Science, Service, Stewardship 1

Northwest Salmon & Steelhead Recovery 

Planning & Implementation

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS 

Recovery Plan Summary

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has adopted a recovery plan for 

the protection and restoration of Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), which spawn and rear in tributaries to the Columbia River in central and 

eastern Washington and Oregon. The Middle Columbia River steelhead distinct 

population segment (DPS) was first listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in 1999. Its threatened status was affirmed on January 5, 2006. 

The final Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan (the Plan) is now 

available at NOAA’s website, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Mid-Col-Plan.cfm

Nineteen of the 33 salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest are listed as 

threatened or endangered. The Middle Columbia River steelhead is among those 

with the best prospects for recovery, although it will require considerable investment 

of long-term effort and funding for protection and restoration. 

This recovery plan summarizes information from four locally developed recovery

plans for management units encompassing Middle Columbia River tributaries in 

Washington and Oregon. The management unit plans, included as appendices to the 

DPS Plan, provide recovery actions for the steelhead populations and major 

population groups that make up the DPS. The Plan draws upon the work of the 

Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), a team of scientists appointed 

by NMFS to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery planning.

This Plan also uses information from two “modules” developed by NMFS to address 

conditions in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary that affect all Middle 

Columbia steelhead: the Hydro Module, based on the NMFS 2008 Biological 

Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), and the Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007). In addition to proposed actions in the management unit plans, 

the Plan relies upon Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and Artificial 

Production for Pacific Salmon (Appendix C of the Supplemental Comprehensive 

Analysis, NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion) to address hatchery effects. For harvest 

effects, the Plan refers to fishery management planning through the 2008 U.S. v. 

Oregon agreement for mainstem fisheries, and Fisheries Management Evaluation 

Plans for tributary fisheries.

 

Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead Recovery 

Domain

Listed Species: 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

Management Units:

Oregon

Washington Gorge (White Salmon, 

Klickitat & Rock Creek)

Yakima Subbasin

Southeast Washington
2 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Management Unit Recovery Plans

For the purpose of recovery planning, NMFS defined four

management units in the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead spawning region, based on jurisdictional 

boundaries as well as areas where local planning efforts 

were underway. The management unit plans are the work 

of local groups and county, state, Federal, and tribal 

entities within the Middle Columbia River region on both 

sides of the river. 

Oregon Management Unit

Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Distinct Population Segment 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is 

the lead for the Oregon Steelhead Conservation and 

Recovery Plan. ODFW drew together three groups to help 

with the plan: the Middle Columbia Recovery Planning 

Team, made up of ODFW staff biologists and 

representatives from eight state natural resource agencies; 

a planning forum, the Middle Columbia Sounding Board, 

made up of representatives of local communities, 

agricultural water users, Federal and non-Federal land 

managers, governing bodies, tribes, and industry and 

environmental interests; and an Expert Panel of 12 

biologists to examine limiting factors and threats for the 

10 independent Middle Columbia steelhead populations in 

Oregon.

Yakima Management Unit

Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan

The Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board 

developed the Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

The Board includes representatives from the Yakama 

Nation, Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima counties, and 18 of 

the 24 municipalities in the Yakima Basin. 

Southeast Washington Management Unit

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast 

Washington

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board developed the 

Southeast Washington Recovery Plan. The Board consists 

of representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation; a county commissioner and 

citizen representative from Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, 

Walla Walla, and Whitman counties; a landowner 

representative from Asotin, Columbia, and Garfield 

counties; and the Walla Walla county irrigation district.

Washington Gorge Management Unit

Recovery Plan for the Klickitat Population of Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead 

Recovery Plan for the Rock Creek Population of Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead

Recovery Plan for the White Salmon Population of Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead – to be finalized as part of the 

Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery 

Plan

The Washington Gorge management unit comprises three 

subbasins, which do not so far have a Washington Statesponsored salmon recovery planning board. NMFS 

prepared a recovery plan for each of these subbasins, in 

collaboration with the Yakama Nation, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Klickitat 

County, the Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery 

Office, other Federal agencies, state agencies, local 

governments, and the public. 

The Middle Columbia Recovery Forum

NMFS initiated a collaborative process to develop this 

plan for the entire Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. 

The Middle Columbia Recovery Forum (Mid-C Forum) is

a group convened by NMFS, many of whose members led 

the preparation of the management unit plans. The Mid-C 

Forum contributed substance as well as scientific and 

critical review to the DPS plan. Participants in the Mid-C 

Forum include ODFW, WDFW, the Yakama Nation, 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery 

Office, Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office, 

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, Yakima Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Recovery Board, US Bureau of Reclamation, 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US 

Army Corps of Engineers, Klickitat County, and NMFS 

Northwest Region. 
Science, Service, Stewardship 3

Steelhead Distribution & Life History 

The spawning range of the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS extends over an area of approximately 

35,000 square miles in the Columbia plateau of eastern 

Washington and eastern Oregon. The DPS includes all 

naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams 

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. 

The species Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibits perhaps the 

most complex suite of life history traits of any species of 

Pacific salmonid. These fish can be anadromous or 

freshwater residents (and under some circumstances, 

apparently yield offspring of the opposite form). 

Steelhead can spawn more than once, whereas all other 

Oncorhynchus except cutthroat trout (O. clarki) spawn 

once and then die. 

Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning 

migrations occur throughout the year, with seasonal peaks 

of activity. The “runs” are usually named for the season in 

which the peak occurs. Most steelhead can be categorized 

as one of two run types, based on their sexual maturity 

when they re-enter freshwater and how far they go to 

spawn. In the Pacific Northwest, summer steelhead enter 

freshwater between May and October and require several 

months to mature before spawning; winter steelhead enter 

freshwater between November and April and spawn 

shortly thereafter. Summer steelhead usually spawn 

farther upstream than winter steelhead. The Middle 

Columbia River steelhead DPS includes populations of 

inland winter steelhead in the Klickitat River, White 

Salmon River, Fifteenmile Creek, and possibly Rock 

Creek. 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

Populations & Major Population 

Groups

The ICTRT identified 20 historical populations of Middle 

Columbia River steelhead. This identification was based 

on genetic information, geography, life history traits, 

morphological traits, and population dynamics. Seventeen 

of these populations are extant, and three extirpated 

(White Salmon River, Deschutes Crooked River above 

Pelton Dam, and Willow Creek).

The ICTRT stratified the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead populations into major population groups 

(MPGs) based on ecoregion characteristics, life history 

types, and other geographic and genetic considerations. It 

identified four MPGs: Cascades Eastern Slope

Tributaries, Yakima Basin, John Day Basin, and 

Umatilla/Walla Walla. The John Day Basin MPG is 

wholly within Oregon and the Yakima Basin MPG is 

wholly within Washington. The other two include 

populations on both sides of the Oregon/Washington 

boundary.

Current Status

The status of a salmon or steelhead species is expressed in 

terms of likelihood of persistence over 100 years, or in 

terms of risk of extinction within 100 years. The ICTRT 

defined viability at two levels: less than 5 percent risk of 

extinction within 100 years (viable) and less than 1 

percent risk of extinction within 100 years (highly viable). 

A third category, “maintained,” represents a less than 25 

percent risk. The risk level of the DPS as a whole is built 

up from the aggregate risk levels of the populations and 

MPGs. The abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity of the component populations (the “viable 

salmonid population,” or VSP, parameters) must be taken 

into account to determine the risk level.

The Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS does not 

currently meet viability criteria because its four 

component MPGs are not at low risk. However, for this 

DPS the outlook is relatively optimistic. One population, 

North Fork John Day, is currently at very low risk or 

“highly viable.” Two populations are currently viable 

(Deschutes Eastside, Fifteenmile); eleven are at moderate 

risk, with good prospects for improving. However, three 

large populations at high risk (Deschutes Westside, 

Naches, and Upper Yakima) are important to DPS 

viability; these present significant challenges. 

Significant programs are underway for natural 

recolonization (White Salmon) or reintroduction 

(Deschutes Crooked River above Pelton Dam) of two of 

the extirpated populations to historically accessible 

habitat; success of these programs should help improve 

overall DPS viability.

The table on the following page summarizes the current 

status of the Middle Columbia River steelhead

populations, showing 10-year geometric mean abundance 

by population, estimated productivity, and the minimum 

abundance threshold needed for long-term viability. The 

table also includes the 10-year geometric mean proportion 

of hatchery spawners for the populations where data are 

available, and the risk ratings of high, moderate, low, and 

very low, for abundance and productivity combined, and 

spatial structure and diversity combined.
4 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS populations: Summary of abundance, productivity, risk ratings, and minimum abundance 

thresholds (Source: ICTRT, Current Status Reviews: Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Vol. III. May 2008). 

(Numbers subject to periodic updates as additional information becomes available.)

Population Abundance

Threshold1

Size

Category

Run 

Timing

10-year 

Geomean 

abundance

Abundance 

Range

10-yr 

Hatchery 

Fraction2

Productivity3Productivity 

Standard Error

A&P Risk4

Rating

SSD

Risk

Rating

Eastern Cascades MPG

Deschutes (westside) 10005 Large 

(Inter)

Summer 456 108-1283 0.26 1.05 0.15 H M

Deschutes (eastside) 1000 Intermed. Summer 1599 299-8274 0.39 1.89 0.27 L M

Klickitat River 1000 Intermed. Wtr & Smr M M

Fifteenmile Creek 500 Basic Winter 703 231-1922 0 1.82 0.20 L L

Rock Creek 500 Basic Summer Insufficient Data H M

White Salmon 500 Basic Functionally extirpated N/A N/A

Crooked River 2250 Very Large Summer Extirpated

Yakima River MPG

Upper Yakima River 1500 Large Summer 85 34-283 0.02 1.12 0.22 H H

Naches River 1500 Large Summer 472 142-1454 0.06 1.12 0.22 H M

Toppenish River 500 Basic Summer 322 44-1252 0.06 1.60 0.30 M M

Satus Creek (trib only) 1000 Intermed. Summer 379 138-1000 0.06 1.73 0.14 M M

John Day Basin MPG

Lower Mainstem 

John Day

2250 Very Large Summer 1800 563-6257 0.1 2.99 0.24 M M

North Fork John Day 1500 Large Summer 1740 369-10,235 0.08 2.41 0.22 VL L

Upper Mainstem 

John Day

1000 Intermed. Summer 524 185-5169 0.08 2.14 0.33 M M

Middle Fork John Day 1000 Intermed. Summer 756 195-3538 0.08 2.45 0.16 M M

South Fork John Day 500 Basic Summer 259 76-2729 0.08 2.06 0.27 M M

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Umatilla River 1500 Large Summer 1472 592-3542 0.36 1.50 0.15 M M

Walla Walla Mainstem 1000 Intermed. Summer 650 270-1746 0.02 1.34 0.12 M M

Touchet River 1000 Intermed. Summer Insufficient Data H M

Willow Creek 1000 Intermed. Summer Extirpated N/A N/A

 1 Abundance threshold for viability based on habitat intrinsic potential

2 Average proportion of hatchery spawners over most recent 10 years in the data series.

3 Geomean return per spawner calculated over most recent 20 years in data series. 

4 Abundance & Productivity Risk Ratings: H = high risk, M= moderate risk, L = low risk, VL = very low risk 5 The Deschutes Westside steelhead population is classified as Large in terms of spatial structure, but its abundance threshold may be 

considered 1000 or 1500 because of lack of access to historical habitat. See Carmichael, Richard W., Conservation and Recovery Plan for 

Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 2009
Science, Service, Stewardship 5

Limiting Factors & Threats

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

factors as the biological and physical conditions that limit a species’ viability – e.g., high water temperature – and defines 

threats as those human activities or natural processes that cause the limiting factors. For example, removing the vegetation 

along the banks of a stream can cause higher water temperatures, because the stream is no longer shaded. The threats 

contributing to the limiting factors and causes for a species’ decline are often described in terms of the “four Hs” – habitat 

(usually relating to the effects of land use and tributary water use), hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. While the term 

“threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They 

are typically human activities that may at times have unintended negative consequences on fish populations—and that can 

also be managed in a manner that may minimize or eliminate the negative impacts. 

Limiting Factors & Threats for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS

At a general level, based on information from the ICTRT, the four management unit plans, and the modules, the major factors 

limiting the viability of Middle Columbia River steelhead populations are the following:

 Degraded tributary habitat 

 Impaired fish passage in the mainstem Columbia 

River and tributaries 

 Hatchery-related effects

 Predation/competition/disease

Two other factors, degradation of estuarine and nearshore marine habitat and harvest-related effects, pose some risk to 

steelhead viability for the entire DPS, but less than the other factors. Climate change represents a potentially significant threat 

to recovery of Middle Columbia River steelhead populations. Changes in climate may exacerbate existing problems with 

water quantity (lower summer stream flows) and water quality (higher summer water temperatures).

Middle Columbia River

Steelhead Major 

Population Groups

Yakima

Basin

Umatilla/

Walla Walla

John Day Basin Cascades 

Eastern Slope 

Tributaries
6 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Limiting Factors & Threats for the 

Major Population Groups

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

Tributary habitat. Degraded riparian areas, lack of 

suitable spawning habitat, low or altered stream flows, 

degraded water quality (especially high water 

temperatures), impaired floodplain connectivity and 

function, altered channel structure and complexity, and 

impaired fish passage.

Mainstem Columbia River passage. Direct mortality; 

delayed upstream migration of returning adults; and 

cumulative impact of hydropower system on mainstem 

and estuary habitat. Effects are least for the Fifteenmile 

Creek and Klickitat River populations, which pass only 

one mainstem dam. The Deschutes River populations pass 

two mainstem dams, and the Rock Creek population 

passes three. 

Hatchery related effects. Hatchery fish straying into 

natural spawning areas pose risks to genetic traits and 

productivity of naturally produced steelhead. Out-ofsubbasin steelhead, primarily from the Snake River, stray 

onto natural spawning grounds in the Deschutes River. 

Hatchery steelhead released in the Klickitat River may 

have effects on the naturally produced steelhead. 

Blocked migration to historically accessible habitat. 

Currently, the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Project, 

constructed at river mile 100 on the mainstem Deschutes 

River, creates a barrier to anadromous fish attempting to 

reach spawning and rearing areas in the upper basin. Plans 

are underway to reinitiate fish passage facilities at the 

Pelton-Round Butte complex and reintroduce steelhead to 

the upper basin. 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, 

and disease issues in mainstem and estuary can affect all 

of the Middle Columbia River steelhead populations. In 

addition, it is possible that the abundance of the 

Deschutes River Westside steelhead population may be 

limited by competition with a large resident population of 

rainbow trout. 

John Day River MPG 

Mainstem passage. These populations must pass three 

dams; thus, limiting factors include direct mortality of 

pre-smolts and smolts at John Day, The Dalles, and 

Bonneville dams; delayed upstream migration of 

returning adults; false attraction of returning adults over 

McNary Dam; and cumulative impact of hydropower 

system on mainstem and estuary habitat. 

Hatchery related effects. 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 basin in 

1997. However, hatchery strays, primarily from the Snake 

River, have been observed in all John Day populations, 

particularly in the lower John Day mainstem. Hatchery 

fish straying into natural spawning areas pose risks to 

genetic traits and productivity of naturally produced 

steelhead. 

Tributary habitat. For all five John Day populations, 

degraded floodplain and degraded channel structure (key 

habitat quantity and habitat diversity), altered sediment 

routing, water quality (high temperatures), and altered 

hydrology are limiting factors. For the Lower and Upper 

Mainstem and South Fork populations, passage 

obstructions in some of the smaller tributaries are also 

significant. 

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, 

and disease issues in mainstem and estuary can affect all 

of the Middle Columbia River steelhead populations. 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Mainstem passage. The Walla Walla and Touchet 

populations must pass four major mainstem Columbia 

River dams; the Umatilla population must pass three. 

Limiting factors include direct mortality; delayed 

upstream migration of returning adults; cumulative impact 

of hydropower system on mainstem and estuary habitat; 

and, because they must migrate farther upstream than 

most of the other populations, higher exposure to altered 

habitat as well as avian and piscine predators in the 

mainstem Columbia. 

Tributary habitat. For all three populations, water quality 

(temperature), sediment problems, blocked and impaired 

fish passage, degraded floodplain and channel structure 

(resulting in lack of spawning and rearing habitat) and 

hydrologic alterations are limiting factors. 

Hatchery related effects. Hatchery fish are not identified 

as a threat to the Umatilla population. Non-endemicorigin hatchery fish are considered a potential threat to the 

Walla Walla wild steelhead population. Currently, data 

are insufficient to determine whether hatchery effects are 

a problem for the Touchet River population.

Predation/competition/disease. Predation, competition, 

and disease issues in mainstem and estuary can affect all 

of the Middle Columbia River steelhead populations.
Science, Service, Stewardship 7

Yakima Basin MPG

Mainstem passage. The Yakima steelhead populations 

must pass four mainstem Columbia River dams. Limiting 

factors include direct mortality; delayed upstream 

migration of returning adults, and cumulative impact of 

hydropower system on mainstem and estuary habitat. As 

the farthest upstream populations of Middle Columbia 

River steelhead, they undergo higher exposure to altered 

habitat as well as avian and piscine predators in the 

mainstem Columbia. 

Tributary habitat. Fish habitat in the Yakima subbasin is 

substantially affected by irrigation systems. Limiting 

factors include altered hydrology (low summer flow 

because of withdrawals in tributaries and the lower 

Yakima, scouring peak flows because of degraded 

watershed conditions, high summer delivery flows in 

mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers, reduced winter and 

spring flows due to irrigation storage, delivery, and 

withdrawals); degraded riparian areas; blocked and 

impaired fish passage (primarily due to storage and 

diversion dams, as well as entrainment in unscreened 

diversions); altered sediment routing; degraded water 

quality; loss of historical habitat due to blocked or 

impaired fish passage; degraded floodplain connectivity 

and function (loss of off-channel habitat, side channels 

and connected hyporheic zone); degraded channel 

structure and complexity; reduced outmigrant survival in 

the mainstem Yakima. 

Hatchery related effects. The Yakima populations have 

the lowest rates of hatchery strays in the DPS, and 

hatchery effects are not considered a significant limiting 

factor. 

Predation/competition/disease. Of the Middle Columbia 

River steelhead populations, the Yakima basin 

populations have the longest migration through the 

mainstem Columbia River. They may therefore be more 

vulnerable to some factors such as avian and piscivorous 

fish predation. For example, Yakima steelhead are 

consumed by Caspian tern and double-crested cormorants 

nesting on islands at the mouth of the Snake River.

Recovery Goals & Delisting Criteria

The recovery goals that are incorporated into locally 

developed recovery plans may include delisting and other 

“broad sense” goals that may go beyond the ESA 

requirements for delisting to address, for example, other 

legislative mandates or social, economic, or ecological 

values. Delisting criteria must meet the ESA 

requirements, while recovery may be defined more 

broadly.

Recovery criteria are of two kinds: the biological viability 

criteria, which deal with the parameters of abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity at the 

population, MPG, and DPS levels, and the “threats” 

criteria, which relate to the five listing factors detailed in 

the ESA (The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of [the species’] habitat or 

range; over-utilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific or educational purposes; disease or predation; 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 

other natural or human-made factors affecting its 

continued existence). The threats criteria define the 

conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can 

be considered to be addressed or mitigated. Together the 

biological and threats criteria make up the “objective, 

measurable criteria” required under ESA section 

4(f)(1)(B) for the delisting decision. NMFS’ delisting 

criteria may include these as well as other technical and 

policy considerations. 

NMFS’ biological viability criterion for Middle Columbia 

River steelhead is to have all four major population 

groups at viable (low-risk) status, with representation of 

all the major life history strategies present historically, 

and with the abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

and diversity attributes required for long-term persistence.

However, it may not be necessary for all of the 

populations to attain low risk in order to provide 

sufficient viability for the MPGs or the DPS as a whole. 

The possible combinations of risk status for populations 

in each MPG that would allow the DPS to meet viability 

criteria are called “recovery scenarios.”
8 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Recovery Strategy

NMFS' 2006 listing decision for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead called upon Federal, state, and tribal entities to 

manage land, hydropower, hatchery, and harvest activities 

in a manner that would support steel-head recovery. This 

plan reaffirms those recommendations and adds to them 

the contributions of updated science, basinwide programs,

and consensus building among stakeholders. While 

Federal, state, and tribal entities can make major 

contributions to the recovery of Middle Columbia 

steelhead, the actions of individuals on their land, as well 

as city and county codes and ordinances promoting 

conservation, are also essential.

The recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead 

DPS addresses both basin-wide issues that affect all 

populations, such as conditions in the migratory corridor, 

and subbasin and site-specific issues that are the focus of 

the management unit plans. The DPS Plan describes the 

overall strategy, summarizes the MPG-level strategies, 

and refers to the management unit plans for more sitespecific, population level actions.

The recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS is made up of the following elements: 

• Follow the 2006 listing decision recommendations, 

which call upon Federal, state, and tribal entities to 

manage land, hydropower, hatchery, and harvest 

actions to support steelhead recovery. 

• Protect and restore tributary habitat and Columbia 

River mainstem habitat, at both the 

basin/programmatic level and the local level as 

detailed in the management unit plans.

• Improve fish passage in the mainstem Columbia 

River, as detailed in the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion (summarized in the Hydro Module) and in 

the tributaries per the management unit plans. 

• Implement hatchery reforms at the population and 

site-specific level through Hatchery and Genetic 

Management Plans (HGMPs) as required by the 

Biological Opinion. 

• Address ecosystem imbalances in predation, 

competition, and disease through the strategies and 

actions in the management unit plans, estuary 

module, and FCRPS Biological Opinion.

• Maintain current low harvest levels, through fishery 

management planning for mainstem fisheries through 

the U.S. v. Oregon 10-year agreement, updated 

Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans and Tribal 

Resource Management Plans for tributary fisheries, 

Pacific Salmon Treaty, and Pacific Fishery 

Management Council processes. 

• Protect and restore the estuary and Columbia River 

plume as detailed in the Columbia River Estuary 

module.

• Respond to climate change threats with a strategy 

based on the principle of preserving biodiversity. 

• Implement the Plan through effective coordination 

and governance.

• Research critical uncertainties, monitor and evaluate 

implementation and effectiveness and adjust course 

as appropriate through adaptive management.

NMFS believes that if this strategy is implemented and 

the biological response is as expected, the DPS is likely to 

achieve viable status within 25 to 50 years.

Protect & Restore Habitat

Actions to protect and improve habitat in the tributaries 

and Columbia mainstem are essential to achieving 

recovery objectives for the Middle Columbia steelhead 

DPS. Unlike some other salmonid species, steelhead, 

which are “stream-type” salmonids, use mainstem 

tributary, upper tributary, and side channel habitats for 

spawning, juvenile rearing, and overwintering. Steelhead 

populations are particularly susceptible to the effects of 

degraded freshwater habitat because most steelhead spend 

one or more years in freshwater before migrating. 

Specific measures to improve tributary habitat are 

contained in the management unit plans and are 

summarized below by MPG.

Relatively little information is available concerning 

Middle Columbia River steelhead use of mainstem 

Columbia River habitat above Bonneville, aside from 

passage through the dams. NMFS believes it is important 

to assess nearshore habitat and cold water refugia in the 

mainstem and to explore opportunities for, and potential 

benefits from, restoration and protection of these areas.

Improve Fish Passage – Mainstem Columbia River 

Passage for juvenile steelhead migrating to the ocean and 

adult steelhead returning to their natal streams is limited 

primarily by the four Federal dams on the Lower 

Columbia River mainstem – Bonneville, John Day, The 

Dalles, and McNary – which are part of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). NMFS issued a 

biological opinion on the effects of FCRPS operations on 

salmonids, including Middle Columbia River steelhead, 

and on the predicted results of current and planned 

improvements to the system that are intended to improve 

fish survival (NMFS 2008). These improvements are 

expected to increase the in-river survival of Middle 

Columbia River juvenile steelhead by 0.3 percent, 5.1 

percent, 8.2 percent, and 10.2 percent, depending on the 

number of dams they must pass. The survival of steelhead 

adults through the four dams is thought to be relatively 

high at the present time (about 98.5 percent per project 

from Bonneville to McNary), and is expected to be

maintained or improved. 
Science, Service, Stewardship 9

The current plan for operation of the FCRPS through 

2018 (NMFS 2008) contains the following actions 

intended to address the needs for survival and recovery of 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead:

• Continue adult fish passage operations that have 

resulted in improved survival.

• Improve juvenile fish passage: install removable 

spillway weirs or similar surface bypass devices at 

John Day and McNary dams, an extended tailrace 

spill wall at The Dalles Dam, and various 

modifications at Bonneville Dam. Passage for 

steelhead smolts at each of the four Lower Columbia 

River mainstem projects must reach 96 percent 

survival.

• Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage.

• Continue reservoir operations and river flows to 

benefit spring migrating juveniles.

• Develop dry water year operations to better protect 

migrating juveniles.

The State of Oregon also proposes additional measures 

for the FCRPS that NMFS did not include in the FCRPS 

Biological Opinion.

Improve Fish Passage - Tributaries

Actions to address fish passage in tributaries include: 

• Implement locally developed management unit plans 

to improve fish passage in tributaries.

• Implement recommendations regarding improved 

passage and flow management by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation below all its facilities in the Yakima 

River and the Umatilla River subbasins, provision of 

fish passage into significant tributaries, and provision 

of passage over at least two of its storage dams in the 

Yakima Basin. 

• Implement recommendations regarding improvement 

of fish passage, screening, and flow management in 

the Walla Walla River subbasin by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and alteration of the flood 

operating rule for Mill Creek, or alternatively 

screening the diversion into Bennington Lake.

• Provide passage into the upper Deschutes River 

above Pelton-Round Butte complex and into the 

White Salmon River above Condit Dam.

Hatchery Reforms

Hatchery programs must implement reforms and comply 

with the ESA. Three major scientific reviews are 

providing important information to help develop specific 

recovery actions for hatchery programs. These reviews 

include the Mitchell Act Environmental Impact 

Statement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hatchery 

Review, and the congressionally established Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (HSRG). Collectively, these 

scientific reviews are evaluating every anadromous fish 

hatchery program in the Columbia Basin and providing

significant new information to help guide future actions. 

Several agreements, including the 2008 FCRPS

Biological Opinion, are in place to ensure that hatchery 

programs are brought up-to-date with actions that are 

consistent with recovery. 

NMFS is working with the funding agencies and hatchery 

operators to update and complete Hatchery and Genetic 

Management Plans (HGMPs) for every hatchery program 

in the Middle Columbia region as a means of organizing 

hatchery review and reform. New or updated HGMPs 

should be in place to guide operations before 2010. The 

HGMPs are the basis for NMFS’ biological opinions on 

hatchery programs under ESA sections 7 and 10 and the 

4(d) rule, which relate to incidental and direct take of 

listed species. The HGMPs describe each hatchery’s 

operations and actions to support recovery and minimize 

ecological or genetic impacts, such as straying and other 

forms of competition with naturally produced fish.

Evaluating the factors that influence interactions between 

hatchery fish and naturally produced fish under varying 

freshwater conditions and ocean conditions is an 

important area of future research. This is dealt with in 

more detail in Appendix C of the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion.

The management unit plans propose various actions to 

reduce deleterious effects of hatcheries on natural 

production. For example, the Oregon Steelhead 

Conservation and Recovery Plan proposes increased 

marking of Columbia Basin hatchery steelhead with 

coded-wire tags to better identify the origin of strays, and 

trapping and removal of strays in the Deschutes 

populations. Regional consensus has not been reached on 

all hatchery strategies, and the Mid-Columbia Forum will 

continue to pursue agreement on appropriate site-specific 

strategies. The Klickitat subbasin plan recommends a 

targeted monitoring program to determine abundance and 

productivity of natural spawners, determine the 

proportion of hatchery and wild spawners in the Klickitat 

subbasin, and determine the adverse effects of Skamania 

broodstock on the Klickitat population, if any. See further 

details in each management unit plan.

Reduce Predation, Competition & Disease

Predation, competition and disease are grouped together 

as a category of concern because ultimately these factors 

relate to balance and imbalance in the ecosystem. 

Improving habitat for salmonids throughout the life cycle 

is the best strategy for addressing these limiting factors. 

Specific measures can also be taken, as follows. 

Extensive research on predation and efforts at predator 

control in the Columbia Basin have been undertaken for 

decades. Control of piscivorous predation has focused 
1 0 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

largely on targeted sports fisheries to remove more of the 

predators and/or direct removal by physical or chemical 

means. Sport fisheries target northern pikeminnow, 

smallmouth bass, channel catfish, and walleye. Predation 

in the estuary is a major source of mortality on both adults 

and juveniles of all listed populations. These issues are 

discussed in greater detail in the Estuary Module. 

Altering Rice Island to prevent tern and cormorant nesting 

was effective in reducing avian predation in the estuary, 

and the NMFS 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion requires 

further reduction in bird habitat on East Sand Island. The 

Biological Opinion also requires development of plans to 

control Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants that 

nest in islands upstream of Bonneville Dam. 

A pinniped hazing program has been implemented at 

Bonneville Dam since 2005, but the efforts have largely 

been ineffective against California sea lions, which are 

not listed as threatened or endangered. The animals may 

leave the area temporarily but return as soon as hazing 

stops. Under section 120 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, states can ask for permission to kill 

individually identifiable sea lions or seals that are having 

a “significant negative impact” on at-risk salmon and 

steelhead, and NMFS can grant that permission, if certain 

legal standards are met. In March 2008, NMFS granted 

the request of the states of Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho to lethally remove problem California sea lions. 

Any animals that are captured may be euthanized if no 

permanent holding facility can be found for them. NMFS 

and representatives of zoos and aquariums are compiling 

a list of pre-approved permanent holding facilities 

interested in receiving a limited number of captured sea 

lions as an alternative to euthanasia. NMFS has 

authorized the states to remove as many as 85 animals 

annually, but estimates that only about 30 animals will be 

removed each year, given the conditions in its 

authorization. 

In addition, non-lethal deterrence methods such as 

firecrackers, rubber projectiles, and capture, marking, and 

relocation will be continued.

Disease in salmonids is caused by multiple factors and 

probably cannot be directly addressed by recovery actions 

except in specific instances of known causal factors. It is 

more likely that nearly all of the recommended recovery 

actions that improve spawning, rearing, and passage 

conditions for steelhead and increase the survival, 

abundance, and productivity of naturally produced fish 

will result in decreasing incidence of disease.

Maintain Low Impacts from Fisheries

Although in general harvest is not considered a major 

threat for the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS, it is 

important to ensure that impacts from fisheries do not 

impede recovery, and to monitor and verify impacts and 

reduce existing uncertainties. The U.S. v. Oregon 

agreement for 2008-2018 will maintain current low 

impacts on Middle Columbia steelhead in the lower 

mainstem and treaty mainstem fisheries. The Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) submitted by 

the States of Oregon and Washington and approved by 

NMFS under the 4(d) rule of the ESA provide a 

mechanism for developing, implementing, and adjusting 

recreational fisheries to maintain the currently estimated 

low impacts on steelhead. Furthermore, NMFS requires 

the states to implement, monitor, and evaluate the effects 

of these plans and to report annually. The continuing and 

additional monitoring and evaluation under the FMEPs is 

expected to further reduce uncertainties regarding 

fisheries impacts.

Address Climate Change

Water temperature and stream flow are factors that will 

remain important throughout steelhead freshwater habitat. 

All strategies and actions that help to lower water 

temperature or prevent further increase will help to 

mitigate climate change. Protecting and/or restoring 

riparian areas to increase shade, as recommended in the 

Plan, is an important strategy for minimizing water 

temperature increases. Additional actions include 

purchasing water rights to leave more water in streams 

and restoration actions to improve channel complexity 

and establish side-channel rearing. Diversity in terms of 

both location and biological characteristics gives any 

species resilience in the face of environmental change. 

This principle underlies the viability criteria as well as the 

recovery strategies presented in this plan.
Science, Service, Stewardship 1 1

Recovery Strategies for the Four Major Population Groups

These summaries of recovery strategies for the four major population groups are drawn from the management unit plans and 

the ICTRT’s status assessment.

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG

Population ICTRT Risk Status

Fifteenmile Creek (Oregon) Viable

Deschutes Eastside (Oregon) Viable

Klickitat (Washington) (provisional) Moderate risk – insufficient data, hatchery influence

Rock Creek (Washington) (provisional) High risk – insufficient data

Deschutes Westside (Oregon) High risk 

White Salmon (Washington) Functionally extirpated (with program for natural recolonization of 

historical habitat after Condit Dam is removed in 2009)

Crooked River (Oregon) Extirpated (with program for reintroduction to historical habitat)

Recovery Scenario: For the Eastern Cascades Slope Tributaries MPG to be considered viable, the Klickitat, Fifteenmile, and 

both the Deschutes Eastside and Westside populations should reach at least viable status. The management unit plans also 

call for at least one population to be highly viable, consistent with ICTRT recommendations. The Rock Creek population 

should reach “maintained” status (25 percent or less risk level). MPG viability could be further bolstered if reintroduction of 

steelhead into the Crooked River succeeds and if the White Salmon population successfully recolonizes its historical habitat. 

Key actions proposed:

• Protect, improve, and increase freshwater habitat for steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be 

targeted to address specific limiting factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Recovery Plan and the 

Washington Gorge plans. 

• Reduce straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural spawning grounds within the Deschutes subbasin.

• Restore historical passage to the upper Deschutes subbasin including the Westside tributaries and Crooked River above 

Pelton Round Butte dam complex and the White Salmon River above Condit Dam. 

• Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion.

• Improve hatchery management to minimize impacts from hatchery releases on naturally produced steelhead within the 

Deschutes Westside and Eastside subbasins and the Klickitat subbasin.

• Fill data gaps for better assessment of Klickitat and Rock Creek steelhead populations. 

• Coordinate among scientists, planners, and implementers of recovery actions on both sides of the Columbia River for 

sequencing of recovery actions and monitoring for adaptive management.
1 2 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

John Day River MPG

Population ICTRT Risk Status

North Fork John Day Highly viable

Upper Mainstem John Day Moderate risk

Lower Mainstem John Day Moderate risk

Middle Fork John Day Moderate risk

South Fork John Day Moderate risk

Recovery Scenario: For the John Day River MPG to reach viable status, 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 should achieve 

at least viable status. The management unit plan also calls for at least one population to be highly viable, consistent with 

ICTRT recommendations.

Key Actions proposed: 

• Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and connectivity for steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater 

habitat should be targeted to address specific factors in specific areas as described in the Oregon Steelhead Conservation 

and Recovery Plan.

• Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural spawning grounds within 

the John Day subbasin.

• Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 

Yakima River MPG

Population ICTRT Risk Status

Upper Yakima River High Risk

Naches River High Risk

Satus Creek Moderate Risk 

Toppenish Creek Moderate Risk 

Recovery Scenario: For the Yakima River MPG to achieve viable status, two populations should be rated as viable, including 

at least one of the two classified as Large - the Naches River and the Upper Yakima River. The remaining two populations 

should, at a minimum, meet the Maintained criteria. The management unit plan also calls for at least one population to be 

highly viable, consistent with ICTRT recommendations.

Key actions proposed:

• Protect and enhance habitat in key tributary watersheds in the Yakima Basin.

• Restore passage to blocked areas in the Naches and Upper Yakima population areas.

• Alter irrigation delivery and storage operations in the Yakima Basin to improve flow conditions for Middle Columbia 

River steelhead and use managed high flows to maintain floodplain habitat.

• Improve channel and floodplain function and reduce predation through the mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers.

• Improve survival in the mainstem Columbia River and its estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module 

(NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008).
Science, Service, Stewardship 1 3

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Population ICTRT Risk Status

Umatilla River Moderate Risk

Walla Walla River Moderate Risk

Touchet River High Risk (provisional because of insufficient data)

Recovery Scenario: For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to be viable, two populations should meet viability criteria. The 

management unit plan also calls for at least one population to be highly viable, consistent with ICTRT recommendations. The 

Umatilla River is the only large population, and therefore needs to be viable. Either the Walla Walla River or Touchet River 

population also needs to be viable.

Key actions proposed: 

• Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and access for steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater 

habitat should be targeted to address specific factors in specific areas as described in the Southeast Washington Plan and 

the Oregon Steelhead Conservation and Recovery Plan.

• Improve hatchery management to reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural spawning grounds within 

the Umatilla/Walla Walla subbasins.

• Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008).

• Coordinate among planners, scientists, and implementers of recovery actions on both sides of the Columbia River for 

sequencing, monitoring, and adaptive management.
1 4 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Time & Cost 

It is important to consider the unique characteristics and 

challenges of estimating time and cost for salmon and 

steelhead recovery, given the complex relationship of 

these fish to the environment and to human activities on 

land. There are many uncertainties involved in predicting 

the course of recovery and in estimating total costs. Such 

uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses 

to recovery actions as well as long-term and future 

funding. NMFS estimates that recovery of the Middle 

Columbia River steelhead DPS could take 25 to 50 years, 

although the optimistic view is that it could be much 

sooner. The management unit plans contain extensive lists 

of actions to recover the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS populations. These projects were 

developed using the most up-to-date assessment of 

Middle Columbia River steelhead recovery needs. The 

management unit plans focus, for the most part, on 

actions within the next 5 to 15 years. 

The minimum total estimated cost of restoring habitat for 

the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is 

approximately $235 million over the initial 5-year period, 

and approximately $996 million over 25 to 50 years for 

all DPS-wide recovery actions for which sufficient 

information exists upon which to base an estimate.

This estimate includes expenditures by local, tribal, state, 

and Federal governments, private business, and 

individuals in implementing both capital projects and 

non-capital work. Administrative costs are embedded in 

the total management unit cost estimates in the table 

above. Preliminary research, monitoring and evaluation 

costs have, in some cases, been estimated at the 

management unit level; however, these costs are not 

included at this time pending completion of research and 

monitoring plans and further development of each project.

Cost estimates for proposed recovery projects were 

developed using the methods described in each 

management unit plan. No cost estimates are provided for 

(1) baseline actions (programs that are already in 

existence and would occur regardless of this recovery 

plan), which are listed as Not Applicable; or (2) actions 

that need costs to be developed, need unit costs, and/or 

need project scale estimates, which are listed as To Be 

Determined. Each management unit will work with

regional experts to identify costs, scale, or unit costs for 

actions that require more information during the public 

comment period. Individual management unit costs will 

be updated with this new information for the final 

steelhead DPS recovery plan.
Science, Service, Stewardship 1 5

Summary of Cost Estimates for Habitat Projects for Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS

Recovery Plan First 5 Years ($M) Project / Program Total ($M)

Oregon $ 103.5 $512.8

Yakima Steelhead6 $91.9 $269.3

SE Washington7 $25.5 $76.4

Klickitat8,9 $12.9 $129.4

Rock Creek10 $0.9 $1.8

White Salmon Steelhead N/A $6.5

DPS Totals $234.7 $996.2

6 The Yakima steelhead plan estimates costs for the first 6 years, and includes a preliminary RME cost estimate of $300K/year. The 5-year estimate is extrapolated from 

the 6-year cost data.

7 The SE Washington plan estimates annual steelhead implementation costs at about $5 million per year. The 5-year estimate is extrapolated by multiplying the annual 

amount by five.

8 The Klickitat plan estimates costs for the first 10 years. The 5-year estimate was extrapolated by dividing the 10-year amount in half.

9 The Klickitat plan uses a 50-year period to estimate its total project costs.

10 The Rock Creek plan estimates costs for the first 3 years and for years 4 to 10. The 5-year estimate was extrapolated by dividing the 10-year amount in half. 

 
1 6 NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

The cost estimates do not include expenses associated 

with implementing actions within the lower Columbia 

River, estuary, or Federal Columbia River Power System 

(FCRPS). Cost estimates for the FCRPS are contained in 

NMFS 2008. Cost estimates for the estuary are included 

in a module that NMFS developed because of the basinwide scope and applicability of the actions to all 13 ESUs 

and DPSs listed as threatened or endangered in the 

Columbia Basin. The module is incorporated into the Plan 

by reference, and it is available on the NMFS Web site: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon Recovery Planning/ESA 

Recovery Plans/Other Documents.cfm. The estuary 

recovery costs could be further refined following public 

comment on the module and on the ESA recovery plan for 

the three listed lower Columbia River ESUs and one 

listed lower Columbia River steelhead DPS in 2009 and 

2010. There are few estimated costs for recovery actions 

associated with harvest to report at this time, because no 

actions are currently proposed that go beyond those 

already being implemented through U.S. v. Oregon and 

other harvest management forums. In the event that 

additional harvest actions are implemented through these 

forums for the purpose of achieving steelhead recovery, 

those costs will be added during the implementation phase

of this recovery plan. All cost estimates will be refined 

and updated over time.

Cost estimates from the draft cost chapters in the 

individual management plans were developed as 

consistently as possible, in that they all applied guidance 

provided by NMFS. However, the approaches vary to 

some degree given the local and independent nature of the 

planning groups. Costs developed in the management unit 

plans were estimated using several basic assumptions 

(i.e., neither baseline costs nor out-of-basin costs were 

included in the estimates) and used similar cost 

calculation methodologies. There are, however, 

differences in the timeframes for cost estimates, whether 

administrative costs were included or not, and whether 

research, monitoring and evaluation costs were calculated. 

The proposed management unit plans’ cost estimates will 

be refined based on public comment, and final cost 

estimates will be included in the final DPS recovery plan 

and management unit plans.

Implementation

NMFS’ vision for recovery implementation is that actions 

identified in salmon and steelhead recovery plans be 

carried out in a cooperative and collaborative manner.

Effectively implementing recovery actions for Middle 

Columbia Steelhead will require coordinating the actions 

of diverse private, local, state and federal parties across 

two states. 

• In Washington, regional recovery boards have taken 

the lead on coordinating recovery implementation 

within the Yakima and Snake management units. 

• In Oregon, an implementation coordinator and 

reformed advisory board will be the lead on recovery 

plan implementation, supported by the governance 

structure for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds. 

• Actions in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the 

ocean are implemented by a broad range of partners, 

including NMFS, the Bonneville Power 

Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, federal land management 

agencies, state and tribal fisheries co-managers, the 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership, and local parties 

and jurisdictions interested in salmon recovery. 

• The Mid-C Forum will take the lead in efforts to 

coordinate the actions of these many players at a DPS 

level, supported by both local and regional Science 

Teams.
Science, Service, Stewardship 1 7

Adaptive Management and Research, 

Monitoring and Evaluation

Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a 

method of decision making in the face of uncertainty. It is 

a process of adjusting management actions and/or 

directions based on new information. To do this, it is 

essential to incorporate a plan for monitoring, evaluation, 

and feedback into an overall implementation plan for 

recovery. The plan should link results to feedback on 

design and implementation of actions. 

A regional, collaborative research, monitoring and 

evaluation plan to support adaptive management for the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead will be developed as 

part of implementing this recovery plan.

For More Information

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Elizabeth Gaar, 503-230-5434,

elizabeth.gaar@noaa.gov

Oregon Management Unit

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Rich Carmichael (technical), 541.962.3777,

rcarmich@eou.edu

Sue Knapp (policy), 503.986.6527, 

Suzanne.Knapp@state.or.us

NOAA contact: Rosemary Furfey, 503.231.2149,

rosemary.furfey@noaa.gov

Washington Gorge Management Unit

NOAA contact: Nora Berwick, 503.231.6887, 

nora.berwick@noaa.gov

Yakima Management Unit

Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board

Alex Conley, 509.453.4104, 

aconley@ybfwrb.org

NOAA contact: Lynn Hatcher, 509.962.8911, x-223,

lynn.hatcher@noaa.gov

SE Washington Management Unit

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

Steve Martin, 509.382.4115,

steve@snakeriverboard.org

NOAA contact: Lynn Hatcher, 509.962.8911, x-223,

lynn.hatcher@noaa.gov