not 

computed in the model, but repeat spawning is known to be very small (<5%; Busby et al. 1996) 

for Mid-Columbia steelhead. Parameter values produced for each scenario were used to compute 

the percent change in the parameter compared to the baseline. We used these relative changes to 

characterize the potential benefits to population performance corresponding to each scenario. 

Another EDT output is referred to as life history diversity and is a measure of the distribution of 

life cycle pathways through time and space determined to be successfully completed within the 

modeled environment. The model creates a multitude of diverse time-space pathways (or 

trajectories) through the environment consistent with the species’ known life history patterns 

(incorporating seasonal movement patterns, rates of movement, and age structure), computing 

life cycle productivity and capacity parameter values for each pathway under each scenario. The 

percentage of pathways that are able to be completed successfully (i.e., having a productivity ≥1) 

of the entire set of modeled pathways is reported in the output as the % life history diversity. A 

value of 100% means that all modeled pathways would be expected to support completed life 

histories over the entire life cycle. In contrast, for example, a value of 20% would mean that only 

20% of the pathways would support successful life histories—indicating that 80% of the 

pathways encountered such poor conditions for survival at some times or places (or were blocked 

by barriers) that life history condition was not possible. Typically, modeling of the undeveloped 

environment (historical condition) produces values for this metric at or near 100%. Modeling of 

severely degraded environments yields values much reduced—in severe cases <20% of the 

pathways might be successful. A large reduction in this metric compared to the undeveloped 

state usually means that significant portions of habitat no longer support sustainable production 

and, in the case of steelhead, older aged life history patterns have become less productive. The 

underlying concept of the metric is that it will reflect a real change in diversity of life history 

pathways relative to the undeveloped state that can be supported under the habitat conditions 

being modeled. Applying it to action analysis, if the current condition scenario yields a value of 

20% for this metric, then how much does the metric change under a prospective action scenario? 

In this case, a large increase in the metric associated with an action scenario would mean that a 

significant expansion has occurred in life history distribution with improved habitat. 

We report the results for this life history diversity metric to reflect only one aspect of how life 

history diversity would be expected to change due to an action set. The ICTRT is concerned 

about life history diversity at a larger scale than represented in the EDT measure, where patterns 

of distribution, movement, and age structure are considered. The EDT metric is not an equivalent 

measure, even though it reflects all of these higher scale patterns to some extent. We are 

currently exploring how information from the EDT results can be summarized to reflect changes 

in these patterns at the ICTRT criteria scale as a result of tributary actions. 

The relative restoration benefit is determined by comparing current conditions to restored 

conditions resulting from implementation of proposed tributary habitat actions. We assessed 

restoration benefit for two scenarios for each population: 1) priority 1 actions only after 100 

years; and 2) priorities 1 and 2 actions after 100 years. 

The relative restoration benefit was determined based on the ranking of the amount of change in 

the consideration of all three previously decribed population performance measures (abundance, 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-5

productivity, diversity). All reaches or geographic areas were assigned a rank based on the 

change for each performance measure. The reach with the largest change was assigned higher 

values unless there was a tie. The three performance measure ranks for each reach were then 

summed and a simple average was computed. The reaches were then re-ranked so that the reach 

with the lowest average was giving a value of 1 (highest restoration benefit); all other reaches 

were assigned higher values. 

Following the completion of the integrated ranking procedure, reaches were grouped and placed 

into four categories including: high, moderate, low, or very low, restoration benefit. The very 

low restoration benefit category includes reaches where zero restoration benefit is achieved. 

Results of the restoration benefit analyses are presented in maps in this section, as well as, in 

tables in Appendix H. 

The AHA model was used to link the analyses of tributary habitat actions to prospective 

recovery actions involving hatchery fish and the mainstem Columbia River and to explore a few 

simple alternative ocean assumptions. The output from EDT, expressed in terms of BevertonHolt population parameters, was an input to the AHA model. The AHA model was developed to 

give managers a tool for examining different ways of balancing habitat restoration, hatchery 

practices, harvest, and hydroelectric facilities operation (Mobrand – Jones & Stokes Associates 

2005). It is particularly adapted to addressing the effects of hatchery operations, having been 

created by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group4

 to consider genetic interactions between 

hatchery and natural stocks. Model features incorporate theoretical concepts about these 

interactions based on Ford (2002) and Lynch and O’Hely (2001), and as further discussed by 

Mobrand et al. (2005). 

Linking the two models provides a way of assessing benefits measured at the end of the life 

cycle for a wide range of potential actions, regardless of what life stage an action affects. The 

AHA platform integrates the effects of various types of actions over the full life cycle (Figure 

10-2A). The output from AHA, also expressed as Beverton-Holt population parameters, 

represents the expectation for population performance when all actions are integrated together. 

Here, these parameters were then converted to the percent change in each parameter value 

compared to baseline conditions and multiplied by the ICTRT’s baseline population measures to 

compute expected ICTRT-equivalent parameter values reflecting the effects of all actions 

(Figure 10-2B). The two parameters of interest here are population intrinsic productivity (recruits 

per spawner at low population density) and equilibrium spawner abundance. These parameters, 

whether estimated by EDT/AHA modeling or empirically as done by the ICTRT, are identical in 

meaning though they can differ in actual value for the same population due simply to different 

ways of estimation. Therefore, a conversion to an “ICTRT parameter equivalent” was necessary 

to allow for a direct comparison of output to the ICTRT baseline values. It was concluded that 

this simple multiplication procedure is the appropriate mathematical conversion to compute the 

change in ICTRT parameter values from EDT/AHA output. 

 

4

 / The Hatchery Scientific Review Group is an independent scientific panel established and funded by Congress to 

provide an autonomous and credible evaluation of hatchery reform as part of the Hatchery Reform Project. The 

objective of the HSRG is to assemble, organize, and apply the best available scientific information and to provide 

guidance to the policymakers and technical staff who are implementing hatchery reform. The project is being 

applied in most areas of the Pacific Northwest, including within the Columbia Basin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-6

A

B

EDT AHA

Trib habitat actions Hatchery effects

Out of subbasin factors

Population 

parameters

All-H 

integration

EDT AHA

Trib habitat actions Hatchery effects

Out of subbasin factors

Population 

parameters

Baseline 

TRT 

parameters

% change from 

baseline

TRT 

parameters 

with actions

change

Figure 10-2. Action integration components. 

The AHA model is principally used in the region to help evaluate hatchery programs and makes 

broad comparisons involving other strategy types. In the analysis presented herein, a strong 

focus is placed on integrating actions that not only involve hatcheries and out-of-subbasin 

actions, but detailed subbasin habitat restoration plans. The standard AHA model uses a 

simplified approach in integrating across such a range of actions by treating the effects of out-ofsubbasin actions on population productivity and capacity as multipliers on parameter values 

produced by EDT, hence it assumes simple multiplicative effects. In doing so, effects of 

performance parameters for the final life stages (pre-spawning and spawning) are not fully 

incorporated, which can bias spawner estimates from the model high.5 Therefore, the AHA 

platform was modified by first disaggregating output into life stage segments as described in 

Beverton and Holt (1957) and Mousalli and Hilborn (1986), then linking AHA inputs to the 

appropriate segment and re-computing end of spawning population parameters by reaggregating 

across the full life cycle (Mobrand et al. 1997). This modification provided a way of producing 

essentially unbiased parameter estimates.6

 

5

 / All life stages affect the performance of a salmonid population when measured at the end of the life cycle. Both 

habitat quality and quantity can affect fish performance during each life stage, and therefore, also affect population 

performance measured at the completion of the life cycle (end of spawning). Hence, benefits of actions affecting 

intermediate life stages, such as outmigrating smolts or returning adults within the mainstem Columbia River, do not 

proportionally translate into performance benefits when measured at the end of spawning in the subbasins. This is 

clearly evident in examining the Beverton-Holt function disaggregated into life stage segments. 6

 / The AHA model is to be updated formally to address this computational need (Lars Mobrand, personal 

communication). The procedure used in our analysis involved the use of a supplemental EDT output called the Hits 

file, which contains detailed results for each life history trajectory. These results were disaggregated to life stage, 

then used to compute weighted average performance parameter values for each life stage. This step was necessary 

for just the baseline model run, giving an analytical reference that could then be used to compute final adult life 

stage values for each action scenario. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-7

A set of scenarios was modeled using AHA representing baseline conditions, current conditions, 

and combinations of actions aimed at tributary habitat, mainstem Columbia River factors, and 

hatchery fish management. Baseline conditions represent average conditions for the migration 

years 1980 to 2001 which represents the time period that recruit-per-spawner data were used for 

the ICTRT viability assessments. Current conditions are intended to generally reflect recent 

years (2002 to 2006) measures implemented for mainstem Columbia hydrosystem predation, 

estuary, and harvest. The benefits of these actions are not represented in the baseline abundance 

and productivity estimates. Population parameter estimates derived by the ICTRT in Section 6 

reflect baseline conditions. Prospective actions to be taken in the mainstem Columbia River and 

estuary that were modeled include: 

3⁄4 Predator management – aimed at reducing predation rates caused by avian and 

northern pikeminnow; 

3⁄4 Downstream juvenile passage improvements – measures to improve survival at 

each of the mainstem dams; 

3⁄4 Columbia estuary habitat improvements – measures to enhance habitat conditions 

within the Columbia estuary; and 

3⁄4 Harvest – regulatory measures to reduce or hold harvest impacts in the mainstem 

Columbia River to current levels. 

Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current conditions, then 

adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. The effects of hatchery 

steelhead programs on genetic fitness—hence performance—of natural-origin fish were 

incorporated for each scenario using AHA. 

Actions that would control the number of stray hatchery fish in subbasins where feasible were 

modeled as part of another set of scenarios. In this case, the full set of scenarios aimed at 

tributary habitat and mainstem factors was modeled with and without these actions. 

The effects of potential changes in marine survival were also modeled with a few alternatives. 

All of the scenarios described above were modeled using an average marine survival rate 

corresponding to the average during both the baseline and current periods. We then modeled two 

more scenarios, which consisted of all actions combined, using marine survival rates set to 

+/- 25% of the average applied to the other scenarios. This range is consistent with how average 

marine survival appears to vary between periods of years for Mid-Columbia River steelhead.7

These results are intended to reflect outcomes of implementing recovery actions under 

alternative possible future marine survival regimes that might either decline or improve 

compared to the baseline average. 

As noted previously, we formulated a module for AHA that enabled us to efficiently analyze the 

various combinations of tributary and mainstem action scenarios, in conjunction with hatchery 

management actions. 

 

7

 / Inter annual variability in marine survival can be incorporated into AHA but estimates of population parameters 

are then made in a way that represents the average marine survival over the years used in modeling. We simplified 

the analysis by just applying an average marine survival to represent the modeled outcome within a period of years. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-8

Table 10-1 lists the various combinations of actions and effects that were modeled for each 

population using AHA. 

Table 10-1. Combinations of actions and effects modeled for each steelhead population using the 

AHA model. See text for definitions of baseline and current. Action groups are listed in columns, 

corresponding to where they would be implemented. Hatchery effects are those associated with 

modeled changes in genetic fitness of natural-origin fish due to hatchery strays. Codes are: B – 

baseline condition, C – current condition, B/C – baseline/current condition (assumed to be the 

same for both), A – actions implemented. 

Tributary Mainstem Columbia Ocean 

Scenario Trib 

habitat 

Hatch 

effects Pred control Hydro pass Est habitat Harv regs Marine surv 

Baseline B/C B/C B B B B B/C 

Current B/C B/C C C C C B/C 

Trib habitat actions A B/C C C C C B/C 

Mainstem actions A B/C A C C C B/C 

- add more A B/C A A C C B/C 

- add more A B/C A A A C B/C 

- add more A B/C A A A A B/C 

Hatch fish actions A A A A A A B/C 

Alter marine surv A A A A A A +/- 25% 

In addition to these scenarios, the Deschutes Westside population was modeled with and without 

passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex to illustrate the added benefit of providing passage 

and re-establishing natural production. 

10.1.2 Tributary Habitat Effectiveness 

Details of how action effectiveness was modeled are described below. 

Non-Passage Actions 

The EDT Scenario Builder tool is used to capture assumptions about the effectiveness of an 

action in altering attributes of habitat within a river system. EDT habitat characterizations consist 

of ratings of 46 environmental attributes (flow, sediment, temperature, etc.) that describe the 

conditions of each stream reach delineated within a river system (see Lestelle et al. 2004). The 

characterizations are meant to represent an average state of conditions within a time period, i.e., 

current period, pre-development period, or a future period corresponding to the outcome of one 

or more habitat actions. 

The Scenario Builder can be inefficient and awkward to use with large numbers of actions, 

multiple watersheds, large numbers of stream reaches, and multiple time lags in evaluating 

action effects. This can result in inconsistencies in how actions are defined with respect to their 

effectiveness. To minimize potential inconsistencies, an auxiliary tool (Action Mapper) was 

formulated for this project to define effectiveness through a set of systematic steps for all actions. 

The tool—built in Excel—helped ensure that action effectiveness was being formulated 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-9

consistently across populations by providing more transparency in defining effectiveness 

assumptions and giving improved documentation. 

A total of 93 distinct actions within eight strategy types were assembled from Section 9 into a 

library of actions for processing. (Aspects of some actions overlapped with others, which 

required some consideration in assigning effectiveness values to reduce redundancy and 

overestimation of action benefits.) The action library is listed in Table 10-2 showing which 

actions were applied in each of the five subbasins. Although we summarize the library at the 

subbasin scale, actions are actually applied at the individual population scale, as well as, all areas 

downstream of the population boundary in the subbasin that are used for rearing and migration. 

The Action Mapper was used to derive the effectiveness values for all action-stream reachattribute combinations applicable to the analysis, which were then loaded into the Scenario 

Builder for input into EDT. The derivation consisted of two parts: 

1. Part 1 - Mapping the precise geographic distributions of stream reaches that would be 

affected by the actions within each population, and 

2. Part 2 - Quantitatively defining the various elements used to compose action 

effectiveness in the analysis. 

The steps associated with each part provided a consistent process for deriving effectiveness 

values for each action. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-10

Table 10-2. Tributary habitat actions modeled in each subbasin. 

Strategy and action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Land acquisition/conservation x x x x x 

 Protect rare functioning habitats x x x x 

 BMPs to conserve eco processes x x x x x 

 Cooperative Agreements x x 

 Special mgmt designations x x 

 Increase wild-scenic status x 

 Protect access to key habitats x 

 Public lands protection x x 

 Waterway setbacks x x 

 Enforce floodplain regs x x 

 Natural Area Overlay Zone x x 

 Legislate priority areas x x 

 Outreach to users and managers x 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal x x x x x 

 Add irrigation screening x x x x x 

 Improve irrigation screening x x x x x 

 Pelton Round Butte passage x 

 Reduce push up dams x 

 Fish ladder construction x x x 

 Maintain passage facilities x x 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain x x x x 

 Reconnect side channels x x x x 

 Reintroduce beaver x x x 

 Manage beavers x 

 Restore wet meadows x 

 Dike removal x x 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel 

structure/complexity 

 Restore natural channel form x x x x x 

 Large wood enhancement x x x x x 

 Add structure x x 

 Stabilize streambanks x x x x x 

 Build pool weirs x x 

 BMP bridge maintenance x 

 LWD education x 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities x x x x x 

 Improve grazing practices x x x x x 

 Eradicate invasive plants x x 

 Fencing x x x x 

 Off-stream livestock watering x x 

 Riparian plantings x 

 Increase riparian shading x 

 No cultivation buffer zones x x 

 Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands x 

 Remove riparian roads x x 

 Riparian protection x 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-11

Strategy and action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

 Ag water conservation x x x x 

 Improve irrigation conveyance x x x x 

 Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run x 

 Urban conservation x 

 Convert water rights x x x x x 

 Regulate water withdrawals x x x x x 

 Other nat hydrograph measures x x x x x 

 Water retention structures x 

 Increase pool habitat (beav ponds) x 

 Floodplain aquifer recharge x 

 Enhance hyporheic flows x 

 Recharge shallow aquifers x 

 Aquifer storage & recovery x 

 Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II x 

 Umatilla Basin Project Phase III x 

 ISWRs x x 

 H2O rights transfer downstream x x 

 Water storage investigate x 

 No new H2O appropriation x 

 Criteria for new H2O appropriation x 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

 Manage irrigation return flow x x x 

 Measures to improve DO x x 

 Reduce chemical pollution x x x 

 Implement Ag WQP x x 

 Other water quality measures x x x x x 

 TMDL monitoring x x x 

 Increase riparian shading x 

 Reduce mine discharge toxicants x 

 Animal feeding BMPs x 

 Point source pollution controls x x 

 H2O quality mgmt plans x x 

 Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers x 

 Municipal stormwater mgmt x 

 Waterway alteration permitting x 

 Permitting for H2O quality activities x 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

 Convert till farming x x x 

 Convert to perennial crops x x 

 Implement IFPnet plans x 

 BMPS to reduce soil erosion x x 

 Remove junipers x 

 Restore native upland plants x x x x 

 Improve/remove forest roads x x x x 

 Reforest/fuels management x 

 Upland demo projects x x x 

 Invasive plant mgmt & junipers x 

 BMPs on land uses x x x 

 Remove noxious weeds x 

 CREP & CCRP buffers x 

 Outreach to upland users x 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-12

Part 1 for deriving action effectiveness asks: What stream reaches will be affected by each of the 

actions? The stream system in each of the five subbasins is delineated into a large number of 

reaches in EDT, each reach being precisely defined in how it is connected both upstream and 

downstream. In addition, reaches are aggregated into population units using the ICTRT 

population boundaries. The number of reaches in each subbasin that actions could potentially 

affect is listed below: 

Subbasin No. reaches

Fifteenmile 49 

Deschutes 206 

John Day 1,158 

Umatilla 331 

Walla Walla 220 

Total 1,964 

The planning teams identified the stream, and in many cases portions of streams, where each 

action would be targeted. They also designated which streams, or portions thereof, would be 

given high priority (priority 1) for action implementation or a lower priority (priority 2) for 

treatment (see Section 9). 

Some actions would involve the direct manipulation of conditions within a stream reach, such as 

by riparian fencing along the reach, while others would act in areas removed from the stream 

(such as in the uplands) but would then affect reaches draining the affected area. In both cases, 

there would be one or more stream reaches affected within an area of highest influence by the 

action, with the potential for a dispersal of effects then moving downstream to other reaches. 

The Action Mapper was used to map the assumed distribution of effects associated with each 

action, as streams and reaches designated for action implementation were described in Section 9. 

A linear form of mapping is used in how reaches are shown arranged in the tools, lending itself 

to doing this task efficiently. For many actions, effects were assumed to not continue 

downstream beyond the area of direct influence due to the many factors that would need to be 

taken into account, such as other influences affecting downstream conditions. Generally, actions 

meant to affect flow and the hydrograph were extended downstream the furthest, as these actions 

would presumably be designed for that purpose. 

The second part of deriving action effectiveness consisted of explicitly defining distinct 

elements—or factors—that are used to compose the overall effectiveness value applied in the 

analysis. Five elements of action effectiveness were recognized (Figure 10-3), each acting as a 

scalar to determine how effective an action would be in moving an attribute’s current baseline 

rating back toward the undeveloped state. Combined, these scalars produce the realized

effectiveness REffect for action i, at lag time t, for attribute a used in modeling the action as 

follows: 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-13

ati i i Lag ti Schedule ti Attribute ia REffect Effect Intensity ,, ×= × , × , × , 

where Effecti is the potential effectiveness of action i

i Intensity is a scalar for defining the scale at which action i is to be applied 

Lag ,ti is a scalar that defines how much of the potential effectiveness of action i will be 

achieved at time t in the future (25 or 100 years in the future) 

Schedule ,ti is a scalar that defines an implementation schedule effect, i.e., whether 

implementation is delayed to some point in the future, whereby the amount of the 

potential effectiveness of action i would be reduced at time t in the future (25 or 

100 years out) 

Attribute ,ia is a scalar that defines whether the potential effectiveness of action i for 

attribute a is the full amount (scalar of 1) or reduced due to an attribute effect. A 

scalar of 0 would indicate that the attribute is not affected by action i. 

Action

Potential 

effectiveness

Intensity 

scalar

Time lag 

scalar

Schedule 

scalar

Attribute 

scalar

Realized 

effectiveness

Maximum effect of action type when 

fully implemented in targeted area

Scale of implementation within 

targeted geographic area

Amount of potential effectiveness 

realized after 25 or 100 years

Delay in realizing potential effect 

due to implementation schedule

Amount of reduced effectiveness 

associated with specific attribute

Factors for defining habitat 

action effectiveness

Figure 10-3. Action effectiveness elements. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-14

An action’s potential effectiveness ( Effecti ) identifies the magnitude of effect that might 

reasonably be expected when the action would be implemented as fully as feasible within a 

geographic area. For example, how much of a stream reach 5 miles in length might reasonably 

be treated with a riparian restoration action (called Restore Riparian Communities in Table 10-2) 

if the action was focused on that reach—and, in turn, to what extent would the action restore 

attributes largely tied to the riparian condition in the pre-altered state? If the action remained in 

effect until its full benefit was to be realized—for this action perhaps 100 years—what would be 

its measured effectiveness at that time? In this case, we could reasonably argue that the full 5 

miles could be treated and that after 100 years certain attributes (e.g., temperature, wood loading) 

might be restored completely (100%) to their pre-altered state. We assumed for the riparian 

restoration action a somewhat more conservative assumption—for this action, we applied an 

effectiveness value of 80%. 

The potential effectiveness defines the maximum, yet reasonable, extent of effectiveness that 

might occur for the action of that type. Considering this aspect of an action’s effectiveness 

provides a straightforward way of identifying a base effectiveness, to which the other scalars can 

then be applied. The potential effectiveness value assigned to each action is an assumption, 

since there are usually limited empirical data for defining the value with high degree of certainty. 

The assignment of effectiveness values to actions in recovery planning is often done through a 

team effort, either by consensus or as an average of values from different individuals (Mobrand 

Biometrics Inc 2003; Thompson et al. in press). Here, in this recovery planning process, the 

values were developed by one person using values from many previous efforts and who has 

facilitated a wide variety of team-oriented approaches in the Pacific Northwest.8 This provided 

a consistent means of assigning effectiveness values for the entire set of actions considered 

across the five subbasins. To simplify the task of assigning potential effectiveness values, 

selections were made from 6 different levels, ranging between no effect to very high (Table 10-

3) (See Appendix H for details). 

Table 10-3. Potential effectiveness levels assigned to actions. 

Effectiveness 

level Definition Effect 

1 Very high 0.80 

2 Moderately high 0.56 

3 Moderate 0.32 

4 Low 0.08 

5 Negligible 0.01 

6 No effect 0.00 

 

8

 / Effectiveness modeling here was performed by Larry Lestelle, one of the principal architects of EDT, who has 

facilitated numerous EDT analyses in many watersheds of the Pacific Northwest. The perspective gained and actual 

effectiveness values used in those recovery planning efforts, in which the extent and causes of habitat degradation 

were assessed from pre-development conditions, gave an informed, consistent way of considering effectiveness of 

moving habitat conditions back toward their prior state. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-15

The intensity scalar ( i Intensity ) defines the average scale at which an action would actually be 

expected to be applied to the areas identified for treatment. In most cases, we would not expect 

actions to be applied at the maximum extent possible, given constraints imposed by land 

ownership patterns, various on-going land uses, and costs. The planning teams identified 

streams, and in many cases portions of streams, where specific actions would be targeted. They 

did not identify the extent that the actions would be applied within each of the targeted streams. 

Continuing with the example of a five-mile reach where a riparian action would be applied, what 

portion of the reach would actually be expected to be treated? It would be reasonable to expect 

that some reaches might be treated in their entirety, while others would be treated at a much 

lower rate due to land ownership issues or other constraints imposed by on-going land uses. 

Actual project planning for implementing the tributary habitat actions will involve identification 

of opportunities and constraints and closely working with local stakeholders and planning 

entities. 

Lacking some detailed planning information, we assigned an assumed level of intensity for each 

action, depending on action type and our understanding of how such actions have been 

implemented in the past. Initially, we considered varying the intensity scalar by the size of the 

subbasin (less intensity to larger subbasins). However, the larger subbasins also support multiple 

steelhead populations. We concluded that the analysis should be comparable between 

populations and applied identical intensity values between subbasins for the same action. 

Differences in how the actions would be applied in actuality are assumed to be reflected in the 

distributions of actions identified by the planning teams. To simplify the task of assigning 

intensity values, we chose from five different levels of intensity, ranging between negligible to 

very high (Table 10-4)(See Appendix H for details.) 

Table 10-4. Intensity levels assigned to actions. 

Intensity level Definition Scalar 

1 Very high 0.85 

2 High 0.40 

3 Moderate 0.15 

4 Low 0.05 

5 Negligible 0.02 

The lag scalar ( Lag ,ti ) defines how much of the potential effectiveness of an action will be 

achieved after a period of some number of years into the future. The full effectiveness of some 

actions would be realized immediately upon implementation (e.g., barrier removal), while others 

would require a lengthy time period to realize full effectiveness, such as riparian restoration. 

Two time lags were analyzed: 25 and 100 years into the future. All actions were assumed to be 

fully effective (lag scalar = 1) after 100 years, whereas the scalar was <1 at 25 years for those 

actions requiring a longer period to achieve full effectiveness. (See Appendix H for details.) 

Actions that would mature in effectiveness over time are those associated with maturing of 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-16

native vegetation, channel and floodplain reformation and stabilization, and the gradual 

restoration of more normative hydrographs as best management practices are instituted and 

realized. 

The implementation schedule scalar ( Schedule ,ti ) defines how the schedule for implementing an 

action—relative to what might be considered year 0 of a recovery program—would affect 

realized effectiveness in either year 25 or year 100 of the program. Use of this scalar in the 

analysis recognizes that the recovery programs will be long-term in implementation due to their 

very extensive scope. Only a small fraction of the program can be expected to be implemented 

in the first year of the program. The scalar accounts for the reduced number of years an action 

might be operating between year 0 of the program and year 25 or year 100 considered in the 

analysis. The scalar Schedule ,ti can be computed as: 

t

impt

ti Y

YY

Schedule −

, = 

where Yt is the number of years in the future of interest, here either 25 or 100 years 

Yimp is the year number into the program when action i is implemented. 

If, for example, an action’s potential effectiveness is 80% with a lag scalar of 50% at year 25, but 

it is implemented in year 10 of the program instead of year 0, then it’s realized effectiveness in 

year 25 would be (ignoring intensity and attribute scalars): 

Potential effectiveness 0.8 

Lag scalar at 25 years 0.5 

Schedule scalar at year 25 =15/25 = 0.6 

Realized effectiveness at 25 years = 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.6 

 = 0.24 

The planning teams for each subbasin generally identified how many years it would take before 

each action could be expected to be fully implemented in the subbasin. Actions were classified 

as being implemented immediately or in the short term (taking between 0-3 years from the start 

of the program to fully implement), or over an intermediate term (taking 4-14 years from 

program start to complete), or over a longer term (taking 15-25 years to complete). We 

approximated the implementation year for each action by taking the midpoint of the appropriate 

interval of years for completing the action and dividing by two (hence the median year by when 

half of the action would be expected to have begun). 

The attribute scalar ( Attribute ,ia ) defines whether the potential effectiveness of an action will be 

the full amount (scalar = 1) or reduced due to an attribute effect. Some actions will have no 

effect on some attributes (scalar = 0). For each action, attributes were identified as being 

affected or not affected. We assigned the scalar to be 1 for any attribute that would be affected 

except for those that characterize some aspect of sediment, flow, and temperature. We set the 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-17

scalar for these to be 0.75, recognizing that these attributes are broadly affected by watershed 

conditions and can be more difficult to influence than attributes driven mainly by site-specific 

conditions. It is noted, however, that the distributions of many actions were identified by the 

planning teams to extend well into the headwater areas of streams. (See Appendix H for details.) 

The example shown above is extended below to include all of the scalars, here shown with a 

moderate intensity of application as applied to the attribute maximum water temperature: 

Potential effectiveness 0.8 

Intensity scalar 0.15 

Lag scalar at 25 years 0.5 

Schedule scalar at year 25 0.6 

Temperature attribute scalar 0.75 

Realized effectiveness at 25 years = 0.8 x 0.15 x 0.5 x 0.6 x 0.75 

 = 0.027 

In this example, the resulting realized effectiveness is calculated to be 0.027, meaning here that 

in the affected stream reach the maximum water temperature rating would be moved 2.7% of the 

distance between the current and the pre-altered ratings.9 

Fish Passage Actions 

The planning teams identified actions to provide for fish passage at sites known or assumed to be 

full or partial physical barriers to fish migration. Restoration of fish passage at each of these 

sites was modeled if the barrier had been identified and incorporated into the EDT database 

when the reach characterization was completed during the subbasin planning process. In some 

cases, these barriers had not been incorporated. In those instances, our analysis assumed that the 

problem had already been resolved.10 Except in the case of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex in 

the Deschutes system, we modeled passage actions as providing full (100%) passage for both 

upstream and downstream migrations. 

The Pelton-Round Butte Complex is the most significant barrier to fish migration addressed in 

the analysis. Passage around this hydro-electric project on the mainstem Deschutes River was 

terminated in 1968, blocking anadromous fish from returning to major spawning areas in that 

river. Work is currently underway to restore both upstream and downstream passage at the 

 

9

 / To illustrate the effect, the current condition for maximum water temperature within a stream reach might have a 

rating of 3.5, which is equivalent to peak temperatures reaching 22-25 C on multiple occasions during a month. If 

the historic temperature—given what can reasonably be assumed about riparian condition, wet meadows, flow, 

etc—was much cooler, here having a rating of 1.0 meaning that temperatures normally did not exceed 16 C during 

the month, then the action would result in a rating of 3.43 ((3.5 – 1) x (1 – 0.027) + 1= 3.43), a very slight 

improvement from the current condition. The ratings for each attribute are used in the EDT rules to compute 

survival effects by life stage and species (see Lestelle et al. 2004). 10 / We left the reach characterizations intact as they had been formulated during the subbasin planning process. If a 

barrier had not been incorporated in that process, it suggests that a passage problem had already been rectified at the 

time that the planning process was performed or there is uncertainty about the true state of the potential barrier. 

Regardless, our modeling in such case was performed assuming that a barrier did not exist if it had not been 

identified in the EDT database. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-18

facilities. Uncertainty exists about how effective passage will be due to the nature of conditions 

within Lake Billy Chinook. In our analysis, we applied passage assumptions provided by Don 

Ratliff with Portland General Electric (personal communication), listed below: 

Upstream passage effectiveness 99%

Downstream passage effectiveness 75%

As part of the action to restore passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex, we also incorporated 

an option to restore passage at water diversion sites within Whychus Creek. This aspect had not 

been explicitly called for in actions provided by the planning team. However, Whychus Creek 

provides the greatest amount of potential spawning habitat for the Deschutes Westside steelhead 

population upstream of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex—it is logical to assume that barriers in 

that stream would be addressed. 

10.1.3 All-H Integration Across Life Cycle 

The AHA model was used to incorporate potential effects of hatchery programs on the genetic 

fitness of the naturally-produced populations. 

Genetic Fitness Effects 

The AHA model incorporates key concepts and assumptions about the effects of genetic 

interactions between hatchery and natural fish built on the work of Lynch and O’Hely (2001) and 

Ford (2002), with further development of those ideas by geneticists working with the Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (Mobrand – Jones & Stokes 2005). Fitness is computed in the model 

using Ford’s (2002) modeling equations. 

Ford (2002) used a quantitative genetic model to examine how the combined effects of selection 

in two environments, hatchery and wild, can influence the distribution of a phenotypic trait and 

the fitness of a salmon population. The model incorporates assumptions about the strength of 

selection in hatchery and wild environments, the rate of exchange between the two populations, 

the maximum reproductive rates of the population in each environment, and the duration of 

hatchery influence. Modeling results showed that when the hatchery population is closed to gene 

flow from the natural population, even low levels of gene flow from the hatchery population to 

the natural population will shift the natural population’s mean phenotype so that it approaches 

the optimal phenotype in the hatchery. If the hatchery population receives gene flow from the 

natural population, such as by incorporating natural fish into the brood stock, the shift in the 

natural population’s mean phenotype is reduced. While the fitness consequences of such shifts 

depended on model assumptions, a decline of over 30% in fitness occurred over a broad range of 

parameter values. When selection was assumed to be relatively strong, the fitness of the natural 

population was reduced by 80% or more if the hatchery population was closed to immigration 

from the natural population. The natural population was protected from such fitness decline only 

when gene flow from the hatchery to the natural population approached zero. Weaker selection 

produced less dramatic fitness loss, but even very weak selection could produce large reductions 

in fitness if the hatchery population was closed to immigration from the natural population. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-19

The HSRG concluded (Mobrand et al. 2005) on the basis of AHA modeling that stray hatcheryorigin fish from genetically-segregated populations can have a significant genetic influence on 

natural-origin populations after several generations when their proportion of the total naturally 

spawning population exceeds 5%. Consequently, they have recommended that hatchery-origin 

spawners from segregated programs not be allowed to exceed 5% of the natural-origin spawners 

as an upper-limit guideline. The HSRG is using the AHA model to evaluate potential genetic 

interactions between hatchery and natural fish associated with hatchery programs in much of the 

Pacific Northwest, including within the Columbia Basin. In most cases, the model is applied 

using the HSRG’s default parameter settings for the model (Lars Mobrand, personal 

communication). 

In examining genetic effects associated with default model settings, we concluded that one 

modification was needed. The default setting for what Ford (2002) defines as the optimal trait 

value in the hatchery environment results in a rapid and severe decline in the natural-origin 

population’s fitness (recruits per spawner) as the proportion of strays exceeds about 5% (dashed 

line in Figure 10-4). As the proportion of strays continues to increase, equilibrium fitness 

bottoms out at approximately 20% of the natural-origin population unaffected by strays. (The 

dashed line in Figure 10-4 corresponds to the line in Ford’s Figure 3A associated with a theta of -

20, which can be seen there as having a very severe effect relative to other possibilities.) We 

find this level of severity to be unrealistic as it would have already caused extinction to several 

Mid-C steelhead populations. Lars Mobrand (personal communication) reports that the HSRG 

has reached the same conclusion, though they address these by truncating the effect on fitness at 

50%, which they suggest is a likely worst case effect. Truncation in this manner results in a very 

precipitous decline in fitness at relatively low levels of strays, then an abrupt floor on fitness 

effect when 50% is reached. The 50% effect occurs with about 7-8% of the natural spawning 

population consisting of strays. 

We assume that a 50% floor on fitness effect is reasonable and have applied it in our modeling. 

However, we modified the optimal trait value in the hatchery such that a floor of 50% would be 

attained while providing for a smooth transition across a relatively wide range of strays (solid 

line in Figure 10-4). This setting for the hatchery optimal trait value also provides a less 

precipitous decline in fitness though it still results in a very strong effect when strays are 10% or 

more of the naturally spawning population. 

In our analysis of genetic effects of hatchery fish, we applied the AHA model primarily to 

consider interactions of stray hatchery fish with the natural-origin populations being analyzed. 

The average proportions of strays in the naturally spawning populations for the baseline and 

current time periods used in the analysis are identified in Appendix B in the spawner 

composition SS/D metric for each population. These proportions would decline with increased 

natural-origin run sizes for scenarios involving tributary habitat actions, since numbers of strays 

would be unchanged. 

Prospective actions to manage the numbers of strays were analyzed for the two Deschutes 

populations. Although there are no significant proposed actions to reduce strays in the John Day 

River populations, we do plan to model reductions in the future for reference information. The 

numbers of strays in the natural spawning populations would be reduced to 5% of the number 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-20

entering the spawning areas, such as by using weirs. We assumed that the ratio of Round Butte 

hatchery strays to out-of-DPS hatchery strays would remain unchanged from the baseline ratios. 

The number of strays that enter a subbasin could increase above baseline levels, however, due to 

improved survival in the mainstem Columbia River associated with actions to improve survival. 

We also used the model to incorporate genetic effects for the within-population hatchery 

program associated with the ten populations analyzed, that being the Umatilla supplementation 

hatchery program. Potential genetic effects of that program were incorporated into our analysis 

by using the modeling inputs for the program as being applied by the HSRG. 

We used the default parameter settings in AHA to analyze fitness except as noted above. 

Fitness with two levels of optimal trait value in 

hatchery

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Proportion wild origin spawners in nature

Fitness

Figure 10-4. Change in fitness in relation to proportion of strays used in AHA modeling. Dashed 

line represents the default AHA settings based on Ford (2002). The solid line represents the 

relationship used for modified AHA in these analyses. 

Out-of-Subbasin Factors and Actions 

Out-of-subbasin actions were modeled using projected survival improvements as presented in 

Table 10-5. Projected survival improvements are consistent with values given in the most recent 

Biological Opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries on October 30, 2007. Use of the BiOp survival 

improvement values in no way implies endorsement of the validity of the estimates or the 

adequacy of the actions for recovery. At this time, the BiOp survival improvement estimates for 

the hydrosystem, predation, and estuary actions are the only estimates available for these 

proposed actions. 

Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current condition, then 

adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. The effects of hatchery 

steelhead programs on genetic fitness—hence performance—of natural-origin fish were 

incorporated for each scenario using AHA. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-21

Table 10-5. Out-of-subbasin survival improvements for Mid-C steelhead populations. 

Improvement factors are expressed as multipliers on survival and are derived as ratios of 

estimated survival in one period divided by the previous period. 

Mainstem river 

survival factor Affected populations Current/base 

ratio Future/current 

Hydro 

 1 dam Fifteenmile 1.031 1.002 

 2 dam Deschutes 1.064 1.051 

 3 dam John Day, Umatilla 1.103 1.100 

 4 dam Walla Walla 1.143 1.122 

Predation 

 Avian All 0.997 1.034 

 Pikeminnow All 1.000 1.010 

Estuary All 1.003 1.057 

Harvest All 1.040 1.000 

10.2 Analysis of Tributary Habitat Action Effectiveness 

Results of the tributary action analysis are presented for each population below. Changes in 

performance measures associated with each action scenario are presented for intrinsic 

productivity, equilibrium (or average) abundance, and life history diversity, as these metrics 

were described earlier in this section. 

For each population, the following results are presented in tabular and/or graphic form: 

3⁄4 Summary of level of action coverage, reporting 

- Stream miles within the subbasin relevant to the population 

- Number of actions applied; 

- Cumulative miles of stream potentially affected by all actions (ignoring intensity 

of application); 

- Ratio of cumulative miles potentially affected by stream miles relevant to 

population; 

- Average action effectiveness applied, weighted by the number of stream miles 

potentially affected per each action; 

- Average adjusted effectiveness, weighted by the number of stream miles 

potentially affected, where effectiveness is adjusted for all scalars (such as 

intensity of treatment) except the attribute scalar (therefore the actual adjusted 

effectiveness is lower for some attributes); and 

3⁄4 Summary of estimated percent changes in population performance for each population 

due to the tributary habitat actions for each scenario; and 

3⁄4 Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population performance 

measures resulting from tributary habitat actions. Habitat potential here is assumed to be 

equal to the population performance that would have occurred associated with the pre-
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-22

development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed 

with baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place; and 

3⁄4 Maps illustrating geographic areas that are currently in protected status (wilderness areas, 

proposed wilderness areas, and municipal watersheds, USFS 2009 personal 

communication); stream reaches where priority 1 and priorities 1 and 2 protection 

actions are proposed; and, restoration benefits from priority 1 and priorities 1 and 2 

restoration actions for all reaches. 

Genetic effects to populations due to hatchery-origin fish spawning with natural-origin fish are 

not considered in this part of the analysis. Genetic effects are incorporated as part of the all-H 

integration. 

 

10.2.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions in the Fifteenmile subbasin is greater than for 

any of the coverage amounts for the other populations analyzed. The ratios of cumulative miles 

potentially affected by actions to total stream miles available exceed 20 for both Priority 1 and 

Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The adjusted weighted average action effectiveness values show that 

actual treated areas would be far less than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should 

note that the cumulative miles affected by the actions include stream miles outside the 

population’s boundaries as defined by spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the 

migration corridor and downstream rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the 

mainstem Columbia River. Table 10-6 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average 

action effectiveness values applied to the Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population. 

Table 10-6. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population. Total stream miles are those 

modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for actions without 

considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted effectiveness values 

are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted action effectiveness 

values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. 

Population: Fifteenmile Creek 

Total stream miles in subbasin: 134 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of actions: 39 39 

Cum miles affected by actions: 2,799 2,987 

Ratio cum miles affected to total miles: 20.9 22.4 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.253 0.270 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.050 0.051 

1/ Weighted by stream miles affected per action 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-23

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead 

from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-7 and 10-8, and figures 10-5 and 10-6. Estimated 

increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are relatively large 

for each performance measure for both 25 and 100 year scenarios (Figure 10-5). Between 50-

70% of habitat potential (i.e., historical potential) for both abundance and productivity is 

estimated to be achieved for the four scenarios considered (Figure 10-6). Nearly 100% of habitat 

potential would be achieved as expressed by the life history diversity metric. It should be noted 

that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include any loss in 

performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays (fitness loss is 

assumed to be zero for this population). 

Table 10-7. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Fifteenmile Creek winter 

steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 108% 134% 

 Priority 1 & 2 119% 147% 

Productivity Priority 1 48% 90% 

 Priority 1 & 2 55% 100% 

Diversity index Priority 1 166% 175% 

 Priority 1 & 2 180% 185% 

Table 10-8. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population performance 

measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead. 

Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the pre-development condition 

in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with baseline (i.e., postdevelopment) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 32% 

 Priority 1 67% 75% 

 Priority 1 & 2 70% 79% 

Productivity Baseline 35% 

 Priority 1 52% 67% 

 Priority 1 & 2 55% 71% 

Diversity index Baseline 34% 

 Priority 1 91% 95% 

 Priority 1 & 2 96% 98% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-24

 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead 

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-5. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Fifteenmile Creek winter 

steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-25

 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead 

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-6. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Fifteenmile Creek 

winter steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the predevelopment condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-26

Figure 10-7. Map of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population showing geographic areas that 

are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed protection 

management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed 

restoration actions for all reaches. Restoration benefits are only shown for the Fifteenmile Creek 

watershed because no effectiveness modeling was completed for the other watersheds in the 

population. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-27

Figure 10-8. Map of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population showing geographic areas that 

are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection management actions 

(priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit 

from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. Restoration benefits are only 

shown for the Fifteenmile Creek watershed because no effectiveness modeling was completed 

for the other watersheds in the population. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-28

10.2.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Deschutes River Eastside population is 

comparable to the coverages applied to most of the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. 

The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles available are 

approximately 10 for both Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The adjusted weighted average 

action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far less than suggested by 

these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles affected by the actions 

include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by spawning distribution—

encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream rearing areas down to the 

confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 10-9 summarizes tributary 

habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values applied to the Deschutes River 

Eastside summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-9. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population. Total stream miles 

are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for actions 

without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. Effectiveness 

values shown apply to the entire Deschutes subbasin. 

Population: Deschutes River Eastside 

Total stream miles in Deschutes subbasin: 802 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of actions: 38 38 

Total stream miles Eastside: 360 360 

Cum miles affected by actions: 3,363 4,145 

Ratio cum miles affected to total miles: 9.3 11.5 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.136 0.170 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.038 0.043 

1/ Value shown is for entire Deschutes subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River Eastside summer 

steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-10 and 10-11, and figures 10-9 and 10-

10. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are 

relatively large for both 25 and 100 year scenarios (Figure 10-9). Between approximately 50-

70% of habitat potential (i.e., historical potential) for abundance is estimated to be achieved for 

the four scenarios considered (Figure 10-10). The amount of habitat potential reached in 

productiviy is somewhat less, roughly between 25-45% of potential. These results indicate that 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-29

the habitat actions would have a greater effect on habitat quantity, since abundance is affected by 

both the quantity and quality of habitat, and productivity is primarily affected by habitat quality. 

Increases in water flow and opening of fish passage barriers would tend to affect habitat quantity 

more than quality characteristics on the whole. The largest amount of habitat potential regained 

by the actions would occur for the life history diversity measure. This measure of diversity 

reflects how much of the habitat could support sustainable life histories. The increase in 

diversity indicates that habitat quality and removal of barriers is sufficient to result in a 

substantial expansion of sustainable distribution within the geographic area of interest. 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-10. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River Eastside 

summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 69% 107% 

 Priority 1 & 2 102% 139% 

Productivity Priority 1 48% 98% 

 Priority 1 & 2 79% 143% 

Diversity index Priority 1 137% 188% 

 Priority 1 & 2 174% 219% 

Table 10-11. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Deschutes River 

Eastside summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed 

with baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 28% 

 Priority 1 48% 58% 

 Priority 1 & 2 57% 67% 

Productivity Baseline 18% 

 Priority 1 27% 36% 

 Priority 1 & 2 32% 44% 

Diversity index Baseline 25% 

 Priority 1 60% 73% 

 Priority 1 & 2 69% 80% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-30

 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Figure 10-9. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River Eastside 

summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-31

 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-10. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Deschutes River 

Eastside summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-32

Figure 10-11. Map of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed 

protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) 

proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-33

Figure 10-12. Map of the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-34

10.2.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Deschutes River Westside population 

is comparable to the coverages applied to most of the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. 

The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles available are 

approximately 10 or slightly greater for both Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The 

adjusted weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far 

less than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles 

affected by the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by 

spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream 

rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 

10-12 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-12. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population. Total stream miles 

are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for actions 

without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. Effectiveness 

values shown apply to the entire Deschutes subbasin. 

Population: Deschutes River Westside 

Total stream miles in Deschutes subbasin: 802 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of actions: 38 38 

Total stream miles in Westside: 442 442 

Cum miles affected by actions: 4,341 5,935 

Ratio cum miles affected to total miles: 9.8 13.4 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.136 0.170 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.038 0.043 

1/ Value shown is for entire Deschutes subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River Westside summer 

steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-13 and 10-14, and figures 10-13 and 10-

14. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are 

modest for both 25 and 100 year scenarios in the absence of passage at the Pelton-Round Butte 

Complex (Figure 10-13). Estimated increases in spawner abundance associated with habitat 

actions are <20%, even after 100 years of action maturation. Estimated increases in productivity 

are larger, being between 35-55% greater at the 100 year time period in the absence of passage. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-35

Increases in the life history diversity metric are smaller (<12%). With passage at Pelton-Round 

Butte Complex (and including passage at barriers in Whychus Creek), performance measures for 

abundance and life history diversity are markedly increased. In contrast, productivity is reduced 

slightly when passage occurs. A reduction in productivity can occur with passage due either to 

the opening of poorer quality habitat than below the barrier or to a toll on survival associated 

with fish passing the barrier. In this case, the slight drop in survival is apparently due to 

migration survival loss associated with passage (juvenile passage effectiveness was assumed to 

be 75%). 

Without fish passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex, less that 50% of the habitat potential (i.e., 

historical potential) for abundance is estimated to be achieved for the four scenarios considered 

(Figure 10-14). The amounts of potential for these scenarios are only slightly greater than the 

baseline level. These modest increases toward regaining lost habitat potential, given the extent of 

actions being applied, suggest that much of the historical potential that existed historically 

downstream of Pelton-Round Butte is already being achieved. This further suggests that one or 

more other factors are constraining the actual population’s performance besides that determined 

by habitat condition. One factor, loss in genetic fitness due to hatchery strays, is addressed as 

part of the All-H integration later in this section. We hypothesize that a second factor is 

interaction with the resident life history form of O. mykiss. Our analysis, including both our 

detailed tributary action assessment and the All-H integration, does not address how the resident 

form of O. mykiss, may be constraining the performance of the anadromous population. 

Table 10-13. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River Westside 

summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. Results are shown with and without passage at 

the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. The passage scenarios also include passage at water diversion 

barriers on Whychus Creek. 

No passage Passage

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 5% 12% 50% 59% 

 Priority 1 & 2 10% 17% 58% 68% 

Productivity Priority 1 22% 36% 19% 32% 

 Priority 1 & 2 33% 54% 31% 50% 

Diversity index Priority 1 7% 10% 67% 70% 

 Priority 1 & 2 9% 11% 69% 71% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-36

Table 10-14. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Deschutes River 

Westside summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed 

with baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. Results are shown 

with and without passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Passage scenarios include passage 

at diversions in Whychus Creek. 

No passage Passage

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 43% 43% 

 Priority 1 45% 48% 64% 68% 

 Priority 1 & 2 47% 50% 68% 72% 

Productivity Baseline 46% 46% 

 Priority 1 57% 63% 55% 61% 

 Priority 1 & 2 62% 71% 61% 69% 

Diversity index Baseline 52% 52% 

 Priority 1 56% 57% 87% 88% 

 Priority 1 & 2 57% 58% 88% 89% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-37

 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead

 No passage at Pelton-Round Butte Passage at Pelton-Round Butte

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Figure 10-13. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Deschutes River 

Westside summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions with and without passage at the 

Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Passage also includes passage at diversion barriers on Whychus 

Creek. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-38

 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead

 No passage at Pelton-Round Butte Passage at Pelton-Round Butte

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-14. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Deschutes River 

Westside summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. Results are shown with and without passage at 

Pelton-Round Butte Complex and Whychus Creek. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-39

Figure 10-15. Map of the Deschutes River Westside steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed 

protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) 

proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-40

Figure 10-16. Map of the Deschutes River Westside steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-41

10.2.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

population is comparable to the coverages applied to most of the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations. The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles 

available are approximately 10 or less for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The adjusted 

weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far less 

than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles 

affected by the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by 

spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream 

rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 

10-15 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-15. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population. Total 

stream miles are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted 

for actions without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. Effectiveness 

values shown apply to the entire John Day subbasin. 

Population: Lower Mainstem 

John Day River 

Total stream miles in John Day subbasin: 2,936 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of Lower John Day actions: 37 37 

Total stream miles in Lower John Day: 1,026 1,026 

Cum miles affected by LowJD actions: 7,825 10,789 

Ratio cum miles affected to total LowJD miles: 7.6 10.5 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.145 0.146 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.034 0.032 

1/ Value shown is for entire John Day subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Lower Mainstem John Day River 

summer steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-16 and 10-17, and figures 10-17 

and 10-18. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat 

actions are relatively moderate to large, depending on the performance measure (Figure 10-17). 

The smallest percentage increases occur for productivity. Even with these increases, performance 

for both productivity and abundance achieve only approximately 30-40% of habitat potential 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-42

with actions. Amounts of potential for the baseline are only approximately 20% or less for these 

metrics. (Figure 10-18). The largest amount of habitat potential regained by the actions would 

occur for the life history diversity measure. Between 40-60% of potential associated with this 

metric would be achieved with habitat actions. The life history diversity metric reflects how 

much of the habitat could support sustainable life histories. An increase in diversity indicates that 

habitat quality and removal of barriers (when present) is sufficient to result in a substantial 

expansion of sustainable distribution within the geographic area of interest. 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-16. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 64% 113% 

 Priority 1 & 2 97% 177% 

Productivity Priority 1 24% 57% 

 Priority 1 & 2 28% 83% 

Diversity index Priority 1 76% 121% 

 Priority 1 & 2 143% 192% 

Table 10-17. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed 

with baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 13% 

 Priority 1 21% 28% 

 Priority 1 & 2 26% 36% 

Productivity Baseline 23% 

 Priority 1 28% 36% 

 Priority 1 & 2 29% 42% 

Diversity index Baseline 23% 

 Priority 1 40% 50% 

 Priority 1 & 2 55% 66% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-43

Figure 10-17. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr

Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-44

Figure 10-18. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. 

 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-45

Figure 10-19. Map of the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority 

(priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-46

Figure 10-20. Map of the Lower Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-47

10.2.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the North Fork John Day River population 

is least in the range of coverages applied to the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. The 

ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles available are in the 

range of 5-6 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. One reason for low coverage in this 

geographic area is due to the presence of the North Fork Wilderness Area. The adjusted 

weighted average action effectiveness values also show that actual treated areas well less than 

values suggested by these ratios. The reader should note that the cumulative miles affected by 

the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by spawning 

distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream rearing areas 

down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 10-18 

summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values applied to 

the North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-18. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. Total stream 

miles are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for 

actions without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. Effectiveness 

values shown apply to the entire John Day subbasin. 

Population: North Fork John Day River 

Total stream miles in John Day subbasin: 2,936 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of North Fork John Day actions: 38 38 

Total stream miles in North Fork John Day: 942 942 

Cum miles affected by NFJD actions: 4,881 5,401 

Ratio cum miles affected to total NFJD miles: 5.2 5.7 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.145 0.146 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.034 0.032 

1/ Value shown is for entire John Day subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of North Fork John Day River summer 

steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-19 and 10-20, and figures 10-21 and 10-

22. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are 

relatively moderate for this population (Figure 10-21). Amounts of habitat potential for the 

abundance and productivity performance measures reach approximately 45-55%. Amounts of 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-48

potential for the baseline for these performance measures are approximately 35-40% (Figure 10-

22). 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-19. Estimated percent changes in population performance of North Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 23% 39% 

 Priority 1 & 2 26% 44% 

Productivity Priority 1 15% 29% 

 Priority 1 & 2 18% 35% 

Diversity index Priority 1 20% 32% 

 Priority 1 & 2 23% 35% 

Table 10-20. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to North Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with 

baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 36% 

 Priority 1 44% 50% 

 Priority 1 & 2 45% 52% 

Productivity Baseline 39% 

 Priority 1 45% 50% 

 Priority 1 & 2 46% 53% 

Diversity index Baseline 66% 

 Priority 1 79% 87% 

 Priority 1 & 2 81% 89% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-49

 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-21. Estimated percent changes in population performance of North Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-50

 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-22. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to North Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-51

Figure 10-23. Map of the North Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed 

protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) 

proposed restoration actions for all reaches.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-52

Figure 10-24. Map of the North Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-53

10.2.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Middle Fork John Day River 

population is on the lower end of the range of coverages applied to the other Oregon Mid-C 

steelhead populations. The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total 

stream miles available are in the range of 7-9 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The 

adjusted weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far 

less than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles 

affected by the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by 

spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream 

rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 

10-21 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-21. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. Total stream 

miles are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for 

actions without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. 

Effectiveness values shown apply to the entire John Day subbasin. 

Population: Middle Fork John Day River 

Total stream miles in John Day subbasin: 2,936 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of Middle Fork John Day actions: 36 36 

Total stream miles in Middle Fork John Day: 380 380 

Cum miles affected by MFJD actions: 2,806 3,441 

Ratio cum miles affected to total MFJD miles: 7.4 9.1 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.145 0.146 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.034 0.032 

1/ Value shown is for entire John Day subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Middle Fork John Day River summer 

steelhead due to tributary actions are shown in tables 10-22 and 10-23, and in figures 10-25 and 

10-26. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions 

are relatively moderate for this population (Figure 10-25). Amounts of habitat potential for the 

abundance and productivity performance measures with actions reach approximately 40-55%. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-54

Amounts of potential for the baseline for these performance measures are approximately 30-35% 

(Figure 10-26). 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-22. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 33% 57% 

 Priority 1 & 2 40% 67% 

Productivity Priority 1 34% 65% 

 Priority 1 & 2 40% 75% 

Diversity index Priority 1 19% 25% 

 Priority 1 & 2 24% 31% 

Table 10-23. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with 

baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 32% 

 Priority 1 42% 50% 

 Priority 1 & 2 44% 53% 

Productivity Baseline 33% 

 Priority 1 44% 54% 

 Priority 1 & 2 46% 57% 

Diversity index Baseline 72% 

 Priority 1 86% 90% 

 Priority 1 & 2 90% 94% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-55

 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-25. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-56

 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-26. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-57

Figure 10-27. Map of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed 

protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) 

proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-58

Figure 10-28. Map of the Middle Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-59

10.2.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the South Fork John Day River population 

is on the lower end of the range of coverages applied to the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations. The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles 

available are in the range of 7-9 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The adjusted 

weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far less 

than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles 

affected by the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by 

spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream 

rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 

10-24 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-24. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population. Total stream 

miles are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for 

actions without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. Effectiveness 

values shown apply to the entire John Day subbasin. 

Population: South Fork John Day River 

Total stream miles in John Day subbasin: 2,936 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of South Fork John Day actions: 36 36 

Total stream miles in South Fork John Day: 173 173 

Cum miles affected by SFJD actions: 1,211 1,468 

Ratio cum miles affected to total SFJD miles: 7.0 8.5 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.145 0.146 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.034 0.032 

1/ Value shown is for entire John Day subbasin; weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of South Fork John Day River summer 

steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-25 and 10-26, and figures 10-29 and 10-

30. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are 

relatively small to moderate for this population (Figure 10-29), depending on performance 

measure. Amounts of habitat potential for the abundance and productivity performance measures 

with actions reach approximately 40-55%. Amounts of potential for the baseline for these 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-60

performance measures are approximately 30-35% (Figure 10-30). Small increases were 

projected for the life history diversity metric. 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-25. Estimated percent changes in population performance of South Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 19% 35% 

 Priority 1 & 2 26% 45% 

Productivity Priority 1 16% 32% 

 Priority 1 & 2 21% 45% 

Diversity index Priority 1 14% 21% 

 Priority 1 & 2 18% 23% 

Table 10-26. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to South Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with 

baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 42% 

 Priority 1 50% 57% 

 Priority 1 & 2 53% 61% 

Productivity Baseline 37% 

 Priority 1 43% 49% 

 Priority 1 & 2 45% 53% 

Diversity index Baseline 79% 

 Priority 1 90% 96% 

 Priority 1 & 2 93% 97% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-61

Figure 10-29. Estimated percent changes in population performance of South Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr

Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-62

Figure 10-30. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to South Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the 

pre-development condition in the subbasin. 

 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-63

Figure 10-31. Map of the South Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed 

protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) 

proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-64

Figure 10-32. Map of the South Fork John Day River steelhead population showing geographic 

areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-65

10.2.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

population is on the lower end of the range of coverages applied to the other Mid-Columbia 

Oregon steelhead populations. The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to 

total stream miles available are in the range of 7-10 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. 

The adjusted weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would 

be far less than suggested by these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative 

miles affected by the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined 

by spawning distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream 

rearing areas down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 

10-27 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-27. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population. Total 

stream miles are those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted 

for actions without considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted 

effectiveness values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted 

action effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. 

Effectiveness values shown apply to the entire John Day subbasin. 

Population: Upper Mainstem 

John Day River 

Total stream miles in John Day subbasin: 2,936 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of Upper John Day actions: 36 36 

Total stream miles in Upper John Day: 415 415 

Cum miles affected by UpJD actions: 3,064 4,032 

Ratio cum miles affected to total UpJD miles: 7.4 9.7 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.145 0.146 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.034 0.032 

1/ Value shown is for all actions in the John Day subbasin; weighted by miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Upper Mainstem John Day River 

summer steelhead from tributary actions are shown in tables 10-28 and 10-29, and figures 10-33 

and 10-34. Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat 

actions are relatively moderate to large, depending on the performance measure (Figure 10-33). 

With these increases, performance for both productivity and abundance achieve only 

approximately 35-55% of habitat potential (Figure 10-34). 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-66

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-28. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Upper Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Time period lag Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 37% 61% 

 Priority 1 & 2 74% 110% 

Productivity Priority 1 23% 46% 

 Priority 1 & 2 51% 92% 

Diversity index Priority 1 38% 51% 

 Priority 1 & 2 89% 94% 

Table 10-29. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Upper Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed 

with baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Time period Performance 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 24% 

 Priority 1 33% 39% 

 Priority 1 & 2 42% 51% 

Productivity Baseline 27% 

 Priority 1 34% 40% 

 Priority 1 & 2 42% 53% 

Diversity index Baseline 44% 

 Priority 1 61% 66% 

 Priority 1 & 2 83% 85% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-67

Figure 10-33. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Upper Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

 Upper Mainstem John Day Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-68

Figure 10-34. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Upper Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with 

the pre-development condition in the subbasin. 

Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-69

Figure 10-35. Map of the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for 

proposed protection management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority 

(priority 1) proposed restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-70

Figure 10-36. Map of the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population showing 

geographic areas that are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection 

management actions (priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very 

low restoration benefit from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-71

10.2.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions for the Umatilla River population is on the 

upper end of the range of coverages applied to the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations. 

The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles available are 

in the range of 13-14 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. The adjusted weighted average 

action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far less than suggested by 

these ratios, however. The reader should note that the cumulative miles affected by the actions 

include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by spawning distribution—

encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream rearing areas down to the 

confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. Table 10-30 summarizes 

tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values applied to the Umatilla 

River summer steelhead population. 

Table 10-30. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Umatilla River summer steelhead population. Total stream miles are those 

modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for actions without 

considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted effectiveness 

values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted action 

effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. 

Population: Umatilla River 

Total stream miles in subbasin: 681 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of actions: 38 38 

Cum miles affected by actions: 9,055 9,664 

Ratio cum miles affected to total miles: 13.3 14.2 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.255 0.247 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.048 0.046 

1/ Weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Umatilla River summer steelhead due to 

tributary habitat actions are shown in tables 10-31 and 10-32, and figures 10-37 and 10-38. 

Estimated increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are 

relatively moderate to large, depending on the performance measure (Figure 10-37). The 

increase in productivity is less for Priority 1 & 2 actions (i.e., all actions) compared to just 

Priority 1 actions. This is the result of a Priority 2 action opening habitat blocked by a barrier—

habitat upstream of the barrier is relatively low in quality. The effect is that productivity is 

reduced while overall habitat capacity, hence spawner abundance, is increased (more habitat 

open to be used). 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-72

Between approximately 45-70% of habitat potential (i.e., historical potential) for abundance, 

productivity, and the life history diversity measure is estimated to be achieved for the four 

scenarios considered (Figure 10-38). 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-31. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Umatilla River summer 

steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Performance Time period lag 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 67% 93% 

 Priority 1 & 2 82% 112% 

Productivity Priority 1 71% 116% 

 Priority 1 & 2 62% 101% 

Diversity index Priority 1 53% 72% 

 Priority 1 & 2 61% 96% 

Table 10-32. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Umatilla River summer 

steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the predevelopment condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with 

baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Performance Time period 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 28% 

 Priority 1 46% 53% 

 Priority 1 & 2 51% 59% 

Productivity Baseline 28% 

 Priority 1 48% 61% 

 Priority 1 & 2 46% 57% 

Diversity index Baseline 36% 

 Priority 1 56% 63% 

 Priority 1 & 2 59% 71% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-73

 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-37. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Umatilla River summer 

steelhead due to tributary habitat actions.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-74

 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-38. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Umatilla River summer 

steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the predevelopment condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-75

Figure 10-39. Map of the Umatilla River steelhead population showing geographic areas that are 

currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed protection 

management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed 

restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-76

Figure 10-40. Map of the Umatilla River steelhead population showing geographic areas that are 

currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection management actions 

(priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit 

from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-77

10.2.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead 

Level of Action Coverage 

The number of actions applied in the analysis of the Walla Walla River population was 

substantially more than used to analyze any of the other Oregon Mid-C steelhead populations 

that were modeled. While the distribution of treatment for some of these actions was described 

in Section 9 as occurring within both Oregon and Washington, we modeled the actions as 

occurring only within Oregon. (Downstream effects of actions were still incorporated.) Table 

10-33 summarizes tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness values 

applied to the Walla Walla River summer steelhead population. 

The level of treatment coverage by habitat actions applied to the Walla Walla River population is 

roughly in the middle of the range of coverages applied to other Oregon Mid-C steelhead 

populations. The ratios of cumulative miles potentially affected by actions to total stream miles 

available are in the range of 10-12 for Priority 1 and Priority 1 & 2 scenarios. However, the 

adjusted weighted average action effectiveness values show that actual treated areas would be far 

less than suggested by these ratios. The reader should note that the cumulative miles affected by 

the actions include stream miles outside the population’s boundaries as defined by spawning 

distribution—encompassing miles within the migration corridor and downstream rearing areas 

down to the confluence of the subbasin with the mainstem Columbia River. 

Table 10-33. Summary of tributary habitat action coverage and average action effectiveness 

values applied to the Walla Walla River summer steelhead population. Total stream miles are 

those modeled in EDT. Cumulative miles affected are the total miles targeted for actions without 

considering intensity of treatment by actions. Average potential and adjusted effectiveness 

values are weighted by stream miles targeted by each action. Average adjusted action 

effectiveness values incorporate all action scalars except the attribute scalar. 

Population: Walla Walla River 

Total stream miles in subbasin: 415 

 Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

No. of actions: 53 53 

Cum miles affected by actions: 4,434 4,789 

Ratio cum miles affected to total miles: 10.7 11.5 

Weighted ave potential action effectiveness 1/: 0.134 0.131 

Weighted ave adjusted action effectiveness 1/: 0.047 0.043 

1/ Weighted by stream miles affected per action 

Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Estimated percent changes in population performance of Walla Walla River summer steelhead 

due to tributary habitat actions are shown in tables 10-34 and 10-35, and figures 10-41 and 10-

42. Results presented here reflect the result of actions applied only to waters within Oregon, 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-78

though effects to habitat characteristics continue downstream into Washington waters. Estimated 

increases in population performance resulting from tributary habitat actions are relatively 

moderate to large, depending on the performance measure (Figure 10-41). 

Between approximately 40-60% of habitat potential (i.e., historical potential) for abundance and 

productivity is estimated to be achieved for the four scenarios considered (Figure 10-42). 

However, the amount of habitat potential expressed through life history diversity (i.e., 

distribution within the drainage) reaches only about 20%. This is apparently due to effects of 

barriers or poor quality conditions in reaches downstream of reaches in Oregon. 

It should be noted that these measures of performance for this part of the analysis do not include 

any loss in performance that might be associated with genetic fitness loss due to strays. 

Table 10-34. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Walla Walla River 

summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 

Performance Time period lag 

measure 

Scenario 

25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Priority 1 97% 119% 

 Priority 1 & 2 99% 121% 

Productivity Priority 1 54% 70% 

 Priority 1 & 2 54% 69% 

Diversity index Priority 1 82% 91% 

 Priority 1 & 2 90% 112% 

Table 10-35. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Walla Walla River 

summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the predevelopment condition in the subbasin. Performance for habitat potential is computed with 

baseline (i.e., post-development) out-of-subbasin conditions in place. 

Performance Time period 

measure 

Scenario 

Base/Curr 25 yr 100 yr 

Abundance Baseline 19% 

 Priority 1 38% 42% 

 Priority 1 & 2 38% 42% 

Productivity Baseline 37% 

 Priority 1 57% 63% 

 Priority 1 & 2 57% 63% 

Diversity index Baseline 12% 

 Priority 1 21% 22% 

 Priority 1 & 2 22% 24% 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-79

 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Index of life history distribution

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

25 yr 100 yr Time lag

% Increase

Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-41. Estimated percent changes in population performance of Walla Walla River 

summer steelhead due to tributary habitat actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-80

 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead

Average spawner abundance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Population productivity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Index of life history distribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Base/curr 25 yr 100 yr

Time period

% of habitat potential

Baseline Priority 1 Priority 1 & 2

Figure 10-42. Estimated amounts of tributary habitat potential achieved by population 

performance measures resulting from tributary habitat actions applied to Walla Walla River 

summer steelhead. Habitat potential is assumed equal to performance associated with the predevelopment condition in the subbasin. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-81

Figure 10-43. Map of the Walla Walla River steelhead population showing geographic areas that 

are currently in protected status, reaches identified as high priority for proposed protection 

management actions, and relative restoration benefit from high priority (priority 1) proposed 

restoration actions for all reaches. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-82

Figure 10-44. Map of the Walla Walla River steelhead population showing geographic areas that 

are currently in protected status, reaches identified for proposed protection management actions 

(priority 1 and priority 2), and reaches with high, moderate, low and very low restoration benefit 

from all (priority 1 and priority 2) proposed restoration actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-83

10.3 All-H Integration Analysis 

Results of All-H integration analysis are presented for each population below. Changes in 

performance measures associated with each action scenario are presented for intrinsic 

productivity and equilibrium spawner abundance, as these metrics were described earlier in this 

section. The results are comparable to population metrics presented in Section 6 for baseline 

performance, as derived empirically by the ICTRT, and to minimum productivity (at the 

threshold abundance level) and abundance viability thresholds at the 5% risk level (see Table 5-3 

in Section 5). Thresholds represent one combination of abundance and productivity needed to 

achieve a 95% probability of persistence over 100 years. The threshold levels are specific to 

population size and are based on estimates of historical capacity. 

Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, starting with baseline, then current condition, then 

adding in actions sequentially, each being added to the previous scenario. The effects of 

hatchery steelhead programs on genetic fitness—hence performance—of natural-origin fish were 

incorporated for each scenario using AHA. 

To facilitate an understanding of how estimated performance levels compare to viability 

thresholds, we computed the ratio of scenario performance/viability threshold level for both 

abundance and productivity (referred to here as the threshold ratio). Values >1 indicate that 

performance is expected to achieve the viability threshold criterion for a 5% risk. The amount 

that the ratio exceeds 1 provides a relative measure of risk—with risk diminishing as the ratio 

increases. Ratio values <1 suggest a risk level >5%. Table 10-36 provides a list of abbreviations 

used in the tables and figures. 

Table 10-36. Abbreviations used in tables reporting All-H integration results. 

Area and 

abbreviation Definition 

Tributary 

B Baseline condition 

P1-25 Priority 1 actions at 25 yrs 

P12-25 Priority 1 and 2 actions at 25 yrs 

P1-100 Priority 1 actions at 100 yrs 

P12-100 Priority 1 and 2 actions at 100 yrs 

Mainstem and estuary

B Baseline condition 

C Current condition 

Hyd Hydro action 

Pred Predation plus hydro actions 

Est Estuarine, predation, hydro actions 

Har Harvest, Estuarine, predation, hydro actions 

All All actions (same as Har) 

Ocean 

B/C Baseline and current (assumed same) 

-25% 75% of average marine survival 

25% 125% of average marine survival 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-84

10.3.1 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. By far, the largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions. Relatively small increases are 

estimated to occur as a result of mainstem actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. Most scenario combinations result in threshold ratios >2, 

suggesting a very low risk of extinction over 100 years. 

Estimated changes in population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions are shown in Table 10-37 and Figure 10-45. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-85

Table 10-37. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at 

the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 1.82 703 1.16 1.41 

B C B/C 1.96 764 1.25 1.53 

P1-25 C B/C 2.91 1,322 1.85 2.64 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 2.92 1,325 1.86 2.65 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.05 1,388 1.94 2.78 

P1-25 Est B/C 3.22 1,474 2.05 2.95 

P1-25 Har B/C 3.22 1,474 2.05 2.95 

P12-25 C B/C 3.02 1,342 1.92 2.68 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 3.02 1,345 1.92 2.69 

P12-25 Pred B/C 3.16 1,410 2.01 2.82 

P12-25 Est B/C 3.34 1,496 2.12 2.99 

P12-25 Har B/C 3.34 1,496 2.12 2.99 

P1-100 C B/C 3.63 1,479 2.31 2.96 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 3.64 1,482 2.32 2.96 

P1-100 Pred B/C 3.80 1,552 2.42 3.10 

P1-100 Est B/C 4.01 1,647 2.56 3.29 

P1-100 Har B/C 4.01 1,647 2.56 3.29 

P12-100 C B/C 3.79 1,502 2.41 3.00 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 3.80 1,506 2.42 3.01 

P12-100 Pred B/C 3.96 1,577 2.52 3.15 

P12-100 Est B/C 4.19 1,672 2.67 3.34 

P12-100 Har B/C 4.19 1,672 2.67 3.34 

P12-25 All -25% 2.50 1,095 1.59 2.19 

P12-100 All -25% 3.14 1,230 2.00 2.46 

P12-25 All +25% 4.17 1,898 2.66 3.80 

P12-100 All +25% 5.24 2,114 3.34 4.23 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-86

Fifteenmile Creek

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-45. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios (shown as H) with 

out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-87

10.3.2 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of action measures. Very substantial benefits to both population 

productivity and natural-origin spawner abundance also occur as a result of reducing the number 

of stray hatchery fish that spawn with natural-origin fish. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. All scenario combinations result in threshold ratios >2 for both 

productivity and abundance, suggesting a very low risk of extinction over 100 years. Reductions 

in stray hatchery fish produce threshold ratios >4 and >7 for all scenario combinations for 

productivity and abundance, respectively. 

Table 10-38 and figures 10-46 and 10-47 show estimated changes in population performance of 

Deschutes River Eastside population associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-88

Table 10-38. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and outof-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. Results are shown with and without action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 

95% of those expected to enter the relevant area for the scenario. The threshold ratio is the ratio 

of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at the 5% level. 

Performance Threshold ratio 

Scenario combination 

Prod Abund Prod Abund 

Tributary Main/est Ocean 

No 

stray 

action 

Stray 

action 

No 

stray 

action 

Stray 

action 

No 

stray 

action 

Stray 

action 

No 

stray 

action 

Stray 

action 

B B B/C 1.89 1,599 1.40 1.60 

B C B/C 2.10 3.71 2,340 4,634 1.55 2.75 2.34 4.63 

P1-25 C B/C 3.36 5.55 5,511 7,171 2.49 4.11 5.51 7.17 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 3.53 5.84 5,977 7,631 2.61 4.32 5.98 7.63 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.69 6.10 6,398 8,047 2.73 4.52 6.40 8.05 

P1-25 Est B/C 3.89 6.45 6,958 8,600 2.88 4.78 6.96 8.60 

P1-25 Har B/C 3.89 6.45 6,958 8,600 2.88 4.78 6.96 8.60 

P12-25 C B/C 4.26 6.80 6,973 8,323 3.15 5.04 6.97 8.32 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 4.47 7.15 7,471 8,818 3.31 5.29 7.47 8.82 

P12-25 Pred B/C 4.67 7.47 7,921 9,265 3.46 5.53 7.92 9.27 

P12-25 Est B/C 4.93 7.89 8,520 9,859 3.65 5.85 8.52 9.86 

P12-25 Har B/C 4.93 7.89 8,520 9,859 3.65 5.85 8.52 9.86 

P1-100 C B/C 4.71 7.47 7,271 8,472 3.49 5.54 7.27 8.47 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 4.94 7.86 7,763 8,962 3.66 5.82 7.76 8.96 

P1-100 Pred B/C 5.16 8.21 8,208 9,405 3.82 6.08 8.21 9.41 

P1-100 Est B/C 5.44 8.68 8,799 9,994 4.03 6.43 8.80 9.99 

P1-100 Har B/C 5.44 8.68 8,799 9,994 4.03 6.43 8.80 9.99 

P12-100 C B/C 5.97 9.20 8,643 9,619 4.42 6.81 8.64 9.62 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 6.26 9.67 9,174 10,151 4.64 7.16 9.17 10.15 

P12-100 Pred B/C 6.53 10.10 9,656 10,632 4.84 7.48 9.66 10.63 

P12-100 Est B/C 6.89 10.68 10,295 11,272 5.10 7.91 10.30 11.27 

P12-100 Har B/C 6.89 10.68 10,295 11,272 5.10 7.91 10.30 11.27 

P12-25 All -25% 3.71 5.91 5,679 7,039 2.75 4.38 5.68 7.04 

P12-100 All -25% 5.22 8.00 7,265 8,239 3.87 5.93 7.26 8.24 

P12-25 All +25% 6.13 9.88 11,199 12,519 4.54 7.31 11.20 12.52 

P12-100 All +25% 8.54 13.35 13,167 14,140 6.33 9.89 13.17 14.14 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-89

Deschutes River Eastside

Productivity

No action for strays 95% strays removed

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Figure 10-46. Estimated population productivity of Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead 

associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. Results are shown with and without action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 

95% of those expected to enter the relevant area for the scenario. Baseline, current, and 

combinations of tributary habitat scenarios (shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, 

Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-90

Deschutes River Eastside

Abundance

No action for strays 95% strays removed

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-47. Estimated population equilibrium abundance of Deschutes River Eastside summer 

steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-

36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to 

those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with and 

without action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 95% of those expected to enter the 

relevant area for the scenario. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-91

10.3.3 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

The largest increases in population performance associated with the range of scenario 

combinations analyzed occur as a result of decreasing the number of stray hatchery fish and/or 

by providing passage at the Pelton-Round Butte complex (includes passage at Whychus Creek 

barriers). In the absence of the removal of strays or passage, benefits are much reduced. For 

those scenario combinations lacking removal of strays and passage, beneficial effects of tributary 

actions are greatest, though beneficial cumulative effects of adding in mainstem actions are 

clearly evident. The more modest benefits associated with tributary actions than found for the 

Deschutes Eastside population are due to the much better condition of tributary habitat in general 

compared to that on the east side of the subbasin (as reflected in how habitat conditions were 

characterized in EDT). We also hypothesize that performance of anadromous O. mykiss in west 

side tributaries is constrained in part by the significant presence of the resident form of O. mykiss

in these streams. 

The viability threshold for productivity is exceeded for all action scenarios, including ones 

associated with a 25% decrease in marine survival (threshold ratio >1 in all cases). It is noted 

however that the productivity threshold is tied to the minimum abundance threshold, which for 

this population, is not exceeded for any scenario combination considered. This suggests that the 

population would remain at significant risk of extinction despite the full range of actions 

considered. Only with all actions implemented and a 25% improvement in marine survival is the 

abundance threshold ratio of 1 approached (but still remaining <1). We hypothesize that this is, 

at least in part, due to a constraining influence of the presence of resident O. mykiss on 

abundance. 

Table 10-39 and figures 10-48, 10-49 and 10-50 show changes in population performance of the 

Deschutes River Westside population associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-92

Table 10-39. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and outof-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. Results are shown with and without passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex and with 

and without action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 95% of those expected to enter the 

relevant area for the scenario. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ 

viability threshold level at the 5% level. 

Performance 

Scenario combination 

Prod Abund 

Tributary Main/est Ocean 

No passage 

- no stray 

action 

No passage 

- with stray 

action 

Passage - 

with stray 

action 

No passage 

- no stray 

action 

No passage 

- with stray 

action 

Passage - 

with stray 

action 

B B B/C 1.05 456 

B C B/C 1.17 1.84 514 557 

P1-25 C B/C 1.44 2.23 2.18 550 585 838 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 1.51 2.35 2.29 581 615 882 

P1-25 Pred B/C 1.57 2.45 2.39 608 643 921 

P1-25 Est B/C 1.66 2.59 2.52 645 679 973 

P1-25 Har B/C 1.66 2.59 2.52 645 679 973 

P12-25 C B/C 1.59 2.44 2.39 578 610 880 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 1.67 2.57 2.52 610 641 925 

P12-25 Pred B/C 1.74 2.68 2.63 638 669 966 

P12-25 Est B/C 1.84 2.84 2.78 675 707 1,020 

P12-25 Har B/C 1.84 2.84 2.78 675 707 1,020 

P1-100 C B/C 1.63 2.50 2.42 587 618 887 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 1.71 2.63 2.54 618 649 932 

P1-100 Pred B/C 1.78 2.74 2.66 647 678 974 

P1-100 Est B/C 1.88 2.90 2.81 684 715 1,028 

P1-100 Har B/C 1.88 2.90 2.81 684 715 1,028 

P12-100 C B/C 1.82 2.78 2.74 630 660 931 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 1.92 2.92 2.88 665 694 978 

P12-100 Pred B/C 2.00 3.05 3.01 696 725 1,020 

P12-100 Est B/C 2.11 3.23 3.18 738 767 1,077 

P12-100 Har B/C 2.11 3.23 3.18 738 767 1,077 

P12-25 All -25% 1.38 2.13 2.08 497 530 763 

P12-100 All -25% 1.59 2.42 2.39 542 571 810 

P12-25 All +25% 2.29 3.55 3.47 844 875 1,263 

P12-100 All +25% 2.64 4.03 3.98 927 955 1,329 

 __________________________________________ 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-93

Table 10-39. Continued. 

Threshold ratio 

Scenario combination 

Prod Abund 

Tributary Main/est Ocean 

No passage 

- no stray 

action 

No passage 

- with stray 

action 

Passage - 

with stray 

action 

No passage 

- no stray 

action 

No passage 

- with stray 

action 

Passage - 

with stray 

action 

B B B/C 0.78 0.46 

B C B/C 0.86 1.36 0.51 0.56 

P1-25 C B/C 1.06 1.66 1.73 0.55 0.59 0.56 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 1.12 1.74 1.81 0.58 0.62 0.59 

P1-25 Pred B/C 1.17 1.82 1.89 0.61 0.64 0.61 

P1-25 Est B/C 1.23 1.92 2.00 0.64 0.68 0.65 

P1-25 Har B/C 1.23 1.92 2.00 0.64 0.68 0.65 

P12-25 C B/C 1.18 1.81 1.90 0.58 0.61 0.59 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 1.24 1.90 2.00 0.61 0.64 0.62 

P12-25 Pred B/C 1.29 1.99 2.09 0.64 0.67 0.64 

P12-25 Est B/C 1.36 2.10 2.20 0.68 0.71 0.68 

P12-25 Har B/C 1.36 2.10 2.20 0.68 0.71 0.68 

P1-100 C B/C 1.21 1.85 1.92 0.59 0.62 0.59 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 1.27 1.94 2.02 0.62 0.65 0.62 

P1-100 Pred B/C 1.32 2.03 2.11 0.65 0.68 0.65 

P1-100 Est B/C 1.40 2.15 2.23 0.68 0.72 0.69 

P1-100 Har B/C 1.40 2.15 2.23 0.68 0.72 0.69 

P12-100 C B/C 1.35 2.06 2.18 0.63 0.66 0.62 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 1.42 2.16 2.29 0.66 0.69 0.65 

P12-100 Pred B/C 1.48 2.26 2.39 0.70 0.73 0.68 

P12-100 Est B/C 1.57 2.39 2.53 0.74 0.77 0.72 

P12-100 Har B/C 1.57 2.39 2.53 0.74 0.77 0.72 

P12-25 All -25% 1.02 1.58 1.65 0.50 0.53 0.51 

P12-100 All -25% 1.18 1.79 1.89 0.54 0.57 0.54 

P12-25 All +25% 1.70 2.63 2.76 0.84 0.88 0.84 

P12-100 All +25% 1.95 2.99 3.16 0.93 0.96 0.89 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-94

Deschutes River Westside

No passage at Pelton-Round Butte

Productivity

No action for strays 95% strays removed

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Figure 10-48. Estimated population productivity of Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead 

associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions and no passage at PeltonRound Butte Complex. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those 

derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with and without 

action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 95% of those expected to enter the relevant 

area for the scenario. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios (shown 

as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-95

Deschutes River Westside

No passage at Pelton-Round Butte

Abundance

No action for strays 95% strays removed

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-49. Estimated population equilibrium abundance of Deschutes River Westside 

summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions and no 

passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are shown with and without action to reduce the 

number of hatchery strays by 95% of those expected to enter the relevant area for the scenario. 

Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios (shown as H) with out-ofsubbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-96

Deschutes River Westside

Passage at Pelton-Round Butte

95% strays removed

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Prod (to spawner)

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-50. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

tributary and out-of-subbasin actions and with passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex. See 

Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance measures are directly 

comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Results are 

shown with action to reduce the number of hatchery strays by 95% of those expected to enter the 

relevant area for the scenario. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown.
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-97

10.3.4 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

Population Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. All scenario combinations result in threshold ratios >4 

(approximately) for productivity and >2 for abundance, suggesting a very low risk of extinction 

over 100 years. 

Table 10-40 and Figure 10-51 show projected changes in estimated population performance of 

Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-98

Table 10-40. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability 

threshold level at the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 2.99 1,800 2.51 0.80 

B C B/C 3.44 2,423 2.89 1.08 

P1-25 C B/C 4.75 4,743 3.99 2.11 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 5.18 5,393 4.35 2.40 

P1-25 Pred B/C 5.39 5,706 4.53 2.54 

P1-25 Est B/C 5.67 6,122 4.77 2.72 

P1-25 Har B/C 5.67 6,122 4.77 2.72 

P12-25 C B/C 4.99 5,751 4.19 2.56 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 5.43 6,537 4.56 2.91 

P12-25 Pred B/C 5.65 6,918 4.74 3.07 

P12-25 Est B/C 5.94 7,427 4.99 3.30 

P12-25 Har B/C 5.94 7,427 4.99 3.30 

P1-100 C B/C 6.20 6,547 5.21 2.91 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 6.74 7,324 5.67 3.26 

P1-100 Pred B/C 7.01 7,699 5.89 3.42 

P1-100 Est B/C 7.37 8,197 6.19 3.64 

P1-100 Har B/C 7.37 8,197 6.19 3.64 

P12-100 C B/C 7.31 8,627 6.15 3.83 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 7.94 9,628 6.67 4.28 

P12-100 Pred B/C 8.25 10,112 6.93 4.49 

P12-100 Est B/C 8.67 10,758 7.29 4.78 

P12-100 Har B/C 8.67 10,758 7.29 4.78 

P12-25 All -25% 4.61 5,047 3.87 2.24 

P12-100 All -25% 6.77 7,728 5.69 3.43 

P12-25 All +25% 7.33 9,722 6.16 4.32 

P12-100 All +25% 10.66 13,667 8.96 6.07 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-99

Lower John Day River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-51. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat 

scenarios (shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-100

10.3.5 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. Most scenario combinations result in threshold ratios >3 for 

productivity and >2 for abundance, suggesting a very low risk of extinction over 100 years. 

Table 10-41 and Figure 10-52 show projected changes in population performance of North Fork 

John Day River summer steelhead associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-101

Table 10-41. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

North Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and outof-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at 

the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 2.41 1,740 1.91 1.16 

B C B/C 2.77 2,101 2.20 1.40 

P1-25 C B/C 3.34 2,678 2.65 1.79 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 3.66 2,999 2.91 2.00 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.82 3,153 3.03 2.10 

P1-25 Est B/C 4.04 3,358 3.20 2.24 

P1-25 Har B/C 4.04 3,358 3.20 2.24 

P12-25 C B/C 3.44 2,762 2.73 1.84 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 3.77 3,090 3.00 2.06 

P12-25 Pred B/C 3.94 3,248 3.13 2.17 

P12-25 Est B/C 4.16 3,458 3.30 2.31 

P12-25 Har B/C 4.16 3,458 3.30 2.31 

P1-100 C B/C 3.84 3,078 3.04 2.05 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 4.21 3,432 3.34 2.29 

P1-100 Pred B/C 4.39 3,603 3.48 2.40 

P1-100 Est B/C 4.63 3,830 3.68 2.55 

P1-100 Har B/C 4.63 3,830 3.68 2.55 

P12-100 C B/C 4.03 3,209 3.20 2.14 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 4.42 3,572 3.51 2.38 

P12-100 Pred B/C 4.61 3,747 3.66 2.50 

P12-100 Est B/C 4.87 3,980 3.86 2.65 

P12-100 Har B/C 4.87 3,980 3.86 2.65 

P12-25 All -25% 3.14 2,465 2.49 1.64 

P12-100 All -25% 3.69 2,880 2.93 1.92 

P12-25 All +25% 5.18 4,404 4.11 2.94 

P12-100 All +25% 6.06 5,028 4.81 3.35 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-102

North Fork John Day River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-52. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of North Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-103

10.3.6 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100-year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. Most scenario combinations result in threshold ratios >3 for 

productivity. Threshold ratios for abundance across the range of scenario combinations are 

lower, generally between values of 1-2. 

Table 10-42 and Figure 10-53 show projected changes to population performance of Middle 

Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-104

Table 10-42. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and 

out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at 

the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 2.45 756 1.81 0.76 

B C B/C 2.82 921 2.09 0.92 

P1-25 C B/C 4.01 1,313 2.97 1.31 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 4.40 1,467 3.26 1.47 

P1-25 Pred B/C 4.59 1,541 3.40 1.54 

P1-25 Est B/C 4.84 1,640 3.59 1.64 

P1-25 Har B/C 4.84 1,640 3.59 1.64 

P12-25 C B/C 4.24 1,385 3.14 1.38 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 4.64 1,545 3.44 1.54 

P12-25 Pred B/C 4.84 1,622 3.59 1.62 

P12-25 Est B/C 5.11 1,724 3.79 1.72 

P12-25 Har B/C 5.11 1,724 3.79 1.72 

P1-100 C B/C 5.09 1,579 3.77 1.58 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 5.57 1,753 4.13 1.75 

P1-100 Pred B/C 5.81 1,837 4.30 1.84 

P1-100 Est B/C 6.13 1,948 4.54 1.95 

P1-100 Har B/C 6.13 1,948 4.54 1.95 

P12-100 C B/C 5.46 1,694 4.04 1.69 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 5.97 1,878 4.43 1.88 

P12-100 Pred B/C 6.23 1,966 4.61 1.97 

P12-100 Est B/C 6.57 2,084 4.86 2.08 

P12-100 Har B/C 6.57 2,084 4.86 2.08 

P12-25 All -25% 3.88 1,240 2.87 1.24 

P12-100 All -25% 5.00 1,528 3.70 1.53 

P12-25 All +25% 6.35 2,186 4.70 2.19 

P12-100 All +25% 8.15 2,616 6.03 2.62 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-105

Middle Fork John Day River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-53. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-106

10.3.7 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

The viability threshold for productivity is exceeded for all action scenarios, including ones 

associated with a 25% decrease in marine survival (threshold ratio >1 in all cases). It is noted 

however that the productivity threshold is tied to the minimum abundance threshold, which for 

this population, is not exceeded for approximately half of the scenario combinations considered. 

Only at 100 years, after some tributary habitat actions have fully matured, in combination with 

addition of mainstem actions, does the threshold ratio for abundance >1. The abundance ratio 

with all actions implemented, even after 100 years of maturation, drops to <1 when marine 

survival is reduced to 75% of the current average. 

Table 10-43 and Figure 10-54 show projected changes in population performance of South Fork 

John Day River summer steelhead associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-107

Table 10-43. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

South Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and outof-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for ICTRT baseline conditions. 

The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at the 5% 

level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 2.06 259 1.31 0.52 

B C B/C 2.37 315 1.51 0.63 

P1-25 C B/C 2.86 391 1.82 0.78 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 3.14 439 2.00 0.88 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.28 462 2.09 0.92 

P1-25 Est B/C 3.46 492 2.21 0.98 

P1-25 Har B/C 3.46 492 2.21 0.98 

P12-25 C B/C 3.03 414 1.93 0.83 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 3.32 464 2.11 0.93 

P12-25 Pred B/C 3.46 488 2.21 0.98 

P12-25 Est B/C 3.66 520 2.33 1.04 

P12-25 Har B/C 3.66 520 2.33 1.04 

P1-100 C B/C 3.35 454 2.14 0.91 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 3.68 506 2.34 1.01 

P1-100 Pred B/C 3.84 532 2.44 1.06 

P1-100 Est B/C 4.05 566 2.58 1.13 

P1-100 Har B/C 4.05 566 2.58 1.13 

P12-100 C B/C 3.72 491 2.37 0.98 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 4.07 546 2.59 1.09 

P12-100 Pred B/C 4.25 573 2.70 1.15 

P12-100 Est B/C 4.48 609 2.85 1.22 

P12-100 Har B/C 4.48 609 2.85 1.22 

P12-25 All -25% 2.76 369 1.76 0.74 

P12-100 All -25% 3.40 440 2.16 0.88 

P12-25 All +25% 4.55 665 2.90 1.33 

P12-100 All +25% 5.57 769 3.55 1.54 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-108

South Fork John Day River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-54. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of South Fork John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of 

tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-109

10.3.8 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to 

Population Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. All scenario combinations result in threshold ratios between 2 and 5 

for productivity. Most scenario combinations result in abundance threshold ratios between 1 and 

2. These abundance threshold ratios are, however, markedly higher than the current ratio value. 

Table 10-44 and Figure 10-55 show projected changes in population performance of Upper 

Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-110

Table 10-44. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability 

threshold level at the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 2.14 524 1.59 0.52 

B C B/C 2.46 650 1.82 0.65 

P1-25 C B/C 3.24 955 2.40 0.96 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 3.55 1,076 2.63 1.08 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.70 1,134 2.74 1.13 

P1-25 Est B/C 3.91 1,212 2.89 1.21 

P1-25 Har B/C 3.91 1,212 2.89 1.21 

P12-25 C B/C 4.14 1,262 3.06 1.26 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 4.52 1,409 3.35 1.41 

P12-25 Pred B/C 4.71 1,480 3.49 1.48 

P12-25 Est B/C 4.97 1,575 3.68 1.58 

P12-25 Har B/C 4.97 1,575 3.68 1.58 

P1-100 C B/C 3.95 1,160 2.92 1.16 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 4.32 1,298 3.20 1.30 

P1-100 Pred B/C 4.50 1,364 3.33 1.36 

P1-100 Est B/C 4.75 1,452 3.51 1.45 

P1-100 Har B/C 4.75 1,452 3.51 1.45 

P12-100 C B/C 5.35 1,566 3.97 1.57 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 5.85 1,738 4.33 1.74 

P12-100 Pred B/C 6.09 1,821 4.51 1.82 

P12-100 Est B/C 6.42 1,931 4.76 1.93 

P12-100 Har B/C 6.42 1,931 4.76 1.93 

P12-25 All -25% 3.79 1,129 2.81 1.13 

P12-100 All -25% 4.91 1,411 3.64 1.41 

P12-25 All +25% 6.16 2,004 4.56 2.00 

P12-100 All +25% 7.95 2,431 5.89 2.43 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-111

Upper John Day River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-55. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead associated with combinations 

of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. 

Population performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for 

baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat 

scenarios (shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-112

10.3.9 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population Performance 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations analyzed. The largest contribution to performance 

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions, with greatest benefits accruing 

for the 100 year scenarios. Benefits associated with mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative 

with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. All scenario combinations result in threshold ratios between 2-5 for 

both productivity and abundance, suggesting a very low risk of extinction over 100 years. 

Table 10-45 and Figure 10-56 show projected changes in population performance of Umatilla 

River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-113

Table 10-45. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Umatilla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-of-subbasin 

actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance measures are 

directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. The 

threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 1.50 1,472 1.19 0.98 

B C B/C 1.73 1,820 1.37 1.21 

P1-25 C B/C 3.30 3,373 2.62 2.25 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 3.63 3,748 2.88 2.50 

P1-25 Pred B/C 3.79 3,929 3.01 2.62 

P1-25 Est B/C 4.01 4,168 3.18 2.78 

P1-25 Har B/C 4.01 4,168 3.18 2.78 

P12-25 C B/C 3.18 3,685 2.52 2.46 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 3.50 4,092 2.77 2.73 

P12-25 Pred B/C 3.65 4,287 2.90 2.86 

P12-25 Est B/C 3.86 4,545 3.06 3.03 

P12-25 Har B/C 3.86 4,545 3.06 3.03 

P1-100 C B/C 4.26 3,954 3.38 2.64 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 4.68 4,366 3.71 2.91 

P1-100 Pred B/C 4.89 4,564 3.88 3.04 

P1-100 Est B/C 5.16 4,827 4.10 3.22 

P1-100 Har B/C 5.16 4,827 4.10 3.22 

P12-100 C B/C 4.03 4,355 3.20 2.90 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 4.42 4,808 3.51 3.21 

P12-100 Pred B/C 4.62 5,026 3.66 3.35 

P12-100 Est B/C 4.88 5,314 3.87 3.54 

P12-100 Har B/C 4.88 5,314 3.87 3.54 

P12-25 All -25% 2.90 3,313 2.30 2.21 

P12-100 All -25% 3.67 3,940 2.91 2.63 

P12-25 All +25% 4.82 5,693 3.83 3.80 

P12-100 All +25% 6.09 6,592 4.83 4.39 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-114

Umatilla River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-56. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Umatilla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and 

out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios (shown as H) with 

out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-115

10.3.10 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead, Projected Changes to Population 

Performance 

We ran two sets of model runs for the Walla Walla River population. The first set included 

tributary habitat actions described in this plan, most of which were within the geographic 

boundaries of the state of Oregon. The second set of model runs included the tributary habitat 

actions identified in this plan, and in addition included the tributary habitat action scenarios 

modeled in the subbasin planning process within the boundaries of the state of Washington. For 

both sets of model runs, we used the out-of-subbasin survival improvements previously 

described in this section. 

Action Effectiveness for Action Analysis Used in the Subbasin Plan 

The approach used to model action effectiveness within the Washington Walla Walla subbasin 

planning process (carried forward into the Washington Walla Walla steelhead recovery plan) was 

less rigorous and less specific to actual proposed actions than the Oregon planning process. 

Formulation of action strategies and effectiveness modeling in the subbasin planning process was 

done in three steps or components: working hypotheses, biological objectives, and strategies. 

Working hypotheses were the conclusions derived through the EDT diagnostic analysis about 

limiting factors. The second step was to establish restoration objectives for each of the limiting 

factors targeted for the analysis. These objectives were set for individual areas of the subbasin 

based on what the subbasin planning team assumed about what might be realistically attainable. 

For example, the percentage of pool habitat within a section of the mainstem river had been 

characterized to be 10% of the wetted surface area. The historical condition was hypothesized to 

be 20% of the wetted surface area. The biological objective for restoration in this case was set to 

be 20%. In other reaches, or for other habitat attributes, the objective was set to be intermediate 

between current condition and historical condition as it was hypothesized to exist. These 

biological objectives then prescribed a level of action effectiveness needed to achieve each 

objective, where the action represented whatever kinds of strategies might be employed to 

achieve the attribute specific objectives. Therefore, action effectiveness was not actually defined 

by the team, but became a by-product of first setting the objectives for targeted habitat attributes. 

Based on the targeted biological objectives that had been set, the subbasin planners then defined 

suites of strategies (or action types) that might be employed to achieve the objectives. 

In contrast to ODFW’s approach, the Walla Walla subbasin planning approach in 2004 only 

considered action effects at a 10-15 year time horizon. The action set for areas within 

Washington was comprised of the full suite of actions—including barrier removal (i.e., 

provisions for passage were made)—that were assembled for the subbasin plan. Because the 

Washington Walla Walla recovery plan only identified actions for a 10-15 year time horizon, we 

only modeled the response to actions for the 25 year timeframe and not for the 100 year 

timeframe. 

Population performance as measured by both productivity and spawner abundance is increased 

markedly for all scenario combinations identified in this recovery plan, as well as, the aggregate 

actions of this plan and the Washington recovery plan. Relatively small differences exist 

between scenario results at 25 and 100 years. The largest contribution to performance 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-116

improvements is estimated to be due to tributary habitat actions. Benefits associated with 

mainstem actions are seen to be cumulative with the sequential addition of actions. 

Viability thresholds are exceeded for all scenarios, including ones associated with a 25% 

decrease in marine survival. All scenario combinations result in threshold ratios between 1-3 for 

both productivity and abundance, suggesting a low risk of extinction over 100 years. 

Table 10-46 and Figure 10-57 show projected changes in population performance of Walla 

Walla River summer steelhead populations associated with tributary and out-of-subbasin actions. 

Table 10-47 and Figure 10-58 show actions identified in this recovery plan. Projected changes in 

population performance of the Walla Walla River summer steelhead population associated with 

the tributary actions identified in this recovery plan and the Washington Walla Walla River 

steelhead recovery plan and out-of-subbasin actions. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-117

Table 10-46. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for abbreviation definitions. The results represent tributary 

actions that are described in this recovery plan and do not represent actions described in the 

Washington Walla Walla recovery plan area. Population performance measures are directly 

comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. The threshold 

ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 1.34 650 0.99 0.65 

B C B/C 1.60 864 1.18 0.86 

P1-25 C B/C 2.51 1,564 1.86 1.56 

P1-25 Hyd B/C 2.81 1,766 2.08 1.77 

P1-25 Pred B/C 2.94 1,844 2.18 1.84 

P1-25 Est B/C 3.10 1,946 2.30 1.95 

P1-25 Har B/C 3.10 1,946 2.30 1.95 

P12-25 C B/C 2.51 1,576 1.86 1.58 

P12-25 Hyd B/C 2.81 1,779 2.08 1.78 

P12-25 Pred B/C 2.94 1,859 2.18 1.86 

P12-25 Est B/C 3.11 1,961 2.30 1.96 

P12-25 Har B/C 3.11 1,961 2.30 1.96 

P1-100 C B/C 2.77 1,712 2.05 1.71 

P1-100 Hyd B/C 3.11 1,922 2.30 1.92 

P1-100 Pred B/C 3.24 2,004 2.40 2.00 

P1-100 Est B/C 3.43 2,110 2.54 2.11 

P1-100 Har B/C 3.43 2,110 2.54 2.11 

P12-100 C B/C 2.76 1,730 2.04 1.73 

P12-100 Hyd B/C 3.09 1,944 2.29 1.94 

P12-100 Pred B/C 3.23 2,027 2.39 2.03 

P12-100 Est B/C 3.41 2,136 2.53 2.14 

P12-100 Har B/C 3.41 2,136 2.53 2.14 

P12-25 All -25% 2.33 1,451 1.73 1.45 

P12-100 All -25% 2.56 1,599 1.90 1.60 

P12-25 All +25% 3.88 2,393 2.88 2.39 

P12-100 All +25% 4.27 2,590 3.16 2.59 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-118

Figure 10-57. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

actions identified in the Oregon recovery plan and out-of-subbasin actions. See Table 10-36 for 

abbreviation definitions. Population performance measures are directly comparable to those 

derived empirically for baseline conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations 

of tributary habitat scenarios (shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are 

shown. 

Walla Walla River

Productivity Abundance

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 25 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

1

2

3

4

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

Priority 1-2 habitat - 100 yr

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-119

Table 10-47. Estimated population performance (productivity and equilibrium abundance) of 

Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Results are shown for actions performed on just Oregon lands (P12Ore) and 

with actions combined on Oregon and Washington lands (P12OreWa). Population performance 

measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline conditions by the 

ICTRT. The threshold ratio is the ratio of the performance measure/ viability threshold level at 

the 5% level. 

Scenario combination Performance Threshold ratio 

Tributary Main/est Ocean Prod Abund Prod Abund 

B B B/C 1.34 650 0.99 0.65 

B C B/C 1.60 864 1.18 0.86 

P12Ore C B/C 2.51 1,576 1.86 1.58 

P12OreWa C B/C 2.78 2,214 2.06 2.21 

P12Ore Hyd B/C 2.81 1,779 2.08 1.78 

P12OreWa Hyd B/C 3.12 2,515 2.31 2.52 

P12Ore Pred B/C 2.94 1,858 2.18 1.86 

P12OreWa Pred B/C 3.25 2,634 2.41 2.63 

P12Ore Est B/C 3.11 1,961 2.30 1.96 

P12OreWa Est B/C 3.44 2,790 2.55 2.79 

P12Ore Har B/C 3.11 1,961 2.30 1.96 

P12OreWa Har B/C 3.44 2,790 2.55 2.79 

P12Ore All -25% 2.33 1,450 1.73 1.45 

P12OreWa All -25% 2.58 2,033 1.91 2.03 

P12Ore All +25% 3.88 2,392 2.88 2.39 

P12OreWa All +25% 4.30 3,465 3.18 3.46 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-120

Walla Walla River - WA & OR actions

Productivity Abundance

All habitat actions - 25 yr

0

1

2

3

4

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

R/S

All habitat actions - 25 yr

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Bas Cur H-Cur H-Hyd H-Pred H-Est H-Har

Spawners

Figure 10-58. Estimated population performance measures (productivity and equilibrium 

abundance) of Walla Walla River summer steelhead associated with combinations of tributary 

and out-of-subbasin actions. Results are shown for actions performed on just Oregon lands 

(blue) and with actions combined on Oregon and Washington lands (red). Population 

performance measures are directly comparable to those derived empirically for baseline 

conditions by the ICTRT. Baseline, current, and combinations of tributary habitat scenarios 

(shown as H) with out-of-subbasin factors (Hyd, Pred, Est, Har) are shown. 

10.4 All-H Management Action Effectiveness Analyses for Spatial 

Structure/Diversity 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

There are no spatial structure or diversity gaps for the Fifteenmile Creek population. However, 

priority tributary habitat actions focus on restoring the natural hydrograph and reducing stream 

temperatures which are considered limiting factors. Improving these environmental conditions 

will allow for expansion of spawning distribution and expression of greater juvenile life history 

diversity, thus improving spatial structure and diversity status. 

Deschutes River Eastside Population 

Diversity is significantly impaired with gaps for phenotypic variation and spawner composition 

metrics. Reduced variability in both adult and juvenile migration patterns have likely occurred 

due to flow and temperature changes in Bakeoven, Buck Hollow, and Trout creeks, all of which 

are important production areas. Tributary habitat management actions target restoring the 

natural hydrograph and reducing stream temperatures. Restoring more normative flow patterns 

and reducing temperature will provide opportunity for more natural expression adult and juvenile 

migration patterns thus reducing risk ratings and improving viability. 

Abundance of out-of-DPS stray hatchery spawners is a significant diversity impairment creating 

a high risk rating for the spawner composition metric. Management actions to reduce the 

abundance of stray hatchery spawners in this population include expansion of trapping and 

removal of hatchery fish in Trout Creek and initiation of trap and removal of stray hatchery fish 

in Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks. These actions are expected to significantly reduce the 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-121

proportion of spawners that are hatchery-origin fish in the population resulting in a lower risk 

rating for the spawner composition metric in the future. 

Deschutes River Westside Population 

The Deschutes River Westside population has gaps in both spatial structure and diversity. 

Spatial structure is significantly impaired because a substantial proportion of the spawning 

habitat is blocked by the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. This blockage results in spatial structure 

gaps for multiple metrics including spatial extent/range of spawning and increase in gaps 

between spawning aggregates. Management actions are underway to provide passage upstream 

and downstream at the dam complex and to reintroduce steelhead using Westside Deschutes 

stock to re-establish sustained natural production throughout the historic distribution. These 

actions, if successful, will result in reducing the risk ratings and improving viability. 

Abundance of out-of-DPS stray hatchery spawners and genetic variation are significant diversity 

impairments. The high proportions of hatchery spawners results in a high risk rating for the 

spawner composition metric and genetic samples show moderate to low differentiation from 

outside-basin hatchery samples. Management actions to reduce abundance of out-of-basin 

hatchery spawners include continuation of trap and removal of strays at Warm Springs hatchery 

and initiation of trap and removal at Shitike Creek. These actions are expected to significantly 

reduce abundance of hatchery spawners and improve the diversity metric ratings in the future. 

Lower Mainstem John Day River Population 

Life history diversity, genetic variation and spawner composition are all metrics that have gaps 

for this population. Juvenile life history diversity has been reduced as a result of flow and 

temperature changes. Abundance of out-of-DPS spawners has resulted in a high risk rating for 

spawner composition. There are many tributary habitat actions that target restoring natural 

processes and improving both flow and temperature for the long term. These actions are 

expected to provide opportunity for expression of broader life history diversity. There are no 

specific actions proposed within this population to reduce abundance of out-of-DPS hatchery 

strays. However, we expect that if transportation of Snake River hatchery smolts is reduced in 

the future, and if some alternative broodstock are used for Snake River hatchery programs in the 

future, that the number of hatchery strays in this population will be reduced. 

North Fork John Day River Population 

The spatial structure/diversity gap for the North Fork population is spawner composition. 

Although there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the proportion of hatchery 

spawners in this population this metric was rated high risk. No within-population actions are 

proposed to reduce out-of-basin hatchery stray abundance; however, reduced transportation of 

Snake River hatchery smolts and broodstock reform in Snake River hatchery programs may 

reduce abundance of strays in the future. 

Middle Fork John Day River Population 

All spatial structure/diversity metrics were rated low except spawner composition which was 

high risk due to abundance of out-of-DPS strays. No within-population management actions are 

proposed to reduce stray abundance. See the Lower Mainstem description of potential Snake 

River transportation and hatchery actions that may reduce strays. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-122

South Fork John Day River Population 

All spatial structure/diversity metrics were rated low except spawner composition which was 

high risk due to the proportion of out-of-DPS stray hatchery spawners. No within-population 

management actions are proposed to reduce the abundance of stray hatchery fish. See the Lower 

Mainstem description of potential Snake River transportation and hatchery actions that may 

reduce strays. 

Upper Mainstem John Day River Population 

Life history diversity and spawner composition are metrics that have gaps for this population. 

Juvenile movement patterns and reduced summer rearing distribution have likely resulted from 

altered tributary and mainstem habitats. There are many tributary habitat actions that target 

restoring natural processes with focus on reducing temperature, improving riparian condition, 

and increasing flow. These actions are expected to improve habitat conditions and result in 

opportunity for greater life history expression. The spawner composition metric was rated high 

risk due to abundance of out-of-DPS hatchery strays. No within-population management actions 

are proposed to reduce stray abundance. See the Lower Mainstem description of potential Snake 

River transportation and hatchery actions that may reduce strays. 

Umatilla River Population 

The Umatilla River population, along with the Walla Walla River population, has the greatest 

extent of spatial structure/diversity impairment of all Oregon’s Mid-C populations. Both spatial 

structure and diversity have multiple metrics with substantial gaps. The current spawner 

distribution is significantly reduced from historical due to loss of spawning in Butter Creek and 

McKay Creek watersheds. Tributary habitat management actions in the Butter Creek watershed 

target improvement of passage, temperature and flow conditions which are the key limiting 

factors. These efforts, in the long term, will restore conditions and provide the potential for 

production in the future. 

Four diversity metrics have gaps including life history, phenotypic variation, spawner 

composition and selective change in natural processes. Tributary management actions that target 

restoration of natural processes including reducing temperatures, improving the hydrograph, and 

improving riparian conditions will allow for broader expression of life history diversity including 

more normative adult and juvenile migration characteristics. These actions are expected to 

significantly reduce the diversity gaps. There are no Columbia River mainstem hydrosystem 

management actions proposed that will reduce the selectivity impacts of the hydrosystem. 

Walla Walla River Population 

The Walla Walla River population is one of Oregon’s Mid-C populations with the greatest 

spatial structure/diversity impairments. Both spatial structure and diversity have multiple 

metrics with significant gaps. The current spawner distribution is reduced from the historic 

distribution due to loss of spawning in the Pine Creek watershed. Tributary management actions 

target restoration of natural processes and conditions, and actions within Pine Creek that focus 

on improving flow and water quality are considered high priority. Although, we expect that it 

will take a long time to restore Pine Creek to a condition that will allow sustained natural 

production. Restoration of sustained natural production in Pine Creek will significantly improve 

spatial structure with the population. 
Section 10, Management Action Effectiveness 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

10-123

Four diversity metrics have gaps including life history, phenotypic variation, spawner 

composition and selective change in natural processes. Tributary habitat management actions 

target restoration of natural processes and include specific focus on the limiting factors causing 

diversity impairments. Actions focus on improving temperature, restoring natural hydrograph, 

and improving passage. These actions, although they will take a long time, will improve 

conditions and allow for more natural expression of life history diversity and phenotypic traits, 

such as adult and juvenile migration characteristics. There are no Columbia River mainstem 

hydrosystem management actions proposed that will reduce the selectivity impacts of the 

hydrosystem. 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-1

Section 11 Time and Cost Estimates 

The ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that recovery plans include “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” (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, as amended). This section and 

Appendix I are intended to meet this ESA requirement, and will be used by NMFS to estimate 

the total recovery costs for the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS in its draft Mid-Columbia 

Steelhead DPS Plan. 

11.1 Cost Estimates 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, together with its Recovery Planning Team, 

Management Action Teams, and the Oregon Mid-Columbia River Sounding Board have 

developed an extensive list of projects needed to recover the Oregon populations in the MidColumbia steelhead DPS. These projects are intended to address the recovery of ESA-listed 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead. This project list was developed using the most up-to-date 

assessment of Mid-Columbia steelhead recovery needs, without consideration of cost or potential 

funding. This section summarizes cost estimate findings and Appendix I provides cost estimates 

for recovery projects where available information was sufficient to do so. These draft cost 

estimates were prepared by a NMFS economist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in 

Seattle using a regional recovery cost database, together with input and review from ODFW, 

regional experts, and the Mid-Columbia Sounding Board in 2007. 

Cost estimates for proposed recovery projects were developed using the unit cost method 

described in Appendix I. This involved: (1) grouping proposed recovery actions in Section 9 by 

project type; (2) determining the scale for each action; (3) developing unit costs for each project 

type and then calculating the total cost estimate for each project; and (4) the resulting total cost 

estimate by project was multiplied by 1.6 to reflect the additional costs of project planning, 

coordination, engineering, permits and other administrative needs. The multiplier was estimated 

after consulting with ODFW and other parties experienced in habitat restoration project 

implementation. 

Table 11-1, Recovery Costs Summary Table, summarizes the total estimated cost for each 

strategy by population. The estimates are based on cost estimates in Appendix I, Table I-1 (All 

Actions by Population, Strategy and Category) that summarizes estimated total costs that can 

currently be identified for recovery actions in each Oregon population and strategy. No cost 

estimates are provided for (1) baseline actions (programs that are already in existence and would 

occur regardless of this recovery plan, or voluntary actions) that are listed as Not Applicable 

(N/A); and (2) for actions that need costs to be developed, need unit costs, and/or need project 

scale estimates, which are listed as To Be Determined (TBD). ODFW will work with regional 

experts to identify costs, scale or unit costs for actions that need more information during the 

public comment period. Appendix I will be updated with this new information for the final 

recovery plan. 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-2

The total estimated costs shown in Table 11-1 are by strategy and are either the Priority 1 and 2 

estimated total stream mile costs or the estimated project costs in Appendix I, Table I-1. There 

are several cautions that must be highlighted regarding these summary costs, because many of 

these estimates may be incomplete until actions are better defined. For example, costs for 

potentially expensive projects such as land and water acquisition, water leasing, and RM&E have 

not yet been estimated for many populations. For other projects, unit cost estimates or 

determination of project scale may also still need to be calculated. Therefore, Table 11-1 

presents preliminary summary costs, which will increase when unit cost estimates, scale of 

projects, and costs for actions are determined, for recovery of these populations. 

The estimated total recovery costs in Table 11-1 range widely from relatively less expensive fish 

passage projects to more expensive projects such as restoring stream channel structure and 

complexity. The Lower John Day ($116,192,806) and Deschutes River Westside ($114,110,501) 

populations have the most expensive estimated total project costs, while the South Fork John 

Day ($8,656,103) and Fifteenmile ($28,358,906) populations have the smallest total costs. 

These total cost differences may be due to many factors such as size of the population’s 

watershed, extent to which current conditions need to be improved, scale of projects, number of 

projects identified, and the availability of recovery action cost information by population at this 

time. The overall total cost estimate for all proposed actions where costs are available for all 

populations is $512,843,328. 

Table 11-1. Recovery Costs Summary Table. 

Population and Strategy Total Estimated Cost 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $480,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $7,760,314 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $17,090,583 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions $2,852,009 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

 Fifteenmile Total $28,358,906 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, Orchard Ridge and Wolf Run diversion piping, and upland vegetation 

management. 

Deschutes River Eastside Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $160,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $17,795,520 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $18,539,341 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $7,046,854 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. $197,702 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-3

Population and Strategy Total Estimated Cost 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

Deschutes River Eastside Total $43,915,417 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, and upland vegetation management. 

Deschutes River Westside Population

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $50,499,360 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $52,808,352 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $10,626,789 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

 Deschutes River Westside Total $114,110,501 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, and forest road upgrading/removal. 

Lower Mainstem John Day River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers. $7,600,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain 

unimpaired conditions. $42,164,092 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $44,623,665 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $17,121,854 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. $4,507,195 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

Lower Mainstem John Day Total $116,192,806 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, push up dam removals, grazing management, and forest road 

upgrading/removal. 

North Fork John Day River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $16,120,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $6,728,300 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $6,288,402 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $3,116,517 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. $1,704,357 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. $707,200 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-4

Population and Strategy Total Estimated Cost 

North Fork John Day Total $34,840,776 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, push up dam removal, and mine discharge management. 

Middle Fork John Day River Population

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $18,880,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $12,034,700 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $11,847,511 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $5,262,030 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. $1,489,614 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. $1,060,800 

Middle Fork John Day Total $50,750,655 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, and push up dam removal. 

South Fork John Day River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $5,680,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $551,660 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $481,353 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions $1,234,920 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. $532,170 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

South Fork John Day Total $8,656,103 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, push up dam removal, and forest road upgrading/removal. 

Upper Mainstem John Day River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $12,240,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $11,891,318 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $15,855,724 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $5,731,272 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. $2,324,475 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. $104,000 

Upper Mainstem John Day Total $48,322,789 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, and push up dam removal. 

Umatilla River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-5

Population and Strategy Total Estimated Cost 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $5,280,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $11,191,348 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $12,176,285 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $5,855,134 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

Umatilla Total $34,678,767 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, point source water pollution management, the Umatilla Basin Project, 

and forest road upgrading/removal. 

Walla Walla River Population 

1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes. $176,000 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial 

barriers and maintain properly functioning passage and connectivity. $3,520,000 

3. Maintain and restore floodplain connectivity and function. $9,786,240 

4. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning channel structure and 

complexity. $14,696,304 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain properly 

functioning conditions. $4,838,064 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

8. Restore degraded and maintain properly functioning upland processes to 

minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff. 

 Walla Walla Total $33,016,608 

Totals do not include actions with potentially significant costs to be determined later, including habitat 

acquisition, water right purchases, point source water pollution management, and forest road 

upgrading/removal. 

 Grand Total $512,843,328 

Information on current expenditures and expected five-year budget amounts for habitat projects 

by a wide range of local, state, federal agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is 

provided in Appendix I, Table I-2 (Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for MidColumbia River Steelhead). This table provides context for the estimated costs of recovery 

actions and provides a basis for estimating possible levels of funding for recovery plan 

implementation over a given period of time. Total expected average expenditures over the next 

five years vary by population. For example, the Fifteenmile Creek population had the lowest 

expected total five-year expenditure ($3,550,000), while the Lower Mainstem John Day River 

population had the highest expected total five-year expenditure ($15,095,000). The total 

expected five-year expenditures for all populations is $103,537,000. 

11.2 Time Estimate 

NMFS estimates that recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS, like recovery for most of the 

ESA-listed Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead, could take 50 to 100 years. While this 
Section 11, Time and Cost Estimates 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

11-6

recovery plan contains an extensive list of actions that need to be undertaken to recover Oregon’s 

Mid-Columbia steelhead populations, there are many uncertainties involved in predicting the 

course of recovery and in estimating total costs. These include uncertainties regarding biological 

and ecosystem responses to recovery actions, as well as uncertainties regarding long-term and 

future funding. While continued programmatic actions in the management of habitat, hatcheries, 

hydro and harvest will warrant additional expenditures beyond the first 10 years, Oregon 

believes it is impracticable to estimate all projected actions and costs over 50 to 100 years, given 

the large number of economic, biological, and social variables involved. NMFS has a policy 

recommendation to focus on the first 10 years of implementation, with the proviso that before the 

end of this first implementation period, specific actions and costs will be estimated for 

subsequent years, to achieve long-term goals and to proceed until a determination is made that 

listing is no longer necessary. 

Given the uncertainties in developing recovery cost estimates described above, Oregon is not 

able to estimate total or 10-year costs to recover Oregon’s populations in the Mid-Columbia 

steelhead DPS. Table I-2, however, provides current average expenditures on habitat projects 

expected expenditures during the next five years. These projected five-year habitat project 

expenditures in Table I-2 total approximately $102 million. 

In early 2008, Oregon will develop a plan for recovery project implementation, which will 

include project cost estimates, and identify how recovery plan implementation will be 

coordinated. This process is already underway as the Sounding Board discusses its future role in 

recovery plan implementation. Recovery costs will be revised in the future as specific project 

budgets are completed. The implementation plan will identify what entity or individual will 

carry out the recovery actions and the timeline for implementation. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-1

Section 12 Implementation and Adaptive Management 

12.1 Implementation 

The successful implementation of the Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead recovery plan recovery 

actions, research, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management process will require 

significant funds and the coordinated work of ODFW, State agencies, tribes, counties, irrigation 

districts, agriculture and private forest land managers, NMFS, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, other 

Federal agencies, local residents, citizen groups, utilities, other agencies, and individuals. 

ODFW, in coordination with the Oregon Governor’s Office and NMFS, has taken the lead in 

developing this recovery plan; all will continue to be instrumental in its implementation. This 

section describes the overall framework for coordinated and cohesive implementation of the 

plan, including tracking, monitoring and reporting, as well as implementation of an adaptive 

management process. 

The recovery plan identifies recovery strategies and actions using the best available science to 

address limiting factors and threats and recover Mid-C steelhead in Oregon. The NMFS interim 

recovery planning guidance (NMFS 1996) acknowledges that recovery plans are not regulatory 

documents, and that it is not a requirement of the ESA for any entity to implement the recovery 

strategy or specific actions in a recovery plan unless otherwise legally mandated. Consequently, 

this recovery plan is based primarily on voluntary implementation of proposed recovery actions 

as well as existing laws, regulations and agreements. 

Many of the organizations which are currently implementing, and will implement recovery 

actions in the future, are not obligated to participate. The identification of an entity in the 

recovery actions does not necessarily require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to 

secure funding for implementing the action(s). It is anticipated that these organizations will 

choose to participate to advance their missions, as part of funding and contractual agreements, 

and in response to public education and outreach. In fact, there are many examples of voluntary 

recovery actions already being taken that support steelhead recovery. It is also acknowledged 

that there may be alternative actions to those proposed in this plan that may also attain recovery 

strategies. Actions to achieve a specific recovery strategy may vary due to logistics, funding 

constraints, or an organization’s authorities and administrative processes. 

Because of this large reliance on voluntary implementation of actions, public outreach and 

education will be a critical component of engaging citizens and communities to contribute to 

species recovery needs. Outreach and education will be conducted at all levels within the 

implementation framework, but will be most important at the local implementation level, 

specifically with watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts. Recovery plan 

outreach will be coordinated with outreach efforts under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds. The public will also be invited to participate in meetings associated with recovery 

plan implementation. Without public interest, engagement and stewardship, the goals of this 

plan will not be achieved. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-2

Oregon’s recovery plan implementation framework is intended to provide a collaborative 

approach to implementation, science guidance and policy direction, as well as facilitate 

information exchange and coordination from local-level action entities to upper level decision 

makers and provide linkage to state, DPS and regional forums. Existing forums, groups, 

partnerships and involved citizens make this implementation structure possible, but additional 

resources and funding will be needed to make it work effectively and successfully. The basic 

components of Oregon’s implementation framework include a Recovery Team, an 

Implementation Coordinator, an Implementation Team, a Technical Team, and Watershed 

Teams (Figure 12.1). These teams will interface with and potentially strengthen the various state 

agency teams associated with the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds that provide for 

policy, management, and monitoring of interagency Oregon Plan programs for the conservation 

and restoration of habitat, water quality, and salmon (http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/). In 

addition, these teams will function to coordinate within the DPS implementation and adaptive 

management framework (Figure 12.2). The implementation framework will adapt and change as 

necessary to adjust to funding, available resources, and implementation needs. The roles of each 

of these implementation teams and the coordinator are described below. 

Recovery Team: The Recovery Team provides oversight and vision to recovery plan 

implementation, in a similar role as the Mid-C Sounding Board served in the plan development 

process. This team is the responsible entity for reporting to NMFS and shares accountability for 

species recovery in this MU. The Recovery Team coordinates at state, federal and regional 

levels; makes decisions and acts on policy, funding and legislative needs; provides overall 

guidance to the recovery plan teams and coordinates with other domain teams and the Oregon 

Plan Core Team (interagency policy forum); and serves as the state’s representative at the bistate Mid-C Forum. Members of this team include representatives from the Oregon Governor’s 

Natural Resources Office, ODFW (including the Implementation Coordinator), and the Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board. Additional membership will include interested parties from 

counties, tribes and federal agencies. While the Recovery Team serves a unique purpose and 

function, members of this Team will also be members of the Implementation Team. 

Implementation Coordinator: An ODFW implementation coordinator will serve as Oregon’s 

“MU lead” for recovery plan implementation, under the advice and guidance of the Recovery 

Team. The Coordinator will be a key connector to the various teams, groups, subgroups and 

individual entities. The Implementation Coordinator will work in conjunction with the 

Implementation Team and Watershed Teams to plan, schedule, track and report on action 

implementation, and in coordination with the Technical Team to develop, track and report on 

RM&E activities. The Implementation Coordinator will also be a member of the Recovery 

Team and a participant in the DPS Implementation and Outreach subgroups. If necessary, the 

Coordinator will communicate with local, state, federal or tribal hatcheries and other entities and 

agency staff that perform work related to anadromous fish in the MU. The Implementation 

Coordinator will lead the Implementation Team in its deliberations and actions, coordinate and 

lead annual implementation plan development and adaptive management processes, coordinate 

and communicate with Watershed Teams (or individual implementation entities) and the Oregon 

Plan Regional Management Teams (interagency regional manager forum). This MU lead will 

also integrate with regional forums for hydro, harvest and hatchery issues, including the FCRPS 

BiOp, US v OR, Northwest Planning and Conservation Council, and Columbia Basin Fish and 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-3

Wildlife Authority, through linkage with ODFW staff representatives in these forums. Actions 

and decisions within these forums are important for achieving successful plan implementation 

and recovery of Mid-C steelhead. 

Implementation Team: The Implementation Team provides advice, recommendations and 

support to the Implementation Coordinator (chair). This Team assists in the communication and 

coordination with Watershed Teams or local implementation groups, development, tracking and 

reporting of annual implementation plans, and tracking and reporting of research and monitoring. 

The Implementation Team also facilitates gathering and exchange of information, identifies and 

pursues funding sources, and provides for public participation, education and outreach. 

Team Members include members of the Mid-C Sounding Board (irrigation districts, utilities, 

conservation groups, federal and tribal representatives, watershed councils, SWCDs) and other 

local stakeholders, interest groups and governments. This diverse group represents differing 

perspectives, missions, and geographic areas, with the overall objective of collectively and 

synergistically working together to achieve and advance recovery plan goals. The 

Implementation Team will be staffed by a facilitator and a NMFS representative. 

Technical Team: The Technical Team provides advice and guidance on technical and science 

issues related to monitoring, research and evaluation, data analysis, and adaptive management 

that supports and strengthens effective implementation of recovery plan actions. The Team will 

provide the framework for data and dataset gathering from diverse sources and the data 

management and analysis necessary for threats and viability assessments of the MPG 

populations. The Oregon Plan Monitoring Team (interagency monitoring forum) will interface 

with the Technical Team. The Technical Team will be an important MU link to the Mid-C 

Forum RM&E subgroup, participating in DPS status reviews and ensuring consistency in 

monitoring. A member of the Technical Team will serve on the Implementation Team. Members 

of the Technical Team will include members of the recovery plan Planning Team and Expert 

Panel, as well as other key state, federal, tribal, utility and private scientists and biologists, 

consultants, and university staff. A voluntary chair will facilitate team operations until funding 

can be obtained to provide remuneration. 

Watershed Teams: Watershed Teams are comprised of the various local entities implementing 

local restoration and conservation actions via their respective authorities, mandates, missions, 

and work plans, and include watershed councils, SWCDs, federal and state agencies, local 

governments, tribes, conservation groups, and utilities. Watershed Teams will be encouraged 

and facilitated to form on a voluntary basis for a specific watershed, or will be collaborative 

partnership forums already in existence. In many cases, watershed councils currently serve this 

function with representation from a diversity of interest and action groups. Team chairs will be 

voluntary and teams will be self-directed. Collaborative teams will facilitate coordination and 

prioritization of actions and exchange of information within the watershed. They will provide 

project information to the Implementation Coordinator (or members of the Implementation 

Team) to support development of annual implementation schedules, plans, and reports. 

Collectively or individually, Watershed Teams will promote public involvement through 

outreach, education, and volunteer opportunities. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-4

The Watershed Teams represent the Major Population Groups in the Oregon Mid-C MU, to 

include the Cascade Eastern Slopes MPG, the John Day MPG, and the Umatilla/Walla Walla 

MPG. However, each MPG will include two or more teams representing various populations in 

the MPG. 

Cascade Eastern Slopes MPG: Deschutes Westside (to include Fifteenmile Creek) 

and Deschutes Eastside populations 

John Day MPG: Lower Mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, and Upper 

Mainstem John Day populations. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG: Umatilla and Walla Walla populations. 

If Watershed Teams are not formed, the Implementation Coordinator and members of the 

Implementation Team will work with individual action entities in the watershed, as necessary. 

Oregon will participate in the newly formed bi-state steelhead DPS-level Mid-Columbia Forum 

to ensure Oregon steelhead implementation activities are coordinated with recovery work in the 

other steelhead DPS management units in Washington, which are coordinated by local recovery 

boards (i.e., Yakima and Snake River). Oregon’s Recovery Team (through its leads) and 

Washington’s recovery boards (through their executive directors or leads) will be responsible for 

reporting progress to the Mid-Columbia Forum and NMFS on an annual basis, including 

progress in management, conservation, and research, monitoring and evaluation actions, and 

trends in habitat health and salmonid viability. 

Mid-C 

Recovery 

Team

(Policy, Overall Leads)

Mid-C

Implementation

Team

(schedules, tracks,

reports, coordinates)

Mid-C 

Technical

Team

(Science/Technical)

Upper 

Mainstem, NF,

SF, MF

John Day

Lower

Mainstem

John Day

Umatilla

Walla Walla

Westside 

Deschutes

Eastside

Deschutes

Watershed Teams

GNRO, ODFW, OWEB, Implementation

Coordinator, Tribes, Counties, Other major 

local entities

Staff: 

Chair: Member of team

Sound Board members

Watershed Team reps

NOAA, Tribes, Tech

Team rep

Chair: Imp. Coordinator

Staff: Facilitator, NOAA 

Planning team reps, other 

key federal, state, local, 

tribal scientists, consultants

university professors

Chair: member of team or 

facilitator

Mid-C Recovery Plan Implementation Structure

(Note: Watershed teams are voluntary, self-directed arrangements of implementers)

Figure 12.1. Implementation and adaptive management organizational chart for Oregon’s Mid-C 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-5

Regional 

Forums 

FCRPS BiOp

US v OR

NPCC

CBFWA

CR Federal Caucus Outreach Subgroup

DPS

Mid-C Forum

Technical 

Team

Coordinator

Implementation

Team

ODFW staff reps

OR MU 

Recovery 

Team

RM&E Subgroup

Implementation

Subgroup

Deschutes Westside,

Fifteenmile Creek

Deschutes

Eastside

Umatilla Lower Mainstem

John Day

Upper Mainstem, 

NF, SF, MF 

John Day

OPSW

Regional Management

Teams

OPSW

Core

Team

Science Teams

Walla Walla

OPSW 

Monitoring 

Team

Watershed 

Teams

Figure 12.2. Implementation and adaptive management organizational chart for the Mid-C DPS 

Steelhead Recovery Plan including the Oregon components. 

Oregon and NOAA will produce an implementation plan with a schedule to satisfy the 

requirement under the ESA. The detailed implementation plan will serve as the guidance 

document that describes the time-specific implementation of actions for all programs. The 

implementation plan will serve as the benchmark of expected milestones that allows for tracking 

of progress in recovery plan action implementation. 

An ESA implementation plan identifies the following: 

• recovery actions, 

• priority for completing the actions, 

• timeline and duration for completion of the actions, 

• lead agency/entity to implement each action, and 

• estimated cost for each action over a specified period of time. 

Many of the elements of the detailed implementation plan are already covered in this recovery 

plan including actions, priorities, and program responsibility. The principle element that is 

missing is the program by program description of actions that will be completed on an annual 

basis. A detailed implementation schedule and plan will be completed in 2009 after Oregon and 

NMFS have refined and finalized the proposed recovery actions and recovery costs based on 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-6

public comments and the recovery plan is adopted in 2009. In developing this implementation 

plan, Oregon and NMFS will work with Oregon’s Implementation Team, and in close 

association with the Oregon Plan Regional Management Teams (Central Regional Management 

Team and Eastern Regional Management Team), to identify who is responsible for carrying out 

recovery actions and when. Federal agencies will also need to identify how they will be involved 

in recovery plan implementation. 

12.2 Adaptive Management 

Mid-C steelhead have a complex life cycle that traverses habitats from high elevation tributaries 

to the open ocean. Life history strategies and life stage specific habitat requirements are 

complex. There are many limiting factors and threats that influence the viability of Oregon’s 

Mid-C steelhead at all life stages. The suite of proposed management actions to address primary 

limiting factors and threats across the entire life cycle is extensive and diverse. Although the 

limiting factors and threats, as well as the management actions, have been developed based on 

the best available science, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the outcomes and 

effectiveness of the proposed management actions as well as the status of the populations. It is 

this uncertainty which generates the essential need for an effective adaptive management 

process. 

A successful adaptive management process requires that we understand how and why steelhead 

and their associated habitats respond to the management actions we take to address key limiting 

factors and threats. In addition, success requires a decision framework and process which 

considers new information in the development and implementation of future management 

actions. 

One of the great challenges facing the development and implementation of an effective adaptive 

management strategy for Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead is the extensive number of organizations that 

implement management actions, as well as the complexity in jurisdictional and management 

decision authority. There are many different organizations including state agencies, tribes, 

counties, irrigation districts, agriculture and private forest land managers, NOAA, U.S. Forest 

Service, BLM, other federal agencies, local residents, citizen groups, utilities and others that 

implement management actions. 

Along with this implementation complexity is a parallel level of jurisdictional, management 

decision authority, and process complexity. There is no one single decision body that holds 

decision authority for management actions across all the H’s. Decision authority for 

management actions resides across many entities including state, tribal, federal, county as well as 

others. Those diverse decision frameworks and processes, many independent of others, create 

coordination and collaboration challenges. We acknowledge that it is unreasonable to expect 

centralization and integration of all authorities and decision processes into a single decision 

framework. Our approach is to develop a collaboration and coordination process that uses the 

implementation structures and allows for sharing of information and decisions that influence 

recovery of Mid-C steelhead. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-7

Integration of the many adaptive decision processes will occur within the adaptive management 

framework illustrated in Figure 12.1. The Recovery Team and the Implementation Team will 

serve key roles in incorporating new knowledge into future management guidance and direction. 

These teams will not only provide input for adaptive implementation of tributary habitat actions, 

they will also provide input into other regional decision forums through the Mid-C Forum and 

State of Oregon representatives. 

In the following text, we provide a description of the various management decision processes 

and associated adaptive management plans that influence management actions for tributary 

habitat, mainstem hydrosystem, harvest and hatcheries. 

12.2.1 Tributary Habitat 

There is a variety of funding sources and implementing entities responsible for tributary habitat 

restoration actions. In all cases the funding sources and implementing entities have adaptive 

decision processes for prioritizing actions. It is beyond the scope of this document to present all 

of the processes used, thus, we provide a few examples illustrating the major ongoing decision 

processes, followed by a description of how the recovery plan adaptive management framework 

will address adaptive management for tributary habitat protection and restoration. 

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is a state agency that supports Oregon’s 

efforts to improve water quality, strengthen ecosystems and restore salmon runs. OWEB 

coordinates the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, which is an essential element of 

tributary habitat restoration for the recovery plan. OWEB administers grant funding programs 

from Oregon lottery proceeds and from federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds 

(PCSRF). These grant programs fund cooperative salmon habitat restoration for a wide variety 

of implementers. OWEB’s strategic plan describes how the board will achieve watershed 

restoration. OWEB focuses on projects that approach natural resource management with a 

whole-watershed perspective through investments and partnerships. Priority watershed concerns 

addressed by grants include: 

• Instream Process and Function 

• Fish Passage 

• Urban Impact Reduction 

• Riparian Process and Function 

• Wetland Process and Function 

• Upland Process and Function 

• Water Quantity/Irrigation Efficiency 

• Road Impact Reduction 

An essential element of the OWEB strategy is active implementation of adaptive management. 

Adaptive management is implemented in a variety of ways through strategic guidance, project 

review, selection and prioritization processes and emphasis on monitoring and evaluation. 

Review team members score and discuss applications to determine which projects to recommend 

for funding. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-8

Monitoring information from the complement of different types of project monitoring efforts 

(e.g., baseline, compliance, status and trend, effectiveness, and validation monitoring) and the 

cooperative interagency Monitoring Team is used to help measure project progress and 

effectiveness. Oregon is able to document watershed conditions, track changes in critical habitat 

and species over time, and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation and restoration efforts. 

This diversity of monitoring approaches is essential to understanding watershed health, tracking 

the success of projects, and setting restoration priorities. 

As a critical element in the grant funding process, the OWEB Board is kept apprised of new and 

emerging issues in the natural resources arena to help guide their decisions. As an example, the 

Board has received many presentations on climate change and its potential impacts to watersheds 

and salmon. This information helps to shape the decision framework within which the Board 

operates and its final recommendations. The OWEB Board has provided general 

recommendations as guidance for grant funding and overall action implementation in the 

watershed to strengthen the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: 

• Promote citizen involvement in the Oregon Plan 

• Build creative partnerships to focus on significant ecological outcomes 

• Streamline and expedite permitting for restoration projects 

• Support strong leadership, interagency communication, and coordination 

• Develop and implement shared priorities for restoration 

• Track restoration and recovery trends and improve information accessibility 

• Develop a coordinated strategy that demonstrates ways habitat restoration actions reduce 

the growing risk of climate change 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 

provides extensive funding to many habitat protection and restoration implementers in all of 

Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead populations. The Fish and Wildlife Program was established to 

mitigate the effects of the Columbia River federal power system. On a periodic basis (typically 

every three years), the NPCC solicits and evaluates proposals for on-the-ground monitoring and 

evaluation projects to meet the goals and objectives of the program. Proposed projects undergo a 

rigorous scientific review and revision process to ensure implementation of sound and effective 

high priority projects that are based on best available science and use state-of-the-art restoration 

strategies and approaches. Integral to this process is the review of each individual proposal by 

the Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP). Each project is evaluated, in part, based on the 

project’s role in contributing to an effective adaptive management process. The review process 

has resulted in significant changes through time in implementation strategies and actions for 

most habitat restoration projects. 

SWCDs, Watershed Councils, and other habitat restoration implementation entities all have 

prioritization and adaptive change processes that are used in deciding which projects to 

implement. New monitoring and evaluation information is used within each of these decision 

frameworks to decide on priority actions, geographic locations, and specific applications. Within 

these processes the consideration of high priority recovery actions is important. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-9

Although OWEB, NPCC, SWCDs, tribes, states, NGOs and others have prioritization processes 

and elements of adaptive management, there is a clear need for a more integrated and 

coordinated adaptive management approach for tributary habitat restoration. Previously in this 

section we described an implementation and adaptive management framework for this recovery 

plan. We do not envision this new framework and process to replace the other processes that are 

currently used, but rather a mechanism to improve collaboration, coordination and sharing of 

essential information for decision making. Under the guidance of the Recovery Team and the 

Implementation Team, the Technical Team and Implementation Coordinator will function as the 

core for tributary habitat adaptive management. New information, including successes and 

failures, will be shared throughout the framework from the watershed and technical teams 

upwards to the Recovery Team to allow for better decisions regarding priority actions, 

geographic focus areas, and application techniques. The Oregon Plan Regional Management 

teams play an important role in this adaptive process as they hold responsibility for managing the 

implementation and prioritization of many critical restoration actions. 

12.2.2 Mainstem Hydrosystem 

Implementation Plans and Reporting Requirements

The FCRPS BiOp requires the federal Action Agencies to continue collaboration with states and 

tribes in the implementation of Reasonable and Prudent (RPA) actions, progress reporting, and 

adaptive management using regional fora such as the Regional Implementation Oversight Group. 

RPA Actions 1 through 3 identify the general requirements governing the federal Action 

Agencies’ development of implementation plans and reporting requirements. The federal Action 

Agencies must submit implementation plans to NOAA Fisheries in December of 2009, 2013, and 

2016 that detail commitments to implement RPA actions - during subsequent years - for hydro, 

habitat, hatcheries, harvest, and predation (RPA Actions 4-49), and RPA actions (50-73) for 

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RM&E). 

The federal Action Agencies are required to submit Annual Progress Reports to NOAA Fisheries 

September 2009 through 2018 which cover hydro operations, status of physical or biological 

metrics monitoring, and actions implemented in the previous year, except in 2013 and 2016. 

In June of 2013 and 2016, the federal Action Agencies are required to submit Comprehensive 

RPA Evaluation Reports to NOAA Fisheries. These reports shall review all implementation 

activities through the end of the previous year (as covered in the Annual Progress Reports) and 

compare them to scheduled completion dates in the BiOp or as modified through the 

Implementation Plans in 2009, 2013, and 2016. The Comprehensive RPA Evaluation will also 

describe the status of the physical and biological factors identified in the RPA, and compare 

these with the expectations in the survival improvements identified in the Comprehensive 

Analysis or Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis. Physical and biological factors will include 

new information on climate change and its effects on listed salmon and steelhead. The 

Comprehensive Evaluation will include a discussion of the Action Agencies’ plan to address any 

shortcomings of current estimated survival improvements as compared to the original survival 

estimates identified in the Comprehensive Analysis referenced in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-10

RM&E Requirements 

The 2008 FCRPS BiOp includes some research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) 

requirements (Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Actions 50 through 73) for the federal Action 

Agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power 

Administration). These RM&E requirements are designed to provide information needed to 

support planning and adaptive management and demonstrate accountability related to the 

implementation of FCRPS ESA hydropower and offsite actions for all ESA-listed species 

(Evolutionarily Significant Units or Distinct Population Segments). Considerably more detail in 

the RM&E plans needs to be developed in the early stages of BiOp implementation. The 24 

RPA actions can be categorized into nine broad strategies: 

1. Monitor Status of Selected Fish Populations Related to FCRPS Actions 

2. Hydropower RM&E 

3. Tributary Habitat RM&E 

4. Estuary and Ocean RM&E 

5. Harvest RM&E 

6. Hatchery RM&E 

7. Predation Management RM&E 

8. Coordination and Data Management 

9. Project Implementation and Compliance Monitoring

Regional Implementation and Oversight Group and Technical Committees 

Regional Implementation and Oversight Group (RIOG) 

As described in the BiOps and related documents, the RIOG is established to provide a high 

level policy forum for discussion and coordination of the implementation of the FCRPS and 

related BiOps between the federal agencies on the one hand and states and affected tribes on the 

other hand. The overall purpose of the group is to inform federal, state and tribal agencies that 

are actively engaged in salmon recovery efforts regarding implementation issues from each 

sovereign’s perspective. In doing so, the RIOG will serve as a forum where Basin-wide policy 

issues and concerns related to the implementation of the BiOps, including impacts on other 

Basin-wide basin programs and interests may be discussed in a collaborative manner, and to 

provide a forum for enhanced accountability and transparency. 

The RIOG will consist of designated senior policy representatives of each of the following: 

• five regional federal agencies: NOAA, BPA, Reclamation, Corps and the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 

• four state governors: Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon; and 

• Colville, Spokane, Kootenai, Warm Springs, Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, Kalispel and 

Salish-Kootenai tribal governments (all Columbia Basin Tribes are invited to participate). 

However, no agency or sovereign is compelled to participate in the RIOG because participation 

is by interest and choice. Some sovereigns may not have enough interest in implementation of 

the BiOps to warrant participation. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-11

All decisions under the authority of the federal government will continue to be made by the 

appropriate federal agency with the statutory authority to make such decisions. The RIOG is a 

forum for interagency coordination and does not supplant existing federal, state or tribal 

decision-making authorities. 

Technical Committees 

The RIOG will be supported (groups should form in 2009) by Senior Technical Teams for hydro, 

habitat, hatcheries, and RM&E integration (the latter as needed) and by additional Technical 

Teams. The Technical Teams will include groups that have been used in the past (Technical 

Management Team, System Configuration Team, Water Quality Team, Corps of Engineers 

workgroups, etc.), as well as, new teams (geographically based Habitat and Hatchery Teams and 

a Predation Management Team) that will be formed in 2009. Technical information and 

recommendations will flow “upward” from the Technical Workgroups to the Senior Technical 

Workgroups to the RIOG (for adaptive management and dispute resolution) and policy guidance 

and technical assignments will flow “downward” from the RIOG to the Senior Technical and 

Technical level groups. 

Together, these RIOG and Technical Committees will attempt to assure that actions required by 

the 2008 FCRPS BiOp are effectively implemented, performance standards are achieved, 

disputes are resolved, and other regional processes (NOAA Fisheries’ recovery plans, US v. 

Oregon, Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, etc.) are fully 

considered during the 10-year implementation of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. 

12.2.3 Harvest 

Mainstem Columbia River 

The parties to the 2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement recognize that a 

vigorous research and monitoring program is essential to the continued implementation and 

adaptive management of the harvest regimes that are envisioned in the agreement. The objective 

of the proposed research and monitoring is to improve the accuracy and precision of harvest 

management. Specific monitoring and research needs to provide information which is essential 

for adaptive management are identified in the agreement, and include: 

• Fisheries sampling for stock composition including impacts to natural-origin fish 

• Fishery effort accounting 

• Natural spawning escapement enumeration including enhancements over current 

sampling efforts 

• Run reconstruction and forecasting 

• Observer programs and test fisheries 

• Dam passage sampling 

• PIT tag sampling 

• Increased sampling effort to maintain necessary fishery sampling rates 

• Evaluation of genetic stock identification methods to further improve stock identification 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-12

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of fishery biologists from state, federal and 

tribal management agencies, is established by the agreement to develop, analyze, and review data 

pertinent to the agreement and to make reports and technical recommendations regarding harvest 

management. 

The parties to US v. Oregon agreed to work together to maintain funding for current research 

and monitoring programs, and to seek additional funding that are considered essential to increase 

certainty in the conservation effectiveness of the harvest strategies contained within the 

agreement. The parties also agreed to seek funding sources to assist TAC and its representatives in 

the performance of their functions. 

Additional monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management of harvest is provided by the 

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on Treaty Indian 

and Non-Indian Fisheries in the Columbia River Basin Subject To the 2008-2017 US v. Oregon

Management Agreement (hereafter, Fisheries Biological Opinion). The Fisheries Biological 

Opinion was approved by NOAA Fisheries on May 5, 2008. Section 13.4 of the Biological 

Opinion specifically identifies several Reasonable & Prudent Measures that emphasize in-season 

management actions that will ensure that incidental take of ESA-listed species, including of 

listed steelhead, remain consistent with the Biological Opinion. These measures specifically 

require that: 

• Harvest impacts on listed species shall be monitored using the best available measures; 

• In-season management actions taken during the course of fisheries managed pursuant to 

the 2008 US v. Oregon Agreement shall be consistent with the level of take specified in 

the Incidental Take Statement in the Fisheries Biological Opinion; 

• NOAA Fisheries shall consult with the states and tribes to account for the catch of ESAlisted steelhead in the action area as these occur through the season; and 

• NOAA Fisheries will track the results of these monitoring activities, and in particular, 

any anticipated or actual increases in the incidental take from those expected preseason. 

Recreational Fisheries Regulation Processes (ODFW) 

The procedures for promulgation of angling regulations in accordance with Oregon Revised 

Statute 496.162 are described in Oregon Administrative Rule 635-011-0050. This rule states that 

“Department staff shall continually monitor the status of fish, shellfish, and marine invertebrates 

and report promptly to the Director and Commission any serious or abnormal changes in health 

or abundance of the resource.” There are three basic rule making processes used to develop 

angling regulations which are described below. 

The “Public Process” solicits proposals for new or modified angling regulations from the public 

and considers these proposals for adoption along with ODFW staff proposals. The public 

process takes place on a four-year cycle, with the last Public Process completed for the 2009 

Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. The Public Process takes over a year to execute with staff 

proposals solicited 16 months before rule adoption. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-13

During the “Interim Years” angling regulation changes are adopted without substantive changes, 

but there are opportunities to make rule changes to meet conservation needs, and to make any 

corrections or clarifications. Rules developed as part of Fish Management Plans are also 

considered during Interim Years. The “Interim Year” process normally begins in late April when 

Fish Division Staff solicit rule changes from Fish District Biologists and Fish Division 

Management. Rules are then adopted in August and take effect January 1 of the following year. 

Angling regulations can also be changed by “Temporary Rules” (often referred to as emergency 

rules) which are put in place to: protect or preserve a fish species or stock experiencing 

depletion or drastic decline in health or abundance, or to allow anglers to harvest stocks of fish 

that become more abundant than expected. Temporary Rules are approved by the ODFW 

Director and can be put in place within 24 hours. The Commission must reaffirm the Temporary 

Rules at the next scheduled Commission meeting. Temporary Rules are good for up to 6 

months, but any temporary rule needing to be in place longer should be adopted as a permanent 

rule prior to the 6-month time period.

Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans 

Under Limit 4 of the 4(d) rule (U.S. Office of the Federal Register 2000), take prohibitions do 

not apply to activities associated with fishery harvest activities, provided that the fisheries are 

managed in accordance with a NMFS-approved Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

(FMEP) that is implemented in accordance with a letter of concurrence from NMFS. The 

FMEP, to be approved, must meet a number of specified criteria described in the rule. A 

template has been adopted for development of FMEPs that meet the required criteria (NMFS 

2000). 

To provide for adaptive management, Section 3.5 of the FMEP template requires the applicant to 

include a schedule and process for reviewing and modifying fisheries management under the 

FMEP (NMFS 2000). The FMEP template calls for two evaluation review processes to be 

identified in the FMEP (1) a regular review of fisheries (e.g., annually) and (2) a comprehensive 

assessment of the overall effectiveness of the FMEP (e.g., every one or two full brood cycles, 

depending on the listed species). The FMEP evaluation must assess the effectiveness of the 

FMEP in accomplishing the stated objectives over a longer period of time. This evaluation 

would take into account any new information that may require revisions in assumptions or 

management strategies (NMFS 2000). 

The FMEP shall describe the process and schedule that will be used on a regular basis (annually) 

to evaluate the fisheries, and revise management assumptions and targets if necessary. The 

annual evaluation should provide (1) summaries of mortality, effort, escapement, and biological 

data, and (2) how well management performed in meeting the desired management targets by 

population (or management unit). Specific annual reporting requirements are described in the 

concurrence letter from NMFS to the applicant (NMFS 2000). 

The FMEP shall also include a description of the process and schedule that will occur every 5 

years (or one or two brood cycles), to evaluate whether the FMEP is accomplishing the state 

objectives. The conditions under which revisions to the FMEP will be made and how the 

revisions will likely be accomplished are to be included in this section. The FMEP 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-14

comprehensive evaluation must provide (1) summaries of population or management unit status 

relative to delisting and broad sense recovery goals at the beginning and end of the period under 

review; (2) a summary of the status of the ESU/DPS at the beginning and end of the period under 

review; (3) performance review of each element of the FMEP relative to its specific existing and 

any subsequent newly defined standards; (4) estimates of precision and confidence for the 

analyses conducted above; and (5) recommendations pertaining to management objectives, 

strategies, and actions including possible modification or termination of existing measures and 

addition of new ones (NMFS 2000). 

In addition to the processes described above, NMFS requires that the fisheries managers notify 

and provide to NMFS any proposed fishery regulation changes that affect fisheries within the 

FMEP. NMFS will evaluate the proposed changes to determine if they constitute additional 

impacts that were not contemplated during the review and evaluation of the submitted FMEP. 

Depending on the species and fishery involved, these regulation changes can occur annually or 

in-season. 

12.2.4 Hatcheries 

Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) 

The HSRG completed review and recommendations for all populations and hatchery programs in 

the Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS. In Section 9, we characterized the 

HSRG recommendations and the consistency between the recovery plan actions and HSRG 

recommendations. In all cases, the HSRG recommendations were consistent with what had been 

proposed in the 2007 draft recovery plan released for public comment. 

Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans 

Under Limit 5 of the 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422 July 10, 2000), take prohibitions do not apply to 

activities associated with artificial propagation programs, provided that a Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plan (HGMP) has been approved by NMFS as meeting a list of criteria that are 

specified in the rule. To provide for adaptive management, the HGMPs need to provide 

adequate monitoring and evaluation to detect and evaluate the success of the hatchery program 

and any risks potentially impairing the recovery of the listed ESU/DPS. Furthermore, the 

HGMPs need to provide for the evaluation of the monitoring data and include the potential to 

revise the assumptions, management strategies, or objectives that data show are needed. As part 

of the letter of concurrence, NMFS will describe the implementation process and reporting 

requirements, including annual production reports and the evaluation of monitoring data. 

Limit 5 of the 4(d) rule requires NMFS to evaluate on a regular basis the effectiveness of the 

HGMP in protecting and achieving a level of salmonid productivity commensurate with the 

conservation of the listed salmonids. If the HGMP is not effective, NMFS will identify to the 

operators ways in which the program needs to be altered or strengthened. 

The evaluation of the effectiveness of the HGMPs could lead to the reinitiation of the hatchery 

consultation if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information 

reveals effects of the hatchery actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner 

or to an extent not considered in the consultation; (3) the hatchery actions are subsequently 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-15

modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitat not considered 

in the consultation; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be 

affected by the action. 

Among other considerations, NMFS may reevaluate the HGMP if there is information indicating 

that genetic or ecological impacts, beyond those considered in the consultation, are occurring 

from the operation of the proposed artificial propagation programs. Additionally, NMFS may 

seek to reinitiate consultation if the HGMPs are modified based upon information: (1) developed 

during any subsequent review of the HGMPs that are the basis for these programs; (2) any of the 

other ongoing hatchery review processes such as the Mitchell Act EIS, the Columbia River 

Hatchery Scientific Review Group analysis; and (3) other processes such as recovery planning, 

and US v. Oregon negotiations. 

12.2.5 Implementation Progress and Status Check-ins 

Evaluating a species for potential delisting requires an explicit analysis of population or 

demographic parameters (the biological criteria) and also of threats under the five ESA listing 

factors in ESA section 4(a)(1) (listing factors (threats)criteria). Together these make up the 

“objective, measurable criteria” required under section 4(f)(1)(B). NMFS’ Middle Columbia 

Steelhead Recovery DPS Plan summarizes the biological criteria and threats criteria that will be 

used to evaluate the DPS for potential delisting. 

ESA Requirements for Species Status Reviews 

Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that NMFS conduct a status review of 

Middle Columbia steelhead at least once every five years to evaluate the status of the DPS and 

determine whether it should be removed from the list or changed in status. Guidance for these 

reviews, developed jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006, is on the 

NMFS website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/guidance_5_year_review.pdf. In 

addition, ESA section 4(g) requires that once a species has been de-listed that monitoring must 

be conducted in cooperation with the states for at least five years to ascertain the de-listing 

action. 

The joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance identifies the following key 

components of the status review process: 

• a summary and analysis of available information on a given species; 

• the tracking of a species’ progress toward recovery; 

• the recording of a deliberative process used to make a recommendation on whether or not 

to reclassify a species; and 

• a recommendation on whether reclassification of the species is indicated. 

The NMFS Northwest Regional Office will coordinate the five-year status review process with 

scientists from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Publication of a Federal Register notice 

announcing those species under active review is required. This notifies the public that the review 

is underway and requests information to assist in the review. As recovery plans are completed in 

the Northwest Region, there is now a need to conduct status reviews in the context of the 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-16

biological viability criteria and threats criteria described in the respective recovery plans. 

Addressing this need and identifying a process and methodology for carrying out the status 

reviews in the context of recovery planning is a high priority for NMFS. 

In 2008, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center carried out a “test” status review for a selected 

ESU to evaluate how to best carry out the status review and what information is needed to 

support a robust review and status determination. Based on this preliminary status review 

exercise and on-going discussions between state, federal, local and tribal monitoring experts, the 

NMFS Northwest Region is producing a 2009 Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Salmon and 

Steelhead listed under the ESA. This Guidance will provide recommendations for monitoring 

that addresses all of the viable salmonid population (VSP) criteria and the listing factors and 

threats. This draft Guidance is currently being finalized and will be made available to all state, 

Tribal, local and other entities involved in recovery plan monitoring and adaptive management 

programs for listed salmon and steelhead species. 

NMFS has previously provided three documents describing the need for various kinds of 

information for determining the status of salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA: 

• viable salmonid populations were described in NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA 

Fisheries-NWFSC-42 (McElhany et al. 2000); 

• additional guidance mainly directed toward habitat restoration monitoring has been given 

to states and tribes through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund “Performance 

Goals, Measures, and Reporting Framework (NMFS, December 2006); and 

• the initial framework for developing monitoring is described in “Adaptive Management 

for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring 

Guidance” (NMFS, May 2007). 

Three types of monitoring are needed to collect the most important information for the status 

review process. These include: (1) status and trend monitoring, (2) implementation (compliance) 

monitoring, and (3) effectiveness monitoring. The Middle Columbia steelhead Science Team, in 

coordination with NMFS, will work with all appropriate parties within the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS to design an appropriate monitoring and evaluation plan to ensure appropriate 

data is collected to track and evaluate DPS viability status and threats criteria. 

NMFS scientists conducting the five-year status review will work closely with the Middle 

Columbia River steelhead Management Unit coordinators, DPS Science Team, and the Oregon 

Technical Team formed to provide science input and advice on Middle Columbia River 

steelhead actions, strategies, research designs, and RM&E priorities to implement the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan Science Team’s input will 

be critical to ensure the most recent monitoring and evaluation data is used during the status 

review. 

For the NMFS Middle Columbia River steelhead status review, the following information will be 

taken into account, as well as, other relevant information available at the time of the review: 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-17

• The biological recovery criteria (ICTRT 2007a) and listing factor (threats) criteria 

described in the DPS Recovery Plan 

• Previous status reviews (including ICTRT 2008) 

• The management programs in place to address the threats, including an evaluation of 

what progress these programs have made on implementing recovery strategies identified 

in the recovery plan. For example, how many miles of riparian restoration have been 

carried out relative to specific populations needing viability improvements to meet 

overall MPG or DPS viability goals? 

• Principles presented in the Viable Salmonid Populations paper (McElhany et al. 2000) 

• Best available information on population and DPS status and new advances in risk 

evaluation methodologies 

• Other considerations, including: the number and status of extant spawning groups; the 

status of the major spawning groups; linkages and connectivity among groups; the 

diversity of life history and phenotypes expressed; and considerations regarding 

catastrophic risk 

The Puget Sound Shared Strategy’s Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMA) for 

Chinook salmon provides an example for how to develop effectiveness monitoring metrics. 

Similar to the MAMA we will use the following questions to assist in tracking progress under 

major recovery strategies. Effectiveness monitoring metrics are designed to answer the following 

specific management questions: 

• What are the key hypotheses supporting each major strategy in the Recovery Plan? 

• What are the expected physical, biological changes and timeframes for those changes? 

• What is the overall effectiveness of recovery actions? Is quality habitat being restored 

faster than it is being lost? 

• Are there certain categories of recovery actions that are consistently failing or 

succeeding? 

Effectiveness monitoring is broadly defined to encompass what is often called validation 

monitoring, and will address effectiveness of key strategies identified in the Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Recovery Plan. The RM&E Plan addresses the following key questions: 

• To what extent have strategies and actions been implemented and are they effective at 

meeting their objectives? 

• Are recovery actions at the site, watershed (MaSA, huc6 or other assessment scale as 

appropriate) or programmatic scale producing the desired physical and biological 

changes? 

• Are there categories of salmon recovery actions that are consistently more successful than 

others at meeting their objectives?
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-18

Modifying and Updating the Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan 

According to NMFS’ Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning Guidance 

(NMFS Recovery Guidance) (NMFS 2006), immediately following the five-year species review, 

an approved recovery plan should be reviewed in conjunction with implementation monitoring, 

to determine whether or not the plan needs to be brought up to date. 

NMFS Recovery Guidance provides three types of plan modifications: 1) an update; 2) a 

revision; or 3) an addendum. An update involves relatively minor changes. An update may 

identify specific actions that have been initiated since the plan was completed, as well as, 

changes in species status or background information that do not alter the overall direction of the 

recovery effort. An update does not suffice if substantive changes are being made in the 

recovery criteria or if any changes in the recovery strategy, criteria, or actions indicate a shift in 

the overall direction of recovery; in this case, a revision would be required. Updates can be 

made by the Salmon Recovery Division which will seek input from the local stakeholder group 

prior to making any update. An update would not require a public review and comment period. 

NMFS expects that updates will result from implementation of the adaptive management 

program for this plan. Adaptive management depends on the flow of information from the field 

staff to review managers and planners; hence, it requires frequent updates from monitoring and 

research on the effectiveness of recovery actions and the status and trends of the listed species. It 

may be most efficient to keep the recovery plan current by updating it frequently enough to 

forego the need for major revisions. 

A revision is a substantial rewrite and is usually required if major changes are required in the 

recovery strategy, objectives, criteria, or actions. A revision may also be required if new threats 

to the species are identified, when research identifies new life history traits or threats that have 

significant recovery ramifications, or when the current plan is not achieving its objectives. 

Revisions represent a major change to the recovery plan and must include public review and 

comment period. 

An addendum can be added to a recovery plan after the plan has been approved and can 

accommodate minor information updates or relatively simple additions, such as implementation 

strategies or participation plans, by approval of the field office or Regional Administrator. More 

significant addenda – adding a species to the recovery plan, for example – should undergo public 

review and comment before being attached to a plan. Addenda are approved on a case by case 

basis because of the wide range of significance of different types of addenda. NMFS will seek 

input from stakeholders on minor addenda. 

For the Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, NMFS will work with each Management 

Unit lead, the Mid-C Forum and Science Team to identify any changes, amendments or 

modifications to the Management Unit Plan which will need to be reflected in the DPS Plan. 

NMFS will coordinate any public notification and review of substantial changes to the 

Management Unit and DPS Plans with the Management Unit leaders. 
Section 12, Implementation and Adaptive Management 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

12-19

State of Oregon Adaptive Management Process 

The State of Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy identifies elements related to adaptive 

management that must be included in a state conservation plan. The policy states that a 

conservation plan will include “a process for modifying corrective strategies based upon the 

monitoring, evaluation and research results.” The policy also identifies that a conservation plan 

will include “annual and long-term reporting requirements necessary to document data, 

departures from the plan, and evaluations necessary for adaptive management, in a format 

available to the public.” The elements outlined previously in this chapter are designed to meet 

the requirements in the NFCP related to adaptive management and the successful implementation 

of this recovery plan. The State of Oregon will work cooperatively with NOAA to conduct 

implementation progress and status updates and to report the results of progress and status. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-1

Section 13 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

This research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) plan covers the Oregon portion of the Mid-C 

steelhead DPS. It describes the RM&E recommended for assessing the status and trends in 

population viability and for evaluating the success of management actions implemented to 

recover these steelhead populations. In addition, the types of monitoring approaches that are 

needed, current efforts underway, and additional RM&E needs are presented. Logistical and 

monetary limitations are understood to exist. However, this comprehensive plan will help to 

focus efforts towards the common goal of assessing success in population and DPS recovery. 

To help identify needed monitoring and evaluation efforts, local managers were queried to 

identify critical uncertainties which, in their opinion, currently limit our ability to make informed 

management decisions. Within the context of ESA listing status, monitoring and evaluation 

should focus on providing measures needed for the critical evaluation of the status and trends of 

these populations that are informative for their recovery. 

This plan is based in part on principles and concepts laid out in the NMFS guidance document, 

Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework 

and Monitoring Guidance (May 1, 2007) http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. This plan also borrows from 

RM&E plans that were developed for Mid-Columbia subbasins and other Columbia Basin 

regions. 

 

NMFS’s guidance document provides a listing status decision framework (Figure 13-1), which is 

a series of decision-questions that address the status and change in status of a salmonid 

ESU/DPS, and the risks posed by threats to the ESU/DPS. Consistent with this framework, 

Oregon’s approach focuses on providing key information to determine the condition or status of 

the populations for each of the four VSP parameters, and the effects of factors (and actions) on 

the condition or status of the populations. 

The plan also follows the principles of adaptive management, the process of adjusting 

management actions and/or directions based on new information. Adaptive management is 

considered crucial for salmonid recovery programs because of the length and complexity of the 

salmonid life cycle, and the uncertainties involved in improving salmonid survival and status. 

The plan addresses adaptive management by linking monitoring and evaluation to biological and 

physical responses, and using these results to better design and implement of management 

actions. 

We acknowledge repetition of objectives and methods between MPGs and populations. We 

expect that in some cases this comprehensive RM&E plan will be separated by MPG and 

population for use by managers and researches responsible for securing funding and 

implementing local RM&E efforts. We have developed the plan so that, when separated, the 

individual MPG plans will be useful as stand alone documents. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-2

Evaluation

Status of Viability Parameters

•Abundance

•Productivity

•Spatial Distribution

•Diversity

Status of Statutory Listing Factors ESU Viability 

Assessment

NMFS will determine an ESU is recovered when an ESU is no longer in danger of extinction 

or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of both 

the ESU’s status and the extent to which the threats facing the ESU have been addressed

Major Population Group Status

ESU Status

Population Status:

Listing Factor 1: 

The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or 

range

Listing 

Factor 3: 

Disease 

or 

predation

Listing Factor 4: 

The inadequacy 

of existing 

regulatory 

mechanisms

Listing Factor 5: 

Other Natural or 

manmade factors 

affecting continued 

existence

Listing Factor 2: 

Over utilization 

for commercial, 

recreational or 

educational 

purposes

Status of 

Harvest Threats 

& Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Disease 

and 

Predation

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hatchery 

program’s

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hydropower

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Natural 

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Compliance and 

Implementation Monitoring 

Implement Adaptive 

Management Plan

Action Effectiveness 

Monitoring 

Status of 

Regulatory 

Mechanisms

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Critical Uncertainty 

Research and Evaluation 

Status of 

Habitat 

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Actions

NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework

 Figure 13-1. NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework. 

13.1 Types of Monitoring Efforts 

Several types of monitoring are needed to support adaptive management and to allow managers 

to make sound decisions: 

• Status and Trends Monitoring. Status monitoring includes measures of the current 

state or condition of the population at any given time. Trend monitoring tracks these 

conditions to provide a measure of the increasing, decreasing, or steady state of a status 

measure through time. Status and trends monitoring includes the collection of 

standardized basic information used to monitor broad-scale trends over time in the status 

of fish populations, habitat conditions, and other ecosystem factors affecting fish. This 

information is the basis for evaluating the cumulative effects of management actions on 

fish and the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem. 

• Action Effectiveness Monitoring. Action effectiveness monitoring involves projectscale monitoring of local conditions to determine if implemented actions were effective 

in creating the desired proximate change. Action effectiveness monitoring typically is 

used to determine whether project- or program-specific goals were met. This type of 

monitoring also includes post-project monitoring to see whether the actions continue to 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-3

function as they were designed or intended. Note that status and trend monitoring may be 

appropriate for fulfilling these needs but that project effectiveness monitoring generally 

requires focused evaluations of more specific parameters directly associated with actions. 

Specific indicators and metrics need to be developed in plans for each category of action. 

Specific plans will include measurable variables or parameters to address each objective, 

study design (spatial and temporal scale, tests and controls, statistical criteria, etc.), data 

collection methods and reference examples, and analyses and decisions in response to 

results. 

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring. Implementation and compliance 

monitoring involves monitoring of management actions to determine if they were 

implemented as planned and meet established benchmarks. This monitoring is typically 

conducted by the groups implementing the management and restoration actions. 

• Uncertainties Research. Uncertainties research includes scientific investigations of 

critical assumptions and unknowns that constrain effective recovery plan implementation. 

Uncertainties include unavailable pieces of information required for informed decision 

making as well as studies to establish or verify cause-and-effect and identification and 

analysis of limiting factors. 

The following sections address each major population group separately. In some cases we 

provide specific objectives at the population scale to characterize unique monitoring needs. 

Specific approaches are presented that address each objective. A brief sampling design, 

including the spatial and temporal scale of application, is provided for each objective. 

Measurement variables, protocols and a description of the analysis are presented. Ongoing 

efforts and needed changes and enhancements are discussed for each objective. Existing and 

potential funding sources are identified and finally, implementation and coordination details are 

discussed. The techniques described for each population are not necessarily exhaustive, but are 

meant to be representative of those actions considered to have potential while recognizing 

logistical and monetary constraints.

13.2 John Day River MPG 

Most of the monitoring and evaluation for the John Day River MPG is currently conducted by 

ODFW. Current status and trends monitoring includes spawner escapement, smolt-to-adult 

returns (SAR), juvenile abundance, productivity, distribution, and habitat condition. Not all 

populations are equally monitored but could be assessed with inference through ongoing 

monitoring of neighboring populations or with expansion of ongoing efforts in the populations 

that have inadequate monitoring. Limited rigorous effectiveness monitoring occurs and is 

closely tied to implementation and compliance monitoring of the numerous restoration projects. 

One of the critical uncertainties for this MPG is hatchery-related threats from out-of-basin 

hatchery fish that stray into the basin. 

The five populations within this MPG (Lower Mainstem, Upper Mainstem, South Fork, Middle 

Fork, and North Fork) are similar in many respects and are therefore often monitored and 

evaluated collectively. Further, information collected from M&E efforts within one population 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-4

are often applicable to the other four. Where efforts or circumstances differ significantly among 

populations, differences are noted below within each objective. 

Critical Uncertainties 

Six critical uncertainties for the John Day River MPG that currently limit the ability to make 

informed management decisions have been identified by local area managers. We combined 

these uncertainties with those identified during the recovery planning process to produce the 

RM&E objectives that are addressed herein by our recommended RM&E efforts. They include: 

1. Determine the current status and trend in the abundance and productivity of natural-origin 

spawners and compare to viability abundance criteria for each John Day population. 

2. Determine the status of the spatial structure of each population based on current and 

historically utilized habitat. 

3. Determine the status and trend in conditions of current and historically utilized habitat 

within each population. 

4. Determine the freshwater productivity of each population relative to viability criteria and 

identify primary habitat factors limiting freshwater production. 

5. Determine the current status and change in future status of life history and phenotypic 

diversity for each population. 

6. Determine the effects of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, diversity 

and spatial structure of the natural populations. 

7. Determine the effects of hydropower on the abundance, productivity, diversity and 

distribution of the natural populations. 

8. Determine the effects of habitat degradation and habitat restoration actions on the 

abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of the natural populations. 

While any of these objectives can be applied to monitoring the recovery of most populations, we 

will identify details specific to the John Day populations and to the unique circumstances of the 

five John Day populations in the following recommended approaches. Circumstances and 

management typically do not differ greatly among the John Day populations, and therefore M&E 

needs are quite similar across the populations. Some of these objectives (e.g., the out-of-basin 

influences of hydropower and ocean environment) will remain consistent across all populations 

in this MPG. 

Much of the information needed to monitor the status of John Day River steelhead is currently 

collected under the ODFW monitoring and evaluation program (Wiley et al. 2005; Wilson et al. 

2005b). This plan will describe and supplement the existing programs so that the status and 

trend of the steelhead populations can be compared with recovery criteria. The following 

approaches follow those described in the evaluation framework and monitoring guidance set 

forth in the Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery draft 

document (NOAA 2006) and PNAMP management guidelines. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-5

13.2.1 Lower Mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, Upper Mainstem John Day 

Rivers Populations 

Objective 1: Determine the current status and trend in the abundance and productivity of 

natural-origin spawners and compare to viability criteria for each John Day population. 

The status of a population is determined by estimating the VSP parameters previously described 

in this recovery plan. These parameters include adult abundance, population productivity and 

growth rate, spatial structure, and diversity. The status of these parameters is compared to the 

population-specific recovery criteria resulting in an overall determination of the status of the 

population, MPG, and DPS. This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• Is the 10-year geometric mean (GM) of naturally-produced steelhead spawners in each 

John Day River population greater than or equal to the recovery criterion for natural 

spawners? 

• What are the current spawner abundance and five-year trend in abundance? 

• What are the current and trend in the 20-year population growth rate? 

• What are the current and trend in recruits/spawner compared to the delisting goal? 

Performance metrics: Spawner abundance, recruits/spawner. 

Approach: Tracking the abundance of adults is an important first step in population 

monitoring because it integrates the entire life cycle influences on status and trends. No weirs 

are operated or planned in the John Day River subbasin with the exception of a small 

temporary weir for research on Bridge Creek in the Lower Mainstem population area. Redd 

surveys are therefore the only alternative to estimate annual adult abundance for 

recruits/spawner and trend analyses. The recommended survey design includes a spatially 

balanced site selection process and a rotating panel design for temporal selection 

(environmental monitoring and assessment protocol (EMAP) approach; Stevens and Olsen 

2004). ODFW currently uses this approach to estimate annual spawner escapement to the 

entire John Day River subbasin. Redds are counted bi-weekly on 2-km reaches selected by 

using a four-year rotating panel design with 50 randomly selected reaches sampled per year 

in the John Day River MPG. Ideally, sampling using this design would also be conducted at 

the population scale which would require additional samples to achieve greater accuracy and 

precision. In addition, index areas specific to the population that were established in 1966 are 

sampled annually by ODFW managers. These index data were originally used to estimate 

viability criteria and continue to provide valuable long-term trend information. A census 

redd count of a representative population outside of the basin is also conducted to establish a 

fish/redd ratio. Redd count surveys are currently conducted by walking and/or floating all 

streams within the index (one-time annual counts) and randomly selected reaches (bi-weekly 

counts, ≥ 3 counts/year). A fish/redd ratio is estimated by counting spawners passed above a 

weir (outside of the John Day River subbasin) and subsequent spawning ground redd 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-6

surveys, of similar design to those conducted in the John Day, of all known utilized habitat 

above the counting weir. 

Analysis: Estimate the number of naturally produced spawners using proportions of 

observed naturally produced fish (unmarked) and hatchery (fin clipped) fish, total number of 

redds, expansion factor of surveyed stream length/available stream length, and fish/redd 

ratio. Calculate 10-year GM for abundance of naturally produced fish. Calculate 

recruits/spawner based on redd counts and estimated spawner age structure. Analyze as a 

time series (trend analysis). 

Status: BPA currently funds the sampling of randomly selected reaches for spawning 

surveys at the MPG scale. LSRCP and NOAA currently fund spawner and redd counts (for 

fish/redd ratio) on a reference stream in the Grande Ronde River basin. State of Oregon 

funds index spawning ground surveys. Field work is currently implemented and coordinated 

primarily by the ODFW and ISEMP. Population-level sampling has been conducted for the 

South Fork population during 2006 and 2007 and may be rotated annually to other 

populations. However, additional funding would be required to conduct population-level 

sampling for the larger populations (Lower Mainstem, North Fork) within the MPG. 

Population-scale monitoring for the Middle Fork population will be initiated in 2008 as part 

of the intensively monitored watershed (IMW) approach. This IMW work is funded by 

NOAA through OWEB. Much of the Upper Mainstem population is within private property 

where access is limited, and therefore population-scale spawner surveys are logistically very 

difficult there. Similarly, private property dominates the Lower Mainstem population area 

and the low density stream network coupled with remote access for several major tributaries 

and more frequent turbid water further complicates sampling and logistics of redd surveys. 

Objective 2: Determine the status of the spatial structure of each population based on 

current and historically utilized habitat. 

This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the spatial distribution of spawning within each population? 

• What is the current spatial extent and distribution of rearing habitat used by juvenile 

steelhead within each population? 

Approach: The same EMAP of all known spawning and rearing areas as used for 

determining abundance of spawners is recommended and currently implemented by ODFW 

for refining the known spatial extent of both adult and juvenile steelhead in the John Day 

MPG. Fifty sites within the John Day MPG are sampled annually using a three-panel 

rotating panel design. Panels include annual, every four years, and one-time visit selections. 

All observed adult spawners and redds are geographically referenced using handheld GPS 

units for inclusion in a GIS. Juvenile steelhead are sampled using snorkeling or 

electrofishing techniques. This approach is refining current knowledge of steelhead spatial 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-7

distribution throughout the John Day River subbasin. Current sampling efforts in the South 

Fork population are adequate and the future sampling associated with the Middle Fork IMW 

will provide information needed for this population. Expanded sampling in the Lower 

Mainstem, North Fork, and Upper Mainstem populations will be required to get adequate 

population specific information. 

Analysis: Data are currently analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. The known 

distribution of steelhead is modified when previously unknown blockages to migration are 

discovered. Juvenile steelhead are evaluated as fish/pool in each study reach. 

Status: BPA currently funds the sampling of randomly selected reaches for spawning 

surveys. BPA has eliminated funding for juvenile distribution work after 2007. Additional 

funding may be procured from OWEB. Field work is currently implemented and coordinated 

primarily by the ODFW and ISEMP. ISEMP is developing contracts with ODFW to 

reinstate habitat and juvenile distribution monitoring that will address sampling at population 

spatial scales. Additional work on juvenile fish is conducted by the USFS PACFISH 

Biological Opinion project on federally owned lands and by CTWSRO on tribal managed 

properties. The same limitations indicated above in Objective 1 are relevant here as well. 

Objective 3: Determine the status and trend in conditions of current and historically 

utilized habitat within each population. 

This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the status and trend in habitat quantity and quality throughout the John Day MPG 

area? 

• What is the status and trend in habitat quantity and quality for each of the populations in 

the John Day MPG? 

Approach: The same EMAP of all known spawning and rearing areas as used for 

determining abundance of spawners is recommended for sampling the known spatial extent 

and status and trend of steelhead habitat in the John Day MPG. Fifty sites within the John 

Day MPG are sampled annually using a three-panel rotating panel design. Panels include 

annual, every four years, and one-time visit selections. Habitat variables follow ODFW 

Aquatic Inventories design (Moore et al. 2002) and are measured at the unit and reach scale. 

Analysis: Data are currently analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. Sample sites can 

be associated to specific populations but sample draw was conducted to represent MPG level. 

Database and GIS formatting of data allow associations with land use, land vegetation 

coverage, and many other attributes at watershed and population scales. The survey effort 

needs to be expanded to provide monitoring at the population level. Current and future 

planned efforts are adequate for the South Fork and Middle Fork populations but not the 

other three. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-8

Status: BPA has eliminated funding for basin-wide habitat work after 2007. Work is currently 

unfunded for most populations. Habitat monitoring will continue for Middle Fork population 

using NOAA/OWEB funding as part of the Middle Fork IMW. ISEMP is developing contracts 

with ODFW to reinstate habitat and juvenile distribution monitoring that will address sampling 

at population spatial scales. 

Objective 4: Determine the freshwater productivity of each population relative to viability 

criteria and identify primary habitat factors limiting freshwater production. 

This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring for productivity and 

uncertainties research for limiting factors. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the current and trend in freshwater productivity measured as smolts/redd? 

• What are the primary habitat factors limiting freshwater production of steelhead? 

Approach: The ratio of smolts/adult is one recommended measure of freshwater 

productivity. Smolts are typically counted using traps as they migrate out of their natal 

habitat. If weirs are not present to count adults, then redd counts can act as a surrogate 

measure. Freshwater productivity is measured as smolts/redd or smolts/adult. Trapping with 

rotary screw traps (RSTs) and mark-recapture are currently used to estimate smolt abundance 

for significant portions of three populations (South Fork, Middle Fork, Upper Mainstem) in 

the John Day MPG. Similar efforts have been attempted for the North Fork population with 

limited success due to physical constraints. The structure of the watershed for the Lower 

Mainstem population precludes effective sampling of smolts with traps because the 

tributaries are disperse and enter the Mainstem where it has very large discharge during 

seasonal flow events. Redd counts are estimated using the previously mentioned approach 

and an EMAP sampling framework. Sample draws for redd surveys need to be directed at 

the population segments above smolt trapping locations. Actual freshwater productivity 

estimates are derived estimates not direct measures. For example, egg-to-smolt survival 

requires an estimate of the number of eggs deposited by individual females or deposited in 

each redd. Parr-to-smolt survival can be estimated by capturing a representative number of 

parr in their rearing habitat, PIT tagging them, and then monitoring their recapture at the 

downstream smolt traps. Migration survival can similarly be estimated by monitoring 

detections of PIT-tagged individuals as they pass through PIT tag detection facilities. 

Identification of factors limiting freshwater production by RM&E efforts provides much 

needed direction for restoration efforts and is best explored using an uncertainties research 

approach. Several physical and biological factors can potentially limit production. 

Therefore, a multivariate or hierarchical approach may be appropriate for identifying factors. 

For example, data from habitat surveys can be combined with data from long-term 

monitoring of discharge and temperature and fish growth and distribution information to 

identify factors potentially limiting productivity. Often, simple presence/absence 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-9

information of parr or adults can be examined in the context of existing habitat information 

and used to initially deduce and explore more complex predictive relationships. 

Analysis: Smolt abundance is estimated using RSTs and mark/recapture techniques 

(Thedinga 1994, Steinhorst 2004). Survival and productivity measures are calculated ratios 

of abundance from one life stage to another. 

 

Status: BPA currently funds trapping of smolts and spawning surveys for redd counts. 

NOAA and OWEB will fund future work for identifying limiting factors under the IMW 

approach for the Middle Fork John Day River. With current efforts there will be estimates 

for the South Fork and Middle Fork populations. Efforts will have to be expanded to collect 

information for the other populations. Similar efforts, funded by NOAA and BPA, to 

estimate freshwater productivity are planned for an IMW on Bridge Creek, a tributary of the 

Lower John Day River. Smolts-redd estimate are not logistically feasible for the Lower 

Mainstem and North Fork populations. Outflowing waters are too large for efficient trapping 

of smolts using RSTs and commingling of smolts from other populations would introduce 

additional complications for unique identification. It may be feasible to monitor a 

representative portion of the North Fork population (above Desolation Creek, for example) if 

additional funds become available. 

Objective 5: Determine the current status and change in future status of life history and 

phenotypic diversity for each population. 

 This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What proportion of steelhead spawners in the John Day MPG are out-of-basin hatchery 

strays? 

• What is the origin of out-of-basin strays? 

• What is the population-level genetic composition of the John Day MPG and of individual 

populations? 

Approach: The John Day River basin lacks facilities to capture adult steelhead. 

Determination of out-of-basin strays will therefore rely on identification of hatchery-marked 

adults observed on spawning ground surveys, in creel surveys, from incidental catches, and 

from detections of PIT tags at PIT tag antenna arrays. See also Objective 6 for harvest 

monitoring. 

To determine population-level genetic composition for the MPG, genetic data that allow an 

objective determination of population structure are required. Age-0 O. mykiss from four 

representative streams in each population segment have been sampled for three consecutive 

years beginning in 2005. A minimum of three cohorts were sampled using non-lethal fin 

tissue for DNA analysis. Populations will be characterized using a suite of nuclear DNA 

markers, including both microsatellite loci (variable-number simple-sequence repeats) and 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-10

non-coding single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), or base substitutions assayed via 

restriction enzyme analysis (Moran et al. 1997). 

An EMAP of all known spawning areas is currently employed in the entire John Day River 

MPG. Fifty sites within the John Day MPG are sampled annually using a three-panel 

rotating panel design. Panels include annual, every four years, and one-time visit selections. 

ODFW managers also continue to annually visit pre-determined and long-standing index 

sites for spawners. These index surveys continue a long-term trend dataset that was initiated 

in the 1960’s. The number of marked (adipose fin clip) and unmarked (presumably naturalorigin) fish are visually identified on all spawner surveys. All observed carcasses marked 

with a fin clip are sampled for coded-wire tags to determine the presence of a coded-wire tag 

and hatchery origin. Expanded sampling efforts are recommended to provide population 

specific hatchery fraction information. 

Because there are no permanent weirs in the John Day River basin, the operation of semipermanent PIT tag antenna arrays is critical for the identification of the origin of hatchery 

strays. PIT tag monitoring should be accomplished near the downstream extent of 

watersheds, near RSTs, to monitor the passage of tagged adults. These antennas can serve a 

dual purpose by also aiding in the determination of the capture efficiency of RSTs. 

Analysis: Estimating the proportion of out-of-basin strays is a simple comparison of the 

number of marked and unmarked spawners and carcasses observed. Direct comparisons can 

then be made with recovery criteria. DNA tissue samples are analyzed by NMFS using 

known microsatellite markers. Microsatellite loci are analyzed using pairwise FST 

comparisons to estimate levels of gene flow and to identify geographic areas that contain 

genetically differentiated populations. Genetics monitoring is conducted under the NMFS 

Columbia Basin-wide steelhead genetics monitoring program. 

Status: Spawning ground surveys are implemented and coordinated primarily by the ODFW 

with input from ISEMP participants. BPA currently funds spawning ground surveys for 

EMAP reaches and state funds are used for index surveys. Genetic analysis is implemented 

and coordinated collaboratively between ODFW and NMFS Northwest Science Center. 

Federal funds are used for genetic stock analysis. 

There are currently no creel surveys conducted in the John Day River subbasin. Current 

evidence suggests that out-of-basin hatchery strays is a particular problem for the Lower 

Mainstem population. There appears to be a negative correlation between distance from the 

mouth of the John Day River and presence of hatchery strays. The scope of surveys is 

currently inadequate to make population specific estimates of the proportion of spawners that 

are hatchery origin. 

As of 2009, semi-permanent antenna arrays are operated at McDonald Ford on the Lower 

John Day River, on the South Fork John Day River, Middle Fork John Day, and on Bridge 

Creek. The latter three are operated as part of the ongoing IMW studies by ISEMP and 

ODFW. The McDonald Ford array is operated by Biomark, Inc. in cooperation with NOAA 

and ODFW. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-11

Objective 6: Determine the effects of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, 

diversity and distribution of the populations. 

 This is a moderate priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the prevalence of whirling disease in the John Day River basin and what is its 

influence on the natural steelhead populations? 

• What is the predation rate and predatory impact of introduced fishes in the John Day 

River on juvenile steelhead? 

• What is the effect of predation from piscine predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the John Day River? 

• What is the effect of predation from avian predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the John Day River? 

Approach: The current distribution and influence of whirling disease on wild steelhead 

populations is not fully understood. Representative sentinel stations should be established 

and monitored through time for each population to measure prevalence and intensity of 

infection rates of the disease. Infection, or the presence of Myxobolus cerebralis DNA, is 

detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. A logical place to locate initial 

sentinel tests would be in locations where hatchery strays are known to be prevalent because 

they are a known vector of transmission from infected watersheds in northeast Oregon 

(Sollid et al. 2004). Sentinel stations should then be placed near the mouths of important 

tributary and mainstem habitats occupied by fry and parr life history stages of steelhead. 

While all populations in the John Day have some susceptibility to disease, the prevalence of 

hatchery strays and habitat conditions in the Lower Mainstem population area likely make 

this population more vulnerable than those upstream. The initial focus of study should be in 

the Lower Mainstem population. 

ODFW currently conducts annual collections of smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui in 

the John Day River using angling techniques. Collected stomach samples are analyzed for 

the presence of juvenile salmonids. These data could be incorporated into a bioenergetics 

model to derive a population-level consumption estimate imposed by introduced fishes. 

Sampling of predatory fish diets should occur during times and locations when and where 

their distribution overlaps with juvenile steelhead. Interpretation of the predatory impact in 

the migration corridor should be conducted from methods established in published literature 

(Ward et al. 1995, Fritts and Pearsons 2006). 

To evaluate avian predation, colonies are monitored for presence of PIT tags originating from 

specific populations (Collis et al. 2001). Bioenergetics models are used to expand tag 

recoveries at colonies to population-level impacts (Antolos et al. 2005). We acknowledge 

that both the Columbia River mainstem piscine predator and avian predator monitoring needs 

are outside the scope of this plan. However, we encourage adequate monitoring of these 

limiting factors and threats. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-12

ODFW currently PIT tags 4,000 juvenile steelhead migrants each year in the John Day River 

basin for estimation of SAR. Determining the fate of PIT tags in this database should be 

utilized for examining the influences of migration corridor predation. 

Analysis: The proportion of SAR attributable to predatory mortality could be estimated from 

the predation bioenergetics modeling results. Infection rates of sentinel fish from disease 

would provide some indication of the potential impacts of whirling disease. 

Status: ODFW currently tests opportunistically for the presence of diseases in juvenile 

salmonids submitted as mortalities from rotary screw traps and other sampling operations 

from the John Day River basin. PIT tagging of juvenile steelhead is currently completed by 

the ODFW with funding from the BPA. The whirling disease foundation, whirling disease 

initiative, and Oregon Sea Grant are potential funding sources for whirling disease 

investigations. Investigations of predation in the migration corridor have been conducted by 

many agencies with various funding sources including BPA and USACE. We encourage the 

continuation of the piscine and avian predation monitoring. 

Objective 7: Determine the effects of hydropower on the abundance, productivity, diversity 

and distribution of the natural populations. 

This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trends. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operations on juvenile steelhead 

outmigrating from the John Day River populations? 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operation on returning adult steelhead 

originating from the John Day River populations? 

Approach: PIT tags have been used successfully to measure the influence of hydropower 

operations on migrating salmonids (Berggren et al. 2006, Schaller et al. 2007). ODFW has 

cooperated with the CSS study by PIT tagging steelhead smolts as they migrate out of the 

John Day River Basin. These PIT-tagged fish are subsequently monitored for detections at 

FCRPS facilities along the migration corridor at both juvenile and adult life stages using Data 

Access in Real Time (DART) and PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS) databases. 

Detection probabilities of juvenile salmonids migrating downstream at FCRPS facilities are 

modeled using the Survival Under Proportional Hazards (SURPH) analytical tool (Lady et al. 

2003). Adult detection (purportedly 100%) is currently available at ladders on several dams, 

including Bonneville and McNary, and is expected in the near future at The Dalles and John 

Day dams. 

Analysis: Juvenile survivals at each FCRPS facility can be estimated using the SURPH 

model. Adult survival between facilities will soon be possible by comparing detections at 

adult ladder facilities along the migration corridor. Rates can be expanded to populationlevel impacts using the relative number of fish PIT tagged and smolt abundance estimates 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-13

generated from mark-recapture at RSTs. Adult detections within the John Day River basin, 

subsequent to those in the Mainstem Columbia River, will be used to determine the relative 

proportion of successful migrants from each migration strategy outside of the basin. 

Status: ODFW currently PIT tags emigrating smolts and monitors their detections at 

mainstem hydropower facilities. Coordination with comparative survival studies (CSS) 

occurs with the Fish Passage Center. Currently, juvenile steelhead are PIT tagged 

representing three populations (South Fork, Upper Mainstem, and Middle Fork) in the John 

Day. Estimates derived for these populations would be representative for the remaining John 

Day populations. NMFS and Biomark operate a developmental PIT tag antenna array on the 

Lower John Day River. This array will allow partial detection of PIT-tagged fish migrating 

through the lower John Day River. 

Objective 8: Determine the effects of habitat degradation and habitat restoration actions on 

the abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of the natural populations. 

This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Status and trend monitoring; implementation and compliance 

monitoring; effectiveness monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• Status & Trend Monitoring—What is the current status and trend of steelhead habitat? 

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring—Has the management action been 

implemented in the prescribed manner and achieved its objectives? 

• Effectiveness Monitoring—Have the management actions significantly influenced the 

viability of John Day River steelhead populations? 

Approach: Status and trend monitoring at the subbasin and population scale is best conducted 

by using a spatially explicit sampling approach such as the EMAP approach developed by the 

EPA. Measured habitat variables vary depending on the specific question addressed but are 

directed at those closely related to salmonid requirements, targeted for restoration, or 

identified as limiting recovery. Remote sensing (e.g. thermal infrared (TIR) imagery; light 

detecting and ranging, (LIDAR); and spatially referenced color imagery) is also appropriate 

and typically addresses spatial scales at watershed or larger landscapes. We typically use 

ODFW aquatic inventories which include riparian, within channel and physical properties. 

Compliance monitoring of restoration projects incorporates record keeping and reporting of 

activities. Compliance monitoring should be primarily conducted by the implementing party 

and should include any parameters indicated in related work statements. Although some 

compliance monitoring is currently underway, there is need to expand at the project scale and 

for aggregation to assess at the population scale. 

Effectiveness monitoring can be approached at the watershed and project spatial scales. 

IMWs are currently used in some places for the watershed scale. Effectiveness monitoring 

should preferably be directed at measures of abundance, survival, growth, etc. of steelhead or 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-14

abiotic or biotic factors limiting their recovery. A modified before-after-control-influence 

(BACI) design (including spatial replication) is recommended for measuring the 

effectiveness of active restoration activities (Jones & Tonn 2004). For passive restoration 

activities, a BACI design that monitors trends through time may be appropriate. If 

comparisons are made to reference or control sites, they should be under similar 

environmental conditions experienced by the treatment site but outside the influence of 

treatment activities. Restoration action implementing entities must coordinate with 

monitoring groups prior to scheduled activities—preferably years in advance to allow 

measurement of pre-treatment variables. Temporal scales must account for delays due to life 

history and life cycle timeframes. 

Analysis: Direct comparisons of measured parameters with recovery criteria can be made. 

Otherwise, measures at smaller scales will need to be scaled up to determine if they would 

have desired responses at the population level. 

Status: Implementation monitoring is currently conducted by the groups that implement the 

activities (e.g. ODFW, CTUIR, CTWSRO, watershed councils, etc.). ODFW currently 

conducts limited effectiveness monitoring of selected restoration projects within the John 

Day River basin. IMWs were established in the Middle Fork John Day River and Bridge 

Creek on the Lower John Day River in 2007. Remote sensing is typically conducted by 

professional consultants. Funding from BPA, OWEB, NOAA, and other sources has 

supported past and current activities. There is limited implementation monitoring underway 

and a significant need to compile information across projects for assessment at the population 

scale. 

 

13.3 Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG 

Steelhead restoration activities in the Umatilla subbasin include supplementation of the endemic 

steelhead population, harvest management, and habitat, flow, and passage improvement projects. 

The “Comprehensive Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer 

Steelhead and Chinook Salmon” (Umatilla RM&E plan; CTUIR and ODFW 2006) is a detailed 

plan for obtaining information needed to assess the performance and evaluate the effectiveness 

of these habitat restoration, harvest management, and hatchery programs. The RM&E aspects of 

this plan are designed to assess the current efforts and test new strategies for the supplementation 

and restoration of steelhead and the establishment and enhancement of commercial and 

recreational fisheries. Due to the lack of pre-treatment data, managers rely primarily on status 

and trend data and comparison to out-of-subbasin reference populations to assess the success or 

failure of management strategies and to make adaptive management decisions. 

Most of the monitoring and evaluation for the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG is currently 

conducted by ODFW and CTUIR. Status monitoring is performed for all projects in the 

Umatilla subbasin, including natural production, hatchery evaluation, and juvenile outmigration 

and survival. Proposed natural production status monitoring includes abundance indices for 

juveniles (parr and smolts), adult abundance, recruits per spawner, estimated redd numbers, life 

history characteristics, as well as flow, temperature, and habitat data to assess the success of flow 

augmentation and stream restoration work. Hatchery evaluations include the monitoring of 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-15

smolt-to-adult returns, smolt-to-adult survival, catch contribution, catch distribution, and straying 

rates. Juvenile outmigration monitoring (which was discontinued in 2007 due to BPA budget 

cuts, then re-started in 2009) includes abundance of outmigrating smolts, travel timing, and 

survival rates to downstream dams. In addition, the fishery is monitored using creel surveys and 

marine fishery observations to estimate the contribution of Umatilla River fish to the commercial 

and recreational fisheries. RM&E for the two Oregon populations within this MPG are 

addressed separately below. 

13.3.1 Umatilla River Population 

Critical Uncertainties 

Seven critical uncertainties for the Umatilla River population that currently limit the ability to 

make informed management decisions have been identified by local area managers. 

1. What are the status and trends of steelhead and their habitat in the Umatilla basin? 

2. What are appropriate and effective rearing and release strategies for summer steelhead 

reared at Umatilla Fish Hatchery? 

3. Will the historical summer steelhead fishery be sustained by hatchery releases of summer 

steelhead? 

4. To what extent will hatchery summer steelhead released in the Umatilla contribute to outof-subbasin fisheries? 

5. To what extent will supplementation alter the genetic diversity and life history 

characteristics of the native steelhead population? 

6. To what extent will supplementation enhance natural production of summer steelhead? 

7. How will habitat protection and enhancement actions influence abundance, productivity, 

life history diversity, and long-term sustainability of Umatilla steelhead? 

We used these uncertainties and others identified during the recovery planning process to 

produce the monitoring and evaluation objectives and the recommended M&E efforts. We list 

the priority level of each objective from highest to low, with a monitoring and evaluation focus 

on the highest priority activities. This does not mean that criteria ranked as moderate or low are 

not important to monitor. Rather, it means that limited resources will be applied to monitoring 

those aspects of recovery that are most important. Monitoring of moderate and low priority 

criteria will occur as resources are available. This plan does offer possible metrics and methods 

for monitoring medium and low priority criteria. Monitoring objectives listed as highest or high 

priority address population and environmental status, natural production, the hatchery program, 

flow, passage, and other habitat actions and fisheries. 

We combined the aforementioned uncertainties with those identified during the recovery 

planning process to produce the RM&E objectives that are addressed herein by our 

recommended efforts. Not all objectives are associated with each population segment. The 

objectives include: 

1. Monitor and assess the status and trends of abundance and productivity of natural- and 

hatchery-origin adult steelhead. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-16

2. Determine the status of the spatial structure of the population based on current and 

historically utilized habitat. 

3. Monitor and assess the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and in-stream 

survival of out-migrating steelhead. 

4. Determine the current status and change in status of life history and genotypic diversity in 

the population. 

5. Identify and assess factors limiting viability of Umatilla River steelhead. 

6. Determine the status and trend of current and historically utilized steelhead habitat in the 

Umatilla subbasin. 

7. Determine the influence of the current hatchery supplementation program on the natural 

population. 

8. Monitor and assess the impact of flow enhancement on steelhead survival, habitat, and 

migration. 

9. Determine the effect of mainstem hydropower operations and operational improvements 

on viability of Umatilla River steelhead population. 

10. Determine the effect of harvest on the abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution 

of the natural population. 

11. Determine the effect of predation on the abundance, productivity, diversity, and 

distribution of the natural population. 

12. Monitor production, survival, harvest and spawning of hatchery-origin steelhead. 

13. Determine the transmission and effect of disease on the abundance, productivity, 

diversity and distribution of the natural population. 

Some of the information needed to monitor the status of Umatilla summer steelhead is currently 

collected under the ODFW and CTUIR monitoring and evaluation program as described in the 

Umatilla RM&E plan, while limited monitoring activities that address the effectiveness of 

irrigation screening are also conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation. The research, monitoring, 

and evaluation objectives and approaches that follow are primarily from the Umatilla RM&E 

plan (CTUIR and ODFW 2006). Some of these objectives have been supplemented so that the 

status and trend of the steelhead population can be compared with recovery criteria. More 

detailed information on approaches and analysis is contained in the Umatilla RM&E plan. 

Objective 1: Monitor and assess the status and trends of abundance and productivity of 

natural- and hatchery-origin adult steelhead. 

Adult returns to Three Mile Falls Dam (TMFD) are critical for monitoring the status and longterm trends of steelhead in the Umatilla subbasin (Critical Uncertainty No. 1). Monitoring trends 

in productivity metrics will be critical to assessing the performance of the Umatilla subbasin fish 

restoration program. These measures will also be used in stock-recruitment models to estimate 

natural production capacity of the subbasin. This is considered a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the annual abundance and time-series trends in abundance? 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-17

• Is the 10-year GM of naturally-produced steelhead spawners in the Umatilla subbasin 

greater than or equal to the recovery criterion for natural spawners? 

• What are the current and trend in the 20-year population growth rate? 

• What are the current and trend in smolts/spawner? 

• What are the current and trend in adult recruits per spawner? 

Performance metrics: Number of natural- and hatchery-origin adult returns to the Umatilla 

River, run timing of natural- and hatchery-origin adult returns, smolts-per-spawner, adult 

recruits per spawner. 

Approach: Numbers of adult natural- and hatchery-origin returns are currently enumerated 

by trap counts and video monitoring at the TMFD (RM 3.7) fish ladder. A complete count of 

escapement past TMFD is obtained, as all returning adults must use this fish ladder. During 

trapping, fish are routed into a sorting complex. During sorting, data, disposition, and 

number trapped by sex, age class (classified by fork length), and marks are collected. Fish 

are also examined for presence of coded-wire tags. Additional age, length, and CWT 

information is obtained when broodstock collected at TMFD are spawned and from snouts 

collected in the Umatilla River fishery. The natural origin of unmarked steelhead is crosschecked by examining scale patterns on all unmarked fish collected for broodstock or 

sampled in fisheries and on the spawning grounds. Harvest is monitored below TMFD to 

obtain an estimate of returns to the mouth of the Umatilla River. A roving creel survey is 

used to count and contact anglers in the steelhead fishery. During video enumeration, total 

counts of steelhead are obtained from review of the video tapes. During the video review, 

about 50% of steelhead can be classified as hatchery or natural by the presence or absence of 

an adipose fin, respectively. Origin of the unidentified steelhead, and age, sex, and mark 

composition of video monitored steelhead are estimated as their mean percent composition 

from trapping periods immediately before and after the video period. 

 

Analysis: Counts of adult returns to TMFD plus estimated harvest below TMFD are 

combined to estimate the number of natural- and hatchery-origin fish that return to the mouth 

of the Umatilla River. Counts of adults in combination with other measures are used to 

estimate key metrics of survival (smolt-to-adult survival, pre-spawn mortality) and 

productivity (smolts-per-spawner, adult recruits-per-spawner ratios). In-basin freshwater 

productivity has been estimated as the number of smolts-per-spawner from spawner 

abundance estimates and smolt abundance estimates collected by the BPA-funded Umatilla 

Smolt Outmigration and Survival Project. Adult-to-adult productivity is measured as 

recruits-per-spawner ratios using spawner abundance data and estimates of total adult 

spawner production resulting from each brood year. 

Status: Adult and smolt estimates are currently funded. BPA currently funds counts at 

TMFD, creel surveys, and harvest estimates. Returns have been enumerated at TMFD using 

an electronic fish counter from 1966-1983 and mark-recapture methods from 1983-1987, 

after which a trapping and collection facility was constructed. All returning adults were 

trapped until the 1999 return year, after which alternating trapping-video enumeration was 

implemented. Funding for smolt abundance was discontinued in 2007, then re-started in 

2009. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-18

Objective 2: Determine the status of the spatial structure of the population based on 

current and historically utilized habitat. 

Spawners can escape differentially to each watershed due to habitat conditions, pre-spawn 

mortality, and stochasticity. The production of juveniles can vary among watersheds due to 

spawner abundance, spawner productivity, habitat quality, habitat quantity, egg mortality, fry 

mortality, or parr mortality. An understanding of spatial and temporal variance in both spawner 

and juvenile distribution is therefore necessary to address several of the critical uncertainties. 

This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trends monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the spatial arrangement of the occupied spawning areas within the population 

boundaries? 

• What is the distribution and density of spawners on the spawning grounds? 

• What is the current spatial extent and distribution of rearing habitat used by juvenile 

steelhead? 

• What is the distribution of juveniles on the rearing grounds? 

Performance metrics: Spawner distribution, redd distribution, spawn timing, rearing 

distribution, juvenile density and distribution. 

Approach: Sampling will be conducted throughout all known spawning and rearing habitat. 

Sample site selection design will follow an EMAP protocol (Stevens and Olsen 2003, 2004; 

www.epa.gov/emap). Redds are enumerated using multiple-pass visual surveys of the 

selected sample reaches. The location of each redd will be georeferenced. Although few 

carcasses are recovered, carcasses will be measured and weighed, and a scale sample will be 

collected for age, growth and origin analysis. 

Enumeration of juvenile out-migrants on Meacham Creek, a major tributary to the Umatilla 

River, started with a mark-recapture project in 2009. Habitat restoration conducted under 

CTUIR's Meacham Creek Habitat Enhancement Project will be evaluated for effectiveness 

using smolt production ratios as performance measures. It is hypothesized that Meacham 

Creek smolt production will make up a larger proportion of the Umatilla Basin's total smolt 

production as habitat restoration efforts come to fruition. 

Juvenile survey reaches will be randomly selected within watersheds using the same EMAP 

protocol. Sampling will be stratified by increasing intensity in watersheds that are receiving 

supplementation, flow, or habitat treatments. At least thirty juvenile sites will be surveyed 

annually. This sample size approaches the practical maximum for field efforts, surpasses the 

sample size required to detect geographic patterns in community structure related to and 

independent of habitat variability, far exceeds the sample size needed to detect habitat 

changes in each watershed (Roper et al. 2003), and should be sufficient to detect a 20-50% 

change in salmonid densities per annum at the watershed scale. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-19

Analysis: Annual estimates of density will be produced for each life-history stage and 

watershed. A geostatistical analysis will be conducted using population and habitat data to 

estimate fish-habitat relationships and to produce a geostatistical stock assessment of 

spawners and juveniles. Associative, trend, and descriptive analyses will be used to monitor 

changes in spawner and juvenile populations across space and time. Detailed analysis to be 

conducted is located in the detailed methods section of the Umatilla RM&E Plan. 

Status: Spawner abundance data are collected by the Umatilla Natural Production Project. 

Spawner monitoring is funded by BPA and is ongoing. Trapping to enumerate juvenile outmigrants on Meacham Creek began in 2009. Summer steelhead index sites have been 

surveyed in the Umatilla for more than 10 years. 

Objective 3: Monitor and assess the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and instream survival of out-migrating steelhead. 

An estimate of smolt abundance for natural-origin steelhead in the lower Umatilla River is 

essential to answering critical uncertainties related to natural production capacity and within 

subbasin productivity. In addition, an understanding of migration success and survival is 

necessary to identify in and out-of-subbasin limiting factors (including environmental conditions, 

flow, fish habitat, hatchery rearing and release strategies, predation, and passage difficulties) and 

estimated loss by life stage for natural- and hatchery-origin steelhead. This objective addresses 

Critical Uncertainties numbers six and seven. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What are the abundance, timing, and in-stream survival of out-migrating steelhead? 

• What are the life history characteristics of out-migrating steelhead? 

Performance metrics: Migration parameters, abundance, survival, and life history 

characteristics (including age, size and condition) of emigrating smolts. 

Approach: Smolt abundance will be estimated for naturally-reared steelhead emigrating 

from Meacham Creek to TMFD, and for smolts from the lower Umatilla River, using fish 

collection and trapping efficiency on lower Meacham Creek and at TMFD. Smolt survival 

and migration parameters (timing, duration and travel speed) will be monitored for naturallyand hatchery-reared species using PIT tags and remote interrogation at Three Mile Falls and 

lower Columbia River dams. Juvenile life history characteristics including smolt 

outmigration timing, length, age, condition and smolt status will be collected. 

An incline plane trap set in West Extension Canal is currently utilized to capture emigrating 

juvenile salmonids in the lower Umatilla River. The trap is located within the juvenile 

bypass facility off TMFD. Trapping is conducted between February and June, and coincides 

with the primary smolt emigration period. Fish are enumerated by species, race and origin 

(natural or hatchery). Scales are collected on a subsample of natural summer steelhead for 

age analysis and developmental (smoltification) stage for all species is assessed by visible 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-20

brightness and the presence or absence of parr marks. All smolts captured during fish 

sampling are interrogated for PIT tags. To improve total outmigration estimates, CTUIR’s 

Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project will enhance PIT tag detection rates at 

TMFD by installing improved detectors on the smolt bypass structure on the west side of the 

dam and in the adult fish ladder on the east side of the dam. 

Analysis: Smolt survival estimates have previously been calculated using the Migrant 

Abundance Method (Burham et al. 1987 and Dauble et al. 1993) and the SURPH 2 model 

(http://www.cbr.washington.edu/). Environmental variables including water discharge, flow, 

temperature and water clarity in the lower river will be monitored and relationship to smolt 

survival and/or migration success will be assessed using regression and correlation analyses. 

Associative and trend analyses will be used to evaluate outmigration. 

Status: Smolt abundance estimates for the Umatilla River basin were provided by the BPAfunded Umatilla Smolt Outmigration and Survival Project until 2007, when funding was 

discontinued. Funding was re-established for that project in 2009. Funding was obtained by 

CTUIR from BPA to estimate Meacham Creek smolt abundance and survival beginning in 

2009. 

Objective 4: Determine the current status and change in status of life history and genotypic 

diversity in the population. 

Natural steelhead production in the Umatilla River basin is supplemented by hatchery-raised 

fish that spawn in natural environments. However, the artificial propagation of fish and 

manipulation of breeding structures includes genetic risks that may compromise the goal of 

supplementation (Currens and Schreck 1995). It is important to monitor the genetic 

characteristics of natural and hatchery-produced fish to insure that the artificially produced fish 

resemble the wild population genetically, that adequate effective population sizes are maintained 

to prevent catastrophic genetic drift, and that outbreeding depression does not reduce the 

reproductive success of the entire population. This objective addresses Critical Uncertainties 

numbers five and six. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What proportion of steelhead spawners are out-of-basin hatchery strays? 

• What is the origin of out-of-basin strays? 

• What are the population-level genetic characteristics of the Umatilla River steelhead 

population? 

• What is the status of life history patterns and variation in the Umatilla steelhead 

population? 

Approach: Numerous life history metrics are monitored in the natural- and hatchery-origin 

steelhead populations: adult and juvenile migration timing, growth rates, age structure, sex 

ratios and size at age. A subsample of natural-origin juveniles is PIT-tagged on the spawning 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-21

grounds for outmigrant detection at TMFD and Columbia Mainstem facilities. Scales of 

natural-origin juveniles can be sampled during EMAP surveys and lower river trapping. 

We will collect genetic samples from 100 returning adults of both natural- and hatcheryorigin collected at TMFD. In addition, juvenile samples have been collected for three years 

(2005-2007) from multiple locations in the basin. Genetic samples will consist of fin clips, 

which will be immediately preserved in alcohol. Sampling will be initially conducted for 

five years to determine changes in the performance metrics over a generation and assess the 

periodicity of additional sampling. 

Analysis: Migration timing and age structure are assessed by distribution comparisons. Age 

and growth analysis will be conducted and associative models will be used to evaluate 

growth of natural- and hatchery-origin fishes from each release site and watershed. 

The genetic samples will be analyzed using microsatellite and/or allozyme analysis to 

determine the genetic diversity among returning natural- and hatchery-origin adults, the 

genetic distance between natural- and hatchery-origin adults, and the effective population 

size of the natural-origin adults within the Umatilla subbasin. 

Status: Monitoring of hatchery-origin steelhead that stray into the Umatilla River is 

conducted by the BPA-funded Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Project. 

Genetics samples are collected by the Umatilla Natural Production Project, with samples 

processed by Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission fish geneticists. 

Objective 5: Identify and assess factors limiting viability of Umatilla River steelhead. 

Limiting factors analysis is the process by which factors affecting population productivity, 

capacity, diversity and spatial structure are identified. As conditions are improved through 

management actions, and limiting factors are addressed, it is essential to re-assess limiting 

factors to guide future actions. This objective addresses Critical Uncertainty number seven. 

This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What environmental factors limit steelhead productivity in the Umatilla subbasin? 

Approach: We have developed an improved version of EDT and AHA (All-H Analyzer) 

which is more representative of Oregon’s Mid-C steelhead. The revised EDT model will be 

updated in the future as habitat actions begin to improve conditions and additional data are 

available. We will use the EDT model to re-assess limiting factors. 

Analysis: Limiting factors and the capacity of the Umatilla subbasin will be analyzed every 

five years as part of regular evaluation activities. A multi-factor spatially explicit model 

(EDT and improved AHA) of the Umatilla subbasin will be used to estimate mortality in 

Umatilla, Columbia, and marine life-history stages. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-22

Status: Ongoing, but will need additional funding for the future. 

Objective 6: Determine the status and trend of current and historically utilized salmonid 

habitat in the Umatilla subbasin. 

This recovery plan identifies a set of management actions that will increase natural 

production and harvest opportunities in the Umatilla subbasin through habitat restoration and 

protection, flow augmentation, passage restoration, and hatchery supplementation. There are 

a number of habitat-based RM&E information needs that must be addressed if the benefits of 

these management actions are to be effectively detected with sufficient power. Information 

from this objective addresses Critical Uncertainty number seven. This is a high priority 

objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the status and trend in steelhead habitat quantity and quality throughout the 

Umatilla subbasin? 

• What are the spatial distribution and quantitative features of Umatilla subbasin steelhead 

habitat? 

Approach: A variety of complementary habitat monitoring activities are regularly conducted 

in the Umatilla subbasin to capture variance in physical, biological, and chemical conditions. 

The sampling regime of these activities has varied from continuous monitoring of flow and 

temperature, to decadal monitoring of riparian conditions. Monitoring has focused on factors 

that are not primarily controlled by upstream conditions so that measurable improvements 

can be detected in important elements of salmon habitat. Habitat recovery will primarily be 

measured in terms of regrowth of the riparian vegetation, vegetation and channel structure, 

and in-stream cover. In addition, vegetative recovery is related to improvements in bank 

stability and channel morphology, therefore geomorphic characteristics will also be 

monitored. These broader parameters, though not useful for project specific monitoring, are 

more important when tracking comprehensive subbasin-wide recovery. The spatially explicit 

sampling approach (EMAP) of all known spawning and rearing areas is recommended for 

sampling the known spatial extent and status and trend of steelhead habitat in the Umatilla 

subbasin. Representative sites within the subbasin are sampled annually using a three-panel 

rotating panel design. Panels include annual, every four years, and one-time visit selections. 

Habitat variables follow ODFW Aquatic Inventories design (Moore et al. 2002) and are 

measured at the unit and reach scale. 

Analysis: Data are analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. Sample sites are associated 

to specific major spawning and rearing areas. Database and GIS formatting of data allow 

associations with land use, land vegetation coverage, and many other attributes at watershed 

and population scales. 

Status: BPA currently funds two Umatilla River Anadromous Fish Habitat projects; one 

managed by ODFW to improve and monitor habitat and the other managed by CTUIR to 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-23

increase our understanding of the spatial arrangements of physical processes that create and 

maintain critical habitats for Pacific Salmon in the Umatilla River basin and nearby basins. 

Objective 7: Determine the influence of the current hatchery supplementation program on 

the natural population. 

The reproductive success and genetic characteristics of hatchery-reared fish can be different 

from those of naturally-reared individuals or populations (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977). 

These differences stem in part from the environment of hatcheries, and in part from the 

artificial selection associated with the hatchery environment. The problem can in theory 

impact population growth (productivity of the natural-origin population) even when endemic 

stock is used and traditional stock domestication is avoided (Chilcote 2003; Reisenbichler et 

al. 2003). This objective provides information that addresses Critical Uncertainty numbers 

five and six. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• Does supplementation alter the life history or genetic characteristics of the natural 

steelhead population? 

• To what extent will supplementation enhance natural production of summer steelhead? 

• Are residualization rates of hatchery releases greater than those of naturally-spawned 

fishes? 

• Do the ecological relationships of hatchery-reared steelhead negatively impact naturallyreared steelhead? 

The goal of supplementation is to enhance natural production by increasing survival of 

hatchery-origin fish, resulting in an increase the number of spawners in natural environments. 

However, the artificial propagation of fish and manipulation of breeding structures includes 

genetic risks that may compromise the goal of supplementation (Currens and Schreck 1995). 

The hatchery supplementation program is managed to minimize potential unintended impacts 

on the life history characteristics of the native steelhead population. It is assumed that the 

use of natural-origin fish for broodstock will result in hatchery fish that mimic the behavioral 

characteristics of native fish, thus minimizing potential unintended impacts of the 

supplementation program. Since no pre-supplementation life-history information is available 

for pre- and post-supplementation comparisons, managers need to rely on long-term 

monitoring to detect shifts in native steelhead life history. However, the challenge of this 

approach is distinguishing whether these shifts are attributable to natural variability or 

hatchery supplementation. 

Hatchery-origin fish are usually released at sizes and conditions which differ from their 

natural-origin counterparts. Sexually mature residualized fish can compete with returning 

anadromous adults for mates, and can compete with resident fish or pre-migrant juveniles for 

ecological resources. Recent studies by the Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Program suggest that 

hatchery practices can be modified to decrease residualization rates if problems are detected. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-24

Similar work should be conducted to determine the extent and impacts of hatchery fish 

residuals on the natural population. 

Potential unintended negative impacts of hatchery supplementation to the life history and 

genetic characteristics of the endemic steelhead population in the Umatilla subbasin is a 

primary management concern. The management strategy for reducing risk of unintended 

impacts to the natural-origin steelhead population is to implement hatchery production 

protocols that maximize life history and genetic diversity of hatchery-origin steelhead. If 

protocols achieve their goal, smolt migration and adult life history characteristics expressed 

by hatchery-origin steelhead should mimic those of natural-origin steelhead, and reduce the 

risk of unintended impacts to the natural-origin steelhead population when hatchery-origin 

steelhead spawn naturally. 

Ideally, assessing whether hatchery supplementation negatively impacts life history and 

genetic characteristics of the naturally population is best accomplished by a pre/post 

supplementation comparison of these characteristics. However, no pre-supplementation data 

are available to provide a baseline for pre/post comparisons. Therefore, the approach should 

be to monitor life history characteristics and assess whether smolt and adult life history and 

genetic characteristics expressed by hatchery-reared steelhead are similar to those expressed 

by naturally-reared steelhead and detect changes if they occur. These data can be used to 

assess population viability by measuring life history diversity. 

The Umatilla Fish Hatchery has used endemic steelhead stock for more than a decade. 

Nonetheless, it is not possible under the current RM&E approach to validate the long-term 

success of hatchery-origin fishes, or to estimate the relative reproductive success of hatcheryor natural-origin individuals. Due to increasing concern for the welfare of endemic 

populations, the reproductive success and genetic characteristics of Umatilla steelhead 

remains a critical uncertainty. Pedigree studies are being used in a variety of subbasins to 

answer a number of questions. These endeavors are costly and resource intensive, but may 

provide essential management information. Pedigree studies can demonstrate the relative 

productivity of natural and hatchery fish in the environment and aid in determining the 

effectiveness of a supplementation program. 

Approach: Polymorphic microsatellite loci have been used in a variety of studies to 

determine parentage and population structure (O'Reilly et al. 1998; Bernatchez and Duchesne 

2000; Letcher and King 2001; Eldridge et al. 2002). The technique and its application have 

been thoroughly reviewed (Wilson and Ferguson 2002). Microsatellite analysis can be used 

to estimate the relative reproductive success of natural- and hatchery-origin steelhead, the 

long-term reproductive success of hatchery-origin steelhead, and the genetic characteristics 

of both stocks. 

Two parallel studies have been proposed for the evaluation of long-term reproductive success 

at the watershed level. A weir is planned for the mouth of Iskuulpa Creek to sample 

returning adult steelhead. Adult anadromous returns, resident redband trout, and juvenile 

progeny will be sampled and genotyped for 16 microsatellite markers. This sampling regime 

will be followed for ten years, the completion of two full steelhead generations. This 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-25

pedigree analysis will be used to assess and compare the relative and long-term reproductive 

success of hatchery x hatchery (H x H), hatchery x natural (H x N), and natural x natural (N x 

N) crosses from Umatilla Mid-C summer steelhead. 

In addition the testing of a new technique for the evaluation of progeny parentage is currently 

proposed. Hatchery-origin female returns will be injected with strontium chloride 

hexahydrate (SrCl2·6H2O) in solution. This will serve as a mark of hatchery female 

parentage. These injections have been shown to elevate progeny Sr/Ca ratios in the otolith 

primordia. A subsample of progeny above the weir would be sacrificed, and their otoliths 

extracted. The proportion of “elevated” vs. normal Sr:Ca ratios would be used to estimate 

the fraction of offspring from hatchery- vs. natural-origin mothers. 

We have completed an initial analysis to assess if nearby unsupplemented populations in the 

John Day Basin can serve as reference populations for the Umatilla supplementation 

monitoring. There is a high degree of correlation in the pre-hatchery treatment time period 

between Umatilla steelhead and the John Day populations for both abundance and 

productivity. We will use the John Day populations as reference populations to assess 

changes in abundance and productivity that result from the long-term hatchery 

supplementation program. 

Residualized steelhead are currently planned to be sampled during EMAP surveys. Residuals 

would be classified based on the presence of a fin clip or wire tag for hatchery fish. Their 

distribution and abundance should be measured across the Umatilla watershed. 

We will monitor and compare smolt and adult migration timing, ocean residency age 

structure, and adult sex ratios of natural- and hatchery-origin steelhead. Migration timing of 

steelhead smolts will be monitored via detection of PIT-tagged fish at TMFD, John Day, and 

Bonneville dams. Adult run timing of steelhead to the Umatilla River will be monitored by 

trap and video enumeration at TMFD and in-subbasin creel surveys below TMFD. Ocean 

residency age structure and adult sex ratios of steelhead will be monitored during adult 

trapping and handling operations at TMFD. 

Ocean residency age and sex ratios of natural- and hatchery-origin adult steelhead are 

monitored during trapping at TMFD. Migration timing of natural- and hatchery-origin 

steelhead smolts is compared by calculating the percent of the run that passes TMFD, John 

Day, and Bonneville Dams on a weekly basis, and testing for a statistically significant 

difference. The same method is used to compare migration timing of natural- and hatcheryorigin adult steelhead that pass TMFD. The proportions of the natural- and hatchery-origin 

runs that were one- and two-year ocean residents, male and female, and male and female by 

ocean age will also be compared. 

Analysis: Umatilla adult steelhead samples are analyzed by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fisheries Commission cooperative genetics program at the Hagerman Fish Culture 

Experiment Station using microsatellite loci that have been optimized for steelhead studies. 

Juvenile samples are analyzed by NOAA Fisheries as a part of the Columbia basin-wide 

genetic monitoring program. Samples are analyzed for each brood and return year. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-26

Genotypes are assembled using 16 microsatellite markers. Parentage is estimated using a 

variety of exclusion, likelihood, pair-wise relatedness, and genetic similarity algorithms 

(Wilson and Ferguson 2002). The relative and long-term reproductive success of hatchery x 

hatchery (H x H), hatchery x natural (H x N), and natural x natural (N x N; including 

steelhead x steelhead and steelhead x redband trout) crosses will be evaluated in the 

controlled escapement experiment in Iskuulpa Creek. 

Status: Partially funded by BPA and implemented by CTUIR and ODFW. 

Objective 8: Monitor and assess the impact of flow enhancement on steelhead survival, 

habitat, and migration. 

Considerable effort and resources are directed at flow restoration in the Umatilla River. 

Umatilla flow management programs are considered a Columbia Basin success story due to 

the cooperative efforts between CTUIR, BLM, and the various water-rights managers in the 

subbasin. However, some of the direct benefits to fish have not been quantified. While the 

relationships between flow restoration and trap-and-haul work are comparatively 

straightforward, the relationship between increased flow and increased spawning and rearing 

habitat has not been directly studied. Additional flow restoration activities including the 

Phase III flow exchange project are receiving considerable attention. Baseline effectiveness 

monitoring is needed to understand the added benefits to fish that these future flow programs 

would bring to the subbasin. This objective provides information that addresses Critical 

Uncertainty number seven. This is a high priority objective due to the cost and scale of the 

flow enhancement efforts. 

Type of monitoring effort: Effectiveness monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the impact of flow enhancement on steelhead survival and frequency of steelhead 

transport? 

• What is the effect of flow enhancement on the availability of spawning and rearing 

habitat? 

• What is the effect of flow enhancement on steelhead migration? 

A major passage restoration project is planned for the Umatilla Mainstem at Feed Canal 

(Harza Engineering Company 1999). Experience has shown that not all passage restorations 

are successful, so project effectiveness monitoring is warranted upon completion of 

construction and beginning of operations. The efficacy of two additional fish passage 

facilities, the Boyd Hydro and Maxwell Dams, is uncertain due to a lack of data associated 

with these recently renovated structures. Passage at these facilities needs to be evaluated. 

Adult and juvenile fish passage facilities at irrigation diversions in the Umatilla mainstem 

were reconstructed from 1988 to 1994. Effectiveness of the updated facilities has previously 

been evaluated. Juvenile passage evaluation was conducted by ODFW (Knapp and Ward 

1990; Knapp 1992; Cameron and Knapp 1993; Cameron et al.1994, 1995, 1997; Walters et 

al. 1994), adult passage evaluation was conducted by CTUIR (Kutchins 1990; Kissner 1992, 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-27

1993; Volkman 1994, 1995; Contor et al. 1996, 1997), and Nigro and Ward (1986) evaluated 

channel modification below Three Mile Falls Dam. These studies identified two passage 

impediments in the Umatilla mainstem and recommended potential corrective measures. 

Performance metrics: Percent of juvenile and adult returns which pass through the lower 

river volitionally, during enhanced flows, and those requiring transport, survival from TMFD 

to spawning, and spawning distribution. 

Approach: We will monitor and report the percent of juvenile and adult returns which pass 

through the lower river volitionally, during enhanced flows, and those requiring transport. 

This computation will include an adjustment to account for transit time from enumeration at 

TMFD to when their migration through the flow-enhanced river reach is completed. These 

adjustments will be based on estimates of juvenile and adult migration speeds available from 

adult radio tracking studies conducted from 1994-1996 (Volkman 1994 and 1995, Contor et. 

al 1996 and 1997) and smolt migration monitoring from the recently funded smolt 

outmigration and monitoring project.. 

Logistical difficulties impede assessment of survival benefits from flow enhancement for 

smolts migrating through the lower Umatilla River. A potential approach for assessing 

benefits to smolt migrants is a tier III treatment and control experiment, where the treatment 

is smolts volitionally migrating past the juvenile trapping and transport facility at RM 27 

during flow enhancement and the control is smolts trapped at RM 27 and transported to the 

river mouth (simultaneous to tagging of treatment fish). 

Juvenile habitat utilization and summer steelhead spawning will be monitored in the Umatilla 

mainstem during annual EMAP surveys. Summer stream temperatures will be monitored in 

collaboration with BOR and CTUIR water quality programs. Habitat quantity will be 

monitored continuously as a function of stream flow throughout the supplemented reaches of 

the Umatilla River. 

Adult steelhead could be collected and radio-tagged at TMFD using standardized handling 

techniques. Fixed site radio telemetry receivers would be placed at key passage barriers to 

monitor migration around these obstructions. Baseline estimates of passage and delay are 

available for various flow regimes (Contor et al. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998). 

Analysis: Habitat potential will be modeled regularly using a spatially explicit model of 

habitat quality and quantity such as EDT, facilitating the evaluation of the relative impacts of 

various flow management regimes, including the implementation of Phase III flow exchange. 

The benefits of flow augmentation will be analyzed based on comparative performance of the 

lower and middle Umatilla mainstem reaches as indicated by habitat, rearing, and spawning 

metrics. Data collected will be compared to the baseline data to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the passage restoration projects. 

Status: BPA funds the CTUIR managed Umatilla Fish Passage Operations project, which 

collects data on juvenile and adult steelhead passage in relation to flow. BPA also funds the 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-28

ODFW managed Umatilla Smolt Outmigration and Survival Project. Monitoring of adult 

steelhead migration past potential barriers, using radio telemetry, occurred in 2008 and 2009, 

Funding is needed to investigate relationships between flow and juvenile habitat use. 

Objective 9: Determine the effect of mainstem hydropower operations and operational 

improvements on viability of Umatilla River steelhead population. 

 This is a high priority objective. 

 

 See John Day MPG for Timeline, Monitoring Questions, and Approach. 

Objective 10: Determine the effect of harvest on the abundance, productivity, diversity, 

and distribution of the natural-origin population. 

Restoring and optimizing fishery opportunities are a primary goal of local and regional 

fishery managers. However, this can be a challenging due to changes in fishing effort, run 

sizes, catch and harvest that are likely to occur as environmental and anthropogenic 

conditions vary and the fisheries restoration program matures. In addition, fisheries are also 

managed to keep unintended impacts to natural and hatchery production and non-target 

species within acceptable limits. This objective addresses Critical Uncertainty number four. 

This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the annual harvest rate that occurs outside of the Umatilla River subbasin? 

• Do summer steelhead return at a level of abundance adequate to support annual fisheries? 

• What is the annual harvest rate that occurs within the Umatilla River subbasin? 

• What is fishing effort, catch, and harvest for tribal and non-tribal fisheries in the Umatilla 

River? 

• Are harvest goals met and do management actions optimize fishing opportunities while 

meeting production and population objectives? 

Much of the impetus for the Umatilla supplementation and reintroduction programs are tribal 

and non-tribal harvest mitigation. Steelhead fisheries take place throughout most of the 

mainstem Umatilla River using a diversity of fishing gear. Tribal fisheries mostly occur 

upstream within the CTUIR Reservation and consist of a subsistence fishery using gaffs or 

dipnets and a recreational fishery using rod-and-reel. Non-tribal fisheries occur from 

Pendleton downstream to the river mouth using rod-and-reel, with most effort, catch, and 

harvest concentrated below TMFD. Creel data provide information needed to determine 

whether harvest goals are achieved or exceeded, enumerate fish removed from the run below 

TMFD, and assess how to optimize fishing opportunities through adaptive management. 

Accurate run size predictions allow managers and program staff to plan appropriate 

broodstock collection, harvest, spawning escapement, and CWT recovery strategies in 

advance. Run predictions are integrated into co-management of the Umatilla Subbasin 

Fishery Program through the development of an annual plan for hatchery and subbasin 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-29

operations. Harvest estimates for Umatilla subbasin-origin fish in out-of-subbasin fisheries 

provide essential data to track status and trends of fish populations, provide a full accounting 

of all hatchery production and rearing strategies, compare recruits-per-spawner ratios of 

natural- and hatchery-origin fish, and evaluate alternative hatchery production and release 

strategies. 

Approach: Out-of-basin harvest contributions are currently grouped by three main fishery 

areas: ocean, Columbia River, and in-subbasin fisheries. The number of adults harvested by 

individual hatchery groups and the total number for all hatchery groups by run year are 

reported. A database of recoveries by brood year contributions is also maintained. 

Annual out-of-subbasin harvest is reported for tribal and non-tribal ocean, Columbia River, 

and subbasin fisheries. In out-of-subbasin fisheries that are selective for hatchery-origin fish, 

harvest of hatchery-origin fish are estimated from CWT recoveries reported on the Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission CWT database. In out-of-subbasin fisheries, which are 

not selective for hatchery-origin fish, harvest of natural-origin fish is estimated based on 

exploitation rates of hatchery-origin fish. 

Tribal fisheries are monitored using roving creel surveys, phone surveys, and volunteer 

fishing journals. Non-tribal fisheries are monitored using a combination of stratified roving 

creel surveys and “punchcard” data from anglers who turn in their salmon and steelhead 

harvest cards. Harvest estimated from creel surveys is used to monitor the developing 

fisheries in the Umatilla River to assess harvest potential and whether annual harvest goals 

are met. Overall harvest goals are listed in Table 2 of the Umatilla RM&E plan, and harvest 

goals for varying run sizes are currently under development. Creel information on spatial 

and temporal patterns of fishing effort, catch, and harvest are used to assess whether fisheries 

are optimized within the constraints of natural production and population objectives. 

Creel surveys in the non-tribal fishery are composed of three main components: 1) angler 

counts, 2) interviews to obtain information on catch rate, harvest rate, gear types, and angler 

demographics, and 3) collection of biological, mark, and CWT information from catch. A 

roving creel survey is used to count and contact anglers in the steelhead fishery. The lower 

river is surveyed from September 15 to April 15, and the upper river from January until April 

15. Fishing effort is typically very low in the lower river from February through April. 

Correlation models have been developed for preseason prediction of steelhead run size to the 

Umatilla River. Correlations for steelhead (r = 0.87) run size to the Umatilla River are based 

on forecasted steelhead run sizes to Bonneville Dam (Upriver A-run for steelhead). The 

steelhead model is updated in early-September after the Upriver A-run to Bonneville Dam 

has been counted. 

Analysis: Ratios between punchcard and creel data are used to estimate harvest in the river 

reach from TMFD upstream to about RM 37 that is logistically difficult to access and survey. 

Geographically and temporally stratified variance in the tribal and non-tribal catch and 

harvest estimators are based on the variances of the fishing effort and catch and harvest rates. 

Effort, catch, and harvest are estimated monthly for steelhead. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-30

Analysis follows Malvestuto (1996) for the field work and Cochran (1977) for creel survey 

data by expanding subsamples by sample strata and proportional coverage rates. Similar 

expansions are used to extrapolate tribal wide harvest estimates based on postseason 

interviews. Catch-per-unit-effort is estimated directly from interview responses and fishing 

journals. Total fishing effort is estimated based on time period, week period, and site 

encounter probabilities. 

Status: Partially funded by BPA. ODFW has monitored the non-tribal steelhead fishery on 

the Umatilla River since 1992, and the out-of-subbasin harvest estimates are determined by 

the hatchery M&E project. 

Objective 11: Determine the effect of predation on the abundance, productivity, diversity, 

and distribution of the natural-origin population. 

The objective is moderate priority because predation has not been identified as a key limiting 

factor. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring question:

• What are the predation rate and predatory impact of introduced fishes in the Umatilla 

River on juvenile steelhead? 

Approach: Annual collections of smallmouth bass and other piscine predators in the Umatilla 

River could be conducted using angling techniques. Collected stomach samples would be 

analyzed for the presence of juvenile salmonids. These data could be incorporated into a 

bioenergetics model to derive a population-level consumption estimate imposed by 

introduced fishes. Sampling of predatory fish diets should occur during times and locations 

when and where their distribution overlaps with juvenile steelhead. 

Analysis: Interpretation of the predatory impact in the migration corridor should be 

conducted from methods established in published literature (Ward et al. 1995, Fritts and 

Pearsons 2006). The proportion of total mortality (e.g. SAR) attributable to predatory 

mortality could be estimated from bioenergetics modeling results. 

Status: Currently unfunded and not implemented. 

Objective 12: Monitor production, survival, harvest and spawning of hatchery-origin 

steelhead. 

Monitoring survival and disposition of all hatchery fish through all life stages provides 

fundamental information required to assess what changes may be needed if management 

objectives are not met. Information on the magnitude of losses at each life stage also assists 

managers to determine priorities for changes. Adaptive management actions may involve 

aspects of the hatchery program or changes to fish restoration programs, harvest regulations, and 

hydrosystem management within or outside of the Umatilla subbasin. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-31

In 1994, following ESA section 7 consultations concerning the effects of straying by non-native 

hatchery-origin fish, NMFS set an interim standard to limit stray, non-native hatchery-origin fish 

to 5% of any naturally spawning population (Grant 1997). To achieve this management standard 

and provide the necessary information needed to develop risk containment strategies for straying, 

all hatchery production which has the potential to stray into spawning areas of ESA-listed 

populations needs to be adequately marked, and monitoring programs must be present in ESA 

areas to recover marked fish. In addition, adaptive management of the Umatilla subbasin 

fisheries restoration program may have potential to reduce straying by adjustments in the timing 

of flow enhancement, and increased capabilities for flow enhancement if Phase III water 

exchange is implemented. This M&E objective is focused on providing information needed to 

monitor standard hatchery production goals, adaptive management of the Umatilla subbasin 

hatchery program, and straying of hatchery production fish into areas with ESA-listed steelhead 

populations. 

Release sites for smolts in a hatchery steelhead supplementation program are typically located 

high in a subbasin, in or near tributary streams that are targeted for supplementation. In contrast, 

harvest oriented hatchery programs typically release steelhead smolts in lower mainstem reaches 

of a subbasin. In the case of the Umatilla subbasin steelhead supplementation program, hatchery 

smolt releases in Meacham Creek are intended to provide the Meacham Creek spawning 

aggregate with additional hatchery-reared spawners. Hatchery smolt releases into the Umatilla 

mainstem lower in the subbasin at Minthorn (RM 64) and Pendleton (RM 56) have a dual 

harvest-supplementation intent. They are intended to enhance fisheries in the upper Umatilla 

mainstem while providing “Middle Umatilla” tributaries with additional hatchery-origin 

spawners. 

The Birch Creek watershed is managed as a native steelhead sanctuary. Adult escapement was 

monitored for a number of years by CTUIR and ODFW, and fraction was consistently less than 

5%. Periodic monitoring of spawning escapement to Birch Creek is warranted to determine if 

straying and the hatchery fraction remain at low rates. This is a high priority objective because 

of the assumed benefits and high degree of uncertainty in the management action. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• Are hatchery returns achieving the goals of the comprehensive plan? 

• Are recruits-per-spawner ratios higher for hatchery-origin compared to natural-origin 

steelhead? 

• What is the number of hatchery-origin returns that stray? 

• What percent of returns stray into the Snake and upper Columbia River basins? 

• Does hatchery supplementation result in increased natural production of steelhead? 

• What proportion of steelhead spawners in the Umatilla subbasin is derived from the 

hatchery program, and what is their distribution? 

Performance metrics: For all hatchery production and release strategies: annual numbers of 

smolts produced, smolt-to-adult survival by brood year; number of adults produced by brood 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-32

year, annual number of adult returns, and annual and brood year harvest and number of 

natural spawners. 

Approach: Routine in-hatchery production and survival is monitored by hatchery staff and 

reported to the statewide ODFW hatcheries database. This M&E objective primarily 

describes monitoring activities conducted outside of the hatchery. Survival of hatcheryorigin fish during the smolt migration life stage is currently monitored by detection of PITtagged smolts in the lower Umatilla River and at John Day and Bonneville dams in the 

Columbia River. Adult production, SAS, harvest, and straying of all hatchery production and 

release groups are monitored using CWTs. Adult returns to the Umatilla subbasin for all 

hatchery production and release groups are monitored using CWTs recovered within the 

subbasin. 

Repeated spawning ground surveys could provide a future measure of the presence of 

hatchery (fin-clipped) steelhead in the Birch Creek watershed during the spawning season. 

While actual fish observations may be low, repeat spawning ground surveys on the John Day 

River have demonstrated that visual surveys are feasible. This approach is much more 

logistically and financially feasible compared to the operation of a new weir and adult trap. 

Rearing and release history of hatchery steelhead returns to the Umatilla subbasin is 

monitored using CWTs recovered from all locations within the subbasin. Of particular 

regional interest is the identification of non-Umatilla origin hatchery groups that enter the 

Umatilla River in spring that will likely spawn with ESA listed Umatilla steelhead. 

Recruits-per-spawner ratios of hatchery-origin steelhead over time must be substantially 

higher than those of natural-origin steelhead for hatcheries to be a viable tool for fisheries 

restoration. If this is not the case, more adult production will be realized by leaving hatchery 

broodstock in the river to spawn naturally. The number of additional adults produced by 

hatchery programs also must be great enough to overcome potentially lower productivity 

(reproductive success) when they spawn naturally compared to natural-origin fish. 

Numbers of adult parents will be known from spawning records for hatchery-origin fish, but 

will require estimation for natural-origin steelhead. Spawning information is documented in 

annual reports produced by the CTUIR Umatilla Hatchery and Satellite Facilities O&M 

Project (BPA Project # 83-435). Numbers of natural-origin parents are from counts at 

TMFD. Adult progeny from a brood will return over multiple years. Number of progeny per 

brood for hatchery-origin fish is estimated from abundance and age information acquired by 

CWT recoveries. Number of progeny per brood for natural-origin steelhead that return to 

TMFD is estimated by collecting scales for age analysis to apportion adult returns by brood 

year. Numbers of natural-origin steelhead harvested in non-selective fisheries is estimated 

by creel surveys for Umatilla subbasin fisheries and by using CWT recoveries of harvested 

hatchery-origin fish as a surrogate for harvest of their natural-origin counterparts in out-ofsubbasin fisheries. For out-of-subbasin harvest, it is assumed that the age classes of the 

natural-origin fish harvested out-of-subbasin are equal to the age composition of returns to 

the Umatilla River. Monitoring straying of adult steelhead from the Umatilla subbasin 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-33

hatchery is conducted by marking steelhead with a CWT and analyzing out-of-subbasin 

CWT recovery data. 

Analysis: Up until 2004, in-basin survival of hatchery salmonids was estimated using the 

Migrant Abundance Method (Burham et al. 1987 and Dauble et al. 1993). Commencing in 

2005, in-basin and out-of-basin survival for natural and hatchery steelhead was estimated 

using the CRISP and SURPH models. The Umatilla Outmigration and Survival study is no 

longer funded, thus these estimates are not currently available. 

Testing for significant differences in survival rates is conducted annually and over five-year 

periods. Smolt survival estimates generated by SURPH include a point estimate and 

associated variance. 

Relative survival of PIT tagged groups from valid comparisons to TMFD, and John Day and 

Bonneville Dams were compared in the past. PIT tag information is currently submitted and 

recovery data obtained from the PSMFC database. Number, travel time, and length at PITtagging are recorded for each release group at all reporting observation sites. 

To determine number of adult progeny produced per brood for natural- and hatchery-origin 

steelhead, calculate P:P ratios for both natural- and hatchery-origin fish as total number of 

adult progeny produced divided by total number of adult parents that spawned. 

Numbers of adults which are recovered at terminal locations outside of the Umatilla subbasin 

(spawning grounds, hatcheries, and adult traps) can be reported for the following areas: 

Snake River Basin, Columbia River Basin above McNary Dam, Columbia River Basin below 

McNary Dam, and all other locations. No steelhead with CWTs have been recovered at outof-subbasin terminal locations to date. 

Status: Partially funded by BPA. 

Objective 13: Determine the transmission and effect of disease on the abundance, 

productivity, diversity and distribution of the natural-origin population. 

The overall goal of the fish health program is to release fish into the Umatilla subbasin that 

are known to have a healthy disease history during rearing to minimize impacts on naturallyand other hatchery-reared fish. This is a low priority objective because disease effects have 

not been identified as a limiting factor. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What are the prevalence and level of pathogens in natural- and hatchery-origin steelhead? 

• What are the magnitude and pathways of disease transmission between hatchery- and 

natural-origin steelhead? 

• What is the prevalence of whirling disease in the Umatilla River basin, and what is its 

influence on the natural steelhead populations? 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-34

Performance metrics: Pathogen prevalence and levels in natural- and hatchery-origin 

steelhead. 

Approach: The health of hatchery-origin fish should be monitored starting with broodstock 

and continuing through rearing and release of juveniles. Natural fish health is assessed on 

mortalities encountered during parr, smolt, and spawner monitoring activities. If possible, all 

sampling, diagnostic, and statistical analyses will conform to the Integrated Hatchery 

Operations Team and the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee guidelines. 

All monitoring is consistent with the ODFW fish health policy and the native fish 

conservation policy. 

All raceways of each species and stock at Umatilla Hatchery are monitored monthly for fish 

health. Monthly monitoring consists of examining five fresh-morbid or moribund fish from 

each raceway for systemic and gill bacteria on TYE-S agar. In addition, monthly inspections 

include microscopy of gill tissue and body scrapings for parasites and gill condition from a 

minimum of five fish. Sixty fish are tested annually for Myxobolus cerebralis, the causative 

agent of whirling disease. Within four weeks of transfer from the hatchery, tissues from 

grab-sampled fish are examined for virus on cell cultures from a minimum of 10 fish per 

raceway. Gill and body scrapings are examined by microscopy from a minimum of three fish 

per lower raceway at Umatilla Hatchery. In addition, prior to their liberation from 

acclimation facilities most groups of fish are examined from each acclimation pond as in the 

monthly monitoring protocols described above. 

A minimum of 60 broodstock fish are examined for culturable viruses as per fish health 

section bluebook methods. This includes ovarian fluid and pyloric caeca/kidney/spleen 

samples from all broodstock for this program. All broodstock mortalities are examined for 

culturable systemic viruses using TYE-S agar. 

Currently, fish health personnel examine naturally-reared fish that are submitted for analysis. 

Submissions consist of mortalities from naturally-reared juveniles obtained from smolt traps 

and parr collected during juvenile fish sampling. Disease examinations include testing for M. 

cerebralis, IHNV, and other culturable viruses. 

Analysis: Analysis of samples will follow standard protocols defined in the latest edition of 

the American Fisheries Society “Fish Health Blue Book” (Procedures for the Detection and 

Identification of Certain Fish Pathogens). 

Status: Partially funded by BPA, partially implemented. 

13.3.2 Walla Walla River Population 

Summer steelhead are currently the only natural population of anadromous fish in the Walla 

Walla subbasin. Steelhead restoration and management programs in the Walla Walla subbasin 

include hatchery actions, harvest management, and habitat, flow, and passage improvement 

projects. Artificial production programs for steelhead include a Lyons Ferry Hatchery steelhead 

harvest mitigation program and an experimental endemic steelhead mitigation program in the 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-35

Touchet River population. The “Comprehensive Aquatic Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 

Plan” (RM&E plan, Appendix AD3 in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan) outlines a strategy for 

obtaining information needed to assess the performance and evaluate the success of these 

restoration programs. 

The research, monitoring, and evaluation objectives and approaches that follow are from the 

RM&E section of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (2004). To date, a comprehensive Walla 

Walla subbasin RM&E plan, including critical uncertainties, has not been agreed upon by all 

agencies, however research priorities are listed in the Subbasin Plan and in this report. Some of 

the monitoring and evaluation activities described in this plan are ongoing. However, several 

currently unfunded activities are proposed in this plan to address key information gaps and 

improve ongoing efforts. These proposed activities include modification of ongoing monitoring, 

critical uncertainty research, and innovative study approaches. 

Status monitoring is performed at multiple scales for summer steelhead in the Walla Walla 

subbasin. Natural production status monitoring includes abundance indices for juveniles (parr 

and smolts), number of returning adults, estimated redd numbers, as well as flow, temperature, 

and habitat data to assess the success of flow augmentation and stream restoration work. 

Hatchery and natural production evaluations include the monitoring of smolt-to-adult returns, 

smolt-to-adult survival, catch contribution, catch distribution and straying rates, and 

experimental releases of juveniles and spawners. Juvenile outmigration monitoring includes the 

number of outmigrating smolts, travel timing, and survival to downstream dams. In addition, the 

fisheries are monitored using creel surveys and marine fishery observations to estimate the 

contribution of Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish to all commercial, subsistence and recreational 

fisheries. 

The objectives of status monitoring are to describe existing habitat conditions and population 

status, and to assess trends over time. The NOAA Fisheries RM&E plan (NOAA 2003) calls for 

status monitoring to document progress toward recovery of listed populations. Repeated 

measurements (temporal replicates) are taken over time to quantify change. Existing population 

conditions are compared to performance standards as established in the appropriate recovery or 

master plans. 

The Walla Walla EDT model was parameterized during the subbasin planning process without 

extensive empirical data for the subbasin. In all cases, empirical data were used if available. 

However many habitat attributes were rated based on local knowledge and best scientific 

judgment. It is clear that there is significant uncertainty in how well the data represent habitat 

and fish assemblage conditions. Improving the quality of habitat data is an important step in 

improving future modeling efforts. Improved data quality can be achieved by collecting 

additional empirical data and future efforts should focus on the following recommended 

attributes. 

1) Those attributes with the greatest importance in EDT model results (e.g. maximum width, 

gradient, habitat type inventories, large wood, bed scour). 

2) Those that are within the priority protection or restoration stream reaches identified in 

Section 9. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-36

3) Data that are limited for attributes which have a broad (subbasin wide) effect on 

population or habitat status (passage at obstructions, water quality, others). 

4) Attributes identified as primary limiting factors in Section 8. 

The general M&E framework for the Walla Walla subbasin is guided by the need to fill data 

gaps and establish a better understanding of the baseline habitat conditions including the 

characteristics of passage, flow, substrate and ecological interactions which most directly impact 

the production of steelhead. The overall goal of monitoring and evaluation efforts will be to 

address, at a minimum, those critical areas for VSP analysis as described by NOAA Fisheries. 

Specific performance measures were identified for the four VSP areas: 

1) Adult abundance: Run size to the basin (this can be greatly impacted by out-of-subbasin 

effects but is critical to monitoring population status). Estimates or enumeration of 

escapement to the spawning grounds including hatchery fish and harvest within the 

subbasin (hatchery harvest and incidental hooking mortality of natural-origin fish). Outof-basin harvest and mortality may limit recovery. 

2) Juvenile: Smolt production at the population scale to reflect freshwater survival and 

production within the basin. It will be critical in modeling population response to habitat 

restoration actions. 

3) Diversity: Genetic characterization, phenotypic diversity, life history pathways (juvenile 

and adult), and artificial propagation effects (hatcheries). 

4) Spatial Structure: Distribution of juveniles and adults within the population, habitat 

limiting factors by life stage. 

5) Productivity: Population growth rate or potential – smolts per spawner, natural-origin 

recruits-per-spawner, and population growth rate. 

Monitoring of these key VSP parameters and their various performance metrics is described in 

the RM&E objectives that follow. 

Objective 1: Monitor and assess the status and trends of abundance and productivity of 

hatchery- and natural-origin steelhead. 

Adult abundance estimates to the Walla Walla River population are a critical metric for 

monitoring the status and long-term trends of this steelhead population. Monitoring trends in the 

performance metrics listed below will be critical to assessing the performance of the Walla Walla 

subbasin fish restoration program. These measures will also be used in viability analyses to 

estimate productivity and natural production capacity. Adult monitoring in the Walla Walla 

River is limited by the absence of a trap or ladder near the mouth of the river. Therefore, total 

returns to the Walla Walla River population are estimated from counts at Nursery Bridge and 

expansions of these counts to unsurveyed areas in the remainder of the population. Expansions 

are based on habitat capacity relationships and there is considerable uncertainty. Traps exist in 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-37

the middle-upper reaches of each drainage. Facilities at the Bennington Dam fish ladder require 

improvements to function for effective fish enumeration. This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the annual steelhead spawner abundance in the Walla Walla and Mill Creek 

watersheds? 

• Is the 10-year GM of natural-origin steelhead spawners in the Walla Walla population 

greater than or equal to the recovery criteria for natural-origin spawners? 

• What are the current and trend in the 20-year population growth rate? 

• What are the current and trend in smolts/spawner? 

• What are the current and trend in adult spawner-to-spawner ratios? 

Performance metrics: Number of hatchery- and natural-origin adult spawners in the Walla 

Walla population, run timing of hatchery- and natural-origin adult returns, smolts-perspawner, adult spawner-to-spawner ratios. 

Approach: Numbers of adult hatchery- and natural-origin returns will be enumerated by trap 

counts, as well as by visual redd surveys. Current traps/monitoring stations in the basin 

include Nursery Bridge, Bennington Dam ladder, and the Yellowhawk fish weir. A complete 

count of escapement past these locations could be obtained, but several of the facilities 

require improvement. 

CTUIR will sponsor a design investigation to study the feasibility and technical requirements 

of placing a video-sonar adult monitoring system at or near the mouth of the Walla Walla. 

The study will cover design and maintenance requirements for a system, and will recommend 

best-available technology for such a system. If implemented the system would greatly aid 

management in understanding total abundance of adult returns to the Walla Walla, run timing 

and environmental correlates of migration in the lower river. In addition, CTUIR will work 

with USACE to improve fish monitoring equipment and protocols on Bennington Dam as 

described by Tice (2004). Improvements may include the use of visual, sonar, and lasers to 

acquire a more complete count of fish passing the facility. 

Analysis: Counts of adult returns in combination with other metrics described in later M&E 

objectives (harvest, straying, spawner abundance, and smolt outmigrant abundance) will be 

used to estimate key metrics of abundance, survival (smolt-to-adult survival, pre-spawn 

mortality) and productivity (smolts-per-spawner, adult spawner-to-spawner ratios). 

Status: Partially funded, ongoing. 

Objective 2: Monitor and assess the distribution and density of spawners and juveniles. 

An understanding of spatial and temporal variance in both spawner and juvenile production and 

productivity is necessary to estimate a variety of performance measures. Improved accounting of 

adults into the upper Mill Creek is needed. This is a highest priority objective. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-38

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What are the annual distribution and abundance of spawners and redds in each 

watershed? 

• What are the spatial distribution of the occupied spawning areas and density of spawners 

within the population boundaries? 

• What are the current spatial extent and distribution of rearing habitat used by juvenile 

steelhead? 

• What are the relative abundance and distribution of juvenile steelhead, by age, seasonally 

throughout the basin? 

Performance metrics: Spawner spatial distribution, spawn timing, and rearing distribution. 

Approach: Sampling will be conducted for steelhead within their spawning and rearing 

habitat. The sampling design will follow a modified EMAP protocol. Spawner surveys will 

be randomized by tributary and reach for randomly selected reaches. Index reaches have 

been established for most of the subbasin. Juvenile surveys will be randomized by 

watershed, or stratified where randomization is undesirable. Annual estimates of density will 

be produced for each life-history stage, watershed, and at the population-scale. 

Electrofishing, seining, and trapping will be used to quantify the abundance of juvenile 

salmonids at the reach scale. The sampling universe for juvenile surveys will be the EDT 

reaches developed for subbasin planning. We will use these reaches and watershed 

delineations to allocate sampling across the subbasin. 

Instead of attempting to populate traditional statistical models, we will use a geostatistical 

estimator of population variance to project juvenile stock assessments across watersheds 

based on annual juvenile fish surveys. We will survey permanent index sites in each target 

watershed using multiple pass depletion electrofishing, snorkeling, and seining between 

barrier nets. Habitat conditions of the index sites will be estimated every 3 to 10 years, and 

the wetted width and volume of each site will be determined annually. An additional 2-5 

sites will be randomly selected using a spatially balanced algorithm (Stevens and Olsen 2003, 

2004). Within each reach sampling sites will be distributed randomly where possible, but 

will conform to landowner requests and trespassing laws. Fish communities and habitat 

information will be sampled at each randomly selected site. A draft site selection is currently 

under development and review by EPA’s EMAP laboratory for the Walla Walla subbasin. 

Thirty permanent index sites and at least an additional thirty randomly selected sites will be 

sampled each year. This sample size approaches the practical maximum for field efforts, 

surpasses the sample size required to detect geographic patterns in community structure 

related to habitat variability, far exceeds the sample size needed to detect changes in each 

watershed (Roper et al. 2003), and should be sufficient to detect a 50% change in salmonid 

densities per annum at the watershed scale. Approximately five to ten percent of the catch 

will be PIT-tagged for survival and outmigration monitoring. This will provide a sample for 

the assessment and monitoring of within-subbasin survival of salmonids using detections at 

Columbia River PIT-tag detectors and the within-subbasin rotary screw traps. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-39

Spawner surveys will be conducted during the appropriate spawning and holding season. 

Effort will be allocated using a stratified randomization of EDT reaches based on known and 

historical spawning habitat. Redds will be enumerated as an index of spawner abundance 

using multiple-pass visual surveys of the spawning grounds. The location of each redd will 

be georeferenced. The condition of each redd and any observed spawner activity will be 

noted. Each observed redd will be flagged by marking tape on adjacent vegetation to avoid 

re-sampling. 

Steelhead survey efforts will be stratified using index sites that have five- to ten-year 

datasets. Each site will be visited annually and receive at least three passes each year. An 

additional two to six randomly selected reaches will be surveyed annually using multiplepass visual observations. The co-managers are currently working to develop a rolling panel 

or continuous survey methodology for summer steelhead and bull trout. 

Analysis: A geostatistical analysis will be conducted using population and habitat data to 

estimate fish-habitat relationships and to produce a geostatistical stock assessment of 

spawners and juveniles. Associative and trend analyses will be used to monitor changes in 

spawner and juvenile populations. 

Status: Spawner monitoring is funded and ongoing; juvenile surveys are funded and 

implemented. 

Objective 3: Monitor and assess the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and instream survival of out-migrating steelhead. 

An estimate of smolt abundance for natural-origin steelhead in the lower Walla Walla River is 

essential to answering critical uncertainties surrounding natural production capacity and withinsubbasin productivity. In addition, an understanding of migration success and survival is 

necessary to identify in and out-of-subbasin limiting factors (including environmental conditions, 

flow, fish habitat, hatchery rearing and release strategies, predation, and passage difficulties) and 

estimate loss by life stage for hatchery- and natural-origin fish. This is a highest priority 

objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What are the abundance, timing, and in-stream survival of out-migrating steelhead? 

• What are the life history characteristics of out-migrating steelhead? 

Performance metrics: Migration parameters, abundance, survival, and life history 

characteristics (including age, size and condition) of emigrating smolts or migrants. 

Approach: Total population smolt abundance will be estimated for natural-origin steelhead 

emigrating from the Walla Walla River using a rotary screw trap. In addition, estimates of 

outmigrant abundance will be obtained for the upper Walla Walla and Mill Creek rivers 

using rotary screw traps. The Bootstrap method with 1,000 iterations will be used to derive a 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-40

variance. Smolt survival and migration parameters (timing, duration and travel speed) will 

be monitored for hatchery- and natural-origin fish using PIT tags and remote interrogation at 

the lower screw trap and Columbia River dams. 

Environmental variables including water discharge, flow, temperature, and water clarity in 

the lower river will be monitored. Juvenile life history characteristics including smolt 

emigration timing, length, age, health, condition and smolt status will be collected. 

Analysis: Smolt survival estimates will be calculated using the Migrant Abundance Method 

(Burham et al. 1987 and Dauble et al. 1993) and the SURPH 2 model 

(http://www.cbr.washington.edu/). The binomial test will be used to test for significant 

differences in detection between comparable release groups of hatchery-reared fish. The 

relation of environmental variables to smolt survival and/or migration success will be 

assessed using regression and correlation analyses. Associative and trend analyses will be 

used to evaluate outmigration. 

Status: Partially funded, modification and expansion of ongoing activities are needed. 

Objective 4: Monitor and assess the residualization of hatchery- and natural-origin 

steelhead. 

Hatchery-reared fish are released at sizes and conditions that differ from their naturally-reared 

counterparts. Sexually mature residualized fish can compete with returning anadromous adults 

for mates, and can compete with resident fish or pre-migrant juveniles for ecological resources. 

Recent studies suggest that hatchery practices can be modified to decrease residualization rates if 

problems are detected. The purpose of this work will be to determine the extent and impacts of 

residualism, whether hatchery practices produce greater-than-natural residualization rates, and to 

provide some potential corrective measures. This is a moderate priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the distribution and relative abundance of hatchery steelhead residuals? 

• Are residualization rates of hatchery releases greater than those of natural-origin fishes? 

Performance metrics: Residualization rates. 

Approach: The WDFW Snake River Lab and Fish Management have annually surveyed 

(electrofishing) the juvenile production areas of the Touchet River since 2001. Hatcheryorigin summer steelhead have been captured and identified (Lyons Ferry stock or Touchet 

Endemic stock), and residual population estimates have been derived to assess the overall 

impacts. Juvenile surveys will continue into the future to monitor the residualism rates and 

their distribution within the watersheds to describe interactions with natural salmonids. In 

the Walla Walla and Mill Creek system, residualized steelhead will be sampled during 

juvenile surveys. Residuals will be classified based on the presence of a fin clip or wire tag 

for hatchery fish, and using outlier analysis for the juvenile population. Resident redband 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-41

trout populations will be similarly noted, but are recognized as part of the steelhead 

population (Currens and Schreck 1995; Kostow 2003). 

Status: Work is funded and is currently being implemented, expansion to Walla Walla and 

Mill creeks is needed. 

Objective 5: Monitor and assess the distribution, condition and utilization of essential 

salmonid habitat in the Walla Walla population. 

At the macro- and micro-scales land use and riparian conditions are strongly related to in-stream 

conditions (Crispin et al. 1993; Stednick and Kern 1994; Chen et al. 1998). These features 

directly impact water quality conditions, and can alter salmonid production through ecological 

mechanisms (Torgersen et al. 1999; Ebersole 2002). Habitat impacts are detectable at multiple 

scales, and can result in decreased survival and production of juveniles (Paulsen and Fisher 

2001) and decreased recruitment of spawners (Regetz 2003) at the subbasin scale. 

The EMAP of all known spawning and rearing habitats is recommended for sampling the known 

spatial extent and status and trend of steelhead habitat in the Walla Walla subbasin. 

Representative sites within the subbasin are sampled annually using a three-panel rotating panel 

design. Panels include annual, every four years, and one-time visit selections. Habitat variables 

could follow ODFW Aquatic Inventories design (Moore et al. 2002) and are measured at the unit 

and reach scale. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What are the spatial distribution and quantitative features of the Walla Walla population 

essential fish habitat? 

• What is the status and trend in habitat quantity and quality throughout the Walla Walla 

population? 

Performance metrics: Quantity, quality, and utilization of essential fish habitat. 

Approach: The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan identifies a set of desired future conditions that 

may increase natural production and harvest opportunities in the Walla Walla subbasin 

through habitat restoration and protection, flow augmentation, passage restoration, and 

hatchery supplementation. There are a number of habitat-based RM&E information needs 

that must be addressed if the benefits of these management actions are to be effectively 

detected with sufficient power. For example, the availability and distribution of quality 

essential fish habitat will be used to define the sampling universe of juvenile and spawner 

surveys. The adequacy of habitat representation in EDT will need to be evaluated. The 

condition and importance of several EDT habitat variables, especially bedscour and sediment 

load, need to be investigated. 

Analysis: Spatial and numerical relationships among the habitat and salmonid variables will 

be used to estimate the degradation or restoration through time of essential fish habitat 

associated with both natural and anthropogenic disturbance; to estimate the absolute 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-42

abundance and distribution of juveniles and spawners using geostatistical expansions; to 

estimate the effectiveness of habitat restoration and flow augmentation projects; and, to 

estimate the quantitative relationship between habitat and production. Physical, biological, 

chemical and ecological habitat conditions will be monitored throughout the subbasin using a 

variety of techniques. 

Status: Not funded, not implemented. 

Objective 6: Identify and assess factors limiting production of Walla Walla River steelhead. 

Limiting factor analysis is the process by which impairments to population viability are 

determined. As conditions are improved through management actions, and population limiting 

factors and threats are influenced, it is essential to re-assess limiting factors to guide future 

actions. Section 8 of this plan has a detailed limiting factors assessment. This is a high priority 

objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What environmental factors limit steelhead viability in the Walla Walla population? 

Approach: Limiting factors and the capacity of the Walla Walla subbasin will be analyzed 

every five years as part of regular evaluation activities. A multi-species spatially explicit 

model of the Walla Walla subbasin, such as the ICTRT matrix model and EDT-AHA, will be 

used to analyze life stage specific survival in Walla Walla, Columbia, and marine life-history 

stages. 

Analysis: Analyses will be conducted with EDT-AHA and ICTRT matrix models. 

Status: Not funded. 

Objective 7: Assess the impact of habitat improvement and protection on steelhead 

viability in the Walla Walla subbasin. 

Considerable resources are invested in habitat improvement measures. Most habitat 

improvement projects conduct some monitoring and evaluation at the project scale to determine 

successful project implementation. However, typically only the cumulative impacts of 

watershed restoration can be directly linked to increased steelhead production. The connection 

between Tier 1 habitat project implementation monitoring and Tier 2 effectiveness monitoring 

must be addressed across the spatial hierarchy of reaches and watersheds. This is a high priority 

objective. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring Questions:

• Status & Trend Monitoring—What is the current status and trend of steelhead habitat? 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-43

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring—Has the management action been 

implemented in the prescribed manner and achieved its objectives? 

• Effectiveness Monitoring—Has the management action significantly influenced the 

viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead population? 

Performance metrics: Habitat conditions, egg, fry, juvenile, and smolt production and 

survival, and smolts-per-spawner or per female. Comparison with information on survivals 

and smolts-per-spawner with other subbasins. 

Approach: Status and trend monitoring at the subbasin and population scales is best 

conducted by using a spatially explicit sampling approach, such as the EMAP approach. 

Measured habitat variables will be the same as previously described for the John Day 

populations. Remote sensing (e.g. TIR; LIDAR; and spatially referenced color imagery) is 

also appropriate and typically addresses spatial scales at watershed or larger landscapes. 

Compliance monitoring of restoration projects incorporates record keeping and reporting of 

activities. Compliance monitoring will be primarily conducted by the implementing entities 

and will include any parameters identified in related work statements. 

Effectiveness monitoring can be approached at the watershed or project spatial scales, and 

should preferably be directed at measures of abundance, survival, growth, etc. of steelhead or 

abiotic or biotic factors limiting their recovery. A BACI design (including spatial 

replication) is recommended for measuring the effectiveness of active restoration activities 

(Jones & Tonn 2004). For passive restoration activities, a BACI design that monitors trends 

through time may be appropriate. If comparisons are made to reference or control sites, they 

should be under similar environmental conditions experienced by the treatment site but 

outside the influence of treatment activities. Restoration implementing entities must 

coordinate with monitoring groups prior to action implementation—preferably several years 

in advance to allow measurement of pre-manipulation variables. Temporal scales must 

account for timelags related to life history and life cycle. Derived variables include 

proportion of population-level parameter (e.g. abundance, production, survival) influenced 

by restoration activity. 

Analysis: If at the appropriate scale, direct comparisons of measured parameters with 

recovery criteria can be made. Otherwise, measures at smaller scales will need to be 

combined to determine if they have the desired responses at the population level. 

Status: Evaluation is partially funded; habitat monitoring is not funded and not implemented. 

Some projects currently conduct compliance monitoring; however, there is no ongoing effort 

to aggregate results at the population scale. 

Objective 8: Determine the effect of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, 

diversity, and distribution of the natural-origin population. 

This objective is moderate priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Uncertainties research. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-44

Monitoring questions:

• What is the prevalence of whirling disease in the Walla Walla subbasin and what is its 

influence on the natural steelhead populations? 

• What is the predation rate and predatory impact of introduced fishes in the Walla Walla 

subbasin on juvenile steelhead? 

• What is the effect of predation from piscine predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the Walla Walla subbasin? 

• What is the effect of predation from avian predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the Walla Walla subbasin? 

Approach: The current distribution and influence of whirling disease on wild steelhead 

populations is not fully understood. Representative sentinel stations could be established and 

monitored through time for each population to measure prevalence and intensity of infection 

rates of whirling disease. Infection, or the presence of Myxobolus cerebralis DNA, is 

detected by PCR analysis. A small incomplete survey was conducted in the late 1980’s and a 

more complete survey is needed. 

Collections of smallmouth bass and other potential predators in the WallaWalla River could 

be conducted using angling techniques. Collected stomach samples are analyzed for the 

presence of juvenile salmonids. These data could be incorporated into a bioenergetics model 

to derive a population-level consumption estimate imposed by introduced fishes. Sampling 

of predatory fish diets should occur during times and locations when and where their 

distribution overlaps with juvenile steelhead. Interpretation of the predatory impact in the 

migration corridor should be conducted from methods established in published literature 

(Ward et al. 1995; Fritts and Pearsons 2006). 

To evaluate avian predation, colonies are monitored for presence of PIT tags originating from 

specific populations (Collis et al. 2001). Bioenergetics models are then used to expand tag 

recoveries at colonies to population-level impacts (Antolos et al. 2005). 

Analysis: The proportion of total mortality attributable to predatory mortality could be 

estimated from bioenergetics modeling results. 

Status: The whirling disease foundation, whirling disease initiative, and Oregon Sea Grant 

are potential funding sources for whirling disease investigations. Investigations of predation 

in the migration corridor have been conducted by many agencies with various funding 

sources including BPA and USACE. This work should continue to effectively evaluate the 

benefits of the proposed actions. 

Objective 9: Determine the effect of mainstem hydropower operations and operational 

improvements on viability of the Walla Walla River steelhead population. 

See John Day MPG for Timeline, Monitoring questions, and Approach. 

 Status: Specific estimates for Walla Walla population are unfunded. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-45

Objective 10: Monitor straying of adult steelhead from the Walla Walla subbasin hatchery 

programs. 

Adult trapping provides substantial data annually on stray fish entering the upper Walla Walla 

River. Currently, natural spawners in the Walla Walla River include returns originating from 

naturally spawning adults and from out-of-DPS strays which originate from Lyons Ferry 

Hatchery releases in the lower Walla Walla River. Hatchery strays were removed at Nursery 

Bridge Dam by trapping until 1999. Trapping was discontinued after 1999 and replaced with 

video monitoring. Hatchery fish currently pass above Nursery Bridge Dam to spawn naturally. 

Continuation of monitoring is needed to assess the annual hatchery fraction and to determine if 

management changes result in increases or decreases in the hatchery fraction. This is a high 

priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring question:

• What is the number and proportion of hatchery fish in the Walla Walla population? 

Performance metrics: Number of hatchery fish and proportion of hatchery fish that spawn 

naturally in the Walla Walla population; percent of Lyons Ferry Hatchery releases that stray 

Approach: WDFW monitors the return of summer steelhead throughout southeast 

Washington through adult trapping (Tucannon River, Lyons Ferry Hatchery, Lower Granite 

Reservoir, Touchet River, Cottonwood Creek), and spawning ground and creel surveys (sport 

harvest and CWT expansions can be used to estimate the number that would have returned to 

the project area)—all of which provide CWT recoveries of marked fish for evaluation 

purposes. Trapped and/or spawned broodstock fish and carcasses provide data concerning 

origin, stray rates, sex ratios, age composition, and mean fecundity of each year’s run. 

Spawning ground surveys in Mill Creek provide numbers of redds, spawn timing, and 

distribution of fish. These surveys provide some measure of the presence of hatchery strays 

on spawning grounds by noting the presence of fin clips on spawners. This technique has 

shown some success on the surveys conducted on the John Day River subbasin. A more 

complete census of natural- and hatchery-origin spawners could be conducted using a weir 

and trap similar to that previously conducted at Nursery Bridge Dam. 

Analysis: Estimating the proportion of out-of-basin strays is a simple comparison of the 

number of marked and unmarked spawners and carcasses observed within and outside of 

targeted areas for hatchery returns. 

Status: Partially funded, modify and enhance existing monitoring. 

Objective 11: Monitor and assess the effect of flow on the availability of spawning and 

rearing habitat in the mainstem Walla Walla. 

Considerable effort and resources are directed at flow restoration in the Walla Walla. However, 

some of the direct benefits to fish have not been quantified. The relationship between flow 

restoration and trap-and-haul work is comparatively straightforward: proper flow through 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-46

structures and reaches allows for easy passage and a reduction in the need to trap and haul fish. 

However, the relationship between increased flow and increased spawning and rearing habitat 

has rarely been directly studied. The IFIM was used to study optimal flow conditions for a 

number of reaches in the Walla Walla subbasin, and these results are currently being used to 

guide flow restoration programs. Baseline effectiveness monitoring is needed to understand the 

added benefits to fish that these future flow programs would bring to the subbasin, and to 

determine the accuracy of IFIM in predicting habitat use under various flow conditions for 

priority reaches. This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring, uncertainties research. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the effect of flow on the availability of spawning and rearing habitat in the 

mainstem Walla Walla? 

• Are flows suitable for spawning and rearing of steelhead for each reach? 

Performance metrics: Spawning and rearing habitat utilization, effectiveness of flow 

restoration programs. 

Approach: Juvenile habitat utilization will be monitored in the Walla Walla mainstem during 

annual juvenile fish surveys by the CTUIR. Flow will be monitored in these mainstem 

reaches during fish surveys using a handheld flow meter. Habitat potential will be modeled 

using a spatially explicit model of habitat quality and quantity such as IFIM or life-cycle 

analysis, facilitating the evaluation of the relative impacts of various flow management 

regimes, including the implementation of flow exchange programs and climatological 

variability. 

Analysis: The results of IFIM studies will be compared with results obtained in the field to 

evaluate the accuracy of the modeled flow recommendations and suggest changes when 

necessary. 

Status: Partially funded, partially implemented. 

Objectives 12: Develop models for pre-season estimation of Walla Walla River returns to 

facilitate management of subbasin fisheries. 

Accurate run size predictions allow managers and program staff to plan appropriate broodstock 

collection, harvest, spawning escapement, and CWT recovery strategies in advance. In addition, 

models describing return timing can be used in the evaluation of flow management regimes inseason. These models are relatively simple to develop, but require datasets that cover several 

years or even many decades to be relatively accurate. In general the results of much of the longterm monitoring work will be used to produce these models. This is a low priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-47

Monitoring questions:

• What is the annual estimated run size of summer steelhead to the Walla Walla River 

mouth? 

• Can the run size of steelhead be estimated accurately prior to adult returns, and how can 

the predictor be improved? 

Performance metrics: Run size forecast. 

Approach: Correlation models have been developed for preseason prediction of steelhead 

run size to the Columbia River. Local models must be constructed to predict the timing and 

size of anadromous runs to the Walla Walla. A variety of metrics (including marine 

conditions, flow conditions, outmigrant abundance, etc.) are collected as part of regular status 

and trend monitoring or out-of-basin monitoring. These variables can be used to develop run 

predictors for all steelhead. Detailed methods for this exercise are under development, and 

are not discussed below. 

Analysis: We use multivariate regression analyses to develop predictive models. 

Status: Funded, ongoing. 

Objective 13: Quantify fishing effort, catch, and harvest for tribal and non-tribal fisheries 

in the Walla Walla River. 

Much of the impetus for the Walla Walla supplementation and reintroduction programs and the 

WDFW sponsored steelhead hatchery programs is tribal and non-tribal harvest mitigation. Creel 

or catch-card data are needed to provide information to determine whether steelhead harvest 

goals are achieved or exceeded, to enumerate fish removed from the run, and to assess how to 

optimize fishing opportunities through adaptive management. A properly designed creel survey 

can also provide data for determining the impact of fisheries on the natural-origin fish. This is a 

moderate priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the fishing effort, catch, and harvest by gear type, and location for tribal and 

non-tribal fisheries in the Walla Walla River? 

• What is the annual fishing mortality rate that occurs within the Walla Walla River 

subbasin? 

Performance metrics: Fisher hours, catch, and harvest. 

Approach: WDFW utilizes catch cards and a limited creel to monitor harvest. The need to 

expand these efforts is currently being investigated. Tribal harvest appears minimal and is 

currently not being monitored. 

Analysis: Statistical analyses of creel survey information. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-48

Status: Partly funded; modify and enhance existing monitoring. 

13.4 Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG includes seven steelhead populations in both 

Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, the populations are the Fifteenmile Creek, Deschutes West, 

Deschutes East, and the extirpated Crooked River (Deschutes River subbasin) populations. The 

MPG is unique in a number of ways compared to the others of the Mid-C steelhead DPS. It 

includes the uppermost expression of an adult winter-run life history (Fifteenmile Creek) in the 

Columbia River Basin. Impacts to survival of adult winter run steelhead can be expected to 

differ from the summer run fish during upstream migration through different hydro conditions 

and fisheries. Smolts from all populations in this MPG migrate through shorter reaches of the 

Columbia hydrosystem and pass fewer dams. Portions, or all, of the spawning habitat of the 

three populations in the Deschutes River subbasin have been blocked by hydroelectric 

development in the subbasin. The sampling methods used to obtain some of the VSP 

information for this MPG that was used in the recovery plan’s viability analyses (see Section 6) 

are more varied and the management entities that conduct monitoring are diverse. 

The most systematic population-level monitoring in the Oregon portion of the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries MPG has been through spawning ground surveys conducted by CTWSRO, 

ODFW, and USFS. This information was used to develop spawner abundance estimates for each 

population. These surveys had neither been conducted explicitly to represent the spatial 

distribution of the populations as defined by the ICTRT nor to collect the types of information 

ideally used to assess each population’s viability and to compare current status to the desired 

population recovery criteria. Nonetheless, the current monitoring routines represent the 

foundation on which to build future status and trends monitoring that will fill information gaps 

identified in the viability analyses, allow future changes in VSP criteria to be tracked, and in 

some cases, function in part as action effectiveness monitoring. Monitoring infrastructure 

currently exists or has been deployed in the past in the MPG that could inform future VSP status 

and trend assessments including the following: 

• Abundance of adult progeny on the spawning grounds (for productivity expressed as 

recruits-per-spawner ratios) 

• Trends in abundance of juveniles and SARs 

• Spatial distribution of spawners 

• Diversity of life history characteristics of both adults and juveniles including differences, 

similarities, or changes in genetic traits 

This plan describes and supplements the existing monitoring activities so that the status and trend 

of the steelhead populations can be compared with recovery criteria. It is not exhaustive, but 

generally builds on the strengths of existing monitoring efforts that could be used to update the 

viability assessments that were conducted and adapt existing efforts to fill missing information. 

A balance between an ideal monitoring effort and what is sufficient relative to costs and 

resources is considered. Wherever possible, attempts to integrate status and trends monitoring 

with action effectiveness monitoring are made. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-49

Critical Uncertainties 

Critical uncertainties for the population group that currently limit the ability to make informed 

management decisions have been identified by local area managers. We combined these 

uncertainties with those identified during the recovery planning process to produce the RM&E 

objectives that are addressed herein by our recommended M&E efforts. Not all objectives are 

associated with each population segment. For example, there is no within-basin harvest for the 

Fifteenmile Creek population. The objectives include: 

1. Determine the current status and trend in the abundance and productivity of natural-origin 

 spawners and compare to viability abundance criteria for each population. 

2. Determine the status of the spatial structure of each population based on current and 

 historically utilized habitat. 

3. Determine the effects of out-of-basin strays on the productivity of each population relative 

 to viability criteria. 

4. Determine the status and trend in conditions of current and historically utilized habitat 

 within each population. 

5. Determine the freshwater productivity of each population relative to viability criteria and 

 identify primary habitat factors limiting freshwater production. 

6. Determine the effects of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, diversity 

 and spatial structure of the natural populations. 

7. Determine the effect of hydropower on the abundance, productivity, diversity and 

 distribution of the natural populations. 

8. Determine what effects habitat degradation and habitat restoration actions have on the 

 abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of the natural populations. 

9. Determine the influence of in-basin harvest on the abundance and productivity of naturalorigin spawners. 

13.4.1 Fifteenmile Creek Population 

Objective 1: Determine the status and trend in the abundance of natural-origin spawners 

relative to viability abundance levels. 

The status of a population is determined by estimating the VSP parameters described in the 

recovery plan. The VSP parameters include adult abundance, population productivity or growth 

rate, population spatial structure, and diversity. This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• Is the 10-year GM of natural-origin steelhead spawners in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin 

greater than or equal to the recovery criterion for natural spawners? 

• What are the current spawner abundance and five-year trend in abundance? 

• What are the current and trend in the 20-year population growth rate? 

• What are the current and trend in recruits/spawner compared to the recovery goal? 

Performance Metrics: Spawner abundance, recruits/spawner. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-50

Approach: Currently, abundance of adult spawners in the Fifteenmile Creek system is 

estimated based on observations of redds from three-pass spawning ground surveys 

conducted annually within each MaSA. The present sampling is statistically representative 

of spawning activity allowing inference to the total Fifteenmile Creek spawning population 

and allows annual monitoring of the distribution of spawners in each of the population’s 

MaSAs. The sample design is a stratified random survey where each MaSA is divided into 

five-mile sections that cover the currently known spawning habitat. A one-mile reach is 

randomly selected each year from the five one-mile sections in each five-mile stratum and 

surveyed by foot once per week three times during spring. 

Analysis: The total season’s abundance of redds is estimated by summing individual redds 

observed in each five-mile section and expanding by the surveyed/unsurveyed proportion 

(approximately five-fold). A fish/redd ratio is presently estimated by counting spawners 

passed above a weir (outside of the DPS) and results of subsequent multiple complete area 

census spawning ground redd surveys. 

To estimate abundance of progeny (spawning recruits), age structure is assumed to be similar 

to wild winter steelhead in the downstream Hood River. 

 

Status: Currently implemented. 

Objective 2: Determine the status of the spatial structure of the population based on 

current and historically utilized habitat. 

Spatial and seasonal distribution of juveniles, their habitat use, and density within the MaSAs 

and MiSAs, particularly in Mill and Chenoweth creeks, are not presently well known. This is a 

high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What is the spatial distribution of the occupied spawning areas within the population 

boundaries? 

• What is the current spatial extent and distribution of rearing habitat used by juvenile 

steelhead? 

Approach: An EMAP sampling approach of all known spawning and rearing areas could be 

used to refine the known spatial distribution of both adult and juvenile steelhead for the 

Fifteenmile Creek population. Representative sites within the watershed would be sampled 

annually using a three-panel rotating panel design. Panels include annual, every four years, 

and one-time visit selections. All observed adult spawners and redds would be 

geographically referenced using handheld GPS units for inclusion in a GIS. Juvenile 

steelhead would be sampled using snorkeling or electrofishing techniques. This approach 

would refine current knowledge of steelhead spatial distribution for this population segment. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-51

Analysis: Data would be analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. The known 

distribution of steelhead will be modified when previously unknown blockages to migration 

or newly inhabited reaches are observed. Juvenile steelhead densities are determined in each 

study reach. 

Status: Not currently implemented. 

Objective 3: Determine the abundance of out-of-basin strays in the Fifteenmile Creek population 

relative to viability criteria. 

The proportion of spawning steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek that are hatchery-origin fish is 

assumed to be very low, but is not known. To monitor the presence of hatchery-origin fish, 

additional effort during spawning ground surveys will be necessary to observe sufficient 

numbers of fish to develop annual estimates of hatchery fraction and hatchery fish abundance. 

This is a high level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions:

• What proportion of steelhead spawners in the Fifteenmile Creek population is derived 

from out-of-basin hatchery stocks? 

• What is the origin of out-of-basin strays? 

• What is the population-level genetic composition of the Fifteenmile Creek population? 

Approach: The Fifteenmile Creek basin lacks facilities to capture adult steelhead. 

Determination of out-of-basin strays will therefore rely on identification of hatchery-marked 

adults observed on spawning ground surveys, and from incidental catches. To determine 

population-level genetic composition, genetic data that allow an objective determination of 

the population(s) structure are required. Age-0 O. mykiss from several representative streams 

in the population segment are currently sampled annually. Collection of juveniles from a 

minimum of four cohorts will be sampled. The population will be characterized using a suite 

of nuclear DNA markers, including both microsatellite loci (variable-number 

simple-sequence repeats) and non-coding SNPs, or base substitutions assayed via restriction 

enzyme analysis (Moran et al. 1997). The current monitoring program is conducted as part 

of the Columbia Basin-wide steelhead genetics monitoring. 

Analysis: Estimating the proportion of out-of-basin strays is a simple comparison of the 

number of marked and unmarked spawners and carcasses observed. Direct comparisons can 

then be made with recovery criteria. DNA tissue samples are analyzed by NMFS using 

known microsatellite markers. Microsatellite loci are analyzed using pairwise FST 

comparisons to estimate levels of gene flow and to identify geographic areas that contain 

genetically differentiated populations. 

Status: Spawning ground surveys are implemented and coordinated. Genetics analysis is 

implemented and coordinated collaboratively between ODFW and NMFS Northwest Science 

Center. Federal funds (NMFS) are used for genetics stock analysis. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-52

Objective 4: Determine the status and trend of current and historically utilized habitat. 

 This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the status and trend in habitat quantity and quality throughout the population 

area? 

Approach: The same EMAP sampling approach of all known spawning and rearing areas, as 

described above is recommended for sampling the known spatial extent and status and trend 

of steelhead habitat. Habitat variables would be monitored as defined by ODFW Aquatic 

Inventories design (Moore et al. 2002) and are measured at the unit and reach scale. 

Analysis: This type of data are analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. Database and 

GIS formatting of data allow associations with land use, land vegetation coverage, and many 

other attributes at the population and smaller scales. 

Status: Not implemented. 

Objective 5: Determine the freshwater productivity of the population relative to viability 

abundance levels and identify primary factors limiting freshwater production. 

Trapping juvenile outmigrants will help provide estimates of smolt production for the watershed, 

allow estimation of smolt-to-adult survival rates, and provide life history diversity information 

including timing, age, size, and genetic variation. This expanded monitoring effort will allow for 

assessment of the cumulative benefits of the habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration 

actions on juvenile survival and abundance in the Fifteenmile Creek population. 

The Fifteenmile Creek subbasin plan identifies an “ideal” monitoring scenario where returning 

adults would be trapped and enumerated and a juvenile outmigrant trap would be operated near 

the mouth of Fifteenmile Creek. This scenario could represent a second tier to more 

comprehensively monitor the population. Its benefits would need to be weighed against the 

implementation costs. This is a highest level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the current and trend in freshwater productivity measured as smolts/redd? 

• What is/are the primary factor(s) limiting freshwater production of steelhead? 

Approach: The ratio of smolts/adult is the principle measure of freshwater productivity. 

Smolt abundance will be determined using traps. If we do not obtain adequate funding for a 

weir to count adults, then redd counts will be used. Freshwater productivity will be assessed 

as smolts/redd or smolts/adult. Trapping with RSTs and mark-recapture will be used to 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-53

estimate smolt abundance. Egg-to-smolt survival requires an estimate of the number of eggs 

deposited by individual females or deposited in each redd. Parr-to-smolt survival will be 

estimated by capturing a representative number of parr in their rearing habitat, PIT tagging 

them, and then monitoring their recapture at the downstream smolt traps. Migration survival 

can similarly be estimated by monitoring detections of PIT-tagged individuals as they pass 

through PIT tag detection facilities. 

Analysis: Smolt abundance will be estimated using mark/recapture techniques (Thedinga 

1994; Steinhorst 2004). Survival and productivity measures are simple proportions and 

ratios from one life stage to another. 

Status: Operation of smolt and adult traps are not currently implemented. 

Objective 6: Determine the effect of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, 

diversity, and distribution of the natural-origin population. 

 

 This is a moderate priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring and short-term research. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the prevalence of disease in the basin and what is its influence on the natural 

steelhead populations? 

• What is the effect of predation from piscine predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from Fifteenmile Creek? 

• What is the effect of predation from avian predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from Fifteenmile Creek? 

Approach: The current distribution and influence of whirling disease on natural steelhead 

populations is not fully understood. Representative sentinel stations would be established 

and monitored through time for this population to measure prevalence and intensity of 

infection rates of whirling disease. Infection, or the presence of Myxobolus cerebralis DNA, 

is detected by PCR analysis. 

To evaluate avian predation, colonies are monitored for presence of PIT tags originating from 

specific populations (Collis et al. 2001). Bioenergetics models are used to expand tag 

recoveries at colonies to population-level impacts (Antolos et al. 2005). This method 

requires the collection and PIT tagging of smolts originating from the Fifteenmile Creek 

population. The piscine and avian predation monitoring is outside the scope of this RM&E 

plan. However, we encourage the ongoing monitoring programs to continue their efforts to 

address these limiting factors and threats. 

Analysis: The proportion of total mortality (e.g., SAR) attributable to predatory mortality 

could be estimated from bioenergetics modeling results. Infection rates of sentinel fish from 

disease would need to be related to actual mortality rates experienced in the natural 

population. If this were determined then mortality rates resulting from disease could be 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-54

estimated as a proportion of freshwater mortality (i.e., egg to smolt mortality) although some 

delayed mortality may also occur (Sollid et al. 2004). 

Status: Not implemented at the population level. 

Objective 7: Determine the effect of hydropower on the abundance, productivity, diversity, 

and distribution of the Fifteenmile Creek population. 

This is a moderate priority objective because the population resides above only one dam. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operations on Fifteenmile Creek 

steelhead smolts? 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operation on returning Fifteenmile 

Creek adult steelhead originating from Fifteenmile Creek? 

Approach: PIT tags have been used successfully to measure the influence of hydropower 

operations on migrating salmonids (Berggren et al. 2006; Schaller et al. 2007). PIT-tagged 

fish are monitored for detections at FCRPS facilities along the migration corridor at both 

juvenile and adult life stages using DART and PTAGIS databases. Detection probabilities of 

juvenile salmonids migrating downstream at FCRPS facilities are modeled using the SURPH 

analytical tool (Lady et al. 2003). Adult detection (purportedly 100%) is currently available 

at ladders on several dams including Bonneville, and is expected in the near future at The 

Dalles. 

Analysis: Juvenile survivals at each FCRPS facility can be estimated using the SURPH 

model. Adult survival between facilities will soon be possible by comparing detections at 

adult ladder facilities along the migration corridor. Rates can be expanded to population-level 

impacts using the relative number of fish PIT tagged and abundance estimates generated 

from mark-recapture at RSTs. 

Status: This method would require the collection and PIT tagging of smolts originating from 

the Fifteenmile Creek population. Systematic PIT tagging of juveniles in Fifteenmile Creek 

is not implemented. 

Objective 8: Determine the effect of habitat degradation and habitat restoration activities 

on the abundance, productivity, and distribution of the Fifteenmile Creek population. 

This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status & trend monitoring, implementation and 

compliance monitoring, and effectiveness monitoring. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-55

Monitoring questions: 

• Status & Trend Monitoring—What are the current status and trend of steelhead habitat? 

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring—Has the management action been 

implemented in the prescribed manner and achieved its objectives? 

• Effectiveness Monitoring—Have the management actions significantly influenced the 

viability of the Fifteenmile Creek steelhead population? 

Approach: Status and trend monitoring at the subbasin and population scale are best 

conducted by using a spatially explicit sampling approach, such as the EMAP approach 

developed by the EPA. Measured habitat variables will be the same as previously described 

for the John Day populations. Remote sensing (e.g., TIR imagery, LIDAR, and spatially 

referenced color imagery) is also appropriate and typically addresses spatial scales at 

watershed or larger landscapes. 

Compliance monitoring of restoration projects incorporates record keeping and reporting of 

activities. Compliance monitoring will be primarily conducted by the implementing entity 

and will include parameters identified in related work statements. Effectiveness monitoring 

can be approached at the watershed or project spatial scales. IMWs are one example of the 

watershed approach. Effectiveness monitoring should preferably be directed at measures of 

abundance, survival, growth, etc. of steelhead or abiotic or biotic factors limiting their 

recovery. A modified BACI (Smith 2002) design (including spatial replication) is 

recommended for measuring the effectiveness of active restoration activities (Jones & Tonn 

2004). For passive restoration activities, a BACI design that monitors trends through time 

may be appropriate. If comparisons are made to reference or control sites, they should be 

under similar environmental conditions experienced by the treatment site but outside the 

influence of treatment activities. Restoration implementing entities must coordinate with 

monitoring groups prior to action implementation—preferably several years in advance to 

allow measurement of pre-manipulation variables. Temporal scales must account for 

timelags related to life history and life cycle. 

Analysis: If collected at the appropriate scale, direct comparisons of measured parameters 

with recovery criteria can be made. Otherwise, measures at smaller scales would need to be 

scaled up to determine if they would have desired responses at the population level. 

 

Status: Implementation monitoring is currently conducted by the groups that implement 

restoration activities. 

Objective 9: Determine the effect of in-basin harvest on the abundance, productivity, and 

diversity of the Fifteenmile Creek population. 

Under current fisheries regulations, adult steelhead cannot be legally retained in any of the minor 

Columbia River tributaries (Fifteenmile, Mill or Chenoweth creeks). Further, Fifteenmile Creek 

is closed to all recreational winter steelhead fishing, including catch and release. The 

Fifteenmile Creek population is subject to target and incidental fishery impacts in sport, 

commercial, and tribal fisheries occurring in the mainstem of the lower Columbia River and in 

Bonneville Reservoir. Passage rates of winter steelhead through mainstem fisheries, past the 

dams, and through the reservoirs are not known with any certainty at a population level. Run 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-56

timing of Bonneville Reservoir and upstream summer steelhead populations can overlap with 

winter run populations. This is a moderate priority objective.

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trends 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the stock composition of adult steelhead populations in the mainstem Columbia 

River during winter and early spring? 

• What is the annual fishing mortality rate that occurs outside of the Fifteenmile Creek 

subbasin? 

Approach: Passive monitoring of representatively PIT-tagged steelhead ascending 

Bonneville Dam and The Dalles Dam will help monitor run timing and stock composition. 

Enhanced stock composition monitoring using GSI methods will also add valuable 

information. Enhancing catch sampling in the fisheries will aid in partitioning harvest rates 

among mixed-DPS and MPG populations across the winter and early spring seasons. 

Analysis: See Objective 8. 

Status: Not implemented at the population level. 

13.4.2 Eastside and Westside Deschutes River Populations 

Major spawning areas of two populations, Deschutes River Eastside and Deschutes River 

Westside, are routinely monitored for abundance and spatial distribution of spawning adults 

(redd counts from spawning ground surveys). Abundance of steelhead in the Westside MaSAs 

in the Warm Springs River is determined based on a count at the Warm Springs NFH barrier. 

The extirpated Crooked River population is not addressed in this RM&E plan; however, 

monitoring was previously discussed in Section 9. Both extant populations use the mainstem of 

the Deschutes River for spawning and rearing, and the area delineation separating the two is the 

mainstem Deschutes River near the mouth of Trout Creek. Portions of both populations’ 

historical range are blocked by the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Round Butte Hatchery 

produces a Deschutes-origin hatchery stock of steelhead to mitigate for the blocked habitat. 

Recent FERC hydropower re-licensing negotiations have resulted in the beginning of an effort to 

restore steelhead upstream of Round Butte Dam focusing particularly on Whychus Creek. 

Significant numbers of hatchery steelhead from outside the subbasin enter the Deschutes River 

annually and some are known to remain within the Deschutes and its tributaries to spawn, but the 

actual rate or numbers are not known with certainty. The Deschutes River and its tributaries 

(particularly those of the Deschutes Westside steelhead population) support large numbers of 

resident redband trout (O. mykiss), and a blue ribbon trout fishery is a major attraction to the 

Deschutes River. 

These subbasin characteristics present unique challenges to monitoring the VSP parameters for 

each of the two steelhead populations. The monitoring activities which provided the data used to 

assess the viability of each population (see Appendix B) are described briefly below, including 

recommended improvements needed for better status and trends monitoring of viability 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-57

parameters specific to each population. Because steelhead status and trend monitoring in the 

subbasin is so interrelated with gaining insight to critical uncertainties and tracking the 

effectiveness of major recovery actions, this monitoring overview addresses population status 

and trend monitoring, action effectiveness monitoring, and critical uncertainties research in 

combination. The main monitoring issues identified in order of priority by local fisheries 

managers include: 

1. Straying: What is the cause and origin of strays in the Deschutes? Has introgression with 

strays impacted the genetic characteristics of natural-origin steelhead in the Deschutes? 

How many strays are overwintering in the Deschutes, entering spawning tributaries, 

spawning in the main stem Deschutes, and what are the effects on fitness? What is the 

fall back rate for non-Deschutes hatchery and natural fish that pass above Sherars 

Falls? 

2. Population structure of Eastside vs. Westside: Is their a difference in the two populations 

and the stock-recruit function? 

3. Reintroduction: Which stocks should be used as broodstock (Eastside vs. Westside)? 

What would be the effects on the founding population? What will the effect of 

competition of juvenile O. nerka and O. mykiss be? If sockeye are successful in the 

reintroduction, what will be the effect of large numbers of juvenile sockeye in the lower 

Deschutes? How successful will the steelhead reintroduction be? 

4. Resident vs. anadromous: What is the relationship between the two, causative mechanism 

for either life history, and is competition an issue? What influence does the abundant 

resident population have on the steelhead populations? 

Objective 1: Determine the status and trend in the abundance of natural-origin spawners 

and compare to viability abundance criteria for the Deschutes River populations. 

The critical uncertainties in characterizing the abundance of each spawning population and 

abundance of adult progeny (recruits) returning to spawn to estimate abundance and productivity 

(spawner to spawner ratio) are threefold: 

1. The unknown abundance of fish that spawn in the mainstem Deschutes River and their 

relative contribution to the Westside and Eastside populations. 

2. The abundance and origin of hatchery steelhead that spawn naturally and the inability to 

enumerate adult progeny and assess the degree of risk from out-of-MPG hatchery 

spawners. 

3. Annual population-specific information on freshwater and saltwater adult age at return is 

unavailable to partition natural-origin spawners into broodyear of origin. 

Presently, all of the major spawning areas of the two populations in the Deschutes River are 

surveyed annually for presence of steelhead adults and redds with varying degrees of spatial 

coverage. In addition, adult weirs are fished on most major spawning tributaries. Observations 

from these surveys and weir counts are used to estimate the abundance of redds in each major 

spawning area and to characterize the degree of occupancy (spatial distribution). These surveys 

are neither statistically designed nor conducted systematically and inferences are made to 

unsurveyed areas. This approach has weaknesses because there is no validation of the 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-58

relationship of spawner density in surveyed and unsurveyed areas. Modifying the present 

spawning ground surveys is needed to assure observations of redds are statistically based. 

Alternatively, a stratified random spawning ground survey similar to that used in the Fifteenmile 

Creek subbasin could be conducted in the MaSAs of Buckhollow, Bakeoven, Trout, and Shitike 

creeks. If the present surveys are changed, appropriate fixed sites could be maintained to allow 

for calibrating historical data, and allow flexibility for local project-level action effectiveness 

monitoring such as for habitat improvement actions. Intensity of present single pass spawning 

ground survey effort could possibly be redistributed to multiple passes over a smaller proportion 

of the spawning area than is presently surveyed. To monitor spawning activity in the mainstem 

of the Deschutes River, spawning ground surveys would need to be conducted either by air or 

boat. To date, only two single pass aerial surveys of spawning steelhead have been conducted. 

This is a highest level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• Is the 10-year GM of natural-origin steelhead spawners in the Westside and Eastside 

populations greater than or equal to the recovery criterion for natural spawners? 

• What are the current spawner abundance and five-year trend in abundance? 

• What are the current and trend in the 20-year population growth rate? 

• What are the current and trend in recruits/spawner compared to the recovery goal? 

Performance metrics: Spawner abundance, recruits/spawner. 

Approach: Where weirs are absent, redd surveys are the only alternative to estimate annual 

adult abundance for recruit/spawner and trend analyses. The recommended survey design is a 

spatially balanced site selection and a rotating panel design for temporal selection (EMAP 

approach; Stevens and Olsen 2004). Ideally, sampling using this design would also be 

conducted at the population scale which would require a separate sample draw and additional 

samples. Redd count surveys would be conducted by walking and/or floating all streams 

within the index (one-time annual counts) and randomly selected reaches (bi-weekly counts, 

≥ 3 counts/year). 

Analysis: Estimate the number of naturally produced spawners using proportions of 

observed naturally produced fish (unmarked) and hatchery (fin clipped) fish, total number of 

redds, expansion factor of surveyed stream length/available stream length, and fish/redd 

ratio. Calculate 10-yr GM for abundance of naturally produced fish. Calculate 

recruits/spawner based on redd counts and estimated spawner age structure. Analyze as a 

time series (trend analysis). 

Status: State of Oregon funds index spawning ground surveys. An EMAP approach for 

spawning ground surveys has been previously proposed by ODFW and approved by the 

ISRP and NPCC, but BPA failed to fund the proposed monitoring. 

Objective 2: Determine the status of the spatial structure of each population based on 

current and historically utilized habitat. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-59

This is a highest level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the spatial distribution of the occupied spawning areas within the population 

boundaries? 

• What is the current spatial extent and distribution of rearing habitat used by juvenile 

steelhead? 

Approach: The same EMAP sampling protocol of all known spawning and rearing areas as 

used for determining abundance of spawners is recommended for refining the known spatial 

extent of both adult and juvenile steelhead. Representative sites within the subbasin will be 

sampled annually using a three-panel rotating panel design. Panels include annual, every four 

years, and one-time visit selections. All observed adult spawners and redds are 

geographically referenced using handheld GPS units for inclusion in a GIS. Juvenile 

steelhead are sampled using snorkeling or electrofishing techniques. 

Analysis: Data would be analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. The known 

distribution of steelhead is modified when previously unknown blockages to migration are 

discovered. Juvenile steelhead are evaluated as fish/pool in each study reach. 

Status: Not implemented nor funded. The same limitations indicated above in Objective 1 

are relevant here. 

 

Objective 3: Determine the effects of out-of-basin strays on the productivity of each population. 

Hatchery strays, especially from out-of-subbasin hatcheries, pose a significant threat to wild 

summer steelhead populations in the Deschutes subbasin. The large influx of out-of-subbasin 

stray summer steelhead may contribute maladapted genetic characteristics to the wild summer 

steelhead populations in the Deschutes River subbasin. While Round Butte Hatchery origin 

summer steelhead contribute to this problem, their abundance is much less and they are 

genetically more similar than the large number of out-of-subbasin strays. The cumulative effect 

of this genetic introgression may contribute to reduced productivity of the wild populations. 

ODFW completed and submitted a comprehensive study plan to investigate the impact of strays. 

Implementing ODFW’s study plan to investigate the reproductive success of stray hatchery and 

wild steelhead in the lower Deschutes River would address uncertainties of the magnitude of 

straying, its actual effect on wild populations in the Deschutes River, as well as provide a tool to 

exclude hatchery steelhead from either Buckhollow or Bakeoven creeks in the future. 

Completion of ODFW’s study objectives would determine the number of stray hatchery 

steelhead entering Bakeoven and Buckhollow creeks, degree of introgression between hatchery 

and natural fish, relative reproductive success, and the influence of hatchery fish on natural 

productivity. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-60

Improved monitoring of stray hatchery fish in the Deschutes River has regional significance in 

the Columbia Basin. For example, efforts underway in the Snake River Basin through the Lower 

Snake River Compensation Plan to decrease and monitor stray rates of Snake River hatchery 

steelhead will require both knowledge of which fish stray, at what rates, and whether efforts 

taken to modify stray rates are effective. The management and operation of the FCRPS, 

specifically barging, may be increasing the rate of straying of salmon and steelhead originating 

upstream of the Mid-C steelhead DPS. Quantifying this potential effect and monitoring 

effectiveness of efforts to reduce straying will require continued monitoring of straying into the 

Deschutes, as well as the ability to identify outmigrating juveniles in the mainstem Columbia and 

their migration experience (in river or barged). Implementing the Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program’s Comparative Survival Study plan for steelhead tagging would contribute 

significantly to improving information related to straying. 

A coalition of Deschutes River fisheries managers has been working together to address a 

number of population identification issues using genetics techniques. Continuing this effort will 

greatly help to inform population structure and genetic characteristics of summer steelhead in the 

Deschutes River subbasin. A recent draft of a project plan outlines the scope of future work 

(personal communication, D. Hand, USFWS, CRFPO). In FY2002, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service obtained funding for part of the Federal Columbia River Power System biological 

assessments, opinion and hatchery operations. In FY 2004, the Columbia River Fisheries 

Program Office (CRFPO) secured additional funding for population monitoring. This “add-on” 

was to lend additional support to on-going monitoring & evaluation projects as well as help 

answer additional questions associated with hatchery operations and impacts to the Deschutes 

basin native fish community. On-going evaluations include: 1) population dynamics and 

genetics of hatchery- and natural-origin spring Chinook salmon in the Warm Springs River and 

Shitike Creek; 2) evaluating the reproductive success of hatchery spring Chinook salmon 

outplanted into Shitike Creek; 3) evaluating the ecological interactions between hatchery- and 

natural-origin fish; and, 4) assessing the population structure of summer steelhead trout in the 

Deschutes River and potential impact from out-of basin hatchery strays. 

Additional unanswered questions were developed by the ICTRT (2003). In identifying 

independent populations of listed steelhead in the Interior Columbia River Basin, they noted that 

limited information existed to evaluate genetic differences between steelhead occupying the 

tributaries on the east and west sides of the lower Deschutes River below the Pelton-Round Butte 

Dam complex. Concurrently, the Pelton-Round Butte Fish Reintroduction Committee expressed 

interest in developing a better understanding of steelhead population structure in the lower 

Deschutes in order to determine the best donor stock for reintroduction above the dam complex. 

A series of meetings among ODFW, CTWSRO, CRFPO, and the Abernathy Fish Technology 

Center identified a variety of issues and information needs regarding steelhead in the Deschutes. 

In response to the various discussions, the CRFPO and the Pelton-Round Butte Fish 

Reintroduction Committee organized a meeting to bring together all interested parties and 

identify issues of concern. This group agreed on a set of overall study objectives and drafted a 

phased implementation approach: 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-61

1. Augment existing information to develop an understanding of the population structure 

and genetic variability among steelhead occupying tributaries and the mainstem 

Deschutes River downstream of the Pelton-Round Butte Complex; 

2. Evaluate the effect of out-of-basin strays on the Deschutes River populations (rate of 

strays and reproductive contribution of strays); and, 

3. Provide information pertinent to brood stock selection that would assist with efforts to 

reintroduce steelhead to currently inaccessible portions of the middle and upper basin. 

As adult fish begin returning from reintroduction efforts upstream of Round Butte Dam, they too 

will need to be distinguished from the Deschutes RBH stock and the Westside and Eastside wild 

populations. Studies may need to be implemented to assure the fidelity of these reintroduced fish 

to their parent stream. A draft reintroduction plan (personal communication, M. Gauvin, 

CTWSRO) includes key metrics to monitor fish passage above Round Butte Dam and the 

reintroduction effort. This monitoring should be integrated with monitoring of the other 

populations including Round Butte Hatchery steelhead, with emphasis on smolt-to-adult return 

rates, harvest rates (or impacts) in the Deschutes River, counts of returning adults by species and 

sex at Round Butte Dam, spawn timing and success (redd counts) by species and subbasin; and 

adult recruits per spawner. This is a highest level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What proportion of steelhead spawners in the Deschutes subbasin are out-of-basin 

hatchery strays? 

• What is the origin of out-of-basin strays? 

• What is the population-level genetic composition of the Deschutes populations? 

Approach: Presence of hatchery fish by origin is monitored at trapping facilities in the 

Deschutes subbasin. Steelhead ascending Sherars Falls are sampled routinely and tagged for 

run-to-the river population abundance estimates. Hatchery-origin fish are captured, removed, 

and examined for hatchery of origin at Bakeoven, Buckhollow, Trout and Shitike creeks, and 

at Pelton trap and Warm Springs NFH. Fish can also be examined in creel surveys. All 

observed fish marked with a fin clip can be sampled for the presence of a coded-wire or PIT 

tag to determine hatchery origin. Where spawning ground surveys are conducted, the number 

of marked (adipose fin clip) and unmarked (presumably natural-origin) fish will be visually 

identified and enumerated. This information is important to monitor the potential magnitude 

and origin of hatchery straying. The rate at which fish observed at Sherars Fall eventually 

fall back and leave the Deschutes River system and continue migrating to their parent stream 

remains unknown. Although funding is not available, there is a need to conduct a radio 

telemetry project to assess fall back rates. 

A number of recent and future actions will allow better monitoring of the magnitude of 

straying into the Deschutes River and the effectiveness of actions to control stray rates. The 

Sherars Falls trap is now equipped with PIT tag detection capability and will allow adult 

detection of both fish PIT-tagged as juveniles and released in the Deschutes River subbasin 

and those tagged and released outside of the Deschutes. If sufficient numbers of hatchery 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-62

summer steelhead were representatively tagged throughout the Columbia Basin, a better 

understanding of the rate at which out-of-population hatchery fish descend Sherars Falls 

could be developed. Implementing the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program’s 

Comparative Survival Study plan for steelhead tagging would contribute to monitoring stray 

rates in the Deschutes. The recent effort to representatively PIT tag all LSRCP hatchery 

steelhead will greatly enhance the ability to estimate fall back. Fish that pass above Sherars 

Falls and are later detected migrating up the Columbia River above the Deschutes will 

provide better estimates of fall back rates. Repeating Columbia River mainstem radio 

telemetry studies, with additional effort to track steelhead that enter the Deschutes River 

further upstream and longer throughout the winter and possibly spring, would help to 

quantify the stray rate upstream of Sherars Falls. 

To determine population-level genetics composition for the MPG, genetics data which allow 

an objective determination of the population(s) structure are required. Age-0 O. mykiss from 

several representative streams in each population segment have recently been sampled. 

Collection of juveniles from a minimum number of cohorts (3-4) is recommended using nonlethal fin tissue for DNA analysis. Population genetics will be characterized using a suite of 

nuclear DNA markers, including both microsatellite loci (variable-number simple-sequence 

repeats) and non-coding SNPs, or base substitutions assayed via restriction enzyme analysis 

(Moran et al. 1997). 

Analysis: Estimating the proportion of out-of-basin strays is a simple comparison of the 

number of marked and unmarked spawners observed. Direct comparisons can then be made 

with recovery criteria. DNA tissue samples are analyzed by USFWS using known 

microsatellite markers. Microsatellite loci are analyzed using pairwise FST comparisons to 

estimate levels of gene flow and to identify geographic areas that contain genetically 

differentiated populations. 

Status: Ongoing or planned, but efforts need to be enhanced. 

Objective 4: Determine the status and trend in conditions of current and historically 

utilized habitat for each population. 

 This is a high level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the status and trend in habitat quantity and quality in the Deschutes Eastside and 

Westside populations? 

Approach: Similar to other watersheds, we would use an EMAP sampling protocol as 

previously described for the John Day populations. Habitat variables follow ODFW Aquatic 

Inventories design (Moore et al. 2002) and are measured at the unit and reach scale. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-63

Analysis: Data will be analyzed as distribution data in a GIS format. Database and GIS 

formatting of data allow associations with land use, land vegetation coverage, and many 

other attributes at watershed and population scales. 

Status: Not implemented and currently unfunded. 

 

Objective 5: Determine the freshwater productivity of each population relative to viability 

criteria and identify primary habitat factors limiting freshwater production. 

No quantitative time series of smolts per adult or smolt-to-adult survival rates have been 

developed to represent Deschutes River populations across multiple generations. This type of 

information is important to monitor productivity and segregate tributary productivity from the 

migration and ocean life stages. This metric allows for better understanding of the productive 

potential of steelhead in the Eastside and Westside populations. Productivity appears to be 

inherently low in the Westside population relative to other Columbia Basin summer steelhead 

populations (see Section 7). It is hypothesized that interactions with the abundantly naturally 

occurring resident O. mykiss may limit steelhead production. Presently, juvenile outmigrants are 

trapped annually in the Warm Springs River and near the mouth of Trout Creek. With a more 

accurate method of determining spawner abundance in Trout Creek and smolt abundance 

estimates from the Warm Springs River, an index of smolts/adult or smolts/redd would be 

available for each population. This is a highest priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What are the current and trend in freshwater productivity measured as smolts/redd? 

• What are the primary factors limiting freshwater production of steelhead? 

Approach: The ratio of smolts/adult is a recommended measure of freshwater productivity. 

Smolts are typically counted using traps as they migrate out of their natal habitat. If weirs are 

not present to count adults, then redd counts can act as a surrogate. Freshwater productivity 

will be measured as smolts/redd or smolts/adult. Trapping with RSTs is currently being 

conducted on the Trout Creek tributary. Egg-to-smolt survival requires an estimate of the 

number of eggs deposited by individual females or deposited in each redd. Parr-to-smolt 

survival can be estimated by capturing a representative number of parr in their rearing 

habitat, PIT tagging them, and then monitoring their recapture at the downstream smolt traps. 

Migration survival can similarly be estimated by monitoring detections of PIT-tagged 

individuals as they pass through PIT tag detection facilities. 

Analysis: Smolt abundance would be estimated using mark/recapture techniques (Thedinga 

1994, Steinhorst 2004). 

Status: Partially implemented at the tributary level. Current PIT tagging efforts on Trout 

Creek need to be coordinated with efforts to estimate escapement. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-64

Objective 6: Determine the effect of disease and predation on the abundance, productivity, 

diversity, and distribution of the Deschutes River populations. 

Out-of-subbasin strays also pose a threat to steelhead population health. About 5% of the 

hatchery stray steelhead have tested positive for whirling disease (Engleking 2002). This is a 

high level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Disease is short term research; predation long term status and 

trends. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the prevalence of whirling disease in the Deschutes subbasin and what is its 

influence on the natural steelhead populations? 

• What is the effect of predation from piscine predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the Deschutes River? 

• What is the effect of predation from avian predators in the Columbia River migration 

corridor on juvenile steelhead originating from the Deschutes River? 

Approach: The current distribution and influence of whirling disease on wild steelhead 

populations is not fully understood. Representative sentinel stations could be established and 

monitored through time for each population to measure prevalence and intensity of infection 

rates of whirling disease. Infection, or the presence of Myxobolus cerebralis DNA, is 

detected by PCR analysis. A logical place to locate initial sentinel tests would be in locations 

where hatchery strays are known to be prevalent because they are a known vector of 

transmission from infected watersheds in northeast Oregon (Sollid et al. 2004). Sentinel 

stations should then be placed near the mouths of important tributary and mainstem habitats 

occupied by fry and parr life history stages of steelhead. 

To evaluate avian predation, colonies are monitored for presence of PIT tags originating from 

specific populations (Collis et al. 2001). Bioenergetics models can then be used to expand 

tag recoveries at colonies to population-level impacts (Antolos et al. 2005). 

Analysis: The SAR attributable to predatory mortality could be estimated from bioenergetics 

modeling results. Infection rates of sentinel fish from disease would need to be related to 

actual mortality rates experienced in the natural population. If this were determined then 

mortality rates resulting from disease could be estimated as a proportion of freshwater 

mortality (i.e., egg to smolt mortality) although some delayed mortality may also occur 

(Sollid et al. 2004). 

Status: The whirling disease foundation, whirling disease initiative, and Oregon Sea Grant 

are potential funding sources for whirling disease investigations. Universities, through 

graduate student projects, are often used for this type of research and monitoring. 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-65

Objective 7: Determine the effect of hydropower on the abundance, productivity, diversity, 

and distribution of the Deschutes River populations. 

MPG-specific SARs and migration survival rates need to be developed for the Mid-C steelhead 

DPS. The Deschutes River subbasin has the infrastructure to contribute PIT-tag groups of 

natural-origin steelhead to this need. Recently, approximately 1,400 steelhead smolts per year 

have been PIT tagged and released at the Trout Creek outmigrant trap (personal communication, 

Tom Nelson, ODFW, Madras). The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program’s Comparative 

Survival Study plan for PIT-tagging steelhead includes a mark group for the Warm Springs 

River, but it has not been implemented. Implementing the Warm Springs tagging, and 

supplementing Eastside PIT-tagging with juveniles from the Buckhollow-Bakeoven hatchery 

influence study would result in a mark group from both populations that yields statistically 

robust annual SARs and migratory survivals through FCRPS facilities. PIT-tag based SAR 

estimates are a valuable information source to partition subbasin survival rates from survival 

rates through the Columbia mainstem migration corridor, during estuary and early ocean life, and 

for returning adults to Bonneville Dam and Sherars Falls. 

No quantitative time series of smolts per adult or smolt-to-adult survival rates have been 

developed to represent wild Deschutes River populations across multiple generations. This type 

of information is important to monitor the productivity. This metric would help greatly to better 

understand the comparative productivity of Westside and Eastside populations. This is a high 

priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long-term status and trend monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operation on steelhead smolt survival 

for the Deschutes River Eastside and Westside populations? 

• What is the effect of Columbia River hydropower operation on returning adult steelhead 

originating from the Deschutes River Eastside and Westside populations? 

• What are SAR rates for the Deschutes River Eastside and Westside populations? 

Approach: PIT tags have been used successfully to measure the influence of hydropower 

operations on migrating salmonids (see Berggren et al. 2006; Schaller et al. 2007). ODFW 

has cooperated with the CSS study by PIT tagging steelhead smolts as they migrate out of the 

John Day River Basin. These PIT-tagged fish are subsequently monitored for detections at 

FCRPS facilities along the migration corridor at both juvenile and adult life stages using 

DART and PTAGIS databases. Detection probabilities of juvenile salmonids migrating 

downstream at FCRPS facilities are modeled using the SURPH analytical tool (Lady et al. 

2003). Adult detection (purportedly 100%) is currently available at ladders on several dams 

including Bonneville and are expected in the near future at The Dalles dam. 

Analysis: Juvenile survivals at each FCRPS facility can be estimated using the SURPH 

model. Adult survival between facilities will soon be possible by comparing detections at 

adult ladder facilities along the migration corridor. Rates can be expanded to population-
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-66

level impacts using the relative number of fish PIT tagged and abundance estimates 

generated from mark-recapture at RSTs. 

Status: ODFW currently PIT tags emigrating smolts on Trout Creek. Presently, juvenile 

outmigrants are also trapped annually in the Warm Springs River by CTWSRO. Detections 

of these tagged fish at FCRPS facilities are automatically logged into the PTAGIS database. 

The number of smolts tagged will need to be increased. 

Objective 8: Determine the effect of habitat degradation and habitat restoration activities 

on the abundance, productivity, and distribution of the Deschutes River populations. 

This is a high priority objective. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trend; long term implementation and 

compliance; long term effectiveness monitoring. 

Monitoring questions: 

• Status & Trend Monitoring—What is the current status and trend of steelhead habitat? 

• Implementation and Compliance Monitoring—Has the management action been 

implemented in the prescribed manner and achieved its objectives? 

• Effectiveness Monitoring—Have the management actions significantly influenced the 

viability of the Deschutes River steelhead populations? 

Approach: Status and trend monitoring at the subbasin and population scale is best 

conducted by using a spatially explicit sampling approach such as the EMAP approach 

developed by the EPA. Measured habitat variables will be the same as previously described 

for the John Day populations. Remote sensing (TIR, LIDAR, and spatially referenced color 

imagery) is also appropriate and typically addresses spatial scales at watershed or larger 

landscapes. 

Compliance monitoring of restoration projects incorporates record keeping and reporting of 

activities. Compliance monitoring will primarily conducted by the implementing entity and 

will include parameters identified in related work statements. 

Effectiveness monitoring can be approached at the watershed or project spatial scales, and 

should preferably be directed at measures of abundance, survival, growth, etc. of steelhead or 

abiotic or biotic factors limiting their recovery. A modified BACI design (including spatial 

replication) is recommended for measuring the effectiveness of active restoration activities 

(Jones & Tonn 2004). For passive restoration activities, a BACI design that monitors trends 

through time may be appropriate. If comparisons are made to reference or control sites, they 

should be under similar environmental conditions experienced by the treatment site but 

outside the influence of treatment activities. Restoration implementing entities must 

coordinate with monitoring groups prior to action implementation—preferably several years 

in advance to allow measurement of pre-manipulation variables. Temporal scales must 

account for time lags related to life history and life cycle. Derived variables include 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-67

proportion of population-level parameter (e.g., abundance, production) influenced by 

restoration activity. 

Analysis: If at the appropriate scale, direct comparisons of measured parameters with 

recovery criteria can be made. Otherwise, measures at smaller scales will need to be scaled 

up to determine if they would have desired responses at the population level. 

Status: Implementation monitoring is ongoing for some programs, however, roll-up to the 

population level is not ongoing and some programs have limited monitoring. 

Objective 9: Determine the effect of harvest on the abundance, productivity, and diversity 

of the Deschutes River populations. 

Since 1979, recreational angling regulations have stipulated that all wild fish be released 

unharmed. Tribal harvest of wild steelhead since 1998 has also been restricted at Sherars Falls, 

where most tribal summer steelhead harvest occurs. From 1993 to 2003, the annual harvest of 

wild steelhead in this subsistence fishery averaged 34 fish, with a range from 0 to 135 per year 

(French and Pribyl 2004). Significant tribal harvest of steelhead continues to occur in the 

mainstem Columbia; however, the number of Deschutes origin fish harvested in this fishery is 

unknown. 

During the past ten years (1993 to 2002) the average catch of wild steelhead in the recreational 

fishery from the mouth upstream to, but not including the Sherars Falls area, averaged 3,268 fish, 

with a range of 1,192 to 6,525 fish. Recreational angling regulations stipulated that all wild fish 

had to be released unharmed. During the same period the catch of hatchery origin steelhead for 

the same river reach averaged 2,665 fish, with a range from 779 to 5,120 fish. Most tribal 

summer steelhead harvest occurs in the dipnet/set net subsistence fishery concentrated at Sherars 

Falls. During the 10-year period from 1993 to 2003, tribal fishers at Sherars Falls had tribal 

regulations restricting the harvest of wild steelhead. The annual harvest of wild steelhead in this 

subsistence fishery averaged 31 fish, with a range from 0 to 135 per year (French and Pribyl 

2004). Some limited hook and line harvest of wild summer steelhead by Tribal members does 

occur in areas upstream of Sherars Falls, primarily during the winter months. The number of 

wild summer steelhead harvested by tribal fishers in this fishery is not known. This is a high 

level priority. 

Type of monitoring effort: Long term status and trends. 

Monitoring questions: 

• What is the annual fishing mortality rate that occurs outside of the Deschutes River 

subbasin? 

• What is the annual fishing mortality rate that occurs within the Deschutes River 

subbasin? 

Approach: Reinstating an expanded creel survey of the recreational fishery within the 

Deschutes River subbasin would enable an estimate of the effects of the fishery on the wild 

populations. Examine all fish for fin clips and external tags. Origin of out-of-basin hatchery 
Section 13, Research, Monitoring,and Evaluation 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

13-68

strays will be determined by collecting and identifying any coded-wire tags from fin-clipped 

fish. Fish will be scanned for coded-wire and PIT tags using portable detectors. If tags are 

detected, snouts from fish with coded-wire tags and those that are ventral-clipped should be 

removed for tag identification. 

Analysis: The number of fin-clipped and natural-origin fish caught by interviewed anglers 

will be totaled and be used for an expanded estimate of the number of fin-clipped and 

natural-origin fish caught throughout season. Estimate of the incidental and/or directed 

fishing mortality on natural-origin steelhead will be calculated using published literature 

values. Proportion of total mortality imposed by fishing mortality will be estimated when 

combined with additional mortality information. 

Status: Voluntary returns of tags from cooperating anglers have occurred sporadically over 

the past several years. ODFW should provide lead with aid of tribal agencies where 

jurisdiction overlaps. 

 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-1

Section 14 Literature Cited 

 

Ackerman, S.M. 1994. American white pelicans nest successfully at Crescent Island, 

Washington. Washington Birds 3:44–49. 

Antolos, M., D.D. Roby, D.E. Lyons, K. Collis, A.F. Evans, M. Hawbecker, and B.A. Ryan. 

2005. Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:466-480. 

Bailey, Tim. 2005. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication. 

December 21, 2005. 

Bartholomew, J.B. 2003. Personal communication. 

Beamesderfer, R.C.P. 2002. Projected anadromous fish runs to the Upper Deschutes relative to 

level of habitat enhancement. S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc., Gresham, Oregon. Prepared 

for Portland General Electric, Portland, Oregon. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Monog. 6, 275 p. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Berggren, T., P. McHugh, P. Wilson, H. Schaller, C. Petrosky, E. Weber, and R. Boyce. 2006. 

Comparative Survival Study (CSS) of hatchery PIT-tagged spring/summer Chinook and PITtagged summer steelhead, 2005-2006 Annual Report, Project No. 199602000, (BPA Report 

DOE/BP-00025634-2). 

 

Bernatchez, L., and P. Duchesne. 2000. Individual-based genotype analysis in studies of 

parentage and population assignment: How many loci, how many alleles? Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:1-12. 

Beschta, R.L., 1994. Restoration of riparian/aquatic ecosystems in Eastern Oregon: Turning 

back the clock to understand the future. Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State 

University. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society. 

 Beverton, R.J.H., and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Reprinted 

1993, Chapman & Hall. 

Biological Review Team (BRT). 2003. West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team –Updated 

status of Federally listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center and 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center (July 2003). 

 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-2

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: W.R. 

Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats, pp. 83-138. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Blair, G.R., L.C. Lestelle, and L.E. Mobrand. In press. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment 

model: a tool for evaluating habitat potential for salmonids. In Pacific Salmon Environment 

and Life History Models: Advancing Science for Sustainable Salmon in the Future, 

American Fisheries Society. 

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 2004. Final updated proposed action for the FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand. 

Portland, Oregon. 

Botkin, Daniel, K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Reiger, M. Sobel, and L. Talbot. 1995. Status and 

future of salmon in Western Oregon and Northern California. The Center for the Study of the 

Environment. Report #8. May, 1995. 

Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, and 

M. H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in decline and recovery 

of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA technical memorandum. 

NMFSNWFSC-68, 246 pp. 

Boyce, R.R. 1986. A comprehensive plan for rehabilitation of anadromous fish stocks in the 

Umatilla River Basin. BPA Contract No. DE-AI79-84BP18008, Project No. 84-10, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Boyd, M., D. Butcher, B. Kasper, and P. Leinenbach. 1999. Draft Umatilla River Subbasin Draft 

temperature assessment. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

Brown, A.L. 2009. Understanding the impact of climate change on snowpack extent and 

measurement in the Columbia River basin and nested subbasins. Master’s thesis. Oregon 

State University, Department of Geography. Corvallis. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. Biological Assessment for ongoing and proposed 

Bureau of Land Management activities affecting middle Columbia River steelhead. 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 1988. Umatilla Basin Project Oregon planning report – Final 

environmental impact statements. BOR Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho. 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 2001. Final Biological Assessment of effects to multiple listed 

salmonid species from continued operation and maintenance of the Umatilla Project and 

Umatilla Basin Project, and effects to essential fish habitat for Chinook salmon. 

Supplemental to the December, 1999 Biological Assessment on the Federal Columbia River 

Power System prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon by 

Upper Columbia Area Office, BOR, Yakima, Washington. 89 pp. + Appendices. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-3

Burgner, R.L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz and S. Ito. 1992. Distribution and 

origins of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in offshore waters of the North Pacific 

Ocean. Bulletin No. 51, International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada. 

Burke, J.L., K.K. Jones, and J.M. Dambacher. 2000. A summary compilation and rating of the 

channel habitat requirement of salmon and steelhead in the upper Deschutes River Basin. 

Aquatic Inventories Project, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 

Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, G.C. White, C. Brownie, and K.H. Pollock. 1987. Design and 

analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 5:1-437. 

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. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1995. Letter to M. Schiewe for the ESA 

Administrative Record for west coast steelhead, dated 30 March 1995, 10 pp plus 

attachments. (Available from Environmental and Technical Services Division, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon 97232) 

Cameron, W.A., and S.M. Knapp. 1993. Evaluate the juvenile fish bypass facility in the West 

Extension Irrigation District Canal at Three Mile Falls Dam and document passage of 

juvenile salmonids through the juvenile fish bypass facility and east-bank adult fish ladder. 

Pages 1-48 in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage 

facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla River. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Report DOE/BP-01385-3. 

Cameron, W.A., S.M. Knapp, and B.P. Schrank. 1994. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid bypass 

facilities, passage, and trapping and loading procedures at various water diversions in the 

lower Umatilla River and development of trap designs. Pages 1-76 in S.M. Knapp, editor. 

Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at water diversions in the 

Umatilla River. Bonneville Power Administration, Report DOE/BP-01385-4. 

Cameron, W.A., S.M. Knapp, and B.P. Schrank. 1995. Evaluation of Feed and Furnish canal 

bypass facilities, of juvenile salmonid passage through fish ladders, and of trap and load 

procedures at Westland Canal on the Umatilla River. Pages 1-98 in S.M. Knapp, editor. 

Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at water diversions on the 

Umatilla River. Bonneville Power Administration, Report DOE/BP-01385-5. 

Cameron, W.A., S.M. Knapp, and R.W. Carmichael. 1997. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid 

bypass facilities and passage at water diversions on the lower Umatilla River. Final report to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Report DOE/BP-01385-7. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-4

Carmichael, R.W., and T.L. Hoffnagle. 2006. Hatchery steelhead straying in the Deschutes River 

Basin. The Osprey, Issue 55, pages 14-17, Federation of Fly Fishers, Livingston, Montana. 

Carmichael, R.W. and numerous co-authors. 2006. Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon 

Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. 

Progress Report. 

Chen, Y.D., S.C. McCutcheon, D.J. Norton, and W.L. Nutter. 1998. Stream temperature 

simulation of forested riparian areas: 2. Model application. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering 124:316-328. 

Chess, D.W., W.A. Cameron, R.W. Stonecypher, Jr., R.W. Carmichael, S.T. Onjukka, G.M. 

O'Connor, B.M. Farman, M. Banta, S. Montgomery, and B. Myers. 2003. Oregon 

Department Fish & Wildlife, Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation. Combined 

2000-2002 annual report. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 

00004122, Project No. 1990-005-00, 299 electronic pages. 

Chess, D.W., W.A. Cameron, R.W. Stonecypher, Jr., and R.W. Carmichael. 2003a. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Special 

Report 2003 (1991-2002). Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DEBI79-91BP23720, Project Number 1990-005-00, 114 electronic pages. 

Chess, D.W., W.A. Cameron, R.W. Stonecypher, Jr., R.W. Carmichael, S.T. Onjukka, G.M. 

O'Connor, B.M. Farman, M. Banta, S. Montgomery, and B. Myers. 2003b. Umatilla 

Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Project No. 1990-00500, 300 electronic pages, (BPA 

Report DOE/BP-00004125-2). 

Chilcote, M.W. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish 

in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1057-1067. 

Chilcote, M.W. 2001. Conservation assessment of steelhead populations in Oregon. Portland, 

Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 86. 

Claire, E.W., and M.E. Gray. 1992. Annual Report John Day Fish District, Northeast Region. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland. 

Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Collis, K., D.D. Roby, D.P. Craig, B.A. Ryan, and R.D. Ledgerwood. 2001. Colonial waterbird 

predation on juvenile salmonids tagged with passive integrated transponders in the Columbia 

River estuary: vulnerability of different salmonid species, stocks, and rearing types. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 385-396. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-5

Collis, K., and D.D. Roby. 2006. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on 

salmonid smolts in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River. Bonneville Power Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Draft 2005 season summary. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1990. Columbia Basin System planning report -- salmon and 

steelhead production plan, Umatilla River subbasin, Pendleton, Oregon. Report to the 

Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, Oregon. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). 2001. McKay Creek: Instream 

flows and fisheries management considerations. Fisheries Program, Department of Natural 

Resources. Pendleton, Oregon. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). 2004. Water temperature data. 

Available at: www.umatilla.nsn@us/database/index.html. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Comprehensive research, monitoring, and evaluation plan 

for Umatilla Subbasin summer steelhead and Chinook salmon. 

Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner. 1995. Umatilla Basin natural production monitoring 

and evaluation, annual progress report 1993-1994. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation, P.O. Box 638, Pendleton, Oregon. Report submitted to Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project NO. 1990-005-01. 

Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, P. Kissner, and J. Volkman. 1996. Umatilla Basin natural production 

monitoring and evaluation. Annual report 1994-1995 to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon. Report DOE/BP-75349-2. 

Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, P. Kissner, and J. Volkman. 1997. Umatilla Basin natural production 

monitoring and evaluation, Annual progress report 1995-1996. Portland: Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Department of Natural Resources. 

Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner. 1998. Umatilla Basin natural production monitoring 

and evaluation. Annual report 1996-1997 to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Oregon. Report DOE/BP-75349-4. 

Contor, C. 2004. Umatilla Basin natural production monitoring and evaluation, 1998-2002 

Summary report, Project No. 199000501, 294 electronic pages, BPA Report DOE/BP00004115-1. 

Contor, C.R. (Ed.) 2003. Umatilla Basin natural production monitoring and evaluation project, 

Progress report 1999-2002 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

Department of Natural Resources, Pendleton, Oregon. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-6

Contor, C.R., and C. Crump. 2003. Chapter Five: Water temperature monitoring: The Umatilla 

Basin natural production monitoring and evaluation project. Progress report 1999-2002. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Department of Natural Resources. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. 

Cooney, T.D., and D. Holzer. In preparation. Interior Columbia basin steelhead: Evaluating 

vulnerability to maximum summer temperatures under future climate scenarios. 

Craig, J.A., and R.L. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the 

Columbia River. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Fisheries. Washington, D.C. 

Cramer, S.P., and 12 co-authors. 1995. The status of steelhead populations in California in 

regards to the Endangered Species Act. Document prepared for Association of California 

Water Agencies, 167 pp. 

Cramer, S.P., and R.C.P. Beamesderfer. 2001. Draft - Population dynamics, habitat capacity, and 

a life history simulation model for steelhead in the Deschutes River, Oregon. Portland 

General Electric, Portland, Oregon. 

Cramer, S.P, C.F. Willis, S.C. Vigg, J.T. Hawksworth, R. Montagne, D. Cramer, F. Shrier, C. 

Phillips, J.J. Wetly and K. Reininga. 1997. Synthesis and analysis of the lower Columbia 

River steelhead initiative. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of 

private sector and local government stakeholders, 266 pp. 

Cramer, S.P. and R.C.P. Beamsderfer. 2006. Population dynamics, habitat capacity, and a life 

history simulation model for steelhead in the Deschutes River, Oregon. Prepared for PGE, 

Portland, Oregon. Prepared by S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 

Crispin, V., R. House, and D. Roberts. 1993. Changes in instream habitat, large woody debris, 

and salmon habitat after the restructuring of a coastal Oregon stream. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 13:96-102. 

Cuenco, M. L., and D. A. McCullough. 1996. Framework for estimating salmon survival as a 

function of habitat condition. Technical Report 96-4, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission. Portland, Oregon. 

Currens, K. 1997. Evolution and risk conservation of Pacific salmon. Oregon State University. 

Corvallis. 

Currens, K.P., and C.B. Schreck. 1995. Final Report. Genetic analysis of Umatilla River rainbow 

trout. Oregon Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Oregon State University. Corvallis. 

Currens, K.P., S.L. Stone, and C.B. Schreck. 1985. A genetic comparison of rainbow trout 

(Salmo gairdneri) above and below Izee Falls in the John Day River, Oregon. Oregon 

Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Oregon State University: 22. Corvallis. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-7

Daly, C., R.P. Neilson, and D.L. Phillips. 1994. A statistical-topographic model for mapping 

climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 

33:140–158. 

Dauble, D.D., J. Skalski, A. Hoffman, and A.E. Giorgi. 1993. Evaluation and application of 

statistical methods for estimating smolt survival. Report to the Bonneville Power 

Administration. Portland, Oregon. Report DOE/BP 62611-1. 

DeBano, S., D. Wooster and six organizations. 2004. Draft Umatilla/Willow Subbasin plan. 

Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Available at: 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/umatilla/plan/. 

DePinto, A.M., C. Rosse, and G. Asbridge. 2003. Fifteenmile Creek Basin winter steelhead 

spawning survey, 2003 Accomplishment Report. Barlow Ranger District, Mt. Hood National 

Forest. 

Deriso, R.B., D.R. Marmorek, and I.J. Parnell. 2001. Retrospective patterns of differential 

mortality and common year effects experienced by spring Chinook of the Columbia River. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(12): 2419-2430. 

Don Chapman Consultants. 1989. Summer and winter ecology of juvenile Chinook salmon and 

steelhead trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington. Final Report to Chelan County Public 

Utility District, Wenatchee, Washington. 

Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Gresswell, and B.E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish 

invasions. Forest Ecol. and Manage. 178: 183-196. 

Dunham, J.B., A.E. Rosenberger, C.H. Luce, and B.E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire and 

channel reorganizing on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the 

distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10: 335-346. 

Ebersole, J.L. 2002. Heterogeneous thermal habitat for northeast Oregon stream fishes. 

Eldridge, W.H., M.D. Bacigalupi, I.R. Adelman, L.M. Miller, and A.R. Kapuscinski. 2002. 

Determination of relative survival of two stocked walleye populations and resident naturalorigin fish by microsatellite DNA parentage assignment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 59:282-290. 

Engelking, H.M. 2001. Summary of year 2000 activities Pelton Round Butte fish disease risk 

studies. Annual Fisheries Workshop. Portland General Electric. Portland, Oregon. 

Engelking, H.M. 2002. Summary of Year 2001 Activities Pelton Round Butte fish disease risk 

studies. Annual Fisheries Workshop. Portland General Electric. Portland, Oregon. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-8

Engelking, H.M. 2002. Potential for introduction of myxobolus cerebralis into the Deschutes 

River Watershed in Central Oregon form adult anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 29:25-31. 

Fish Passage Center (FPC). 2005. 2004 Annual Report. Portland, Oregon. Available at 

www.fpc.org. 

Ford, M.J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the 

wild. Conservation Biology 16:815-825. 

French and Pribyl 2004. Mid-Columbia Fish District annual report tables. Unpublished. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Dalles, Oregon. 

Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the 

recovery of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead: An evaluation of the effects of 

selected factors on salmonid population viability. NOAA technical memorandum, Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle. 136 pp. 

Fritts, A.L., and T.N. Pearsons. 2004. Smallmouth bass predation on hatchery and wild 

salmonids in the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

133:880–895. 

Fritts, A.L., and T.N. Pearsons. 2006. Effects of predation by nonnative smallmouth bass on 

native salmonid prey: the role of predator and prey size. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 135:853–860. 

Gannett, M.W., M. Manga, K.E. Lite, Jr. 2003. Groundwater hydrology of the upper Deschutes 

Basin and its influence on streamflow. American Geophysical Union Water Science and 

Application 7:31-49. 

Glenney, C., C. Rossel, and G. Asbridge. 2004. Fifteenmile Creek Basin winter steelhead 

spawning survey, Draft 2004 Accomplishment Report. Barlow Ranger District, Mt. Hood 

National Forest. 

Grant, S., editor. 1997. Genetic effects of straying of non-native hatchery fish into natural 

populations. Proceedings of the NOAA workshop, June 1-2, 1995. Seattle. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30. 

Graves, D. 2008. A GIS analysis of climate change and snowpack on Columbia Basin tribal 

lands. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Portland, Oregon. 

Gray, G. A., and D.W. Rondorf. 1986. redation on juvenile salmonids in Columbia Basin 

reservoirs. Pages 178-185 in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors. Reservoir 

fisheries management: strategies for the ‘80s. American Fisheries Society, Southern 

Division. Bethesda, Maryland. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-9

Hanson, J.T., T.C. White, S.M. Jewett, and R.W. Carmichael. 2003. Evaluation of juvenile 

salmonid out-migration and survival in the lower Umatilla River Basin, Annual Report 2003 

(1 October 2002 - 30 September 2003). Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract 

No. 00000152-00001, Project Number 1989-024-01, 95 electronic pages. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: 

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P102566. 

Harcombe, D.W., and T. Unterwegner. 2005. Phillip W. Schneider Wildlife Area Murderers 

Creek meadows flood irrigation project biological assessment for steelhead trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, John Day Watershed 

District. 

Hooton, R. 1987. Catch and release as a management strategy for steelhead in British Columbia. 

In R. Barnhart and T. Roelofs, eds. Proceedings of catch and release fishing, a decade of 

experience. September 30 – October 1, 1987. Humboldt State University. Arcata, California. 

Houslet, B.S., and M.D. Riehle. 2004. A habitat based strategy for the reintroduction of steelhead 

trout in Squaw Creek, Oregon. Deschutes National Forest. Bend, Oregon. 

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra, and D. Ortman. 1985. Stock 

assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids, volume I: chinook, coho, chum and 

sockeye salmon stock summaries. Final Report of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Game, and Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (Contract DE-AI79-84BP12737, Project 83-335) to 

Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 

Howell, P.J. 2006. Effects of wildfire and subsequent hydrologic events on fish distribution and 

abundance in tributaries of North Fork John Day River. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 26:983-994. 

Huntington, C.W., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers. 1994. Healthy stocks of anadromous salmonids in 

the Pacific Northwest and California. Portland, Oregon, Oregon Trout. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1994. Documents submitted to the ESA 

Administrative Record for west coast steelhead by E. Leitzinger, 18 October 1994. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007a. Climate change impacts on Columbia 

River basin fish and wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. May 11, 2007. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007b. Review of draft viability criteria for 

application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. ISAB 2007-4. July 18, 2007. 

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2007. Viability criteria for 

application to Interior Columbia basin salmonid ESUs. ICTRT Review Draft Report to 

NOAA Fisheries. Portland, Oregon. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-10

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2007a. Required survival rate 

changes to meet technical recovery team abundance and productivity viability criteria for 

Interior Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead populations. ICTRT Report to NOAA 

Fisheries. Portland, Oregon. 

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2005. Updated population 

delineation in the interior Columbia Basin. Memoradum from ICTRT to NMFS NW 

Regional Office. May 11. Seattle. 

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2003. Independent populations of 

Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant units within the Interior 

Columbia River Domain. NOAA Fisheries July 2003. 172 pp. 

Isaak, D.J., and W.A. Hubert. 2001. A hypothesis about factors that affect maximum summer 

stream temperatures across montane landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Assoc. 37(2): 351-366. 

Jager, H.I. and five co-authors. 1997. Modeling the linkages between flow management and 

salmon recruitment in streams. Ecological Modeling 103:171-191. 

James, Gary. 2006. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Personal 

communication. 

Jay, D.A., and T. Kukulka. 2002. Impacts of Columbia River discharge on salmonid habitat. 

Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research. 

Jenks, G.F. 1967. “The Data Model Concept in Statistical Mapping”, International Yearbook of 

Cartography 7:186-190. 

Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District. 1996. Trout Creek Watershed resource 

inventory, problem assessment, and treatment alternatives. Edited by Natural Resource 

Conservation Service and sponsored by Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation 

District. December 1996. 

Jones, N.E., and W.M. Tonn. 2004. Enhancing productive capacity in the Canadian Arctic: 

Assessing the effectiveness of instream habitat structures in habitat compensation. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1356–1365, 2004. 

Kagan, J.S., R. Morgan, and K. Blakely. 2000. Umatilla and Willow Creek Basin assessment for 

shrub steppe, grasslands, and riparian wildlife habitats. EPA Regional Geographic Initiative 

Final Report, September 2000. 

Kassler, T.W., D. Rawding, A. Marchall, B. Baker, and J.B. Shaklee (in review). Genetic mixed 

stock analysis of Columbia River steelhead at Bonneville Dam and in the Zone 6 fishery, 

1997-2001. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-11

Kauffman, J., A. Thorpe, and E. Brookshire. 2004. Livestock exclusion and below ground 

ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 14(6), 

pp. 1671-1679. 

Kissner, P.D. 1992. Examine the passage of adult salmonids at Three Mile Falls Dam. Pages 

104-140 in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish passage facilities at Three Mile 

Falls Dam, Umatilla River. Interim annual report to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Report DOE/BP-01385-2. 

Kissner, P.D. 1993. Examine the passage of adult salmonids at Three Mile Falls Dam. Pages 49- 

in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at 

water diversions in the Umatilla River. Bonneville Power Administration, Report DOE/BP01385-3. 

Knapp, S.M., and D.L. Ward. 1990. Operation and evaluation of the juvenile fish bypass system 

in the West Extension Irrigation District canal at Three Mile Falls Dam. Pages 4-32 in A.A. 

Nigro, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at Three 

Mile Falls Dam, Umatilla River. Annual report to Bonneville Power Administration, Report 

DOE/BP-01385-1. 

Knapp, S.M. 1992. Operation and evaluation of the juvenile fish bypass system in the West 

Extension Irrigation District canal at Three Mile Falls Dam and documentation of juvenile 

salmonid passage through the bypass facility and east-bank adult fish ladder. Pages 1-52 in 

S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Dam, 

Umatilla River. Interim annual report to Bonneville Power Administration, Report DOE/BP01385-2. 

Kostow, K. E. 2003. The biological implications of non-anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in 

Columbia Basin steelhead ESUs. NOAA Fisheries and Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 

Kutchins, K. 1990. Examine the passage of adult salmonids at Three Mile Falls Dam. Pages 33- 

in A.A. Nigro, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at 

Three Mile Falls Dam, Umatilla River. Annual report to Bonneville Power Administration, 

Report DOE/BP-01385-1. 

Lady, J., P. Westhagen, and J. Skalski. 2003. SURPH 2.1, Project No. 1989-10700, (BPA Report 

DOE/BP-00012494-1). 

Lauman, J. 1977. Fish and wildlife resources of the John Day Basin, Oregon, and their water 

requirements. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Federal Aid to Fish Restoration 

Report, Fisheries streamflow requirements project F-69-R-7, Job #4. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-12

Lee, D. C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Chapter 4: 

Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of ecosystem 

components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins 

General Technical Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

Lestelle, L. C., L. E. Mobrand, and W. E. McConnaha. 2004. Information structure of Ecosystem 

Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and habitat rating rules for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, 

and steelhead trout. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., Vashon Island, Washington. 

Letcher, B. H., and T. L. King. 2001. Parentage and grandparentage assignment with known and 

unknown matings: Application to Connecticut River Atlantic salmon restoration. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1812-1821. 

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers. A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Lichatowich, J., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis and 

treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 

20(1):10-18. 

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP). 2006. Columbia River estuary recovery 

plan module NOAA Fisheries, Portland, Oregon. 

Lynch, M., and M. O'Hely. 2001. Supplementation and the genetic fitness of natural populations. 

Conservation Genetics 2:363–378. 

Malheur National Forest (MNF). 1997. Murderers Creek watershed assessment. Bear Valley 

Ranger District. Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 118 pp. 

Malheur National Forest (MNF). 1999. Upper Middle Fork John Day watershed analysis Report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 60 pp. 

Malheur National Forest (MNF). 2004. Draft Upper John Day Sub-Basin environmental 

baseline. Update April, 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A.F. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of climate change on key aspects of 

freshwater salmon habitat in Washington state. Chapter 6 in The Washington Climate 

Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate. 

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Marmorek, D.R., M. Porter, I.J. Parnell, and C. Peters, eds. 2004. Comparative survival study 

workshop, February 11-13, 2004; Bonneville Hot Springs Resort. Report compiled and 

edited by ESSA Technologies, Ltd. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, for Fish Passage 

Center, Portland, Oregon and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. 

 137 pp. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-13

McClure, M., T. Cooney and the Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team. 2003. 

Independent populations of Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionary 

significant units within the Interior Columbia River Domain. Working draft July, 2003. 

McClure, M., T. Cooney and the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005. Updated 

population delineation in the Interior Columbia Basin. Memo to NMFS NW Regional Office, 

Co-managers and other interested parties. May 11, 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Seattle. 

McClure, M., S. Carlson, T. Beechie, G. Pess, J. Jurgensen, S. Sogard, S. Sultan, D. Holzer, J. 

Travis, B. Sanderson, M. Power, and R. Carmichael. 2008. Evolutionary consequences of 

habitat loss for Pacific anadromous salmonids. Evolutionary Applications 1(2):300-318. 

McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water 

temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook 

salmon. Water Resource Assess. U.S. EPA 910-R-99-010. 291 pp. Seattle. 

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmon populations and the recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U. S. 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 pp. Seattle. Available at: 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm42/tm42.pdf. 

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. March, 2003. 

McEwan, D., and T.A. Jackson.1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for California. 

California Department of Fish and Game, 234 pp. (Available from California Department of 

Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, California 95814.) 

Meffe, G., and C.R. Carroll. 2002. Principles of Conservation Biology. G.K. Meffe and C.R. 

Carroll, eds. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Mendel, Glen. 2006. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication. 

Michael, H., and S. O’Brien. 2008. Preparing Oregon’s fish, wildlife, and habitats for future 

climate change: A guide for state adaptation efforts. Oregon Global Warming Commission, 

Salem. 

Mid-Columbia Expert Panel. 2006. Limiting factors and threats to recovery of steelhead in the 

Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia distinct population segment. Results of Expert Panel 

deliberations. July 2006. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-14

Mobrand, L.E., J.A. Lichatowich, L.C. Lestelle, and T.S. Vogel. 1997. An approach to 

describing ecosystem performance ‘through the eyes of salmon’. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2964–2973. 

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 2003. Strategic priorities for salmon conservation and recovery actions 

in WRIAs 10 and 12. Report prepared for Pierce County, Tacoma, Washington. 

Mobrand – Jones & Stokes Associates. 2005. All H Analyzer (AHA) user guide – draft. 

Unpublished report. Mobrand – Jones & Stokes Associates, Vashon Island, WA. Available at 

http://www.managingforsucess.us/Portals/default/Documents?AHA%20User%20Guide.doc

Mobrand, L.E., and nine co-authors. 2005. Hatchery reform in Washington State: principles and 

emerging issues. Fisheries 30(6):11-23. 

Mongillo, P.P. 1984. A summary of salmonid hooking mortality. Fish Management Division. 

Washington Department of Game. Olympia. 

Moore, K., K. Jones & J. Dambacher. 2002. Methods for stream habitat surveys. Version 12.1, 

54 pp. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Inventories Project, Natural 

Production Program. Corvallis. 

Moore, K., K. Jones and J. Dambacher. 1999. Methods for stream habitat surveys aquatic 

inventories project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report 97-4. 

Portland. 

Moran, P., D.A. Dightman, R.S. Waples, and L.K. Park. 1997. PCR-RFLP analysis reveals 

substantial population-level variation in the introns of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). 

Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 6:315-327. 

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, K.N. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, D.P. Lettenmaier, N.J. 

Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. 

Preparing for climatic change: The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Climatic Change 61:45-88. 

Mote, P.W., and E.P. Salathe, Jr. 2009. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Washington 

Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s future in a changing climate 

(in press). 

Moussali, E., and R. Hilborn. 1986. Optimal stock size and harvest rate in multistage life history 

models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:135-141. 

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production 

and habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Monograph I. 489 pp. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-15

Muoneke, M.I., and W.M. Childress. 1994. Hooking mortality: a review for recreational 

fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2:2:123-156. 

Nagel, G. 1997. Historical changes in riparian areas of the Umatilla Basin: preliminary findings, 

draft. USFS Forest Sciences Lab. Corvallis, Oregon. 11 pp. 

Narum, S.R., C. Contor, A. Talbot, and M.S. Powell. 2002. Genetic divergence of sympatric 

resident and anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Walla Walla River and 

Columbia River Basin, USA, Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission, University 

of Idaho (in review). 

Narum S.R., C. Contor, A. Talbot and M.S. Powell. 2004. Genetic Divergence of sympatric 

resident and anadromous forms of Onchorhynchus mykiss in the Walla Walla River, USA. 

Journal of Fish Biology (2004) 65, 471–488 doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649. 2004. 00461.x, 

available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996a. Making ESA determinations of effect for 

individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. NMFS, Environmental and Technical 

Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, 525 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon. 

28 pp. (Available at: www.nwr.noaa.gov under Habitat Conservation Division, Habitat 

Guidance Documents.) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996b. Lower John Day from Bridge Creek 

Biological Opinion, pp 8-9. Factors for decline: A supplement to the notice of determination 

for West Coast Steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Fisheries, Protected 

Species Branch, Portland, Oregon, 83 pp. (Available from NOAA Fisheries Protected 

Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon 97232.) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999a. Biological Opinion: Ongoing and proposed 

Bureau of Land Management activities affecting Middle Columbia River steelhead. OSB 

1999-0145. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999b. Updated review of the status of Upper 

Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs of steelhead. January 12, 1999, NMFSNWFSC Status Review Update Memo. Available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999c. Evaluations of the status of Chinook and 

chum salmon and steelhead hatchery populations for ESUs identified in final listing 

determinations. March 4, 1999, NMFS-NWFSC Status Review Update Memo. Available at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

Template. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/State-TribalManagement/FMEPs-Template.cfm (Accessed March 12, 2009). 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-16

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act essential fish habitat consultation. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau 

of Land Management Ongoing and Proposed Actions for FY2003-2013 in the North Fork 

John Day River Subbasin, Oregon. August 26, 2003. Available at: 

http://seahorse.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/sxn7.pcts_upload.download?p_file=F23278/200001496_FY2013_johnday_08-26-2003.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003a. Bridge Creek fish passage and irrigation 

improvement projects, West Fork Bridge Creek, Lower John Day River subbasin. Wheeler 

County, Oregon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Initial assessment of NMFS’ Critical Habitat 

Analytical Review Teams (CHARTs) for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific 

Salmon and O. mykiss (November 2004), including Appendix K: Initial CHART Assessment 

for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004a. Consultation on Remand of the Columbia 

River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised 

and reissued pursuant to Court Order NWF v NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon). 

November 30, 2004. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, 

Seattle. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004b. Biological Opinion and Consultation for 

BLM upper John Day River basin grazing program from 2004 to 2008, in the North Fork, 

Middle Fork, and Upper John Day River subbasin, Oregon. 2004/00383LAA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. 71 FR 834. January 5, 2006. Endangered and 

Threatened Species: Final listing determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of 

West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. 71(3): 834-862. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Ecosystem recovery 

planning for listed salmon: An integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-58. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Adaptive 

Management for ESA-Listed salmon and steelhead recovery: Evaluation framework and 

monitoring guidance. Draft, 10/20/2006. NMFS, NW Region & NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Endangered Species 

Act—Section 7 Consultation biological opinion--remand draft. NOAA Fisheries, Log 

Number F/NWR/2005/05883, October 30, 2007. NW Region, Portland, Oregon. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-17

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007a. Supplemental 

comprehensive analysis of the federal Columbia River power system and mainstem effects of 

the upper Snake and other tributary actions. October 30, 2007. NOAA Fisheries, NW 

Region, Portland, Oregon. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Endangered Species 

Act—Section 7 (a) (2) consultation biological opinion. Consultation on treaty and non-treaty 

fisheries in the Columbia River basin subject to 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon management 

agreement. NOAA Fisheries, NW Region, Portland, Oregon. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Committee 

on scientific issues in the Endangered Species Act. Commission on Life Sciences. National 

Research Council. National Academy Press. 271 pp. 

Nehlsen, W. 1995. Historical salmon and steelhead runs of the upper Deschutes River and their 

environments. Portland General Electric Company. Portland, Oregon. 

Nigro, A.A. and D.L. Ward. 1986. Evaluation of lower Umatilla River channel modification 

below Three Mile Falls Dam. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Report DOE/BP19130-1. 

Nolin, A.W. and C. Daly. 2006. Mapping “At Risk” snow in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of 

Hydrometeorology 7:1164-1171. 

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2000. Return to the River. Council document 2000-12, 

 pp 367-412. Portland, Oregon. 

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2001. Draft Walla Walla subbasin summary. Prepared 

August 3, 2001. 125 pp. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004. Mainstem lower Columbia River 

and Columbia River estuary subbasin plan. In Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Portland, Oregon. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004a. Fifteenmile Subbasin Plan. 

Prepared by Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District and Fifteenmile 

Coordinating Group for The Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004b. Deschutes Subbasin Draft Plan. 

Prepared by Deschutes Coordinating Group for the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. Available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/deschutes/plan/

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004c. Draft Umatilla/Willow Subbasin 

Plan. May 28, 2004. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004d. Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-18

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2005. John Day Subbasin revised draft 

plan. N.W. Power and Conservation Council. Available at: 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/johnday/plan

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2005a. Northwest Subbasin Geographic 

Data Browser. Developed and maintained by Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

and Bonneville Power Administration GIS. 

O’Connor, J.E., G.E. Grant, and T.L. Haluska. 2003. Overview of geology, hydrology, 

geomorphology, and sediment budget of the Deschutes River basin, Oregon. American 

Geophysical Union Water Science and Application 7:7-29. 

Olsen, E.A. 2005. Hood River and Pelton ladder evaluation studies. Annual Report 2004 of the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Project No. 1988-053-04; Contract No. 00004001) 

to Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 

Olsen, E.A., P.M.P. Beamesderfer, M.L. McLean, and E.S. Tinus. 1994. Salmon and steelhead 

stock summaries for the John Day River basin: an interim report. Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Coordination Program, Portland. 

Olsen, E.A., R.B. Lindsay, and W.A. Burck. 1991. Summer steelhead in the Deschutes River, 

Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished draft information report. 

Portland. 

Olson, D. and B. Spateholts. No date. Hatcheries, Harvest and Wild Fish: An Integrated Program 

at Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery, Oregon. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Pacific 

Northwest Fish Culture Conference. USFWS and CTWSRO. 

O’Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Defenders of 

Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 46 pp. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2004. Lower John Day agricultural water quality 

management plan. February 27, 2004. 32 pp. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 1998. Umatilla Basin Data Review. 

Portland, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2001. Umatilla Basin Watershed 

Council, and The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 2001. Umatilla 

River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan. 

Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/Umatilla/UmatillaTMDL.pdf

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2002. Water Quality Limited Streams 

303(d) List. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-19

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1987. United States v. Oregon subbasin 

production reports. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1990b. John Day River subbasin salmon and 

steelhead production plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1995. Angler surveys on Lake Billy Chinook, 

Oregon, 1990-1993. Information Report Number 95-1. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Fish Division, Salem. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005a. Fisheries Management and Evaluation 

Plan: John Day River – steelhead, trout and warmwater fisheries. Available at: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005b. Revised draft Fishery Management 

and Evaluation Plan: Umatilla River. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005c. Fisheries Management and Evaluation 

Plan: Deschutes River Small Direct Columbia Tributaries–Fifteenmile, Mill, and Chenoweth 

Creeks–summer steelhead, trout and salmon fisheries. Available at: www.nwr.noaa.gov

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005d. 2005 Oregon native fish status report 

Volume I, species management unit summaries. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Fish 

Division, Salem. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Confederated Tribes of the Warms 

Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes (CTWSRO). 2007. Reintroduction and 

conservation plan for anadromous fish in the upper Deschutes River Basin, Oregon, Edition 

1: spring Chinook and steelhead. Early November Review Draft. Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. Bend, Oregon. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

Oregon. Warm Springs, Oregon. 

Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC). 1951. Annual Report 1951. Fishery Division. 

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 1986. John Day River Basin Report. State of 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Salem. 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). 2006. Oregon Water Resources Inventory 

database. OWEB funded projects in Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia River DPS. 

Prepared and provided by Bobbi Riggers, December 6, 2006. 

O'Reilly, P.T., C. Herbinger, and J.M. Wright. 1998. Analysis of parentage determination in 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using microsatellites. Animal Genetics 29:363-370. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-20

Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1976. River Mile Index, Deschutes River, 

Columbia River Basin, Oregon. Hydrology and Hydraulics Committee. Revised June 1976. 

 8 pp. 

Paulsen, C.M., and T.R. Fisher. 2001. Statistical relationship between parr-to-smolt survival of 

Snake River spring-summer Chinook salmon and indices of land use. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 130:347-358. 

Perry, R.W., T.J. Kock, M.S. Novick, S.D. Fielding, G.S. Hansen, J.M. Sprando, T.S. Wilkerson, 

G.T. George, J.L. Schei, N.S. Adams, and D.W. Rondorf. 2006. Survival and migration 

behavior of juvenile salmonids at Lower Granite Dam, 2005. Draft report of research by the 

U. S. Geological Survey to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Contract W68SBV50498133, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Poage, N., C. Torgersen, D. Norton, and M. Flood. 1996. Application of thermal infrared (FLIR) 

and visible videography to the monitoring and restoration of salmonid habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications 

Conference (J.D. Greer, ed.), pp. 376-379, American Society for Photogrammetry and 

Remote Sensing, Denver, Colorado. 

Poe, T.P., H.C. Hansel, S. Vigg, D.E. Palmer, and L. Prendergast. 1991. Feeding of predaceous 

fishes on out-migrating juvenile salmonids in the John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:405-420. 

Pollard, H.A. and T.C. Bjornn. 1973. The effects of angling and hatchery trout on the abundance 

of juvenile steelhead trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102:745-752. 

Pribyl, S. 1995. Helicopter steelhead redd counts, Deschutes River. Intra-department 

memorandum. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Dalles, Oregon. 

Pribyl, S. 2001. 2001 helicopter steelhead redd counts, Deschutes River. Memorandum. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Dalles, Oregon. 

PRISM Climate Group. 2007. Parameter-elevation regressions on independent slopes model 

data. PRISM Climate Group. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle. 

Ratliff, D.E. and E.E. Schulz. 1999. Annual timing, relative numbers, and age frequency of 

kokanee passing downstream through Round Butte Dam, 1995-1999. Portland General 

Electric. Portland, Oregon. October 1999. 

Rawding, D. 2004. Comparison of spawner-recruit data with estimates of Ecosystem Diagnosis 

and Treatment (EDT) spawner-recruit performance. Unpublished report, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-21

Regetz, J. 2003. Landscape-level constraints on recruitment of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) in the Columbia River basin, USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 

Freshwater Ecosystems 13:35-49. 

Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of 

juvenile hatchery and wild steelhaed trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 34:123-128. 

Reisenbichler, R.R., F. Utter, and C.C. Krueger. 2003. Genetic concepts and uncertainties in 

restoring fish populations and species. Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: Sources of 

variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems: 149-183. 

Roper, B., J.L. Kershner, and R.C. Henderson. 2003. The value of using permanent sites when 

evaluating stream attributes at the reach scale. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18:585-592. 

Rich, W.H. 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River in 1938. United States Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

Rieman, B.E., and R.C. Beamesderfer. 1990. Dynamics of a northern squawfish population and 

the potential to reduce predation on juvenile salmonids in a Columbia River reservoir. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:228-241. 

Rieman, B.E., R.C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T.P. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile 

salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day 

Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:448-458. 

Rieman, B., D. Lee, G. Chandler, and D. Myers. 1997. Does wildfire threaten extinction for 

salmonids? Responses of redband trout and bull trout following recent large fires on the 

Boise National Forest. pp. 47-57. In: J. Greenlee, ed. Proceedings of the Second Biennial 

Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: The Ecological Implications of Fire in 

Greater Yellowstone. Effects on rare and endangered species and habitats conference, Nov. 

13-16, 1995. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, 

Washington, USA. 

Rieman, B., D.C. Lee, R.F. Thurow, P.F. Hessburg and J. Sedell. 2000. Toward an integrated 

classification of ecosystems: defining opportunities for managing fish and forest health. 

 Env. Manage. 25(4): 425-444. 

Rieman, B., J.T. Peterson, J. Clayton, P. Howell, R. Thurow, W. Thompson and D. Lee. 2001. 

Evaluation of potential effects of federal land management alternatives on trends of 

salmonids and their habitats in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Forest Ecology and 

Management 153: 43-62. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-22

Roelofs, T.D. 1983. Current status of California summer steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) stocks and 

habitat, and recommendations for their management. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, 

Region 5, 77 pp. (Available from Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1201 E. Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97232.) 

Rowan, G.D. 1998. Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities Operation and Maintenance. Annual 

progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-B179-84BP17622, 

Project No. 83-435. 

Skalski, J.R., and R.L. Townsend. 2007. Sample size calculations for fry releases above Pelton 

Round Butte Hydroelectric Project on the Deschutes River. Columbia Basin Research, 

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. Report to the 

Portland General Electric Co., Portland, Oregon. 19 April 2007. 

Schaller, H., and 13 coauthors. 2007. Comparative Survival Study (CSS) of Hatchery PIT-tagged 

Spring/Summer Chinook. Ten-year Retrospective Summary Report. Available at: 

http://www.fpc.org

Schill, D.J. and R.L. Scarpella.1995. Wild trout regulation studies. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Annual Performance Report, IDFG 95-37, Boise, Idaho. 

Schill, D.J. and R.L. Scarpella. 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout 

fisheries: a social issue. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:873-881. 

Schisler, G.J. and E.P. Bergersen. 1996. Post release hooking mortality of rainbow trout caught 

on scented artificial baits. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:570-578. 

Schmidt, K.M., J. Menakis, C. Hardy, W. Hann, D. Bunnell. 2002. Development of course-scale 

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Technical Report RMRS-87. 

Schwartz, J.D.M., C. Contor, E. Hoverson, P. Kissner. 2005. Umatilla Basin Natural Production 

Monitoring and Evaluation Project Progress Report, 2003-2004. Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, P.O. Box 638, Pendleton, Oregon. Report submitted to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Project NO. 1990-005-01. 

Sestrich, C.M. 2005. Changes in native and nonnative fish assemblages and habitat following 

wildfire in the Bitterroot River Basin, Montana. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman. 

Smith, E.P. 2002. BACI Design. Pages 141-148 in Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, A.H. ElShaarawi and W.W. Piegorsch editors, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. 

Sollid, S.A., H.L. Lorz, D.G. Stevens, P.W. Reno, and J.L. Bartholomew. 2004. Prevalence of 

Myxobolus cerebralis at juvenile salmonid acclimation sites in Northeastern Oregon. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:146–153. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-23

Sollid, S.A., H.V. Lorz, D.G. Stevens, J.L. Bartholomew. 2002. Relative susceptibility of 

selected Deschutes River, Oregon, salmonid species to experimentally induced infection by 

Myxobolus cerebralis. Pages 117–124 in J.L. Bartholomew and J.C. Wilson (2002). 

Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corp., Corvallis, Oregon. (December 1996). Available at: http://www.noaa.gov

Stednick, J.D., and T. J. Kern. 1994. Risk assessment for salmon from water quality changes 

following timber harvesting. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 32:227-238. 

Steinhorst, K., Y. Wu, B. Dennis, and P. Kline. 2004. Confidence intervals for fish out-migrant 

estimates using stratified trap efficiency methods. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and 

Environmental Statistics 9:284-299. 

Step 4 Report. 2006. Interim Report: Relative magnitude of human-related mortality factors 

affecting listed salmon and steelhead in the Interior Columbia River Basin. 

Stevens, D.L., and A.R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of 

environmental resources. Environmetrics 14:593-610. 

Stevens, D.L., and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal 

of the American Statistical Association 99:262-278. 

Stonecypher, Jr., R.W., W. Cameron, R. Carmichael, M. Hayes, C. Hall, S. Onjukka, G. Claire, 

W. Groberg, Jr., B. Farman, and K. Brown. 2001. Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and 

Evaluation, Project No. 1990-00500, 157 electronic pages, BPA Report DOE/BP-00004122-

1. 

Tabor, R.A., R.S. Shively, and T P. Poe. 1993. Predation on juvenile salmonids by smallmouth 

bass and northern squawfish in the Columbia River near Richland, Washington. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:831–838. 

Takata, H.T., M.J. Reesman, G.E. Reed, L.D. Layng, and T.A. Jones. 2007. Development of a 

system-wide predator control program: indexing and fisheries evaluation. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Project No. 1990-077-00, Contract No. 26763. 2006 

Annual Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Taylor, G. and R.A. Barnhart. 1997. Mortality of angler caught and released summer steelhead. 

Final Report. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Humboldt State University. 

Contract Number FG 5018 IF. California Department of Fish and Game. 30 pp. 

Taylor, M.J. and K.R. White. 1992. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of nonanadromous 

trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:760-767. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-24

Thedinga J.F., M.L. Murphy, S.W. Johnson, J.M. Lorenz and K.V. Koski. 1994. Determination 

of salmonid smolt yield with rotary screw traps in the Situk River, Alaska, to predict effects 

of glacial flooding. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:837-851. 

Thompson, B.E., L.C. Lestelle, G.R. Blair, L.E. Mobrand, and J.B. Scott. In press. EDT 

application in salmon recovery planning: diagnosing habitat limitations and modeling 

restoration action effectiveness. In Pacific Salmon Environment and Life History Models: 

Advancing Science for Sustainable Salmon in the Future, American Fisheries Society. 

Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia 

 and stream habitat associations of Chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecological 

Applications 9:301-319. 

Umatilla National Forest, 2001. Umatilla and Meacham Ecosystem Analysis. 

Umatilla River Subbasin Local Agricultural Water Quality Advisory Committee, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, and the Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District. 

1999. Umatilla River Subbasin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan. 

University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (UWCIG). 2007. Projections for 21st century 

climate change. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Unterwegner, Tim. 2005. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication. 

October 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Walla Walla River Watershed Oregon and 

Washington Reconnaissance Report. Walla Walla District. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) et al. 2004. Final Updated Proposed Action for the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and Bonneville Power Administration. November 24, 2004. Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Summary of pinniped observations at 

Bonneville Dam in 2005. Letter report from Robert Stansell to David Clugston. Fisheries 

Field Unit CENWPOP-SRF Bonneville Lock and Dam. Cascade Locks, Oregon. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Status report—pinniped predation and hazing at 

Bonneville Dam in 2007. Fisheries Field Unit CENWPOP-SRF Bonneville Lock and Dam, 

Cascade Locks, Oregon. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bonneville Power Administration, and U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation. 2007. Comprehensive analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power System 

and mainstem effects of upper Snake and other tributary actions. August 2007. Available 

at: http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Biological Opinions/FCRPS/BA-CA/CA/CA-Final.pdf
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-25

USDA (Forest Service) and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM). 1994. Environmental 

assessment for the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fishproducing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

(PACFISH). 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. John Day River Proposed Management Plan, 

Two Rivers and John Day Resource Management Plan Amendments and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 1, Executive Summary and Chapters 1-5. Prineville 

District, BLM. Prineville, Oregon. 

U.S. Office of the Federal Register. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Rule 

 Governing Take of 14 Threatened Salmon and Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units 

 (ESUs). Federal Register 65(132)(10 July 2000): 42422-42481. 

Vigg, S., T.P. Poe, L.A. Prendergast, and H.C. Hansel. 1991. Rates of consumption of juvenile 

salmonids and alternative prey fish by northern squawfish, walleyes, smallmouth bass, and 

channel catfish in the John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 120:421–438. 

Viola, A.E., and M.L. Schuck. 1995. A method to reduce the abundance of residual hatchery 

steelhead in rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:488-493. 

Volkman, J. 1994. Evaluation of adult passage facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla 

River. Pages 99-143 in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish 

passage facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla River. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Report DOE/BP-01385-4. 

Volkman, J. 1995. Evaluation of adult passage facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla River 

and their movement following upriver transport and assessment of factors for homing into 

the Umatilla River. Pages 77-116 in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass 

and adult fish passage facilities at water diversions on the Umatilla River. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Report DOE/BP-01385-5. 

Walters, T.R., R.D. Ewing, M.A. Lewis, R.W. Carmichael, and M.L. Keefe. 1994. Evaluation of 

effects of transporting juvenile salmonids on the Umatilla River at high water temperatures. 

Pages 117-130 in S.M. Knapp, editor. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish 

passage facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla River. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Report DOE/BP-01385-3. 

Waples, R.S., R.P. Jones, Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. Status review for Snake 

River fall Chinook salmon, United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Waples, R.S., D.J.Teel, J.M. Myers, and A.R. Marshall. 2004. Life-history divergence in 

Chinook salmon: Historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58:386-403. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-26

Ward, D.L., J.H. Petersen, and J.J. Loch. 1995. Index of predation on juvenile salmonids by 

northern squawfish in the lower and middle Columbia River and in the lower Snake River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:321–334. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2001. Mid-Columbia River Region 

Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW). 2002. Status Report: Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-2000. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Clackamas, Oregon. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. WDFW Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

Stock Summer Steelhead Walla Walla Basin Releases Hatchery and Genetic Management 

Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Dayton. 

White, T.C, J.T. Hanson, S.M. Jewett, R.W. Carmichael. 2007. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid 

out-migration and survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin, 2003-2006. Annual Report, 

Project No. 198902401 to Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 

White, T.C., S.M. Jewett, J.T. Hanson, R.W. Carmichael. 2003. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid 

out-migration and survival in the lower Umatilla River Basin. Annual progress report 2000-

2001 to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Publication DOE/BP00004340-3. 

White, T.C., J.T. Hanson, S.M. Jewett, and R.W. Carmichael. 2004. Evaluation of juvenile 

salmonid out-migration and survival in the lower Umatilla River Basin, Project No. 

198902401. 105 pp. BPA Report DOE/BP-00004340-4. 

Wiley, D.J., M.L. Garriott, and J.R. Ruzycki. 2004a. Implementation of the Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) protocol in the John Day Subbasin of the 

Columbia Plateau Province. Annual technical report to Bonneville Power Administration. 

Project No. 98-016-00. 

Wiley, D.J., M.L. Garriott, J.R. Ruzycki, R.W. Carmichael. 2005. Implementation of the 

Environmental Monitoring Program (EMAP) protocol in the John Day subbasin of the 

Columbia Plateau Province: Annual Progress Report. 2004-2005 Technical report, project 

no. 199801601, 90 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00015113-2), available at: 

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=00015113-2

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 Columbia River Power 

System on salmonid populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-63. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Fish Ecology Division, Seattle. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-27

Wilson, A.J., and M.M. Ferguson. 2002. Molecular pedigree analysis in natural populations of 

fishes: Approaches, applications, and practical considerations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 59:1696-1707. 

Wilson, W.H., J.R. Ruzycki, R. Carmichael, S. Onjukka, G.M. Claire, and J. Seals. 2001. John 

Day Basin spring Chinook salmon escapement and productivity monitoring. Annual 

progress report to Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 98-016-00. 

Wilson, W.H., I.A. Tattam, and J.R. Ruzycki. 2004. John Day River Basin steelhead 

Oncorhynchus mykiss data and information compilation. Final report to the U.S Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Wilson, W.H., T. Schultz, T.D. Goby, J.R. Ruzycki, R. Carmichael, S. Onjukka, G. O’Connor. 

2005a. John Day basin Chinook salmon escapement and productivity monitoring, 2002-2003 

annual report, project no. 199801600, 165 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP00005840-2), available at: 

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=00005840-2

Wilson, W.H., J.R. Ruzycki, and S. Onjukka. 2005b. Escapement and productivity of spring 

Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the John Day River basin. Annual Technical 

Report. U.S. Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 155 pp. 

Wissmar, R., J. Smith, B. McIntosh, H. Li, G. Reeves, and J. Sedell. 1994. A history of resource 

use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s1990s). Northwest Science 68:1-35. 

Withler, R.E. 1988. Genetic consequences of fertilizing Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) eggs with pooled milt. Aquaculture 68:15-25. 

Wydoski, R.S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to quality 

fishery management. Utah Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. Utah State University. 

Logan. 

Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries Program. 2005. Memo on steelhead habitat utilization in 

Columbia River Tributaries. Yakama Indian Nation, Washington. 

Zimmerman, C.E., and D.E. Ratliff. 1999. Maternal origin of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 

nerka) returning to the Pelton Fish Trap, Deschutes River, Oregon in 1997. Portland General 

Electric. Portland, Oregon. 

Zimmerman, C.E., and G.H. Reeves. 2000. Population structure of sympatric anadromous and 

nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss: evidence from spawning surveys and otolith 

microchemistry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2152-2162. 
Section 14, Literature Cited 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

14-28

Zimmerman, C.E., and G.H. Reeves. 2002. Identification of steelhead and resident rainbow trout 

progeny in the Deschutes River, Oregon, revealed with otolith microchemistry. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 131:986-993. 

Zimmerman, C.E., and D.E. Ratliff. 2003. Controls on the distribution and life history of fish 

populations in the Deschutes River: geology, hydrology, and dams. Pages 51-70 in J.E. 

O’Connor and G.E. Grant, editors. A peculiar river: geology, geomorphology, and hydrology 

of the Deschutes River, Oregon. Water Science and Application 7. American Geophysical 

Union. Washington D.C. 

Zimmerman, M.P., and R.M. Parker. 1995. Relative density and distribution of smallmouth bass, 

channel catfish, and walleye in the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. Northwest Science 

69:19-28.