Section 3 Background--Middle-ColumbiaRiver Steelhead ESU

3.1Context of Plan Development

Currently there are 17 ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead listed throughout Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; these fall within five geographic recovery domains. The five domains are the Interior Columbia (which is divided into three sub-domains: the Snake River, Mid-Columbia, and Upper Columbia); the Willamette-Lower Columbia; Puget Sound and WashingtonCoast; the Oregon Coast; and theSouthernOregon/NorthernCaliforniaCoast.

For eachdomain, NMFS appointed an independent Technical Recovery Team (TRT) that has geographic and species expertise for the domain and can providea solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The charge of each TRT is to defineESU structures, develop recommendations onbiological viability criteria for ESUs and populations, to provide scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts, and to provide scientific evaluations ofrecovery plans. The TRTsinclude biologists from NMFS, state, tribal, and local entities, agencies, academic institutions, and private consulting groups. Each TRT has used the same biological principles for developing itsrecommended ESU and population viabilitycriteria -- 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. Viability criteria are expressed in terms of abundance, productivity (population growth rate), spatial distribution, and diversity (McElhany et al. 2000).

In each domain, NMFShas worked with state, tribal, local and other Federal stakeholders to develop a planning forum appropriate to the domain, which builds to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led efforts. In this case, the local forum is the Mid-Columbia Sounding Board (MCSB) and the Mid-Columbia Recovery Planning Team. Membership of the MCSB consists of local representatives of communities, agricultural water users, land managers, and industry and environmental interests. The role of the MCSB planning forum is to use TRT and other technical products to develop locally appropriate and locally supported recovery actions needed to achieve species recovery goals. These plans are intended to be scientifically sound, based on local efforts, and realistic road maps to species recovery.

For more information about NMFS, the NPCC, the domains, and the TRTs, see the following Internet sites:

This plan focuses on that portion of the range of Mid-ColumbiaRiver steelhead within the State of Oregon. The State of Washington took responsibility for recovery planning for the portion of the SnakeRiver Basin within its borders. The State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act established six regional boards that comprise of government and tribal representatives, landowners, and private citizens. With substantial funding from Salmon Recovery Board and Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 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 which address the drainages within the State of Washington regarding Mid-Columbia River steelhead.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has the lead in drafting the Mid-ColumbiaRiver steelhead recovery plan with the assistance of a cadre of other entities. Members of ODFW, NMFS staff in eastern Oregon, and various other contributors compiled the information for the Oregon portion of the Mid-ColumbiaRiver basin from multiple sources, including federal, state, tribal, private, and local watershed organizations that are involved in salmon recovery. The draft Mid-ColumbiaRiversteelhead recovery plan will be posted on the NMFS Web ( site to provide an opportunity for informal public response during the development phase. This initial effort is a framework, or progress report, intended to keep the interested reader abreast of the development of the draft plan. In time, comments will be solicited on the draft recovery plan with the intent that an extensive review will occur and the draft will be revised. There will be a subsequent review, including a formal period of public comment by public agencies, environmental organizations, landowners, interested public, and other stakeholders. In 2006, 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, NOAA intends to provide streamlined regulatory assurances for actions that are undertaken to implement recovery. As we implement recovery, monitoring, research and evaluation will have to be high priorities. Adjustments to on the ground actions in response to new information will be incorporated as we learn. 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.

3.2Overview of Recovery Goals

A simplified way of looking at species recovery includes addressing those factors which 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; 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. mykissESUs. The Federal Register notices and technical reports provide a more detailed treatment of the relevant factors for decline for specific ESUs. 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.

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range: West Coast salmon and O. mykisshave 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., timber harvests, road building, livestock grazing, and urbanization) is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation throughout the range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss.

Depending upon the their natal watershed, adults and out-migrating juveniles steelhead encounter between one and three Mainstem Columbia River dams migrating to and from the ocean. Hydroelectric development has modified natural flow regimes resulting in higher water temperatures, 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 ESU are Pelton Dam on the DeschutesRiver and Condit Dam on the White Salmon River. However, minor blockages from smaller dams, impassable culverts, irrigation dams, etc. occur throughout the region.

2.Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes: Historically, salmon and O. mykisswere 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 LifeHistory 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 DeschutesRiver 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 which 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 DeschutesRiver mouth.

Steelhead harvest or fishery impact also occurs in the DeschutesBasin sport and tribal dipnet fisheries (which occurs immediately below SherarsFalls in years when fall salmon runs are significant). The required release of wild fish, catch of many non-local fish, and the reliance on catch record card data for catches above SherarsFalls make estimation of fishery impacts on wild DeschutesRiver 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. mykissin 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. mykisssurvival. In general, very little current or historical information exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable to these diseases. Native O. mykisspopulations 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 and O. mykissESUs have provided the incentive for numerous protective efforts. While many causes of decline in salmon and O. mykissESUs 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-ColumbiaRiver 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. mykisspopulations. Natural climatic conditions have at different times exacerbated or mitigated the problems associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. Extensive hatchery programs have been implemented throughout the range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. Artificial propagation may play some role in salmon and O. mykissrecovery. The state natural resource agencies (ODFW, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted or are implementing natural salmonid policies designed to ensure that the use of artificial propagation is conducted in a manner consistent with the conservation and recovery of natural, indigenous salmon and O. mykissstocks.

Water quality impairment that affects spawning, migration and rearing is a problem in many areas of designated critical habitat for Mid-ColumbiaRiver steelhead. Summer stream temperature is the primary water quality problem for this ESU, and many of the stream reaches designated as critical habitat are listed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list for water temperature. Many areas that were historically suitable rearing and spawning habitat are now unsuitable due to high summer stream temperatures. Elevated stream temperatures may form thermal barriers to juvenile migration within tributaries. Removal of riparian vegetation, alteration of natural stream morphology, and water withdrawal for agricultural or municipal use all contribute to elevated stream temperatures. 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 ESU.

Low summer streamflows are also a common characteristic affecting spawning, rearing, and migration. Withdrawal and storage of natural stream flow in spawning and rearing areas have altered hydrological cycles, causing a variety of adverse impacts to Mid-ColumbiaRiver steelhead habitat. Increased summer stream temperatures, migration blockages, stranding of fish, and alteration of sediment transport processes can result from water withdrawal for irrigation or municipal use (NMFS 1996; Spence et al. 1996). In many river basins, the amount and quality of available rearing habitat have been reduced by water withdrawals. Many stream reaches are over-appropriated under state water law, with more allocated water rights than existing streamflow conditions can support.

Spawning and rearing steelhead require physically complex lotic habitats with pools, large woody debris, undercut banks, and substrates with low levels of fine sediments (Spence et al. 1996; Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Although these habitat conditions are still present in many areas, large-scale assessments (McIntosh et al. 1994) and recent subbasin assessments and plans (NWPCC 2004) indicate that habitat complexity has been greatly reduced in many areas. Channel and riparian alterations for agricultural purposes, transportation, mining, forestry and other development activities have affected freshwater life stages by reducing overall habitat complexity, cover, food availability, and spawning and rearing quality and quantity.