Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery wbr Plan for SE

Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington Prepared By Snake River Salmon Recovery Board for the Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office December 2006 Version PREFACE The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (SRSRP) has been developed in a locally-focused, open, public process. It identifies actions that interests in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region (Region) intend to implement to assist in the overall effort to restore salmon populations to levels that are biologically, culturally and economically viable. In developing the October 2005 Version of the SRSRP, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) has identified several statements to guide the implementation and understanding of the SRSRP as follows: 1. MONITORING Monitoring standards and protocols for recovery actions were not finalized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time the October 2005 Version of the SRSRP was completed. It is important that the monitoring efforts identified in the SRSRP are reviewed for consistency with those identified by NMFS once finalized. For this reason, the SRSRB reserves the right to revise the SRSRP monitoring section when the NMFS standards are available. 2. RECOGNITION The SRSRB requests that the State of Washington and the federal government recognize: 1) the work that has been completed in development of the SRSRP and 2) the actions that have been and will be implemented for recovery of salmon in the Region. The SRSRB requests that NMFS consider establishing recovery objectives for populations, or major population groupings where applicable, that allow for the Region’s management units to be “provisionally” de-listed pending work yet to be completed outside of the Region. 3. REGULATORY CONTROL The SRSRB intends that the SRSRP provide the mechanism for local governments to retain control over local ordinances and regulations. Regardless, by identifying these recovery actions the SRSRB does not intend that the actions become regulatory. The SRSRP identifies numerous types of actions that will be considered for implementation in the various funding processes available. The specific projects implemented will be based on funding priorities identified in these processes as well as the overall funding available for projects. The SRSRB does envision that regulatory relief through expedited permitting processes will be provided for actions in the SRSRP. 4. IMPLEMENTATION The Plan defines the Region’s desired implementation structure including roles, functions and relationship to the lead entity and watershed planning units. This language has been included in Chapter 8 of the SRSRP. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington December 2006 Version 5. RECOVERY In the SRSRP, the SRSRB has identified the metric it intends to use as a “surrogate” for SRSRP validation. This metric is the number of juvenile offspring produced per adult that leave the Region on an annual basis. As the SRSRP is implemented, the SRSRB expects this number to increase. This is the only metric that is useful for determining whether the actions taken under the SRSRP are effective at assisting in recovery of the Region’s salmon populations because the Region has no control over factors that affect productivity outside of the Region (i.e. in the mainstem Columbia River, Columbia River estuary, and ocean). Regardless, it is paramount that all in-Region and out-of-Region factors that affect salmon recovery be addressed to accomplish recovery of these populations. 6. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT The SRSRP is a dynamic document subject to change as more information is accumulated from monitoring efforts. The SRSRP incorporates an adaptive management approach that accommodates this fact. The SRSRB requests that NMFS recognize this fact and include it in the federal register notice when the SRSRP is posted for review. 7. ECONOMICS The SRSRB recognizes all benefits provided by the implementation of the SRSRP. Healthy salmon populations provide for economic benefits generated from tribal, commercial and sport fishing industries. Additional benefits include improved water quality and quantity for industry, agriculture, recreation and human health. In addition, economic benefits include those related to regulatory relief, expedited permitting, and reduced permitting expenses. 8. INVENTORY The SRSRP should report a definitive baseline for the actions that are recommended in the plan (e.g., twenty years ago there were 1,000 poorly screened diversions, today there are only 200 and the target is to properly screen all 1,000 by 2010). The same information for riparian buffers, upland practices, fish passage barriers, in each subbasin and/or MSA needs to be reported. The SRSRB recognizes that this information is generally available, but it has not yet been compiled by the implementing organizations because of the time needed for and cost of assembling this information. The intent of this inventory will be to identify for and provide credit to all interested parties for the significant amount of work has already occurred. This inventory and baseline identification needs to occur as soon as is practicable. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington December 2006 Version TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. RECOVERY PLANNING WITHIN THE SNAKE RIVER REGION...................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 RECOVERY PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY REGION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON............................................................................................................. 5 SALMONID ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 9 FACTORS AFFECTING POPULATION VIABILITY......................................................................... 19 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5. FACTORS AFFECTING HABITAT ................................................................................... 20 FACTORS RELATED TO THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM............................................................................................................................... 22 FACTORS RELATED TO HATCHERIES ......................................................................... 28 FACTORS RELATED TO HARVEST ............................................................................... 29 FACTORS OUTSIDE THE RECOVERY REGION ........................................................... 29 SUMMARY OF OUT-OF-REGION EFFECTS ON SALMON SURVIVAL .................... 31 RECOVERY GOALS AND PLANNING TARGETS .......................................................................... 33 5.1 5.2 5.3 6. ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY ............................................................................. 34 DIVERSITY AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE ...................................................................... 37 BULL TROUT RECOVERY GOALS................................................................................. 38 PLANNING STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 39 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7. HABITAT STRATEGY ....................................................................................................... 40 HYDROELECTRIC STRATEGY ....................................................................................... 45 HATCHERY STRATEGY................................................................................................... 45 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION FOR RECOVERY OF LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................... 46 HARVEST STRATEGY ...................................................................................................... 47 ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 48 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 HABITAT ACTIONS .......................................................................................................... 48 HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM ACTIONS .......................................................................... 56 HATCHERY ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 56 HARVEST ACTIONS.......................................................................................................... 57 EFFECTS OF THE RECOVERY PLAN ON LISTED SPECIES ....................................... 57 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington i December 2006 Version 8. IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................................... 61 8.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE, ROLES, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................... 61 8.1.1 Plan Implementation Overview ............................................................................... 61 8.1.2 Public Support Expectations.................................................................................... 62 8.1.3 Technical Support Roles.......................................................................................... 63 8.1.4 Regional Technical Team (RTT)............................................................................. 63 8.1.5 Implementation Work Group (IWG) ....................................................................... 63 8.1.6 Lead Entity Program................................................................................................ 63 8.1.7 Representing the Region.......................................................................................... 63 RECOVERY ACTION IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 64 8.2.1 Recovery Action Accomplishments ........................................................................ 64 8.2.2 18-Month Implementation ....................................................................................... 64 8.2.3 Continuing Implementation ..................................................................................... 65 8.2.4 Land Use Planning................................................................................................... 66 IMPLEMENTATION UNKNOWNS .................................................................................. 68 8.3.1 Policy and Legislative Uncertainties ....................................................................... 68 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH....................................................................................... 70 SCHEDULE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COMMITMENTS ........................................... 71 8.5.1 Schedule and Milestones ......................................................................................... 71 8.5.2 Responsibilities and Commitments ......................................................................... 71 LEAD ENTITY STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ............................................................................... 72 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RESULTS ..................................................... 73 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9. RM&E PLAN...................................................................................................................................... 74 9.1 CURRENT RM&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 74 9.1.1 Coordination of Data Gathering and Research ........................................................ 75 9.1.2 Coordination of Quality Assurance and Quality Control ........................................ 75 DATA GAPS ........................................................................................................................ 75 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.................................................................................................................................... 81 9.3.1 Environmental Monitoring ...................................................................................... 84 9.3.2 Biological Monitoring ............................................................................................. 86 9.3.3 Analysis and Model Evaluation............................................................................... 88 9.3.4 New RM&E Projects ............................................................................................... 92 9.3.5 Data Documentation and Reporting ........................................................................ 93 9.3.6 Adaptive Management............................................................................................. 93 9.2 9.3 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington ii December 2006 Version LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 State of Washington Salmon Recovery Program.................................................................... 2 Map of Snake River Salmon Recovery Region ...................................................................... 6 Snake River Region Bull Trout (Known and Presumed Presence) ...................................... 10 Snake River Region Steelhead (Known and Presumed Presence)........................................ 11 Snake River Region Spring Chinook Salmon (Known and Presumed Presence)................. 12 Snake River Region Fall Chinook Salmon (Known and Presumed Presence) ..................... 13 Snake River Region MSA & mSA Areas ............................................................................. 17 Snake River Region EDT Reaches ....................................................................................... 23 Viability Curves for Snake River and Mid-Columbia ESU Summer Steelhead (ICTRT 2004) ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Viability Curves for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Populations within the Snake River ESU............................................................................................................................. 36 Snake River Region Priority Reaches................................................................................... 42 Figure 12. Conceptual Model for Discerning Relevant Data Gaps ............................................................ 75 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board .................................................................................... 3 Endangered Species Act Status of Key Species and Populations Within the Recovery Region..................................................................................................................................... 9 Major Groupings and Populations for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU ............ 14 Major Groupings and Populations for the Snake River and Mid-Columbia Steelhead ESUs ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Definition of Viable Salmonid Population Attributes .......................................................... 15 Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations Within the SE Washington Recovery Region................................................................................................................................... 16 EDT Habitat Factors ............................................................................................................. 21 Primary and Secondary Limiting Factors for Streams and Subbasins within the Snake River Recovery Region......................................................................................................... 24 Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Restoration Potential for Within the Recovery Region and Out-of-Recovery Region by Subbasin. ............................................. 31 Classification of Recovery Area Subbasins for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead ................................................................................................................ 36 Priority Protection and Restoration Areas Within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington iii December 2006 Version Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Critical Habitat Uncertainties Within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region............... 45 Prioritization of Approaches to Habitat Restoration............................................................. 48 Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA...................................... 50 Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA (continued)................... 51 Annual Costs for Actions in MSAs ...................................................................................... 52 Projected Increases in Abundance, Productivity, and Life History Diversity Resulting from Recovery Actions......................................................................................................... 58 EDT Conclusions Regarding Ability of Recovery Plan to Achieve NMFS Viability Curve Criteria by Subbasin and Species............................................................................... 58 Predicted Production Gap: Expressed in Terms of Mean Adult Abundance, Between NMFS Viability Curve Criteria and EDT Modeling Forecasts of Future Fish Production by Subbasin and Species .................................................................................... 60 Project and Assessments Implemented or to be Implemented in 2006-2007 (18 month Implementation plan)............................................................................................................ 64 Table 19 Table 20. Management Objectives, Assumptions, and Critical Uncertainties for the Recovery Region................................................................................................................................... 78 Table 21. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan – Overview of RM&E....................................................... 82 Table 22. Critical Uncertainties And Corresponding Monitoring And Evaluation Activities Needed To Adaptively Manage The Recovery Process Outlined In This Plan. ................................ 83 Table 23. Environmental Monitoring Indices for Snake River Recovery Area.......................................... 84 Table 24. Measurable Attributes Related to VSP Parameters Likely to be Included in Biological Population Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 87 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Ongoing Recovery Actions Appendix 2 Existing RM&E 2004-2006 Appendix 3 Proposed New RM&E Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington iv December 2006 Version ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BiOp BPA BRT CMS CREP CTUIR DPS EDT ESA ESU FPC FCRPS GMA GRRU GSRO HGMP ICTRT IDFG m2 MSA mSA NMFS NOAA Fisheries NRCS Biological Opinion Bonneville Power Administration Biological Review Team comprehensive statewide monitoring strategy Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Distinct Population Segment Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Endangered Species Act Evolutionary Significant Unit Fish Passage Center Federal Columbia River Power System Growth Management Act Grande Ronde Recovery Unit Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office Hatchery Genetics Management Plan Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team Idaho Department of Fish and Game meters squared major spawning aggregation minor spawning aggregation National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries (same organization as NMFS) National Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington v December 2006 Version ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS(Continued) NPPC ODFW PIT RCW RM&E RTT SAR SEPA SMA SRSRB SRSRP SRWRU TMDL TRMWP TRT USACE USFS USFWS USGS UWWRU VSP WDOE WDFW WRIA Northwest Power Planning Council (formerly NPCC) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife passive integrated transponder Revised Code of Washington research, monitoring, and evaluation Regional Technical Team Smolt-to-Adult Return Rate State Environmental Policy Act Shoreline Management Act Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan Snake River Washington Recovery Unit total maximum daily load Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan Technical Recovery Team United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Service Umatilla Walla Walla Recovery Unit Viable Salmon Population Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed Resource Inventory Area Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington vi December 2006 Version GLOSSARY Abiotic Abundance Age Structure Anadromous Anthropogenic Bycatch Diversity Non-living The average number of fish of any life stage in a given stream, watershed, or basin For adult anadromous fish, the age at spawning; for juvenile anadromous fish, the age at which they migrate to the ocean Fish which are hatched in freshwater, move to saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn Caused by humans or originating with humans Non-targeted fish taken incidentally to a commercial fishery The number of possible self-sustaining life histories exhibited by a population and the robustness of the genetic and environmental conditions that determine life history diversity Refers to the amount of sediment covering gravels on a stream bottom The entry of fish into an irrigation delivery system such as pipes pumping water onto fields Adult fish which, after ascending a dam (or fishway), move back down below the dam The number of eggs per female fish The variability in stream flow during a given period of time, e.g. day, week, month. Streams are considered “flashy” when large amounts of precipitation from storms flows through the stream system very rapidly. Flashiness is characterized by large peak flows followed by rapid declines to base flow conditions. A fish population consisting of a number of local populations linked by migrants, thus allowing for recolonization of unoccupied habitat patches after local extinction events The external appearance of a fish The movement of juvenile salmonids downstream from their natal freshwater streams and rearing areas to the ocean The maximum number of recruits (adults) produced by a single spawner Embeddedness Entrainment Fallback Fecundity Flashiness Metapopulation Morphology Outmigration Productivity Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington vii December 2006 Version GLOSSARY (Continued) Protection Protection involves preserving high quality or productive habitat; or actions (Restoration-Passive) are taken to prevent the further degradation of existing habitat conditions. A relatively homogeneous section of stream having a repetitious sequence of habitat types and relatively uniform physical attributes such as channel slope, habitat width, habitat depth, streambed substrate, and degree of interaction with the floodplain A fish population is considered recovered when the population’s productivity and abundance values meet or exceed the viability criteria established by NMFS. When applied to salmonid populations, this term means rebuilding a population to a healthy, sustainable, and harvestable level (beyond the level required for de-listing) where treaty trusts/rights and nontreaty harvest needs can be satisfied. Regarding habitat, restoration means returning an ecosystem as closely as possible to its original state. Active restoration involves a greater emphasis on direct intervention, often within the stream channel itself. Areas targeted for active restoration may also receive passive restoration. Examples of active restoration include engineered restoration of stream channels; engineered log jams and addition of large woody debris; removal or relocation of dikes, levees, and embankments; creation of pools; and hydraulic reconnection of historical side channels. Passive restoration includes agreements, ordinances, contracts and other legal actions that lead to reduction of disturbance in the riparian zones and uplands associated with streams. Such measures as Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) riparian buffers, conservation easements, land acquisition, and, where appropriate, upland projects designed to reduce sediment delivery and increase filtration are examples of passive restoration. Passive restoration can also be termed “natural healing.” The seaward migrating stage of juvenile salmonid development The number and location (distribution) of salmon populations in the ESU or basin In harvest management, stocks are spawning aggregations with a uniform life history pattern and a relatively constant productivity over all spawning reaches. Reach Recovery Restoration Restoration – Active Restoration – Passive Smolt Spatial Structure Stock Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington viii December 2006 Version 1. 1.1 RECOVERY PLANNING WITHIN THE SNAKE RIVER REGION INTRODUCTION This document is a summary of the Snake River Salmon Recovery plan (SRSRP) produced by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB). The plan has been written to satisfy the requirements of the State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act of 1998 (RCW 77.85). The summary is being distributed to inform the public about the plan formulated by the SRSRB. The full plan will be available to interested persons by the end of April 2005 and can be obtained from the SRSRB office. 1.2 RECOVERY PLANNING Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations within the Columbia River Basin have suffered declines due to a variety of causes including agricultural activity, logging, urbanization, overharvest, and dams. State and federal government agencies, tribal governments, environmental organizations, fishing interests, local entities, and the public at large agree that halting and, if possible, reversing the decline is important to the social, cultural, economic, and environmental well-being of the region. Recovery plans are a vital part of the effort to combat the decline of salmon; the goal of the plans is to produce a guide for the long-term implementation of actions designed to restore populations to a healthy state. Many populations of salmonids have been reduced to very low levels within the State of Washington, resulting in some populations being listed as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species act. It is obvious that something must be done if these populations are to be saved from extinction. The citizenry of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region consider recovery of salmonids in their area to be highly desirable. Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are valuable in many ways to the people of the region. They are harvested in commercial (outside the region) and recreational (inside and outside the region) fisheries as well as taken for tribal ceremonial purposes. Native Americans place great value on salmonids as a religious, nutritional, economic, and cultural resource. The salmon is omnipresent in the culture of regional tribes and is still treated ceremonially in the recovery region as it has been for thousands of years. The salmon is also an enduring symbol of the Pacific Northwest for non-Native peoples. For many people who will never catch a salmon, it is important to know that salmon are still present in Northwest rivers and streams as an indication of high environmental quality and as a symbol of regional identity. Recovery planning for salmon is defined by the State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act of 1998 (RCW 77.85) as “a state plan developed in response to a proposed or actual listing under the federal endangered species act that addresses limiting factors including, but not limited to harvest, hatchery, hydropower, habitat, and other factors of decline.” In addition to aiding in the recovery of salmon populations within the state, Washington’s goal in embarking upon the recovery planning effort was to retain responsibility for managing the state’s resources rather than relying on the federal government to do so. The recovery planning process is designed to provide an opportunity to incorporate best available scientific information with local enhancement efforts. The objective in adopting this approach is a plan, capable of being implemented, that can be used to remove currently listed species from the threatened or endangered species designation and maintain healthy, viable, sustainable, and harvestable populations of those species. It should be noted that actions proposed under the plan are voluntary and that no single entity is required to fund or implement any action. However, numerous actions of the types called for in this plan have been implemented and are ongoing. Coupled with the strong commitment of the region to implement this plan, this indicates the certainty that the plan will be implemented. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 1 December 2006 Version To guide regional groups entering into salmonid recovery planning, “An Outline for Salmon Recovery Plans” was developed by the State of Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC), and other local and regional organizations. The outline establishes the approach to salmon recovery planning and identifies the important components of a plan. NMFS and USFWS have the ultimate responsibility of deciding if actions implemented by the salmon recovery regions have successfully restored salmonid populations to the point where they can be de-listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In order to guide salmon recovery programs, NMFS established Technical Recovery Teams (TRT) for the Pacific Northwest and northern California. The TRTs are to act as advisors for groups entering into salmon recovery planning. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Region falls into NMFS’ Interior Columbia region. Organizations involved in the Interior Columbia Basin TRT (ICTRT) include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Columbia Inter-tribal Fish Commission, USFWS, University of Montana, and the University of Washington. USFWS has a separate process for guiding recovery programs for bull trout. For bull trout, the USFWS has the ultimate responsibility to determine when this species has been successfully restored to the point where they can be delisted. To aid in salmon recovery planning, the state was divided into regions: Snake River, Northeast Washington, Upper Columbia Basin, Middle Columbia Basin, Lower Columbia River, Puget Sound, and the Washington Coast (Figure 1). The planning effort in each region is funded by Washington’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board established by the Salmon Recovery Act. “Lead Entities” were organized as precursors to regional recovery organizations. The Lead Entities were locally-based committees reliant upon citizen volunteers to provide a framework for restoration of salmon habitat; the Snake River Lead Entity developed habitat protection and restoration strategies in 1999 that form the basis for the recovery plan. Figure 1 State of Washington Salmon Recovery Program Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 2 December 2006 Version For the Snake River region, the Lead Entity is the SRSRB. The SRSRB comprises government and tribal representatives, landowners, and private citizens. Table 1 shows the affiliations of the voting SRSRB members. Table 1 Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Affiliation Garfield County Columbia County Walla Walla County Garfield County Asotin County Asotin County Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Columbia County Garfield County Walla Walla County Asotin County Columbia County Walla Walla County Whitman County Whitman County Constituency Landowner Landowner Irrigation District Citizen Landowner Citizen Tribal Representative Commissioner Commissioner County Representative Commissioner Citizen Citizen Citizen Commissioner The SRSRB defined its mission as protection and restoration of salmon habitat, consistent with the recovery plan, for current and future generations. The following recovery priorities were established by the SRSRB. • • • Habitat Protection: protect existing high-quality salmonid habitat Habitat Restoration: restore degraded salmon habitat Public Support/Involvement: Facilitate widespread support for salmonid habitat protection and restoration activities among taxpayers, landowners, civic groups, and businesses Actions targeting hatcheries, harvest, and the hydroelectric system will be addressed and implemented by other planning and regulatory programs. The SRSRB operates through several committees including the Executive Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Lead Entity Project Review and Ranking Committee. In addition, the SRSRB has appointed a Regional Technical Team (RTT) to review and provide in-put to the recovery effort from the technical and scientific standpoints. The RTT has reviewed information leading to creation of the plan including the methods and strategies that lead to formulation of salmonid restoration actions. The RTT worked with the SRSRB to ensure that policies and the recovery plan’s implementation strategies were based on best available science. Furthermore, it is intended that the RTT will be involved in implementation of the plan as well as monitoring and evaluation. Membership in the RTT consisted of the following organizations as of March 1, 2005: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), GSRO, WDFW, Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and USFWS. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 3 December 2006 Version Salmon recovery planning is part of a larger array of planning taking place within the region. Recovery planning must be cognizant of other plans which have been or are being formulated and must seek consistency with those plans to the extent possible. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board considers that the SRSRP is based primarily on the subbasin plans developed by local entities in partial response to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Plans which may affect or be affected by the SRSRP include Habitat Conservation Plans and other documents developed under the ESA, State of Washington habitat preservation programs, conservation reserve enhancement programs, watershed plans, and harvest management plans. In addition, master plans and comprehensive plans developed by communities, as well as land and water use plans for communities and counties may affect the SRSRP by defining what can and cannot be done to lands and water within certain geographic areas. Where possible, the SRSRP will coordinate with the goals of other applicable plans. The recovery plan has sought to actively integrate the various planning efforts to achieve consistency, to the extent possible, among the plans and to make use of data and information from the other plans. Many of the plans have similar broad goals and objectives, facilitating coordination and communication across planning efforts. The planning process was initiated in February 2004 and the first phase was completed in June 2005. Additional work was completed on the plan in a "transition phase" and a version of the plan was submitted to GSRO in October 2005. The October 2005 version of the plan received additional agency and public comments and the updated version, this document, was completed in December 2006. This iteration of the plan lays the foundation for recovery actions over the next 15 years. It is expected that, as new information becomes available, changes will be made to the plan. The public has been involved throughout the recovery planning process. Methods through which the public has been involved include: establishment of a website (www.snakeriverboard.org), advertisements, press releases, public displays, SRSRB meetings, public workshops, and a speakers’ bureau. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 4 December 2006 Version 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY REGION OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON The Snake River Salmon Recovery Region is generally characterized by rolling, semi-arid lands flanked by the forested Blue Mountains in the south. The major rivers draining the recovery region are the Columbia, Snake, Grande Ronde, Tucannon, and Walla Walla rivers and Asotin Creek. Annual precipitation ranges from 5 inches in eastern areas to more than 45 inches in the Blue Mountains. The counties encompassed by the recovery region are: Asotin, Columbia, part of Franklin, Garfield, Walla Walla, and part of Whitman (Figure 2). (Note that only part of Whitman and Franklin counties are within the region.) The largest cities and towns in the recovery region include Walla Walla, College Place, Pullman, Clarkston, Dayton, Pomeroy, and Asotin. The Snake River provides transportation for many of the region’s products which are barged downstream to the Columbia River and lower Columbia River ports for transshipment to national and international destinations. The recovery region is dominated by cropland/pasture land, mixed rangelands, and forest lands. Forest land is centered in the Blue Mountains with the remaining area dominated by cropland and pasture. Land use is closely tied to water use in the western portion of the recovery region and to rainfall in the eastern portion. The economy of the region is primarily dependent upon agriculture. The major agricultural crops include spring wheat, winter wheat, and barley. Peas and lentils are grown as well as apples, cherries, asparagus, onions, alfalfa, and wine grapes. Livestock is also an important agricultural commodity. Other economic factors include industry (primarily related to agriculture), education, recreation, tourism, and government. The recovery region is sparsely populated, with residents scattered throughout the area in communities of less than 1,000 people or clustered in a few larger cities. The cities of Walla Walla and College Place comprise the largest urban area in the region. Garfield County is the least populous with a population of 2,397; Walla Walla County is the most populous with 55,180 residents. Population growth has generally been slow, with the exception of Walla Walla County which increased in population by 29 percent between 1970 and 1990; growth during the 1990s was about 9 percent. The topography of the region is largely defined by structures which have resulted from faulting, folding, and erosion of basalts. Basalts are rocks that usually originate as lava flows. The Columbia River Basalts were erupted from volcanoes between 6 million and 17 million years ago; the resulting layers have a combined thickness of many thousands of feet. Catastrophic floods occurred in the area 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. Sediments (sands, gravels, silts, and clays) deposited by rivers, streams, and volcanoes lie on top of the basalts. The northern portion of the region is characterized by wind-driven silty soils (loess) up to 100 feet thick. The Snake River originates in Idaho and Wyoming, enters Washington at the far southeast corner of the state and forms the border with Idaho. It then turns west and flows over 100 miles until it joins the Columbia River near Pasco, Washington. Major tributaries to the Snake River in the recovery region include Asotin Creek and the Tucannon, Grande Ronde, and Palouse rivers. The Walla Walla River flows directly into the Columbia River just downstream from the mouth of the Snake. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 5 December 2006 Version Figure 2 Map of Snake River Salmon Recovery Region Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 6 December 2006 Version The six major dams in the recovery region (Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor on the Snake River; Starbuck on the Tucannon River; and the Mill Creek Project on the Walla Walla River) were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation (inland navigation), irrigation water, and flood control. Each is equipped with some type of fish passage facility such as bypass systems, juvenile transportation, and fish ladders; the effectiveness of the structures varies by project. The hydrology of the Snake River has been altered by creation of shallow reservoirs behind its four dams in Washington. The Snake River supplies about 20 percent of the Columbia River flow. The flows from undammed tributaries are highly variable with seasonal high flows coinciding with winter precipitation and spring snowmelt. Summer base flows in tributaries such as Asotin Creek, Touchet River, and Tucannon River are 20 to 25 percent of peak winter/spring flows. Water withdrawal within the recovery region and in Oregon for irrigation has had substantial effects on the Walla Walla River and other recovery region streams. In addition, water withdrawals from the Grande Ronde River in Oregon affect the recovery region. Channelization has occurred in floodplains in the recovery region primarily to reduce flooding through urban areas, rural residential developments, and agricultural areas. Riparian vegetation has been removed to convert land to agricultural and residential uses. Water for agricultural, domestic, and commercial uses is also obtained from groundwater sources. Groundwater is pumped from aquifers in fractured, porous portions of the basalt flows. The primary use of groundwater is for irrigation. Prior to the arrival of settlers in the early 19th century, the Lower Snake River watershed was covered by prairie and canyon grasslands and shrub-steppe vegetation at the low to mid-elevations. Forests dominated as elevation and proximity to the Blue Mountains increased. The riparian zones along streams were covered with lush vegetation including grasses, shrubs, and large trees such as cottonwoods. Today, much of the riparian habitat has been lost or modified through conversion to cropland and livestock pasture as well as urban development. Noxious weeds and invasive plants have been introduced into the region and have supplanted native species in many cases. The SE Washington Salmon Recovery Region supports both anadromous and resident fish species including fall and spring/summer Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, bull trout, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and the non-native brown trout. (Brown trout are present only in isolated areas of the Touchet and Snake Rivers and are not widely distributed in the recovery region.) Sockeye salmon use the Snake River as a migration corridor to spawning grounds in Idaho. More than 250 species of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals occur in the recovery region including black bear, deer, ring-necked pheasant, chukar, wild turkey, mink, muskrat, great blue heron, raccoon, coyote, and bobcat. Protected terrestrial species are bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Washington ground squirrel, and gray wolf, and Canada lynx. Aquatic species that are threatened or endangered include Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead, Snake River sockeye salmon, Middle Columbia River steelhead, bull trout, and lamprey. The major fish hatchery in the recovery region is Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery located downstream of the confluence of the Palouse and Snake rivers. The hatchery, which is operated by the WDFW, owned by USFWS and funded by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), is used for rearing, adult collection, and Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 7 December 2006 Version egg incubation of spring/summer Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, and steelhead. The Lyons Ferry hatchery has four satellite facilities. Tucannon Hatchery and the Curl Lake Rearing Pond are located on the Tucannon River, the Cottonwood Rearing Pond is on the Grande Ronde River, and the Dayton Rearing Pond is located on the Touchet River. The Tucannon Hatchery rears spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout. The Curl Lake facility is used to rear spring Chinook salmon, while the two other rearing ponds are used for steelhead. Another fish facility is the Captain John Acclimation Facility on the Snake River. This facility, operated by the Nez Perce with funding from BPA, acclimates fall Chinook salmon from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 8 December 2006 Version 3. SALMONID ASSESSMENT The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan addresses bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Chinook salmon are further subdivided into spring/summer and fall populations, based on their run timing. The key species for the recovery plan were chosen because of their status under the federal Endangered Species Act (Table 2). In addition, all of the key species in the recovery region are listed as “Species of Concern” by the State of Washington. Table 2 Endangered Species Act Status of Key Species and Populations Within the Recovery Region Population(s) N/A N/A N/A Chinook salmon Sockeye salmon* Spring/summer Fall N/A ESU or DPS Columbia River DPS Snake River ESU Mid-Columbia River ESU Snake River ESU Snake River ESU Snake River ESU ESA Listing Status Threatened Threatened Threatened Threatened Threatened Endangered Listing Date June 1998 June 1998 August 1999 April 1992 April 1992 November 1991 Species Bull trout Steelhead trout *Sockeye salmon are not resident in this recovery region. ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS = Distinct Population Segment. The recovery plan encompasses the Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla, Tucannon, and Asotin subbasins within the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and the Washington portions of the Walla Walla and Grande Ronde subbasins within the Snake River and MidColumbia steelhead ESUs. Known and presumed presence of the key species is found on Figure 3 through Figure 6. Presence includes spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Sockeye salmon migrate through the recovery region, but spawn and rear higher in the Snake Basin. No ESU is completely contained within the recovery region. Populations of the key species are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The streams and populations within the Snake River Salmon Recovery region are in bold type. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 9 December 2006 Version Figure 3 Snake River Region Bull Trout Known and Presumed Presence Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 10 December 2006 Version Figure 4 Snake River Region Steelhead Known and Presumed Presence Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 11 December 2006 Version Figure 5 Snake River Region Spring Chinook Known and Presumed Presence Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 12 December 2006 Version Figure 6 Snake River Region Fall Chinook Known and Presumed Presence Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 13 December 2006 Version Table 3 Major Groupings and Populations for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU Major Groupings Populations Tucannon River, Asotin Creek Upper Grande Ronde, Wallowa/Lostine, Imnaha, Catherine Creek, Minam, Wenaha, Big Sheep Creek, Lookingglass Creek, Joseph Creek S.F. Salmon, Secesh, Little Salmon Tributaries, E.F. S.F. Salmon Upper Middle Tribs, Chamberlin Creek/Tribs, Big Creek, Bear Valley/Elk Creek, Marsh Creek, Loon Creek, Camas Creek, Lower Middle Fork Tribs, Sulphur Creek Lemhi, Upper Salmon and Tribs, Pahsimeroi, Upper Salmon, Lower Panther Creek, E.F. Salmon River, N.F. Salmon River, Valley Creek, Yankee Fork Lower Snake Mainstem Tributaries Grande Ronde/Imnaha S.F. Salmon River M.F Salmon River Upper Salmon River Table 4 Major Groupings and Populations for the Snake River and Mid-Columbia Steelhead ESUs Populations Tucannon River (includes Penawawa, Alkali Flat, Deadman, and Meadow creeks, Lower Palouse River) Asotin Creek (Almota, Tenmile, Steptoe, Couse, Alpowa and Wawawai creeks) Upper Grande Ronde, Lower Grande Ronde, Wallowa, Imnaha, Joseph Creek Lower Middle Fork, Upper Middle Fork, Upper Mainstem, Lemhi, S.F. Salmon, Little Salmon/Tribs, Chamberlain Creek/Tribs, Panther Creek, E.F. Salmon, Pahsimeroi, N.F. Salmon, Secesh, Hells Canyon Tribs Populations Klickitat, Fifteen Mile, Deschutes (east and west), White Salmon, Rock Creek Lower mainstem Tribs, N.F. John Day, M.F. John Day, S.F. John Day, Upper Main John Day Umatilla, Walla Walla, Touchet Naches, Yakima River Mainstem, Satus/Toppenish Major Groupings (Snake River ESU) Lower Snake Mainstem Tributaries Grande Ronde/Imnaha S.F. Salmon River Major Groupings (Mid-Columbia ESU) Cascade Eastern Slope Tributaries John Day Umatilla/Walla Walla Yakima Anadromous Pacific salmonids share similar life histories, although each species has developed its own variations and geographic preferences, which allow them to coexist in the same general environment. Salmon and steelhead hatch and rear in freshwater streams and lakes1, but migrate to the ocean to grow and mature. Salmonids typically remain in or near their natal stream during rearing and feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates such as stoneflies and mayflies. The length of time juvenile fish remain in freshwater streams before migrating to the ocean (outmigrating) varies with species and population. For 1 Note that no salmon or steelhead rear in lakes within the recovery region. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 14 December 2006 Version example, some Chinook salmon (i.e. fall Chinook salmon) outmigrate shortly after the yolk sac is absorbed, while steelhead may reside in their natal stream for up to seven years. Migration timing appears to be influenced by several factors including distance to the marine environment, stream stability, stream flow and temperature regimes, stream and estuary productivity, moon phase, and general weather conditions. Salmon and steelhead return to their natal streams from the ocean to spawn. Adult salmon die shortly after spawning as do most steelhead. Some steelhead may return to the ocean, and, in future years, migrate again to their natal streams to spawn. Bull trout are not anadromous in the Snake River system and remain in freshwater their entire lives. NMFS defines the health of a salmonid population in terms of Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters: abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and spatial structure (population distribution). Table 5 lists the VSP parameters and their definitions. Table 5 Definition of Viable Salmonid Population Attributes Definition The average number of fish of any life stage in a given stream, watershed, or basin The maximum number of recruits (adults) produced by a single spawner The number of possible self-sustaining life histories exhibited by a population and the robustness of the genetic and environmental conditions that determine life history diversity The number and location (distribution) of salmon populations in the ESU or the basin Attribute Abundance Productivity Diversity Spatial Structure It should be noted that, although fall Chinook salmon are a key species within the recovery region, VSP criteria and viability curves have not been developed for them by the ICTRT. Therefore, fall Chinook salmon cannot be evaluated for delisting at this time. It is expected that once the criteria have been developed, the recovery plan will be revised to include fall Chinook salmon. At this point, the plan can include only basic biology and demographics for fall Chinook salmon. In addition, because sockeye salmon are not resident within the recovery region, they are not addressed by the SRSRP. The concept of major and minor spawning aggregations is also used by NMFS for determining if natural variation is being maintained in a population. The term “spawning aggregation”, as used by NMFS and the RTT, contains a geographical component, i.e. major and minor spawning aggregations are correlated with the amount of habitat available in a stream. NMFS considers spawning aggregations to be components of the VSP parameter “spatial structure.” The definitions of major and minor spawning aggregations are as follows: • • Major Spawning Aggregation (MSA) – a stream system (with one or more stream branches) capable of supporting 500 spawners. Minor Spawning Aggregation (mSA) – a stream system (with one or more stream branches) with sufficient spawning habitat to support between 50 and 500 spawners. MSAs and mSAs are listed on Table 6. Figure 7 depicts the location of each MSA and mSA in the recovery region. Note that the RTT has classified Pataha Creek and Deadman Creek as mSAs rather than MSAs. This divergence from the ICTRT classification was based on the fact that both systems experience low summer flows, even in historic condition. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 15 December 2006 Version Table 6 Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations Within the SE Washington Recovery Region Mid-Columbia Steelhead ESU: Walla Walla and Touchet MSAs Mainstem Walla Walla mainstem excluding Mill Creek and Touchet River watersheds (Walla Walla population) Mill Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Walla Walla population) Middle Mainstem Touchet River and all tributaries from Coppei Creek to Patit Creek confluence exclusive of Patit Creek (Touchet population) Upper Touchet and all tributaries upstream of Patit Creek confluence (Touchet population) Snake River Steelhead ESU: Asotin, Tucannon, Lower Grande Ronde, and Joseph Creek MSAs Upper Tucannon and all tributaries upstream of Pataha Creek (exclusive of Pataha Creek) Asotin Creek mouth to headwaters exclusive of George Creek George Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Asotin population) Alpowa Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Asotin population) Wenaha River and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Lower Grande Ronde population) Joseph Creek River and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Joseph Creek population) Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU: Tucannon, Wenaha and Asotin MSAs Tucannon River mainstem to headwaters and all tributaries from Pataha Creek to headwaters exclusive of Pataha Creek (Tucannon population) Asotin Creek mouth to headwaters including George Creek (Asotin population) Wenaha River and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Wenaha population) Snake River Fall Chinook ESU: MSAs Mainstem Snake River from mouth to confluence with Clearwater River Mainstem Snake River from confluence with Clearwater River to Hell’s Canyon Dam Mainstem Grande Ronde River from mouth to confluence with Wildcat Creek in Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead ESU: Walla Walla and Touchet River mSAs Patit Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Touchet population) Dry Creek (Dixie) Drainage (Walla Walla population) Pine-Dry Creek- (Walla Walla population) Snake River Steelhead ESU: Tucannon, Asotin and Lower Grande Ronde mSAs Penawawa and Alkali Flat creeks including all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Tucannon population) Pataha Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Tucannon population) Kellog, Smith, Hollow Creeks, and lower Tucannon mainstem below Pataha Creek (Tucannon population) Deadman/Meadow Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Tucannon population) Almota, Wawawai, and Steptoe creeks including all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Asotin population) Tenmile Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Asotin population) Couse Creek and all tributaries from mouth to headwaters (Asotin population) The following lower Grande Ronde River tributaries, from mouth to headwaters, are all part of the Lower Grande Ronde population: Bear Creek, Cougar Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Menatchee Creek, Deer Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Bufford Creek, Grouse Creek and Shumaker Creek Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 16 December 2006 Version Figure 7 Snake River Region MSA & mSA Areas Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 17 December 2006 Version Salmon in the recovery region have commercial, recreational, and existence (passive) values. The primary fish populations within the recovery region with commercial and recreational value are spring/summer Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, and summer steelhead. A variety of analyses have been conducted in the Pacific Northwest on the monetary value of salmon. Most economic research reports the value of salmon in terms of Net Economic Value (NEV) and Regional Economic Impacts (REI). Both figures are difficult to obtain due to a lack of data. However, it appears that NEV for the target species ranges from about $10.00 to $50.00 per harvested fish depending upon the species and the geographic area. REI ranges from approximately $12.50 to $100.00 per harvested fish. Other recent economic analyses conducted in Idaho targeted fish specific to the Snake River basin. The Idaho research paired economic studies with creel survey estimates of angler effort in salmon and steelhead recreational fisheries. Figures from the various Idaho studies revealed that sport harvested hatchery steelhead and hatchery spring/summer Chinook salmon were worth in excess of $2000 per harvested fish in total economic value to communities. The Idaho studies suggest that salmon and steelhead fisheries may be worth millions of dollars to the recovery region’s economy. The SRSRP focuses on selected salmonid species. These species, however, cannot be viewed in isolation. They are part of a complex ecosystem and changes in their distribution, diversity, and abundance will have effects on other species within the ecosystem. Salmon act as predators, prey, competitors, and sources of environmental nutrition within an ecosystem. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 18 December 2006 Version 4. FACTORS AFFECTING POPULATION VIABILITY Salmonids require good water quality, high concentrations of dissolved oxygen, cool water temperatures, sufficient stream flows, stable stream channels, clean spawning gravels, diverse instream and riparian habitat, an adequate and diverse food supply, access to spawning and rearing habitat, and barrier-free migration corridors. Degradation or elimination of any of these requirements will be reflected in the salmonid population and are the “factors affecting viability.” Until Euro-American settlers arrived, the streams and rivers of the recovery region existed in an essentially natural state2. Salmonids are assumed to have been able to exploit all suitable habitats. Stream banks in the lower elevations were likely heavily covered by cottonwood groves and brushy vegetation. Creek channels were fragmented into intricate networks of side channels and sloughs by beaver dams and log jams. Scour pools, dammed pools, and pools on the outside of meanders are thought to have constituted at least 50 percent or more of the channels. Upstream, the number of beaver dams would probably have decreased as the elevation increased, although riparian areas would still have supported cottonwood thickets which would have gradually given way to mixed conifers at the higher elevations. The presence of cottonwoods and conifers along the length of the creek would have assured a steady supply of woody debris to the stream course. Although the soils in the area are prone to erosion, sedimentation and turbidity events would have been less numerous and shorter in duration, allowing fines to be flushed from the system before harming eggs, juveniles, or food organisms. At the higher elevations, streams flowed through meadows interspersed throughout the mixed conifer forest. The meadows retained snowmelt and rain water, gradually releasing it to the stream through the warmer months. Peak stream flows would have been moderated by this gradual release. The stream structure in the higher elevations was likely quite complex due to the abundance of large woody debris. Fallen logs would have created step pools and temperatures would have remained relatively cool during the summer months due to shading by the forest canopy. In steeper areas of the mountains, the stream structure would have been predominately pool/riffle with small cobble and gravel substrates. In addition to the freshwater environment, Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead must pass through the estuary at the mouth of the Columbia River on their way to the ocean. The estuary represents key habitat for juveniles who must make the critical physiological shift from a freshwater to a marine existence. Environmental conditions in the ocean are also critical during the first year of residency there. A significant portion (steelhead may spend 3-4 yr in freshwater and only 1 or 2 in salt) of a salmon’s life is spent in the ocean and they accumulate most of their body mass in the marine environment. It is assumed that the Columbia River estuary was also unimpaired and in equilibrium with hydrologic and geologic processes prior to Euro-American settlement of the area. Snake River salmon range across a vast area of the Northeast Pacific Ocean from the mouth of the Columbia River to southeast Alaska. Salmon and steelhead feed on zooplankton, herring, and sardines in the ocean. Prior to settlement of the west coast of North America by Euro-Americans, it is assumed that both harvest of marine species and impairment of the marine environment were minimal. 2 Impacts from Native Americans inhabiting the area are considered to have been negligible because they lived preindustrial, subsistence life styles and because the human population was a fraction of what it is today. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 19 December 2006 Version It is important to understand that the factors limiting population viability rarely occur in isolation. Salmonids and their habitats have been, and continue to be, subjected to many of these factors, sometimes several at any one time. Some factors can produce lethal results on their own. For example, excessive stream temperatures can kill salmon or salmon eggs in the absence of any other negative factor. However, in many cases, salmon that have returned to their spawning grounds to discover excessive water temperatures may have already experienced impediments to migration, presence of pollutants and fines in the water, and low water levels, among other impacts. Each factor, if excessive, can result in mortalities; when combined at lower intensities, they produce an accumulation of weakening effects which can reduce the strength of individuals and, eventually, populations. General causes of salmonid population declines include hydroelectric generation, hatcheries, agriculture, logging, urbanization (including residential and industrial development), recreation, and harvest. Activities associated with these endeavors have removed riparian vegetation, altered and/or dewatered stream courses, introduced pollutants into streams and wetlands, and blocked or impeded fish passage both up- and downstream. Fish populations have been depleted by over-harvest. Hatcheries have introduced fish with different run timing and fish that prey upon or compete with native fish. Diseases carried by hatchery fish are also a concern. Although impacts from all of the factors discussed can be difficult to effectively mitigate, the SRSRB believes that fixing urban induced problems is the most difficult. This is due to the large number of people that are affected by proposed actions and the costs associated with the actions. Throughout the term of the SRSRP, the SRSRB will however continue to work with and encourage land use planners to develop policies to protect riparian and stream habitat from urban development. A primary focus of this recovery plan is on actions to restore fish production by improving habitat conditions within the subbasins. The focus, established by the SRSRB, does not mean that the dominant limiting factors are confined to the subbasins within the recovery region. In fact, the subbasin plans for all of the populations in the Washington Snake River recovery region concluded that 45 percent of the abundance restoration potential for Walla Walla steelhead, 54 percent of the abundance restoration potential for Tucannon steelhead, and 72 percent of the abundance restoration potential for Asotin steelhead lies outside the subbasins. 4.1 FACTORS AFFECTING HABITAT The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model has been used to identify limiting habitat factors for salmonid populations. EDT is a diagnostic tool which is dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of information entered into it. The monitoring and evaluation program (Section 8.3) is aimed at providing data to refine EDT analysis. EDT has defined sixteen attributes related to restoration of salmon habitat: channel stability, presence of chemicals in the water, competition with hatchery fish, competition with other species, stream flow, food type and availability, habitat diversity, harassment/poaching, fish passage obstructions, pathogens in the water, predation, sediment load, water temperature, water withdrawals, and key habitat quality (Table 7). Each of these attributes, or habitat factors, is related to the list of conditions comprising suitable salmon habitat. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 20 December 2006 Version Table 7 EDT Habitat Factors Description Stability of the reach with respect to its streambed, banks, and its channel shape and location. The more unstable the channel, the lower the survival of eggs and juvenile fish. The amount, pattern, or extent of stream flow fluctuations. Both too much and too little flow in the stream channel can reduce salmon performance. High flows may cause juveniles to leave a stream; low flows may eliminate all production from the stream. The extent of habitat complexity within a stream reach. Complexity is the opposite of uniformity; greater complexity increases survival. Streams with large amounts of wood, boulders, undercut banks, and pools provide better habitat than those that do not. The amount of sediment present in, or passing through, the stream reach. Fine sediment can smother incubating eggs and reduce the quality of juvenile rearing habitat. Water that is too cold or hot can reduce salmon survival at all life stages. In general, fish sensitivity to temperature decreases as fish move from egg to smolt to adult. The relative abundance of predators that feed upon fish. Predators can be fish, mammals, or birds. Concentrations of toxic chemicals and conditions (such as pH) from point and non-point sources. The relative abundance of other species that compete with salmon for food and space in the same stream reach. The relative abundance of hatchery fish that compete with salmon for food and space in the same stream reach. Physical structures, such as dams, weirs, or waterfalls, that impede the use of a stream reach by fish. Water removed from stream channels for irrigation, city water supply, or other uses. Water removal can affect fish by entraining juveniles on pump intakes or lowering water levels. Low water levels can impede fish passage, reduce available habitat, and result in high water temperatures. The amount, diversity, and availability of food available to the fish community. Food sources include macro invertebrates, salmon carcasses, and terrestrial insects. Mean concentration of dissolved oxygen in the stream reach. Low oxygen levels reduce fish survival at all life stages. The abundance, concentration, or effects of pathogens on fish in the stream reach. For example, the presence of a fish hatchery or large numbers of livestock along the reach could cause unusually high concentrations of pathogens. The amount of the key habitat present in the stream for each life stage. An example of key habitat would be riffles in which salmonids spawn. If key habitats are limited, the stream can support fewer salmonids. Humans may reduce the survival of salmonids though such activities as swimming, boating, and poaching, i.e. catching fish illegally. The effects of legal harvest on salmonids are not considered in this factor. Factor Channel stability Stream Flow Habitat diversity Sediment Load Stream Temperature Predation Chemicals Competition with Other Species Competition with Hatchery Fish Obstructions Water Withdrawals Food Oxygen Pathogens Key Habitat Harassment/Poaching EDT analysis has identified primary and secondary limiting factors for the subbasins within the recovery region (Figure 8 and Table 8). It is expected that the information presented in Table 8 will be refined during the life of the recovery plan as additional empirical data becomes available. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 21 December 2006 Version 4.2 FACTORS RELATED TO THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM There are four major dams located on the mainstem of the lower Snake River: Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor. The number of dams encountered by both adult and juvenile migrants depends on the location of their native stream. For example, fish headed for Asotin Creek and the Grande Ronde River migrate past all four dams and reservoirs, Tucannon River fish encounter two, and Walla Walla origin fish do not have to pass any mainstem Snake River dams, although all anadromous fish in southeast Washington must pass upstream of 4 dams on the lower Columbia River. Juvenile migrants arriving at a dam may be collected and transported by barge or truck and released below Bonneville Dam. If not transported, the juveniles migrate in-river, passing four Columbia River Dams (McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville). All of the lower Snake River dams have juvenile bypass systems as well as ladders for adult upstream passage. In-river migrants may pass through juvenile bypass systems, spillways, or turbines, all of which can inflict mortality on the migrants. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 22 December 2006 Version Figure 8 Snake River Region EDT Reaches Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 23 December 2006 Version Table 8 Primary and Secondary Limiting Factors for Streams and Subbasins within the Snake River Recovery Region Subbasin Stream Asotin Creek, George Creek Species Steelhead, Spring/Summer Chinook salmon, Fall Chinook salmon Primary Factors • Sediment • Channel stability • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Temperature • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quantity • Channel stability • Temperature • Sediment • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Channel stability • Low flow • Temperature • Key habitat quantity • Channel stability • Temperature • Sediment • Fish Passage • Sediment • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Flow (low) • Temperature • Competition from hatchery fish • Pathogens • Predation • Food • Channel stability • Flow (peak) • Habitat diversity • Sedimentation • Fish passage • Flow Secondary Factors • Flow Asotin Asotin Charley Creek Steelhead, Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Asotin So. Fork Asotin Creek Steelhead, Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Asotin No. Fork Asotin Creek Steelhead, Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Asotin Bull Trout Walla Walla Lower Mainstem Walla Walla River Steelhead Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 24 December 2006 Version Table 8 Primary and Secondary Limiting Factors for Streams and Subbasins within the Snake River Recovery Region (continued) Subbasin Stream Upper Mainstem Walla Walla River Steelhead Species Primary Factors • Low flow • Habitat diversity Secondary Factors • Channel stability • Harassment • Food • Temperature • Obstructions Walla Walla Walla Walla Touchet River Steelhead • Sedimentation • Habitat Diversity • Temperature • Flow • Channel stability • Habitat diversity • Sedimentation • Temperature • Flow • Fish passage • Key habitat quantity • Sedimentation • Temperature • Habitat diversity • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quantity • Predation • Flow • Channel stability • Fish passage • Key habitat quantity Walla Walla Touchet River Headwaters Steelhead Walla Walla Mill Creek Steelhead Walla Walla Walla Walla Headwaters, So. Fork Steelhead • Channel stability • Flow • Sedimentation • Temperature Walla Walla Walla Walla Headwaters, No. Fork Steelhead • Sedimentation • Channel stability • Flow • Habitat diversity • Temperature Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 25 December 2006 Version Table 8 Primary and Secondary Limiting Factors for Streams and Subbasins within the Snake River Recovery Region (continued) Subbasin Stream Upper Walla Walla Touchet River Mill Creek Upper Tributaries Lower Tucannon River Pataha Creek Bull Trout Species Primary Factors • Fish passage • Sedimentation • Temperature Secondary Factors Walla Walla Tucannon Steelhead • Key habitat quantity • Sedimentation • Habitat diversity • Channel stability • Temperature • Temperature • Key habitat quantity • Sedimentation • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quantity • Predation • Pathogens • Flow Tucannon Lower Tucannon River Pataha Creek Spring/Summer Chinook salmon • Food • Channel stability • Flow • Pathogens • Predation • Habitat diversity • Flow • Channel stability • Sediment • Temperature Tucannon Tucannon Mainstem: Pataha Creek to Marengo Steelhead Tucannon Tucannon Mainstem: Pataha Creek to Marengo Spring/Summer Chinook salmon • Temperature • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Flow • Channel stability • Sediment • Food Tucannon Tucannon Tucannon Mainstem: Marengo to Little Tucannon River Tucannon Mainstem: Marengo to Little Tucannon River Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quality • Flow • Channel stability • Temperature • Channel stability • Food Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 26 December 2006 Version Table 8 Primary and Secondary Limiting Factors for Streams and Subbasins within the Snake River Recovery Region (continued) Subbasin Stream Tucannon River Headwaters Mainstem and tributaries Wenaha River Species Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Bull Trout Steelhead Primary Factors • Key habitat quality • Temperature • Sediment Secondary Factors • Habitat diversity • Channel stability • Fish passage • Key habitat quantity • Temperature • Sedimentation • Key habitat quantity • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quantity • Temperature • Channel stability • Habitat diversity • Key habitat quantity • Food • Predation Tucannon Tucannon Grande Ronde None Grande Ronde Lower Snake Mainstem Lower Snake Mainstem Wenaha River Almota Creek Deadman Creek Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Steelhead None • Sedimentation • Low Flow • Sedimentation • Low Flow Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 27 December 2006 Version In general, passage studies conducted at Columbia River and Snake River dams have indicated that survival of juvenile salmonids migrating in-river is highest through spillways, followed by bypass systems and turbines. The majority of studies have focused on Chinook salmon and steelhead. Data on sockeye survival through the hydrosystem is limited. No data is available on bull trout survival through the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) dams. Snake River dams upstream of the recovery region may also have an effect on regional salmonid populations. For example, Dworshak and Hells Canyon dams alter stream flows and water temperatures in the river and Hells Canyon Dam has blocked fall Chinook salmon from over 95 percent of their historical spawning areas. Passage through the hydroelectric system, both adult passage upstream and juvenile passage downstream, have major effects on populations within the recovery region. While there are facilities to aid fish passage at all mainstem Snake River dams below Hells Canyon Dam, dams still have significant negative effects on populations. Other negative effects of the hydroelectric system include predation on juveniles by other species in tailraces and reservoirs, dissolved gas bubble disease, entrapment and entrainment on/in mechanical portions of the dam (such as turbines), altered water temperatures, adult fallback, and alteration of normal migration rates. NMFS estimates that approximately 50 percent of juvenile salmonids and 10 to 20 percent of adults are killed migrating through the FCRPS. However, in some years (especially low water years), juvenile survival for some species may be as low as 10 percent to 15 percent. It should also be noted that the dams converted the Lower Snake River from below its mouth to Asotin, WA, into reservoir habitat. This change eliminated the majority of fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat and created a situation that favored species, such as northern pike minnow, that prey on juvenile Chinook salmon. It also severely reduced suitable fishing areas for salmon and steelhead 4.3 FACTORS RELATED TO HATCHERIES Hatcheries can have negative effects on wild fish populations from the ecological, biological, and genetic standpoints. The interactions of natural and artificially produced fish are complex and, in some cases, not well understood. Hatcheries represent unique environments with regard to feeding regimes, density, substrate, exposure to predators, and interactions with other fish. These differences can have substantial impacts on the resulting traits of hatchery fish with the potential for ecological impacts when they are released into the natural environment. There is little information available regarding the effects of in-region hatcheries and releases on the survival of recovery region ESA-listed populations. What information is available indicates that the presence of hatchery adults on the spawning grounds may decrease wild fish fitness and survival. Over the last 30 years, at least small numbers of hatchery adults and juveniles have been observed in virtually all stream reaches within the recovery area. More information on the current number of hatchery fish present in the recovery area, as well as their impact upon wild fish, will continue to be collected as part of present and future monitoring efforts. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 28 December 2006 Version 4.4 FACTORS RELATED TO HARVEST There are no directed recreational fisheries within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region targeting adult ESA-listed species. Any harvest of listed populations is the result of catch during selective sport fisheries targeting unlisted hatchery fish or during fisheries for trout or warm water species. The adipose fin is clipped on many hatchery-origin fish. Selective sport fishing requires the release of wild salmon or steelhead indicated by an intact (unclipped) adipose fin; some of the released fish die. In the absence of definitive data on each fishery, NMFS assumes a mortality rate of 10 percent for released fish. In order to minimize release mortality, barbless hooks are required and fish that are to be released may not be totally removed from the water. From 1977 to 2000, sport fisheries for salmon were not allowed by WDFW in the region. Beginning in 2001, limited selective fisheries for spring/summer Chinook salmon have been authorized by WDFW in late April, May and June. These fisheries are managed to stay within the overall harvest rate allowed for all non-Indian fisheries for Snake River and Columbia River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Catches of wild fish and impacts are relatively low. 4.5 FACTORS OUTSIDE THE RECOVERY REGION In addition to factors within the recovery region, Snake River anadromous salmonids are affected by habitat conditions in the Columbia River, the estuary, and the Pacific Ocean. Most juvenile fish migrating downstream are captured at the Snake River dams and transported below the Columbia River dams, but some fish do migrate on their own to the lower Columbia River. The four lower Columbia River dams (McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville) have eliminated 175 miles of rapids, pools, and riffles that formerly characterized the lower Columbia River, replacing them with wide, deep, slow-moving reservoir habitat. The Columbia River is managed to reduce spring freshets and to increase flow in summer and winter. Creation of the reservoirs has widened the river and greatly slowed summer water velocity while increasing the flow volume. Slower water velocities have resulted in increased summer water temperatures which, in turn, reduce survival of adult and juvenile fish. The slower water areas are also the preferred habitat of fish species which prey on juvenile salmonids. The lower Columbia River is home to a large population of Caspian terns that feed extensively on juvenile salmonids. In addition, dams constructed upstream from the recovery region permanently blocked access to habitat that historically supported significant salmonid production. The largest blocked areas are upstream from Dworshak Dam (Clearwater River) and Hells Canyon Dam (Snake Mainstem). The Columbia River estuary is key habitat for salmon because it is the area where juvenile and adult fish make the physiological transition from fresh to saltwater and vice versa. Environmental conditions encountered by juveniles in the ocean, which includes the estuary and the river plume, are important predictors of the success of a brood year and the overall adult return rates. The Columbia River estuary has been extensively modified as a result of local and system-wide changes. The size of the estuary has been reduced through diking and habitat has been lost due to dredging, elimination of side channels through sedimentation, and deposition of dredge spoils. System-wide changes include changes in flow quantity and quality as a result of upriver flow regulation and food web changes resulting from reduction in sediment and organic material due to upriver dams. Changes in the estuarine flow pattern affect many physical and biological characteristics of the environment including sediment delivery and transport (see below). In addition, flow changes affect the tidal and salinity dynamics of the estuary, features that have important impacts on the entire biological community. The change in the hydrograph has affected the size and nature of the freshwater plume that Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 29 December 2006 Version extends from the mouth of the Columbia River. Water quality in the estuary has been degraded by the cumulative effect of land use practices throughout the Columbia Basin. Snake River anadromous salmonids spend a significant portion of their lives and accumulate most of their body mass in the marine environment; they range across vast areas of the North Pacific Ocean from the Columbia River to southeast Alaska. About half the salmon mortality occurs in the ocean. Conditions in the ocean affecting survival are subject to short- and long-term variation and are a source of significant variation in salmon returns to freshwater. Anadromous salmonids are taken in various commercial and sport fisheries within their oceanic range. Marine mammals are known to consume significant numbers of salmon in the near-shore and marine environments. Marine productivity and salmon survival are driven by short- and long-term cycles. Shortand long-term changes in marine productivity cascade through the food chain and affect salmon survival and abundance. Columbia River hydropower facilities are similar to those described for the Snake River and, therefore, most impacts are also similar. The effects of hatcheries are also similar to those discussed above for Snake River dams (Section 4.2). Harvests impacting populations addressed in this recovery plan occur outside the recovery region in the Columbia River and the ocean. Snake River fall Chinook salmon is the only listed population within the recovery region impacted significantly by ocean fisheries. Ocean fisheries include non-Indian commercial and sport salmon fisheries off Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and California, and treaty Indian commercial fisheries off Washington. Columbia River fisheries include non-Indian commercial net fisheries below Bonneville Dam, recreational fisheries from the mouth of the Columbia to the mouth of the Snake River, and treaty Indian commercial and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries above Bonneville Dam. Fisheries are controlled to limit impacts to depressed natural and hatchery populations and ESAlisted populations. Harvest rates are approved by NMFS in consultation with the management agencies and tribes. The fisheries are monitored during the fishing seasons to ensure that allowable impact levels are not exceeded. Fisheries must be managed using the “weak stock” approach, geared to the status of depressed and listed populations, as opposed to maximizing harvest based on the aggregate abundance of all populations. Columbia River fisheries occur mostly in the lower Columbia River, but nevertheless impact most of the Snake River populations addressed by this recovery plan. Impacts can include catches in directed salmon and steelhead fisheries as well as bycatch in non-salmonid fisheries. In addition, catch levels determined by ESA impacts are primarily allocated to the lower Columbia River which does not allow fall Chinook salmon fisheries in the recovery region or expansion of spring/summer Chinook salmon fisheries in the Snake River. For decades, harvests of spring/summer Chinook salmon have been significantly curtailed in response to declines in abundance, and further harvest rate reductions have been implemented in response to ESA listings. The total ocean and in-river harvest rate on Snake River fall Chinook salmon declined from an average of 69 percent for the 1980-1995 period to 46 percent for the 1996-2002 period. NMFS concluded in its most recent biological opinion that the fall season fisheries were not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Most impacts to Snake River steelhead occur in fall season fisheries. In response to concerns about the status of steelhead populations, the tribes and the states have taken actions to reduce steelhead catch rates. The maximum allowable harvest rate for Snake River sockeye is 8 percent; actual harvest rates have been less than 8 percent in Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 30 December 2006 Version recent years. There are no expected out-of-region harvest impacts on bull trout because the bull trout populations covered by the SRSRP likely remain within the recovery region. 4.6 SUMMARY OF OUT-OF-REGION EFFECTS ON SALMON SURVIVAL It is clear from the previous discussion that salmon survival is impacted by a host of causes both within and outside of the recovery region. This recovery plan is focused on improving fish survival within the recovery region, i.e. within the subbasins. Therefore, loss in fish production due to conditions within the recovery region compared to those outside of the recovery region must be determined. If fish losses within the recovery region are minimal, then actions designed to improve these conditions will provide little survival benefit to listed fish populations, making recovery highly unlikely. Fish biologists have estimated what is referred to as “within subbasin” (Within Recovery Region) and “out-of-subbasin” (Out-of-Recovery Region) impacts on fish production as part of subbasin planning. The effects included in the Out-of-Recovery Region were FCRPS flows and operations and the degraded condition of the Columbia River estuary. Within Recovery Region impacts were all based on changes in stream habitat. The effects of Out-of-Recovery Region and Within Recovery Region on fish performance as determined by EDT are shown on Table 9. These data indicate that Out-of-Recovery Region impacts to fish production are quite high. For Tucannon spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead, 36 to 54 percent of the restoration potential (opportunity to improve abundance) lies outside of the recovery region, while for Walla Walla River fish populations the range is 8 to 44 percent. This demonstrates that actions focused on improving habitat within the recovery region are limited in what can be achieved in regard to increasing fish abundance in each basin and attaining recovery objectives. Table 9 Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Restoration Potential for Within the Recovery Region and Out-of-Recovery Region by Subbasin. Life history diversity Within Recovery Region Steelhead Asotin Tucannon Almota Deadman Walla Walla Average Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Asotin Tucannon Walla Walla Average 68% 57% 96% 74% 32% 43% 4% 26% 69% 72% 64% 68% 31% 28% 36% 32% 37% 64% 92% 64% 63% 36% 8% 36% 61% 75% 34% 79% 88% 67% 39% 25% 66% 21% 12% 33% 52% 64% 86% 96% 48% 69% 48% 36% 14% 4% 52% 31% 28% 46% 48% 79% 56% 51% 72% 54% 52% 21% 44% 49% Out of Recovery Region Productivity Within Recovery Region Out of Recovery Region Abundance Within Recovery Region Out of Recovery Region Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 31 December 2006 Version It should be noted that, because a small number of bull trout migrate outside of their basin of origin, Outof-Recovery Region impacts are expected to be minimal. The major Out-of-Recovery Region impact is likely to be mortality associated with passage past hydroelectric facilities located on the Snake and Colombia rivers. The data show that harvest rates for steelhead, spring/summer Chinook salmon, and fall Chinook salmon are all generally less than 31 percent. Thus, if actions within or outside of the recovery region are insufficient to achieve recovery goals, there is opportunity to decrease harvest levels beyond current levels. The elimination of all harvest would increase adult steelhead, spring/summer Chinook salmon, and fall Chinook salmon abundance by approximately 7 percent, 5 to 17 percent, and 30 percent, respectively. Because bull trout are not currently targeted for harvest, there is little opportunity to increase adult abundance through the implementation of more restrictive fisheries. It is recognized that hatchery fish through mechanisms such as competition and predation likely reduce the survival of wild fish stocks. However, data to accurately quantify hatchery impacts are not available. Therefore, hatchery effects are not included in either estimate of restoration potential within or outside of the recovery area. NMFS will be developing additional information on hatchery, harvest, hydro, and estuary effects on salmon survival. This information will be reviewed by the RTT and possibly incorporated into future versions of this plan. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 32 December 2006 Version 5. RECOVERY GOALS AND PLANNING TARGETS The vision statement provides the context within which recovery goals and planning targets are set and strategies and actions are identified. The following vision statement for the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan is based largely on statements from the Lower Snake River Mainstem, Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, and Walla Walla River subbasin plans: Develop and maintain a healthy ecosystem that contributes to the rebuilding of key fish populations by providing abundant, productive, and diverse populations of aquatic species that support the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the communities both within and outside the recovery region. The vision statement includes: 1) meeting recovery goals established by NMFS for listed populations of anadromous fish species and by USFWS for bull trout, 2) achieving sustainable harvests of key species within the recovery region and the Columbia River, and 3) realizing these objectives while recognizing that local culture and economies (agriculture, urban development, logging, power production, recreation, and other activities) are beneficial to the health of the human environment within the recovery region. It should be noted that the region’s vision statement goes beyond the goals of recovery planning, which center on removal of salmonid species from the ESA lists. Restoring populations to levels which can sustain population and support harvests in perpetuity is the ultimate goal of the fisheries co-managers. The SRSRB, in consultation with the RTT, has defined salmon recovery at two levels, or tiers: recovery and restoration. Recovery is defined as meeting ESA de-listing requirements based on VSP criteria. The RTT considers that some limited harvest (both tribal and non-tribal) could occur during the recovery period. The goal of restoration is attainment of conditions that provide increased harvest opportunity for local communities and tribes, thereby meeting federal mitigation and treaty trust and treaty rights. Rebuilding key fish populations is based on achieving defined goals. Planning targets are established to provide a “step by step” achievement of those goals. The approaches to achieving targets (and, eventually, the recovery goals) are the strategies adopted by the SRSRB. Strategies lead to actions and groups of actions designed to accomplish specific improvements in habitat or the other “Hs” (harvest, hatcheries, and hydroelectric). This plan assumes a 15-year planning period, meaning that all proposed actions will be conducted in the next 15 years. However the SRSRB recognizes that recovery may take additional time and that actions will likely be identified through adaptive management and monitoring and that these actions will be incorporated into later versions of this plan. The desired future condition is defined by the vision statement: a healthy ecosystem that fulfills the requirements of the key species and the people of the recovery region. In order to reach the desired future condition, there must be adequate and appropriate habitat for all salmonid life stages and free access to that habitat. Harvest must be at levels which do not diminish populations beyond their ability to sustain themselves and hatcheries must contribute to recovery of the ecosystem and salmonid populations with minimal risks. Regardless, hatcheries are congressionally mandated to mitigate for lost harvest opportunities. Hydroelectric systems must be operated in a manner which does not, in the words of NMFS, “jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of such species.” Setting recovery goals for anadromous fish populations within the recovery region is the responsibility of NMFS, in coordination with fisheries co-managers. NMFS, through the ICTRT is working to establish Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 33 December 2006 Version biologically based viability criteria (VSP) for application to ESUs of salmon and steelhead listed under the federal ESA. The VSP criteria (Section 3.0) will be used to determine whether or not a salmon population can sustain itself over time. 5.1 ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY The success of a salmon population is tied to a relationship between the number of adult offspring that can be produced per year (productivity) and population abundance. The abundance VSP criterion refers to the number of fish needed within a population to maintain genetic health and to respond to normal environmental variation. A viable population must also have sufficient productivity to enable the population to quickly rebound from periods of poor ocean conditions or freshwater perturbations. High productivity allows the population to rebuild production to healthy numbers quickly. ICTRT has adopted the viability curve concept to determine the adult abundance and productivity criteria for spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead. These curves define when recovery goals for population abundance and productivity have been achieved for a particular population. Figures 9 and 10 show general viability curves for steelhead in the Snake and Mid-Columbia ESUs and spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River ESU. No viability curves have been developed by ICTRT for fall Chinook salmon to date. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 34 December 2006 Version Snake River Steelhead Intrinsic Productivity (Recruits per Spawner) 1 1.025 1.05 1.075 1.1 1.125 1.13 1.15 1.175 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 Abundance Basic 5487 3925 3144 2363 1900 1582 1500 1290 1094 946 742 615 508 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Intermediate 5487 3925 3144 2363 1900 1582 1500 1290 1094 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Large 5487 3925 3144 2363 1900 1582 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 6000 5000 4000 Abundance 3000 Low Extinction Risk 2000 High Extinction Risk 1000 0 1 1.05 1.1 1.13 1.175 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.8 2 2.2 Intrinsic Productivity Basic Intermediate Large Mid-Columbia Steelhead Intrinsic Productivity (Recruits per Spawner) 1.05 1.075 1.1 1.125 1.13 1.15 1.175 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 Abundance 14000 12000 Basic 12515 9391 6268 5000 4600 4203 3565 2818 2041 1581 1269 957 800 682 605 540 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Intermediate 12515 9391 6268 5000 4600 4203 3565 2818 2041 1581 1269 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Large 12515 9391 6268 5000 4600 4203 3565 2818 2041 1581 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 10000 Abundance 8000 6000 Low Extinction Risk 4000 High Extinction Risk 2000 0 1.05 1.1 1.13 1.175 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.8 2 2.2 Intrinsic Productivity Basic Intermediate Large Figure 9 Viability Curves for Snake River and Mid-Columbia ESU Summer Steelhead (ICTRT 2004) Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 35 December 2006 Version Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Intrinsic Productivity (Recruits per Spawner) 1 1.05 1.075 1.1 1.13 1.15 1.175 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Abundance Basic 7829 5096 4315 3925 3144 2518 2200 2000 1581 1350 1152 1035 957 858 785 722 650 605 527 500 500 500 500 500 500 Intermediate 7829 5096 4315 3925 3144 2518 2200 2000 1581 1350 1152 1035 957 858 785 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 Large 9000 8000 7000 7829 5096 4315 3925 3144 2518 2200 2000 1581 1350 1152 1035 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 6000 Abundance 5000 4000 Low Extinction Risk 3000 2000 High Extinction Risk 1000 0 1 1.075 1.13 1.175 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 Intrinsic Productivity Basic Intermediate Large Figure 10 Viability Curves for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Populations within the Snake River ESU The terms “Large”, “Intermediate”, and “Basic” refer to ICTRT’s intrinsic size criteria for populations. Population size is correlated with the number of spawners expected to be supported under normal conditions. For a Basic subbasin, 500 spawners is the expected target; 750-1000 is the target number of spawners for an Intermediate subbasin. The Snake River Salmon Recovery region does not contain any subbasins considered by the ICTRT to be “Large.” Table 10 shows the classification of the recovery region’s subbasins. Table 10 Classification of Recovery Area Subbasins for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead Basin Asotin Creek and Lower Snake Mainstem Tributaries Tucannon River and Small Mainstem Tributaries Walla Walla River Touchet River Grande Ronde River (Wenaha River) Grande Ronde River (Lower Grande) Grande Ronde River (Joseph Creek) Species Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Steelhead Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Steelhead Basin Classification Basic Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Recovery Goal 500 spawners 1,000 spawners 750 spawners 1,000 spawners 1,000 spawners 1,000 spawners 750 spawners 1,000 spawners 1,000 spawners Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 36 December 2006 Version The abundance criterion is also based on the intrinsic productivity of the population. The more productive a population is, the lower the abundance value required to achieve the recovery abundance goal. The ICTRT does not consider any population with an abundance value of less than 500 fish to be viable, regardless of its intrinsic productivity. This conclusion is based on the assumption that natural environmental variation could cause population size to decrease to 50 spawners, resulting in a high risk of extinction. Populations deemed to have a low extinction risk are those with abundance and productivity values that lie above the curve in the regions labeled “Low Extinction Risk”. Abundance and productivity values that fall below the curves are considered to have a “High Risk” of extinction. 5.2 DIVERSITY AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE A salmon population’s long-term persistence is not only dependent upon its abundance and productivity values, but also on its diversity and spatial structure. Diversity (as defined by EDT) is a reflection of the variety of different, self-sustaining life history patterns in a population. The ICTRT indexes its VSP diversity parameter to the mechanisms and conditions that allow a wide range of self-sustaining life history patterns. Both definitions describe the same population characteristic, i.e. a population capable of surviving wide swings in environmental conditions. Spatial structure reflects the distribution of populations. Having many fish populations spread out over a wide range of areas reduces the risks associated with catastrophic events such as floods, landslides, or chemical spills. In addition, having multiple populations spread throughout a basin or subbasin exposes the fish to different environmental conditions causing them to adapt life histories that allow them to persist over time. For spring/summer Chinook salmon, the total area of stream habitat constituting an MSA is defined as greater than or equal to 100,000 m2. An MSA for steelhead is greater than or equal to 250,000 m2. The number and spatial arrangement of the MSAs present in a subbasin impact the extinction risk for each fish population. The higher the number of MSAs present, the lower the risk of population extinction. Extinction risk is reduced further if the MSAs are not connected “in series” (with one MSA located directly upstream of another), thereby reducing risks associated with catastrophic floods or other events that affect everything downstream. In general, increases in the number of life history strategies and the amount of phenotypic and genetic variation present in a population, the greater its viability. Because it is believed that hatchery fish are not as vigorous as wild native fish, population viability is assumed to decrease if too many hatchery fish are allowed to spawn in the wild. The ICTRT has concluded that population risk increases with an increase in the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. The risk is less if the hatchery fish are of local origin or if the hatchery actively avoids selecting broodstock for specific characteristics, such as size. Objectives (targets) have not been established for historic fish fecundity, age structure, and morphology because these parameters will never be known. Instead, these parameters will be monitored for change over time as indicators of increased or decreased life history diversity. An objective of the monitoring program will be to ensure that human actions do not negatively impact species diversity. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 37 December 2006 Version 5.3 BULL TROUT RECOVERY GOALS Bull trout recovery goals and targets for the Snake River Washington Recovery Unit (SRWRU), Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit (UWWRU), and Grande Ronde Recovery Unit (GRRU) were developed by the USFWS and the fisheries co-managers in draft recovery plans for each unit. According to the USFWS, the common goal for all of the bull trout recovery units is to “ensure the longterm persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of bull trout distributed throughout the species’ native range, so that the species can be delisted”. To achieve that goal, the USFWS has identified objectives for all units: • • • • maintain the current distribution of bull trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas within the Snake River Washington Recovery Unit maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout abundance restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and forms conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunity for genetic exchange Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 38 December 2006 Version 6. PLANNING STRATEGIES The previous section described the recovery region’s vision of the future and the NMFS and USFWS recovery goals for the ESA-listed populations. The next step is to define how the goals will be achieved. Achievement of the goals will ultimately lead to the desired future condition as defined by the recovery region’s vision statement. The goals will be achieved through actions or sets of actions; the actions are selected by and consistent with the approach, or strategy, chosen by the recovery region. Strategies are rules and guidelines that are used to guide accomplishment of the “mission.” The strategic guidelines adopted by the SRSRB are as follows. 1. Emphasis will be placed on projects with long persistence time (“life span”) and benefits distributed over the widest possible range of environmental attributes. 2. Recovery/restoration actions must include immediate measures in addition to long-term actions. Many actions that address the root causes of habitat degradation require a long time to achieve their goals. An example would be planting trees in riparian zones to a) reduce instream temperatures, b) add large woody debris, and c) increase habitat complexity. Immediate actions which can “jump start” recovery can include such things as manual addition of large woody debris to stream channels, and creation of meanders in channelized streams. 3. The management strategy will involve “adaptive management”; that is, it will be a feedback system where changes in information or data detected through monitoring and evaluation will be used to adjust and modify plans and actions. 4. Identification of important areas and proposed actions is based substantially on information contained in the applicable subbasin plans. 5. Actions necessary to accomplish the recovery goals will be considered within the context of the four “Hs” (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydroelectric). 6. Actions implemented within the region will be focused primarily on restoration and protection of habitat; actions pertinent to the other “Hs” will be addressed primarily through other planning processes, but the SRSRB may provide recommendations to these processes. 7. The EDT analysis tool, in combination with other analyses, empirical data and professional opinion, will be used to identify and prioritize habitat actions. 8. The final set of proposed actions will be subject to economic, social, and cultural constraints identified by the recovery region. 9. Priority actions are those which the SRSRB hopes to accomplish over the fifteen year planning period of this plan. The RTT has included another prioritization criterion: imminent threats. Imminent threats are conditions that are causing, or about to cause, fish mortality. Examples of imminent threats include fish passage barriers, unscreened stream diversions, stream fords (low water crossings), and introduction of toxic effluents. Although these conditions may exist in areas not inhabited by fish, they will be classified as imminent threats only in areas occupied by fish species of concern. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 39 December 2006 Version 6.1 HABITAT STRATEGY The habitat strategy relies upon use of EDT simulations which integrate environmental attributes critical to fish. Those attributes allow estimates of the VSP parameters. Information used in the analyses is based primarily on that contained in the subbasin plans. Subbasins do not necessarily correlate directly to spawning aggregations; therefore, there may be slight differences between priorities established in the recovery plan and those established under the subbasin plans. In addition, complete information about the subbasins is lacking, resulting in imperfect understanding of some important environmental conditions. These “critical uncertainties” will continue to be investigated and EDT will be updated as information becomes available. The habitat strategy is based on protection and/or restoration of habitat. Protection involves preserving high quality or productive habitat; existing habitat conditions are maintained and degradation does not occur. Restoration revitalizes degraded habitat through either passive or active measures. Passive restoration includes agreements, ordinances, contracts and other legal actions that lead to reduction of disturbance in the riparian zones and uplands associated with streams. Such measures as Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) riparian buffers, conservation easements, land acquisition, and, where appropriate, upland projects designed to reduce sediment delivery and increase filtration are examples of passive restoration. Passive restoration can also be termed “natural healing.” Active restoration involves a greater emphasis on direct intervention, often within the stream channel itself. Areas targeted for active restoration may also receive passive restoration. Examples of active restoration include engineered restoration of stream channels; engineered log jams and addition of large woody debris; removal or relocation of dikes, levees, and embankments; creation of pools; and hydraulic reconnection of historical side channels. It should be noted that instream flow targets are not proposed as actions in this plan because they are being addressed in other forums. Once flow targets are established, the recovery plan will be updated to include actions designed to achieve them. Also, while habitat actions are proposed only in the Washington portion of each subbasin, the analysis assumes that the State of Oregon will be improving habitat within its jurisdiction consistent with the level of improvement described in subbasin planning documents. Within the context of the recovery plan, habitat protection and restoration are balanced by considering the following: • • • • the number of listed species and their abundance in a given portion of a subbasin costs and benefits of protecting high quality habitat vs. restoring historically productive habitat cost and benefits of eliminating known fish passage obstructions, screening problems, or pollution sources the time frame within which the benefits of such actions would accrue to the fish populations Based on those considerations, habitat protection and restoration areas were prioritized in the following manner: • Imminent threats to fish life in areas containing ESA-listed populations will receive the highest priority. Examples of “imminent threats” include adult fish passage barriers such as culverts or Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 40 December 2006 Version dams, unscreened or poorly screened irrigation diversions, stream crossings (fords or low water crossings) which are located in spawning areas and which are used during the incubation period, dewatered reaches that strand or kill fish and act as passage barriers, and point sources of toxic pollutants. Removing imminent threats will likely result in the greatest increase in fish survival over the shortest time. • For active restoration, stream reaches supporting ESA-listed populations take precedence over those that do not; reaches supporting greater numbers of listed fish species or stocks take precedence over those supporting fewer listed populations.3 Protection of existing reaches of high fish productivity takes precedence over restoration of potentially productive reaches. The location of a reach within the stream can affect priority. For example, for salmon, passage projects in downstream areas would generally take precedence over those higher in the stream. However, for bull trout, which reside primarily in upstream areas, projects higher in the drainage would be a higher priority than those downstream. Upstream projects for bull trout would be given equal priority to downstream passage projects to benefit salmon and steelhead. Actions will be targeted to important reaches in each subbasin. Reaches are considered “important” if improvements in them will result in increased fish abundance and productivity compared to other reaches in the subbasin. Major Spawning Areas are examples of groups of important reaches. • • • Selection of habitat strategies and priority areas is subject to constraints reflecting the economic, legal, socio-cultural, and political concerns of the recovery region. For example, the recovery region is highly dependent economically on agriculture. Therefore, it is important that proposed actions be supported by the agricultural community. Once actions are prioritized on a scientifically defensible basis, they will be considered in light of other social constraints. Based on the EDT analyses and other pertinent information, the following streams and reaches were considered priorities for protection and restoration within the recovery region for salmon, steelhead, and bull trout (Figure 11 and Table 11). It should be noted that, in some cases, reaches were afforded priority protection even if they contained only one listed species. This is particularly true of reaches supporting bull trout. Important reaches containing only one listed species were proposed for protection because it is generally more feasible to protect an area than to restore it. Restoration efforts are proposed mainly for areas containing two or more listed species. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 3 41 December 2006 Version Figure 11 Snake River Region Priority Reaches Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 42 December 2006 Version Table 11 Priority Protection and Restoration Areas Within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region Stream and Reach Subbasin Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Tucannon River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Priority (restoration and/or protection) restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection protection restoration and protection restoration and protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection protection restoration and protection Upper Asotin Creek (Headgate Dam to forks) Lower George Creek Lower N. Fork Asotin Creek Alpowa Creek Charley Creek Lower S. Fork Asotin Creek Upper N. Fork Asotin Creek Upper S. Fork Asotin Creek Upper George Creek Asotin Creek Headwaters area N. Fork of Asotin Creek Tributaries Tenmile Creek Couse Creek Drainage Pintler Creek Tucannon River (Pataha to Marengo) Tucannon River (Marengo to Tumalum) Tucannon River (Tumalum to Hatchery) Tucannon River (Hatchery to Little Tucannon River) “Mountain Tucannon” Pataha Creek Panjab Creek Drainage Cummings Creek Drainage Lower Tucannon River Tucannon River above Bear Creek Bear Creek Sheep Creek Cold Creek Hixon Creek above EDT Cummings Creek above EDT Grub Creek Walla Walla River (Dry Creek to Mill Creek) Walla Walla River (Mill Creek to E. Little Walla Walla) Walla Walla R. (E. Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridge) Walla Walla River (Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge) Walla Walla River (Nursery Bridge to Little Walla Walla diversion) Walla Walla River (Little Walla Walla diversion to forks) South Fork Walla Walla River (mouth to Elbow Creek) N. Fork Walla Walla River (Canyon Creek) Upper Dry Creek Coppei Creek Drainage Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 43 December 2006 Version Table 11 Priority Protection and Restoration Areas Within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region (continued) Priority (restoration and/or protection) restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection restoration and protection protection protection protection protection access limit protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection protection restoration and protection protection protection protection protection protection protection restoration and protection Stream and Reach Touchet River (Coppei Creek to forks) S. Fork Touchet River main-stem S. Fork Touchet River Tributaries N. Fork Touchet River Tributaries (except Wolf Fork) N. Fork Touchet River main-stem Wolf Fork (mouth to Coates Creek) Upper So. Fork Walla Walla River (Elbow to access limit) Skiphorton Creek & Reser Creek Drainages Lower South Fork Walla Walla River Tributaries N. Fork Walla Walla River (Little Meadows Creek to Big Meadows Creek) Patit Creek Drainage Mill Creek Drainage above Bennington Dam & below Gose Street Yellowhawk River mainstem “Headwater” Geographic Area N. Fork Touchet River above EDT reaches Burnt & Green forks, Touchet River above EDT Reaches Wolf Fork, Touchet River above EDT reaches Mill Creek above EDT reaches S. Fork Walla Walla River above EDT reaches N. Fork Walla Walla River above EDT reaches Almota Creek Deadman Creek Lower Grande Ronde R. #1 Lower Wenaha River Cougar, Cottonwood, Menatchee, Deer, Bear, Rattlesnake, Bufford, Shumaker Creeks Wenaha River Tributaries Upper Wenaha River Wenaha River Forks Crooked Creek Joseph Creek Subbasin Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Walla Walla River Lower Snake River Lower Snake River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde River As mentioned above, data on streams and populations were incomplete in nearly all cases. The analysis examined the EDT attributes for each subbasin and identified “critical uncertainties” which will be addressed through future data gathering. These are the habitat factors for which more data must be collected in the early phases of the recovery plans to ensure that projects and actions are targeted correctly and that fish productivity in the subbasin will improve. Table 12 shows the critical uncertainties for the subbasins within the recovery region. In addition, more information will be needed on habitat-species relationships and the assumptions inherent in the EDT model used to select actions. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 44 December 2006 Version Table 12 Critical Habitat Uncertainties Within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region Subbasin/Stream Critical Uncertainties Large woody debris, Embeddedness, Turbidity, Fines, Riparian function, Bed scour, Natural temperature regime, Natural base flow condition Anthropogenic stream confinement, Habitat type (pools), Riparian function, Harassment, Woody debris, Carcasses Turbidity, Obstructions, Riparian function, Anthropogenic stream confinement, Temperature Large woody debris, Riparian function, Embeddedness, Low flow, Anthropogenic stream confinement Turbidity, Large woody debris, Riparian function Sediment, Temperature, Flows, Key habitat quality and diversity Asotin Creek Subbasin Tucannon River Subbasin Walla Walla River Subbasin Almota Creek (Lower Snake River Subbasin) Deadman Creek (Lower Snake River Subbasin) Grande Ronde Subbasin 6.2 HYDROELECTRIC STRATEGY The SRSRB has concluded that strategies relative to the recovery region’s hydroelectric system are being addressed in other arenas (particularly through the Updated Proposed Action presented in the 2004 Biological Opinion by NMFS) and that no actions suggested by those strategies will be proposed through this recovery plan. However, EDT modeling results assume that actions proposed in the FCRPS will be implemented. 6.3 HATCHERY STRATEGY The hatchery strategy proposed by the SRSRB is partly based on recommendations by NMFS and the Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs). The hatchery strategy recognizes that not only can hatcheries play an important role in recovering fish populations; they can contribute to providing fish needed to meet tribal, commercial, and sport harvest as well as recovery and restoration goals. The strategy attempts to balance risks to recovery of listed fish populations with the achievement of harvest objectives. For example it includes the following: there is no trout stocking in streams, hatchery steelhead releases by over 30%, and co-managers have recently agreed to increase fall Chinook salmon and Tucannon spring Chinook salmon hatchery production and releases. Two strategies for hatchery production are proposed: integrated hatcheries and segregated programs. Integrated programs, which use native broodstock to reduce risk of extinction, are proposed for most subbasins and populations. The exceptions are Tucannon subbasin and Walla Walla subbasin summer steelhead which are proposed to be managed as both integrated and segregated (to provide harvest opportunities while maintaining genetic integrity). The Wenaha River and Joseph Creek, in the Grande Ronde River subbasin, as well as Asotin Creek, are reserved for natural production only. The number of hatchery fish allowed to spawn in the wild will be controlled to the extent possible. This strategy is designed to reduce any potential negative effects of hatchery fish on naturally produced fish populations. Hatchery programs will be managed on a case-by-case basis to address specific population concerns. It is expected that tributary hatchery management plans will be developed by local fisheries managers in coordination with NMFS. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 45 December 2006 Version 6.4 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION FOR RECOVERY OF LISTED SPECIES Hatchery programs can have significant conservation benefits. According to the NMFS “Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in Endangered Species Act Listing Determination for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead” (70 FR 37204), hatchery-origin fish can positively affect the status of an ESU by: “ contributing to increasing abundance and productivity of the natural populations in the ESU”; improving spatial distribution”; serving as a source population for repopulating unoccupied habitat”; and conserving genetic resources of depressed natural populations in the ESU”. “ “ “ But there are also risks to the long-term viability and fitness of fish populations associated with the use of artificial production. These risks are recognized by the SRSRB and co-managers, and will be appropriately addressed in the implementation of this recovery plan. Risks related to the use of artificial production include the following (Scott and Gill 2006): Genetic Risks - As noted elsewhere in this plan, there are two reproductive strategies for use of artificial production; segregated and integrated approaches. Each of these differs in the degree of interaction between natural and hatchery-origin adults in the hatchery and natural spawning areas. The fundamental distinction between a typical segregated program using a nonlocal hatchery stock and an integrated program using native stock is that the first involves low levels of gene flow from a highly domesticated and nonlocally adapted source into an otherwise “wild” stock, whereas the other deliberately puts the population through a program of adaptation to a mixed hatchery-natural environment. Programs using nonlocal stock potentially pose a risk to among-population diversity because of the different geographical origins of the two stocks; programs using local stock do not pose this type of risk. Thus, segregated programs, as currently operated with nonlocal stocks potentially pose a type of biodiversity risk that integrated programs based on a local stock do not. If gene flow rates can be held to very low rates, segregated programs should be approximately equivalent or slightly better at conserving fitness loss due to domestication than integrated programs, but only if the gene flow can actually be constrained to those low rates. Otherwise, integrated programs pose less risk for maintaining the fitness of the natural population (Scott and Gill 2006). Competition - Intraspecific competition occurs indirectly when two or more individuals from the same species use the same resources when those resources are in short supply (exploitative competition), or directly when access to a critical resource is prevented (interference competition) (Pianka 1988). The resources that may compete for include space, food, and access to mates. Competition may occur in freshwater rearing areas, the migration corridor, estuary, ocean, and spawning grounds. Interference and contest competition might be most prevalent in freshwater where territorial behavior is advantageous. Exploitative and scramble competition may be most prevalent in marine environments. Combinations of all types of competition may be expressed in the migration corridor and estuary, where temporary interference and exploitative competition may occur. In hatchery programs that release smolts, competition with wild origin fish can occur during smolt migration, when they residualize, and when hatchery fish return to freshwater as adults. A residual is a juvenile fish that fails to emigrate within a specified time (Viola and Schuck 1995). In fact, residuals may never migrate to the ocean and instead become stream residents (Peven et al. 1994). Despite the limited reproductive success of some Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 46 December 2006 Version domesticated hatchery-origin spawners, the sheer number of hatchery-origin spawners can result in substantial numbers of juvenile progeny. This scenario creates a mechanism for detrimental competitive effects of the offspring of hatchery fish on rearing juvenile wild fish (Leider et al. 1990; Kostow et al. 2003; McLean et al. 2004). This could be expected to cause some level of depression of productivity in the wild population as long as the competition continues (Scott and Gill 2006). Predation - Both hatchery juveniles and adults have the potential to prey on juvenile salmonids. Based on the only two studies found on the subject, adult steelhead consumption of juvenile salmonids in freshwater is infrequent; Burns (1974) reported that 95% of adult steelhead contained food items in two tributaries of the Sacramento River in California but that no juvenile fish were found. Vander Haegen et al. (1998) examined the stomach contents of adult summer steelhead on the Cowlitz River. Of 1,041 stomachs examined, 11% contained food items but only two stomachs (0.2%) contained the remains of four juvenile salmonids. Current methods employed by WDFW to reduce predation risk by hatchery smolts on other salmonids include delayed release timing and downstream transport (Scott and Gill 2006). 6.5 HARVEST STRATEGY The recovery region is not proposing any specific harvest strategies through this planning process. The SRSRB does recognize, however, that harvest strategies can affect fishery opportunities for Chinook salmon and steelhead in the recovery region and that continuing dialog with the lower Columbia fishery managers is desirable. Mainstem Columbia River harvest guidelines are developed under the Columbia River Fisheries Management Plan. This plan is periodically extended as agreed upon by federal, state and tribal fish managers under the U.S. vs. Oregon court case. As noted above, management strategies are proposed primarily through venues other than salmon restoration planning. Among these are proposals for terminal fisheries for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake, Tucannon, and Grande Ronde rivers and Snake River fall Chinook salmon in the lower Snake River and the lower Grande Ronde River. Allowable take for these fisheries would be based on a “sliding scale” keyed to counts of returning adults at Snake River dams. Although details have yet to be developed, it is anticipated that allowable harvest would generally represent the difference between total returns and the sum of fish needed for increasing abundance of component listed populations to approved levels and broodstock needs for existing hatcheries (many of which are considered a part of listed ESUs) although very limited harvest may occur at even low fish abundance levels. In general, allowable harvest would increase with the number of fish in the return, since the difference between run size and recovery/broodstock needs would increase. Over time, as regional habitat is improved through restoration, the productivity and abundance of listed populations would increase to the point where target escapement numbers for hatchery fish would decrease, allowing additional harvest. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 47 December 2006 Version 7. ACTIONS The actions proposed to achieve recovery of listed salmonid populations are derived from the strategies discussed in Section 6. The SRSRB is focusing its efforts on habitat actions. Actions related to the hydroelectric system, hatcheries, and harvests are generally outside the control of the SRSRB and the region; actions related to these “Hs” are expected to come from other planning and regulatory systems. 7.1 HABITAT ACTIONS Habitat actions proposed by the SRSRB are aimed at Major Spawning Aggregations and are grouped under “Approach Categories.” These categories define the approach to be taken to implementing strategies (restoration or protection) discussed in Section 6 in order to achieve the desired future condition and recovery goals (Section 5). These approaches are designed to improve upland habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain functions, instream habitat, water quantity, and water quality. The selected approaches were prioritized using the following criteria: • • • Effectiveness: What is the probability that implementing this strategy will achieve the objective? Technical Feasibility: How feasible is the strategy from a technical perspective? Cost/benefit: Are the benefits to fish habitat large relative to the cost of the strategy? The approach categories were given priority values on a scale of 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest). Habitat factors (attributes) are correlated with sets of approaches, each of which is prioritized. On Table 13, it can be seen that the approach to improving embeddedness will rely on actions involving improvement of riparian areas (highest priority) to improving water quantity (lowest priority). Actions to achieve these improvements will be defined for each MSA and each habitat factor. Table 13 Prioritization of Approaches to Habitat Restoration Approach Categories Improve riparian areas Improve uplands Improve channel and floodplain function Improve instream habitat Improve water quantity Large Woody Debris Improve channel and floodplains Improve riparian areas Improve instream habitat Pools Improve channel and floodplain Improve riparian areas Improve instream habitat Improve water quantity Riparian Function Improve riparian areas Improve channel and floodplain function Improve water quantity Priority 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Habitat Factor Substrate Embeddedness Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 48 December 2006 Version Table 13 Prioritization of Approaches to Habitat Restoration (continued) Approach Categories Improve channel and floodplain Improve riparian areas Improve riparian areas Improve water quantity Improve channel and floodplain Improve instream habitat Priority 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Habitat Factor Confinement Maximum Temperature Bedscour Improve channel and floodplain Improve riparian areas Improve instream habitat Improve uplands Improve water quantity Summer Flow Improve water quantity Improve uplands Improve riparian areas Improve channel and floodplain The habitat factors were then arranged in order from the most important to least important for each MSA (Table 14). In most cases, attributes were combined to obtain a single value for a habitat factor. For example, the value for the habitat factor “embeddedness” is the total of the related attributes turbidity, percent fines, and embeddedness. Table 14 also contains restoration and protection objectives for habitat factors. For example, the restoration objective for temperature is to achieve a stream condition where the daily water temperature does not exceed 72oF for more than four days in any single month of the year. Protection objectives for each habitat factor are maintenance of existing conditions. The SRSRB recognizes the need to establish fair and equitable water sharing agreements to address flow in interstate streams between the states of Washington and Oregon to restore flow. The West Little Walla Walla River is a case in point. This perennial stream has been dried up in Washington three out of the last four years by actions taken in Oregon with the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and water rights. An example of such agreement is the stipulation entered into between Oregon and Washington October 21, 1933, providing that the waters of Mud Creek, Schwartz Spring Branch, and Dry Creek and their tributaries “shall be administered, and the water distributed to such rights, in accordance with the decrees of the courts of the two states and the permits for the appropriation of water issued by authority of the two states, in the same manner as if the State line did not exist.” These are interstate streams in the Walla Walla basin. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 49 December 2006 Version Table 14 Priority Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA Habitat Factor and Objective Mainstem Walla Walla River MSA Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Passage Barriers, Low/Dewatered Streams I. II. III. IIII. IV. Temperature: not more than 4 days above 72ºF Large Woody Debris: 0.5 to 1 pieces per channel width Embeddedness: less than 10% embeddedness Riparian Function: 40 to 90% of maximum Channel Confinement: reduce to 40% to 60% of stream length Mill Creek MSA Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers (including gravel berms), Fish Screens, Low/Dewatered Streams I. II. III. IV. Turbidity: Protect existing condition Temperature: Protect existing condition Large Woody Debris: Protect existing condition Riparian: Protect existing condition Middle Touchet River MSA (mainstem from Coppei creek to Patit Creek) Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Fords, Low Stream Flows, Gravel Berms I. II. III. IV. Embeddedness: Less than 10% Temperature: No more than 4 days above 72ºF Large Woody Debris: 1 piece per channel width Confinement: 15 to 40% of streambank length Upper Touchet River MSA (Patit Creek upstream to Touchet headwaters) Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Fords, Low Stream Flows, Gravel Berms I. II. III. IV. Temperature: No more than 4 days above 72ºF Riparian: 62 to 82% of maximum Large Woody Debris: 1 to 2 pieces per channel width Confinement: 10 to 40% of streambank length Upper Tucannon River MSA (from Pataha Creek upstream to Tucannon headwaters) Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Low Stream Flows I. II. III. IV. Riparian: 40 to 75% of maximum Large Woody Debris: 1 or more pieces per channel width Confinement: 25 to 50% of streambank length Temperature: No more than 4 days above 72ºF Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 50 December 2006 Version Table 14 Priority Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA (continued) Habitat Factor and Objective Alpowa Creek MSA Imminent Threats: Fish screens, Low Stream Flows, Remove Obstructions I. II. III. IV. Riparian: > 80% of Historic Turbidity: Reduce Temperature: All Days < 770F Large Woody Debris: >0.33 or more pieces per channel Joseph Creek MSA Joseph Creek lies primarily in Oregon. Therefore, priority actions for the portion of Joseph Creek within Washington are to address imminent threats. Lower Grande Ronde MSA Objectives for the Lower Grande Ronde are currently being developed in consultation with ODFW. Wenaha River MSA The vast majority of the Wenaha River lies entirely within a wilderness area administered by the USFS. The proposed action for this river is to continue protective status. Asotin Creek MSA (mouth to headwaters including all tributaries except George Creek) Imminent Threats: Passage Barriers, Fish Screens, Dewatered Streams I. II. III. IV. Large Woody Debris: 1 to 2 pieces per channel width Embeddedness: Less than 20% Bed Scour: Reduce to less than 10 cm Riparian: 75% to 90% of maximum George Creek MSA (tributary of Asotin Creek) I. II. III. IV. Embeddedness: Less than 10% Large Woody Debris: 1 piece per channel width Riparian: >75% Temperature: No more than 1 day above 72ºC Costs associated with the proposed actions for MSAs are contained in Table 15. This table summarizes the cost of proposed actions over the 15-year planning period. The data indicate that, exclusive of monitoring and evaluation, implementation planned actions in MSAs will cost approximately $6.9 million per year or $103.5 million over the 15-year planning period. Monitoring costs will be developed once the plan is accepted by NMFS. Funding sources are discussed in Section 8.2. Minor spawning areas will be restored through protection and passive restoration. Cost estimates for completing passive restoration actions in each mSA will be developed over time as the plan is implemented. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 51 December 2006 Version Table 15 Annual Costs for Actions in MSAs Annual costs1 for actions in each of the Priority Restoration MSA's 20-May-05 ACTIONS CRP2 Maintain roads/ditches CRP-like program3 direct seed Reforest Timberland Convert annual to perennial crops Install grass waterways Install water control structures Install sediment basins4 Control upland noxious weeds Protect/restore road right of ways relocate roads10 pave roads CREP5 CREP-like program 6 Riparian easements in perpituity Fence livestock&develop water7 Control riparian noxious weeds Soft bank stabilization Modify channel geometry Install instream habitat Set dikes back Remove dikes Add large wood Protect wetlands Develop wetlands Implement water storage8 Shalow aquifer recharge9 Irrigation&conveyance eficiencies lease water rights Purchase water rights Urban stormwater BMP Rural stormwater BMP 1 site $30,000 # of Units per year Mainstem Walla Walla Unit Type Cost per unit Annual Cost Total Units (15 yr) # of Units per year Unit Type Mill Creek MSA Cost per unit Annual Cost Total Units (15 yr) 1000 1000 50 1000 100 15 1 100 10 0.4 0 300 55 20 2 20 500 0.5 10 1000 0 500 1 0.2 50 1 150 10 0.1 PROGRAM IS FILLED UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST acres $65 $65,000 acres $27 $27,000 acres $1,000 $50,000 acres $30 $30,000 acres $70 $7,000 structures $4,000 $60,000 basin $40,000 $40,000 acres $50 $5,000 acres $1,000 $10,000 miles $100,000 $40,000 miles $100,000 $0 acres $291 $87,300 acres $291 $16,005 acres $2,500 $50,000 site $50,000 $100,000 acres $500 $10,000 feet $50 $25,000 miles $400,000 $200,000 units $3,000 $30,000 feet $100 $100,000 $0 feet $50 $25,000 acres $500 $500 acres $10,000 $2,000 acre-feet $2,000 $100,000 site $20,000 $20,000 acres $2,000 $300,000 cfs $50,000 $500,000 cfs $100,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 15,000 15,000 750 15,000 1,500 225 15 1,500 150 6 0 4,500 825 300 30 300 7,500 8 150 15,000 0 7,500 15 3 750 15 2,250 150 2 0 15 500 200 100 200 30 10 1 100 5 0.1 0 50 20 20 2 20 500 0.5 10 1000 0 500 1 0.2 0 1 10 1 0.1 PROGRAM IS FILLED UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST acres $65 $32,500 acres $27 $5,400 acres $1,000 $100,000 acres $30 $6,000 acres $70 $2,100 structures $4,000 $40,000 basin $40,000 $40,000 acres $50 $5,000 acres $1,000 $5,000 miles $100,000 $10,000 miles $100,000 $0 acres $291 $14,550 acres $291 $5,820 acres $2,500 $50,000 site $50,000 $100,000 acres $500 $10,000 feet $50 $25,000 miles $400,000 $200,000 units $3,000 $30,000 feet $100 $100,000 $0 feet $50 $25,000 acres $500 $500 acres $10,000 $2,000 acre-feet $2,000 $0 site $20,000 $20,000 acres $2,000 $20,000 cfs $50,000 $50,000 cfs $100,000 $10,000 $0 7,500 3,000 1,500 3,000 450 150 15 1,500 75 2 0 750 300 300 30 300 7,500 8 150 15,000 0 7,500 15 3 0 15 150 15 2 0 15 Water Quality Imminent Actions Threats Water Quantity Actions Channel and Floodplain Riparian Actions Actions Upland Actions 1 site $30,000 $30,000 $200,000 $2,139,805 1 $200,000 $1,138,870 TOTAL ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION COST Many of the identified actions are funded by other programs. This table illustrates the combined, total cost of all projects for each MSA and does not suggest that these costs will be covered by the SRFB or BPA. Costs reported are estimates based on typical experience rates. 2 CRP is currently funded by the USDA and the Recovery Plan "assumes" that funding will continue. The Cost is based on a vegetation establishment cost of $100 per acre and then $55 per year rental payment = avg of $65 for the 10-year program. While the program is currently filled, it is expected that re-enrollment will occur but that costs will be provided through the Farm bill. This is for areas/owners where CRP cap has been met. This is not for CRP contract extension. Sediment basins cost $50,000 per acre for a 10' deep basin. 3 4 5 CREP is currently funded by the USDA and Conservation commission. The Recovery Plan presumes that funding levels will continue and that existing contracts will be covered after they expire. This is for areas/owners where CREP cap has been met and is based on $2,500 tree planting cost and $125/year rental fee. This is not for CREP contract extension. 6 The intent is to implement CREP-like projects in areas with intermittent or perennial flow that are not CREP-eligible, or in areas where landholding is too small for CREP to be viable. Cost is based on $2,500 per acre to establish vegetation then $125 acre rental paymentfor 15 yr avg = $291 per year. 7 8 9 Project cost is based on average of 5,000 feet of fence per project @$3.20/ft, one well and associated troughs and pipe. This is an anticipated estimate, but costs can vary considerably and final cost will be estimated at the time when actual projects are identified. The typical project is to divert winter flows into basins or onto fields for infiltration and slow release in the spring early summer and the cost estimate is largely unknown. 10 This is an average cost, but the cost can very from $1,000 per mile for a "farm field" to over $1,000,000 per mile for highways. This is a 15-year schedule so we report the average annual implementation schedule and the reported costs are best estimates at today's dollar value. Summary Snake River Recovery Plan for SE Washington 52 December 2006 Version Table 15 Annual Costs for Actions in MSAs 20-May-05 ACTIONS CRP2 Maintain roads/ditches CRP-like program3 direct seed Reforest Timberland Convert annual to perennial crops Install grass waterways Install water control structures Install sediment basins4 Control upland noxious weeds Protect/restore road right of ways relocate roads10 pave roads CREP5 CREP-like program 6 Riparian easements in perpituity Fence livestock&develop water7 Control riparian noxious weeds Soft bank stabilization Modify channel geometry Install instream habitat Set dikes back Remove dikes Add large wood Protect wetlands Develop wetlands Implement water storage8 Shalow aquifer recharge9 Irrigation&conveyance eficiencies lease water rights Purchase water rights Urban stormwater BMP Rural stormwater BMP 1 site # of Units per year Mid-Touchet MSA Unit Type Cost per unit $65 $65 $27 $30 $70 $4,000 $40,000 $50 $1,000 $100,000 $100,000 $291 $291 $2,500 $50,000 $500 $50 $300,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 Annual Cost $6,500 $32,500 $5,400 $0 $6,000 $2,100 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $5,820 $14,550 $50,000 $50,000 $10,000 $15,000 $90,000 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $150 $1,000 $0 $6,600 $20,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 Total Units(15 # of Units per yr) year 1,500 7,500 3,000 0 3,000 450 150 15 15,000 75 2 0 300 750 300 15 300 4,500 5 45 4,500 0 3,000 5 2 0 5 150 8 2 0 15 1 site Upper Touchet MSA Unit Type Cost per unit $65 $65 $27 $1,000 $30 $70 $4,000 $40,000 $50 $1,000 $100,000 $100,000 $291 $291 $2,500 $50,000 $500 $50 $200,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 Annual Cost $6,500 $32,500 $5,400 $100,000 $3,000 $2,100 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $5,820 $14,550 $50,000 $100,000 $280,000 $25,000 $100,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $250 $3,300 $0 $20,000 $10,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 Total Units (15 yr) 1500 7500 3000 1500 1500 450 150 15 15000 150 2 0 300 750 300 30 8400 7500 8 150 3000 0 6000 8 5 0 15 75 8 2 0 15 100 acres 500 200 0 200 30 10 acres acres acres acres acres structures 100 acres 500 200 100 100 30 10 acres acres acres acres acres structures UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST Upland Actions 1 basin 1000 acres 5 acres 0.1 miles 0 miles 20 acres 50 acres 20 acres 1 20 300 0.3 3 300 0 200 0.3 0.1 0.33 10 0.5 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres site acres cfs cfs 1 basin 1000 acres 10 acres 0.1 miles 0 miles 20 acres 50 acres 20 acres 2 560 500 0.5 10 200 0 400 0.5 0.33 1 5 0.5 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres site acres cfs cfs Water Quantity Actions Channel and Floodplain Riparian Actions Actions 0 acre-feet 0 acre-feet Water Quality Imminent Actions Threats $100,000 $674,620 1 $100,000 $1,136,920 TOTAL ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION COST Many of the identified actions are funded by other programs. This table illustrates the combined, total cost of all projects for each MSA and does not suggest that these costs will be covered by the SRFB or BPA. Costs reported are estimates based on typical experience rates. 2 CRP is currently funded by the USDA and the Recovery Plan "assumes" that funding will continue. The Cost is based on a vegetation establishment cost of $100 per acre and then $55 per year rental payment = avg of $65 for the 10-year program. While the program is currently filled, it is expected that re-enrollment will occur but that costs will be provided through the Farm bill. This is for areas/owners where CRP cap has been met. This is not for CRP contract extension. Sediment basins cost $50,000 per acre for a 10' deep basin. 3 4 5 CREP is currently funded by the USDA and Conservation commission. The Recovery Plan presumes that funding levels will continue and that existing contracts will be covered after they expire. This is for areas/owners where CREP cap has been met and is based on $2,500 tree planting cost and $125/year rental fee. This is not for CREP contract extension. 6 The intent is to implement CREP-like projects in areas with intermittent or perennial flow that are not CREP-eligible, or in areas where landholding is too small for CREP to be viable. Cost is based on $2,500 per acre to establish vegetation then $125 acre rental paymentfor 15 yr avg = $291 per year. 7 8 9 Project cost is based on average of 5,000 feet of fence per project @$3.20/ft, one well and associated troughs and pipe. This is an anticipated estimate, but costs can vary considerably and final cost will be estimated at the time when actual projects are identified. The typical project is to divert winter flows into basins or onto fields for infiltration and slow release in the spring early summer and the cost estimate is largely unknown. 10 This is an average cost, but the cost can very from $1,000 per mile for a "farm field" to over $1,000,000 per mile for highways. This is a 15-year schedule so we report the average annual implementation schedule and the reported costs are best estimates at today's dollar value. Summary Snake River Recovery Plan for SE Washington 53 December 2006 Version Table 15 Annual Costs for Actions in MSAs 20-May-05 ACTIONS CRP2 Maintain roads/ditches CRP-like program3 direct seed Reforest Timberland Convert annual to perennial crops Install grass waterways Install water control structures Install sediment basins4 Control upland noxious weeds Protect/restore road right of ways relocate roads10 pave roads CREP5 CREP-like program 6 Riparian easements in perpituity Fence livestock&develop water7 Control riparian noxious weeds Soft bank stabilization Modify channel geometry Install instream habitat Set dikes back Remove dikes Add large wood Protect wetlands Develop wetlands Implement water storage8 Shalow aquifer recharge9 Irrigation&conveyance eficiencies lease water rights Purchase water rights Urban stormwater BMP Rural stormwater BMP 1 site # of Units per year Unit Type Tucannon MSA Cost per unit $65 UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST 500 200 100 20 30 10 acres acres acres acres acres structures $65 $27 $1,000 $30 $70 $4,000 $40,000 $50 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $291 $2,500 $50,000 $500 $50 $300,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 $32,500 $5,400 $100,000 $600 $2,100 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $5,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $5,820 $50,000 $50,000 $10,000 $15,000 $99,000 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $150 $1,000 $20,000 $6,600 $20,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 Annual Cost $6,500 Total Units (15 yr) 1,500 0 7,500 3,000 1,500 300 450 150 15 15,000 75 2 0 0 300 300 15 300 4,500 5 45 4,500 0 3,000 5 2 150 5 150 8 2 0 15 1 200 500 50 1000 30 5 acres acres acres acres acres structures # of Units per year Asotin Creek MSA Unit Type Cost per unit Annual Cost Total Units (15 yr) 100 acres PROGRAM IS FILLED UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST $65 $27 $1,000 $30 $70 $1,500 $4,000 $50 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $291 $291 $2,500 $20,000 $500 $50 $185,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 $13,000 $13,500 $50,000 $30,000 $2,100 $7,500 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $4,000 $0 $29,100 $29,100 $50,000 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 $92,500 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $150 $1,000 $20,000 $6,600 $20,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 3,000 7,500 750 15,000 450 75 75 1,500 150 6 0 1,500 1,500 300 15 300 4,500 8 45 4,500 0 3,000 5 2 150 5 150 8 2 0 15 Upland Actions 1 basin 1000 acres 5 acres 0.1 miles 0 miles acres 20 acres 20 acres 1 20 300 0.33 3 300 0 200 0.3 0.1 0.33 10 0.5 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres site acres cfs cfs 5 structures 100 acres 10 acres 0.4 miles 0 miles 100 acres 100 acres 20 acres 1 20 300 0.5 3 300 0 200 0.3 0.1 0.33 10 0.5 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres site acres cfs cfs Water Quantity Actions Channel and Floodplain Riparian Actions Actions 10 acre-feet 10 acre-feet Water Quality Imminent Actions Threats $50,000 $724,670 1 $50,000 $612,550 TOTAL ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION COST Many of the identified actions are funded by other programs. This table illustrates the combined, total cost of all projects for each MSA and does not suggest that these costs will be covered by the SRFB or BPA. Costs reported are estimates based on typical experience rates. 2 CRP is currently funded by the USDA and the Recovery Plan "assumes" that funding will continue. The Cost is based on a vegetation establishment cost of $100 per acre and then $55 per year rental payment = avg of $65 for the 10-year program. While the program is currently filled, it is expected that re-enrollment will occur but that costs will be provided through the Farm bill. This is for areas/owners where CRP cap has been met. This is not for CRP contract extension. Sediment basins cost $50,000 per acre for a 10' deep basin. 3 4 5 CREP is currently funded by the USDA and Conservation commission. The Recovery Plan presumes that funding levels will continue and that existing contracts will be covered after they expire. This is for areas/owners where CREP cap has been met and is based on $2,500 tree planting cost and $125/year rental fee. This is not for CREP contract extension. 6 The intent is to implement CREP-like projects in areas with intermittent or perennial flow that are not CREP-eligible, or in areas where landholding is too small for CREP to be viable. Cost is based on $2,500 per acre to establish vegetation then $125 acre rental paymentfor 15 yr avg = $291 per year. 7 8 9 Project cost is based on average of 5,000 feet of fence per project @$3.20/ft, one well and associated troughs and pipe. This is an anticipated estimate, but costs can vary considerably and final cost will be estimated at the time when actual projects are identified. The typical project is to divert winter flows into basins or onto fields for infiltration and slow release in the spring early summer and the cost estimate is largely unknown. 10 This is an average cost, but the cost can very from $1,000 per mile for a "farm field" to over $1,000,000 per mile for highways. This is a 15-year schedule so we report the average annual implementation schedule and the reported costs are best estimates at today's dollar value. Summary Snake River Recovery Plan for SE Washington 54 December 2006 Version Table 15 Annual Costs for Actions in MSAs 20-May-05 ACTIONS CRP2 Maintain roads/ditches CRP-like program3 direct seed Reforest Timberland Convert annual to perennial crops Install grass waterways Install water control structures Install sediment basins4 Control upland noxious weeds Protect/restore road right of ways relocate roads10 pave roads CREP5 CREP-like program 6 Riparian easements in perpituity Fence livestock&develop water7 Control riparian noxious weeds Soft bank stabilization Modify channel geometry Install instream habitat Set dikes back Remove dikes Add large wood Protect wetlands Develop wetlands Implement water storage8 Shalow aquifer recharge9 Irrigation&conveyance eficiencies lease water rights Purchase water rights Urban stormwater BMP Rural stormwater BMP 1 site # of Units per year George Creek MSA Unit Type Cost per unit Annual Cost Total Units (15 yr) # of Units per year Asotin Creek MSA Unit Type Cost per unit Annual Cost Total Units (15 yr) PROGRAM IS FILLED UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST 200 1000 50 200 30 5 acres acres acres acres acres structures $65 $27 $1,000 $30 $70 $1,500 $4,000 $50 $1,000 $100,000 $100,000 $291 $291 $2,500 $20,000 $500 $50 $185,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $13,000 $27,000 $50,000 $6,000 $2,100 $7,500 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $29,100 $29,100 $25,000 $20,000 $5,000 $15,000 $92,500 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $150 $1,000 $20,000 $6,600 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 3000 15000 750 3000 450 75 75 1500 150 1.5 0 1500 1500 150 15 150 4500 7.5 45 4500 0 3000 4.5 1.5 150 4.95 0 0 1.5 0 15 1 200 500 50 1000 30 5 acres acres acres acres acres structures PROGRAM IS FILLED UNKNOWN SCHEDULE AND COST $65 $27 $1,000 $30 $70 $1,500 $4,000 $50 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $291 $291 $2,500 $20,000 $500 $50 $185,000 $3,000 $100 $50 $500 $10,000 $2,000 $20,000 $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 $13,000 $13,500 $50,000 $30,000 $2,100 $7,500 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $4,000 $0 $29,100 $29,100 $50,000 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 $92,500 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $10,000 $150 $1,000 $20,000 $6,600 $20,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 3,000 7,500 750 15,000 450 75 75 1,500 150 6 0 1,500 1,500 300 15 300 4,500 8 45 4,500 0 3,000 5 2 150 5 150 8 2 0 15 Upland Actions 5 structures 100 acres 10 acres 0.1 mile 0 mile 100 acres 100 acres 10 acres 1 10 300 0.5 3 300 0 200 0.3 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres 5 structures 100 acres 10 acres 0.4 miles 0 miles 100 acres 100 acres 20 acres 1 20 300 0.5 3 300 0 200 0.3 0.1 0.33 10 0.5 0.1 site acres feet miles units feet feet acres acres site acres cfs cfs Water Quantity Actions Channel and Floodplain Riparian Actions Actions 10 acre-feet 0.33 site 0 0 0.1 cfs 10 acre-feet $100,000 Water Quality Imminent Actions Threats $0 $470,050 1 $50,000 $612,550 TOTAL ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION COST Many of the identified actions are funded by other programs. This table illustrates the combined, total cost of all projects for each MSA and does not suggest that these costs will be covered by the SRFB or BPA. Costs reported are estimates based on typical experience rates. 2 CRP is currently funded by the USDA and the Recovery Plan "assumes" that funding will continue. The Cost is based on a vegetation establishment cost of $100 per acre and then $55 per year rental payment = avg of $65 for the 10-year program. While the program is currently filled, it is expected that re-enrollment will occur but that costs will be provided through the Farm bill. This is for areas/owners where CRP cap has been met. This is not for CRP contract extension. Sediment basins cost $50,000 per acre for a 10' deep basin. 3 4 5 CREP is currently funded by the USDA and Conservation commission. The Recovery Plan presumes that funding levels will continue and that existing contracts will be covered after they expire. This is for areas/owners where CREP cap has been met and is based on $2,500 tree planting cost and $125/year rental fee. This is not for CREP contract extension. 6 The intent is to implement CREP-like projects in areas with intermittent or perennial flow that are not CREP-eligible, or in areas where landholding is too small for CREP to be viable. Cost is based on $2,500 per acre to establish vegetation then $125 acre rental paymentfor 15 yr avg = $291 per year. 7 8 9 Project cost is based on average of 5,000 feet of fence per project @$3.20/ft, one well and associated troughs and pipe. This is an anticipated estimate, but costs can vary considerably and final cost will be estimated at the time when actual projects are identified. The typical project is to divert winter flows into basins or onto fields for infiltration and slow release in the spring early summer and the cost estimate is largely unknown. 10 This is an average cost, but the cost can very from $1,000 per mile for a "farm field" to over $1,000,000 per mile for highways. This is a 15-year schedule so we report the average annual implementation schedule and the reported costs are best estimates at today's dollar value. Summary Snake River Recovery Plan for SE Washington 55 December 2006 Version 7.2 HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM ACTIONS Actions to improve juvenile or adult survival through the hydrosystem are not proposed as part of this recovery plan. Instead, the plan relies on the strategies and actions put forward by NMFS in the 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the FCRPS. The 2004 BiOp allows for the continued operation of the FCRPS, while making some changes to operations that are expected to slightly decrease the survival of listed Snake River fish species. Recent decisions to alter the manner in which the FCRPS operates indicates that the system may not be operated in the same manner as it has since 2000. The strategy and actions proposed to improve salmon performance in the Columbia River Basin rely heavily on habitat actions targeted in each of the subbasins and in the Columbia River estuary. In addition, the 2004 BiOp expects that actions to reduce bird predation in the lower Columbia River will also increase the survival and abundance of listed species. The lack of significant salmon survival improvement in the hydrosystem limits what can be achieved through habitat actions to recover listed fish populations in the Snake River. The data show that fish losses through the hydrosystem can sometimes be more than 50 percent for some species. The SRSRB recommends improvements in SARs as a result of reports in the FCRPS operations plan that a decrease in juvenile survival in the mainstem system is predicted under current operations. Any decrease in current survival will likely preclude meeting the recovery goals without significant improvements in the subbasins and estuary and it is unknown if such dramatic improvements are attainable. The SRSRB recommends that juvenile survival through the FCRPS be improved to the extent possible. Without significant improvement in juvenile survival, modeling results indicate that recovery objectives are unlikely to be met. Costs associated with hydroelectric system actions are the responsibility of BPA and USACE and are not included in this plan. Hydroelectric system actions are being implemented on a yearly basis by the USACE. 7.3 HATCHERY ACTIONS The SRSRB does not propose any hatchery actions under this recovery plan because hatchery actions are being handled by entities and programs outside the SRSRB. But hatchery strategies supported by the SRSRB were presented in Section 6. The SRSRB reserves the option to provide input or guidance to hatchery management entities and programs for aspects related to this recovery plan and the recovery region. The SRSRB recognizes that although the continued release of hatchery fish in the recovery area can pose risks to listed stocks, they also provide significant benefits including harvest and mitigation opportunity, associated economic benefits and the broodstock needed to reintroduce fish to streams where they have been extirpated (e.g. spring Chinook salmon in Asotin Creek). In addition, the maintenance of small populations using hatchery supplementation can assist in recovery efforts. The monitoring program included in the SRSRP will be used to manage hatchery risks, and make changes to these programs as needed. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 56 December 2006 Version 7.4 HARVEST ACTIONS New harvest strategies and actions will evolve from existing harvest management processes. This recovery plan does not prescribe any new harvest actions. The SRSRB may provide input or guidance on harvest actions within or outside the recovery area to maintain harvest opportunities and economic benefits. 7.5 EFFECTS OF THE RECOVERY PLAN ON LISTED SPECIES Based on EDT analyses, actions proposed in this recovery plan are expected to increase the abundance, productivity, and diversity of listed populations of spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead in the recovery region. The projected increases would be the result of habitat protection and restoration actions proposed in this plan and those anticipated to occur in Oregon stream reaches. (Actions in Oregon streams are based on information presented in the subbasin plans.) It is likely that greater increases would occur if actions targeting harvest, hatcheries, and the hydroelectric system were also implemented. (Note that this plan does not address recovery of sockeye salmon because no spawning or rearing habitat for this species is present within the recovery region. Fall Chinook salmon are also not addressed due to lack of VSP criteria and viability curves on which to base analyses.) Recovery of these species is dependent upon meeting VSP criteria. Until the actions are implemented and their effectiveness determined, actual benefits must be considered speculative. There are no models to predict changes in abundance, productivity, or diversity of populations of bull trout within the recovery region. Therefore, the recovery plan focuses on implementing actions that reduce known threats to bull trout. This approach is consistent with the Bull Trout BiOp developed by USFWS. By eliminating or reducing all known threats to bull trout, USFWS theorizes that the populations will recover to healthy, sustainable levels. The percent change expected in population abundance, productivity, and diversity from the implementation of the habitat objectives of the recovery plan is shown in Table 16. As can be seen, fish performance is expected to increase in virtually all subbasins. The exception is Wenaha River spring/summer Chinook salmon, where population status remains unchanged because this area is proposed for protection only. The data presented in Table 16 are based on several key assumptions. These are: 1. Implemented actions achieve the habitat objectives defined for each subbasin 2. All obstruction/blockages have been removed or fixed to allow fish passage at high survival rates 3. For those basins where the assumption applies, habitat actions are implemented in both the Oregon and Washington portions of the subbasins 4. No improvements are expected in fish survival through the hydrosystem or estuary 5. No change in harvest impacts 6. No effects of hatchery fish releases on wild fish performance Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 57 December 2006 Version Table 16 Projected Increases in Abundance, Productivity, and Life History Diversity Resulting from Recovery Actions Stream Species Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Steelhead Steelhead Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Abundance 64% 124% 43% 103% 59% 97% 197% 11% 0% Productivity 8% 8% 4% 11% 1% 6% 19% 1% 0% Diversity 59% 142% 18% 23% 80% 283% 69% 40% 0% Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Tucannon River Tucannon River Walla Walla River Touchet River Joseph Creek Lower Grande Ronde R. Wenaha1 River 1 Proposed for protection only; therefore, no change is expected. Based on this level of improvement shown in Table 16, EDT modeling indicates that the actions proposed in the recovery plan are expected to achieve NMFS viability curve criteria for four of the nine listed populations in the recovery area (Table 17). Those populations deemed by EDT modeling to be less likely to meet the recovery curve criteria include: • • • • • Asotin Creek summer steelhead Asotin Creek spring/summer Chinook salmon Tucannon River spring/summer Chinook salmon Touchet River summer steelhead Wenaha River spring/summer Chinook salmon EDT Conclusions Regarding Ability of Recovery Plan to Achieve NMFS Viability Curve Criteria by Subbasin and Species Species Steelhead Viability Curve Criteria Achieved (EDT)? No Studies/Analyses Supporting or Challenging EDT Conclusion 2005 Status Review shows 0-543 fish consistent with EDT assumptions Empirical data shows this population may be functionally extinct Table 17 Stream Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Spring/Summer Chinook salmon No Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 58 December 2006 Version Table 17 EDT Conclusions Regarding Ability of Recovery Plan to Achieve NMFS Viability Curve Criteria by Subbasin and Species (continued) Species Steelhead Viability Curve Criteria Achieved (EDT)? Yes Studies/Analyses Supporting or Challenging EDT Conclusion EDT overestimates current production based on empirical data, risk that EDT over estimates probable success of plan EDT and empirical estimate for current abundance close, EDT estimates ~100% increase in abundance EDT and empirical abundance estimates off, need thorough review of EDT assumptions and confirmation of empirical data 2005 Status Review shows population still in decline, supports EDT estimates of current productivity Chilcote (2001) concluded that this population was already at ICTRT abundance levels and had a low extinction risk Empirical data supports abundance criterion being achieved NOAA Status Review (2005) shows current levels likely to meet abundance and productivity criteria Stream Tucannon River Tucannon River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon No Walla Walla River Steelhead Yes Touchet River Steelhead No Joseph Creek Steelhead Yes Lower Grande Ronde River Steelhead Yes Chilcote (2001) concluded that this population was already at ICTRT abundance levels and had a low extinction risk Hyun and Talbot considered this population to be stable and at low extinction risk. However, adult abundance levels may not meet ICTRT criterion. Wenaha River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon No However, it must be made clear that predictions of future fish performance are based on modeling results, which by their very nature include significant uncertainty. Incorrect model inputs and assumptions may have led to false conclusions as to the probable success of the recovery plan in each of the basins. This is why the success of the recovery plan will be based not on modeling results, but instead through the development of empirical estimates of fish production obtained from a well-designed monitoring program. The production “gap” between the levels of adult abundance needed to meet the NMFS viability criteria and future production as forecast through modeling range from 6 percent for Asotin Creek summer steelhead to 123 percent for Wenaha spring/summer Chinook salmon (Table 18). Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 59 December 2006 Version Table 18 Predicted Production Gap: Expressed in Terms of Mean Adult Abundance, Between NMFS Viability Curve Criteria and EDT Modeling Forecasts of Future Fish Production by Subbasin and Species Species Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Steelhead Spring/Summer Chinook salmon Gap (mean abundance or productivity increase needed) ~6% (Abundance) ~77% Increase in Abundance, or ~30% for intrinsic productivity ~2% (Increase in productivity, achieves abundance criterion) ~40% (Abundance) 123% (Abundance) Stream Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Tucannon River Touchet River Wenaha River To close this production gap may require that additional actions both within and outside of the recovery area be added to the recovery plan over time. The success of the SRSRP can be affected, both positively and negatively, by actions taken by other entities on behalf of hatcheries, hydroelectric installations, and harvest. If harvest rates are reduced, it is likely that more adult fish will return to successfully spawn in the recovery region. The same could occur if adult survival through the hydrosystem is increased. Because factors beyond the control of the SRSRB can impact the number of adults returning to the recovery region, the emphasis of the SRSRP is on monitoring the number of juvenile fish produced per adult spawner in each subbasin. The SRSRB’s opinion is that tracking juvenile abundance and productivity is a better indication of program success than tracking adult returns which may be controlled by other entities or circumstances. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 60 December 2006 Version 8. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan involves addressing data gaps through research, monitoring, and evaluation; establishing schedules; identifying responsibilities; and securing funding that results in the placement of effective actions on the landscape. The SRSRP identifies actions, monitoring and programs in the watersheds of the Snake River Region and does not include mainstem Snake River actions that are currently being implemented by state, federal and Tribal entities. This regional recovery plan includes by reference the hydropower system plans and associated programs and actions, monitoring and review. 8.1 8.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE, ROLES, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Plan Implementation Overview The SRSRB has developed a plan to recover salmonids that is scientifically sound and supported by the communities in the region. This section describes the administrative support needed to ensure that the plan is maintained. The SRSRB does not want this plan to be a static compilation of information that sits on a shelf. We have the responsibility to ensure that this plan is maintained as it is implemented, monitored and reported. Adaptive management must involve the local communities and natural resource technical agencies. The administrative structure of the SRSRB during plan implementation will be similar to the structure used during development of the Plan. The SRSRB will rely on a director, an administrative assistant, an executive committee, a regional technical team (RTT) and on the Lead Entity program. From its inception in 2002, the SRSRB used contractors for development of plan sections and plan revisions. The Board also relied on a staff to direct contractors, oversee development of the Plan, communicate across all levels of government, coordinate and integrate planning strategies with recent planning efforts, and conduct public involvement. Looking to the future, the SRSRB envisions a shift from the use of contractor services (as in development of the plan) to the use of local resources as the plan is adaptively managed. Natural resource agencies, county planning departments, Tribes, conservation districts and the Regional Fisheries Groups will be called upon to assist with plan maintenance and updates. In addition to plan maintenance, the Board believes that continued coordination and communication is essential as we implement and adaptively manage the Plan. We will coordinate Plan implementation with subbasin plans, watershed plans, Lead Entity processes, habitat conservation plans, and myriad other related efforts at the local, state and federal level. The SRSRB will depend on a director and other planning organizations to communicate, coordinate, and integrate processes and programs within the region. In the absence of such coordination and integration, the public and local government support for a regional organization may wane. The administrative structure of the SRSRB during plan implementation will be similar to the structure used during development of the Plan. The SRSRB will rely on a director, an administrative assistant, an executive committee, a regional technical team (RTT) and on the Lead Entity program. From its inception in 2002, the SRSRB used contractors for development of plan sections and plan revisions. The Board also relied on a staff to direct contractors, oversee development of the Plan, communicate across all levels of government, coordinate and integrate planning strategies with recent planning efforts, and conduct public involvement. Looking to the future, the SRSRB envisions a shift from the use of contractor services (as in development of the plan) to the use of local resources as the plan is adaptively managed. Natural resource Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 61 December 2006 Version agencies, county planning departments, Tribes, conservation districts and the Regional Fisheries Groups will be called upon to assist with plan maintenance and updates. In addition to plan maintenance, the Board believes that continued coordination and communication is essential as we implement and adaptively manage the Plan. We will coordinate Plan implementation with subbasin plans, watershed plans, Lead Entity processes, habitat conservation plans, and myriad other related efforts at the local, state and federal level. The SRSRB will depend on a director and other planning organizations to communicate, coordinate, and integrate processes and programs within the region. In the absence of such coordination and integration, the public and local government support for a regional organization may wane. The SRSRB will rely heavily on the Lead Entity program for public outreach, project identification proposal development at the subbasin level. The SRSRB will turn to planning units for coordination integration of land use updates and development of water-use strategies that meet the needs of communities and salmon. The SRSRB will look for technical participation and support from state tribal agencies. and and our and The SRSRB is anxious to get on with its work of implementing the critical elements of the Plan, including the projects, programs, research, monitoring, coordination, adaptive management, and reporting. 8.1.2 Public Support Expectations Public involvement is essential for successful plan implementation. It is vital that the public understand and support the priority areas and actions as well as the programs and potential policies necessary for salmon recovery. This involvement and support will vest the public in this process and allow them to take ownership. It is important that the public recognize the multiple planning efforts ongoing across the region and be assured that these efforts are coordinated and to the extent possible, consistent. For example, there is a Lead Entity program, watershed planning, habitat conservation planning, a regional fisheries enhancement group, Walla Walla watershed alliance, and dozens of state and federal programs like CREP, irrigation efficiencies, the water trust, etc. The public deserves coordination of these various programs and processes at a geographic scale that makes sense. The SRSRB is positioned to serve this coordination function, and to ensure a point of contact for the public. In addition to programs aimed at habitat conditions in the watersheds, the region is also faced with programs aimed at hatcheries, harvest and hydropower system management and improvement. The SRSRB is in a good position to promote greater accountability and understanding of these federal and state initiatives, and to interface with the public on such matters. These steps will be taken during the implementation/adaptive management time frame, and it is critical that the Board play an active role in these management decisions. Projects will be implemented by individual citizens, state agencies, tribal organizations, regional fisheries groups, planning units, conservation districts and other organizations. These entities will rely heavily on the priority areas and actions to guide their project locations and types. The SRSRB will maintain a list of projects completed, scheduled for completion, and those project on the to-do list. This habitat project list will be informative for the public, elected officials, and agencies to demonstrate that measures are being taken in a strategic manner to address the limiting habitat factors across the region. The SRSRB will oversee plan revisions, implementation, reporting and accountability of recovery actions. Its duties will include advising local, state, and federal policy decisions and representing the larger community of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region. The SRSRB will also serve as the Lead Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 62 December 2006 Version Entity for the Region, and will be responsible for submitting a single prioritized habitat protection and restoration list to the SRFB. 8.1.3 Technical Support Roles The SRSRB acknowledges that the Plan is not a static document and that it will evolve through time as we move toward salmon recovery. Changes to the plan will require technical input and review. The SRSRB will rely on the RTT, an implementation work group, and the lead entity organization for technical support. 8.1.4 Regional Technical Team (RTT) The RTT is a science group that will have the responsibilities of RME coordination and activities, adaptive management, and project review tasks as requested. This team will operate at the regional level. The RTT representative agencies will require financial resources for its tasks, and may require a part-time team leader. In addition to local and state technical agencies and representatives, the RTT will also interface directly with the federal agencies. The RTT will identify issues and opportunities for enhancing the SRSRP and then elevate those issues and opportunities to the SRSRB for its consideration as the Plan is revised over time. 8.1.5 Implementation Work Group (IWG) There is an emerging implementation work group that will be responsible for reviewing and rating habitat and assessment projects in the Walla Walla Basin for most funding sources dedicated to the Basin. This group may also rank habitat and assessment projects for funding sources at the regional level. The IWG is currently composed of technical and citizen representatives from the three counties that make up the Walla Walla Basin. The IWG may require a part-time team leader. A similar group may be identified for the Middle Snake Watershed Planning Unit area at a later date. 8.1.6 Lead Entity Program The Lead Entity program will be responsible for notifying the public of the SRFB grant program and working with sponsors at the county-level to develop applications for SRFB funding. The County Conservation Districts in each of the five counties that make-up the Region are identified as the co-leads and are contracted by the SRSRB for county-specific tasks. In addition to the co-leads, the lead entity program relies on a citizen-technical committee to review and rate projects for SRFB funding. These projects are then presented to the SRSRB for its consideration and development of a final ranked list for the SRFB’s consideration. The Lead Entity program operates at the local and regional scale and will continue to require financial resources from WDFW that will be used to manage the program and to provide capacity to county co-leads for working at the local level. 8.1.7 Representing the Region The SRSRB developed a strong relationship with federal fisheries agencies as the recovery plan was developed. Maintaining this relationship at the local and regional levels is best accomplished by a regional salmon recovery board. The SRSRB will serve as southeast Washington’s communication conduit to the federal agencies on existing, new, and developing policy and technical matters as they Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 63 December 2006 Version arise. This is a very important role for the SRSRB. Prior to the establishment of the SRSRB, neither the local communities nor the federal government had a mechanism or single point of contact for interacting on policy and technical matters. Furthermore, because the SRSRB’s geographic area includes only those populations of mid-Columbia and Snake River listed stocks, the SRSRB expects to be an active participant when these populations are rolled up to a full ESU recovery plan. 8.2 8.2.1 RECOVERY ACTION IMPLEMENTATION Recovery Action Accomplishments Several recovery actions proposed in earlier versions of this Plan have already been conducted by various entities. The Region is compiling project accomplishment information for each of the major population groupings to be added to future revisions of this Plan. This data will demonstrate that significant actions have been implemented by multiple organizations to address the primary limiting factors at the MPG scale. In the near future, the Region will further parse the data out specific to each of the MSAs to demonstrate and report actions occurring at the scale consistent with the limiting factors and actions within the priority areas. 8.2.2 18-Month Implementation Multiple agencies and groups within the recovery region are actively developing salmon recovery actions for implementation in 2006 and 2007. These actions are located throughout the recovery area and will improve stream habitat and fish performance in almost all MSAs. The combined cost to implement these actions is approximately $29 million. Table 19 contains a list of the actions that are scheduled to be implemented in each county in 2006 and 2007 and identifies responsible agencies and funding information. Additional information on these actions can be found in Appendix 1. It should be noted that SRSRP calls for an average spending of $6.9 million over 15 years to fully implement the actions identified to date. Thus, the SRSRP is well on its way to achieving the action implementation objectives for 2006 and 2007. Table 19 Project and Assessments Implemented or to be Implemented in 2006-2007 (18 month Implementation plan) Project Name Walla Walla County Gose Street Barrier Removal Hofer Dam/ Barrier Removal Coppei Conservation Easement Bolles Conservation Easement Fish Screens Strohmaier Restoration & Conservation Project South Fork Coppie Easement Russel Creek Riparian Restoration Walla Walla River Habitat Restoration Fish Screen Improvement CTUIR WWCD IEAC IEAC WWCD RFEG WWCD RFEG RFEG WWCD Land Trust WWCD Land Trust $467,000 $160,000 $5,500 $75,000 $87,000 SRFB DOE WDFW, USFWS SRFB WWCD CTUIR $325,000 $1,100,000 $181,000 $234,000 SRFB, BPA, NRCS EFSEC, BPA, SRFB, SRFB SRFB Lead Contributors Cost Fund Source(s) Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 64 December 2006 Version Project Name Columbia County McKinley Instream Habitat Restoration Laib Upland East End Ditch Piping Curl Lake Barrier Removal 5-year CREP extensions 10-year CREP extensions CREP contracts CREP contracts Livestock Water Quality Livestock Water Quality Irrigation Efficiencies Turbidity Monitoring Turbidity Monitoring Vegetation Management Fish Screens Flow Meter Flow Meter Jim Creek Fish Barrier North Fork Touchet LWD placement Touchet River Diversions Consolidation Asotin County Heffelfinger Barrier Removal Shumaker Barrier Removal Fish Screens George Creek Upland Studies and Assessments Mill Creek Passage Gardena Passage Doan Creek Restoration Walla Walla Surface/Ground Water Study Lead Contributors Cost Fund Source(s) CCD CCD CCD WDFW CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD RFEG WDFW WDFW CCD RFEG $68,000 $77,000 $66,000 $100,000 $190,000 $199,000 $183,000 $159,000 $19,000 $15,000 SRFB SRFB SRFB SRFB BPA BPA USDA USDA Conservation Commission Conservation Commission WCC BPA, WCC BPA, WCC BPA SRFB DOE DOE Family Forest and Fish WDFW SRFB, BPA $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $2,300 $50,000 $13,000 $1,400,000 ACCD ACCD ACCD ACCD $34,000 $85,000 $60,000 $240,000 SRFB SRFB SRFB SRFB WDFW GFID WWCD WWBWC $113,000 $270,000 $17,000 $145,000 $6,204,800 SRFB SRFB SRFB DOE Total 2-Year Secured Implementation Budget: 8.2.3 Continuing Implementation For WRIA 35 and WRIA 32, Appendix 1 contains proposed actions to be implemented over the next 5 years. These tables were compiled using the WRIA 35 and WRIA 32 Detailed Implementation Plans Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 65 December 2006 Version (DIP). These actions will be incorporated into implementation plans through the ongoing management of the recovery plan. It should be noted that most of the projects, especially those approved by the NPPC, were selected based on how well they were coordinated with subbasin plans. This has importance for the SRSRP in that this Plan was based heavily on the analysis and conclusions developed through subbasin planning for the Tucannon, Asotin, Walla Walla, and to a lesser extent the Grande Ronde Basins; therefore, the actions proposed in 2006 and 2007 are linked to the habitat problems identified in the SRSRP. For more detailed information on NPPC-approved projects, see the following web address: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/budget/2006/Default.asp. 8.2.4 Land Use Planning The local governments (cities, towns, counties) in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region have a significant role in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of land-use regulations that address existing and future threats to listed species. In Washington State, land-use planning and a wide array of environmental protection programs are mandated at the state level, but developed, adopted, and implemented at the local level (e.g., counties, cities, and towns). This means that threats to recovery of listed species from future development, land uses, and land and facilities management activities must be addressed by local governments, including criteria regarding development, adoption, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of land use and environmental protection regulations that affect the habitat of listed species. During August 2005, most of the jurisdictions in the region were contacted about any projects or programs being developed over the next 18 months that may benefit salmon recovery. While specific details were not available for most jurisdictions, nearly all are involved in Watershed Planning (RCW 90.82) and have transportation projects that may indirectly improve conditions. Some projects of note, very recent past and future, are listed below. • • • • Walla Walla City and County are developing new roads standards for the urban growth area. The City of Pomeroy has recently updated its sewer treatment facilities. The City of Waitsburg is planning on updating their water utility plan, and noted that WSDOT is improving a stream crossing with a bridge within the city limits. Columbia County has a bridge currently under construction that has an additional screening project associated with it. The local comprehensive plans and regulations may be amended annually, and also have a 7-year review cycle. The State has established a 2007 deadline for all local governments to review and revise their comprehensive plans and critical areas regulations to ensure that the best available science is used to establish the goals, policies, and regulations for the protection of critical areas. Since this legislation is relatively recent, it unlikely that any of the local governments in the Region has a shoreline master program that complies with new state Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements. However, adoption of the new Shoreline Master Programs at the local level is not required until 2014. 8.2.4.1 Future Review Local government programs and regulations that potentially affect listed species can be divided into the following categories: • Comprehensive Plans (land use, water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, etc.) Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 66 December 2006 Version • • • • Implementing Regulations subdivisions, etc.) (zoning, critical areas, shorelines, development standards, Permitting Processes (conditional use, substantial development, building, variance, exemptions, etc.) Code Enforcement/Compliance Environmental Review (SEPA) The local governments in the Region have numerous policies, regulations, and programs designed to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment from activities associated with human land use and management activities. The decline in salmon and trout habitat has resulted from numerous diverse human activities and natural processes over a biologically short period of time. Many of the activities contributing to the decline in salmon habitat conditions occurred before current policies, regulations, and programs were enacted. Therefore, the existence of degraded habitat does not necessarily mean that local government policies, regulations, and programs are inadequate as most were non-existent during the period of decline. However, as part of the recovery planning process, a review of programs now in place can be undertaken to determine if either compliance or implementation can be improved to aid in recovery. Additionally, as local governments update their policies and regulations, including critical area protections, this plan will be part of the “best available science” that must be considered. In addition to GMA and SMA plans, programs and regulations, local governments also operate utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) and transportation and recreation systems (roads, parks, trails) that may affect listed species. For example, management of transportation systems is another area where local governments are just beginning to develop and adopt best management practices and road abandonment plans. Also, while most jurisdictions have adopted the International Building Code, it is unknown if any have adopted the appendices related to clearing and grading. The review process should include a list of specific plans, programs, and activities under the purview of local governments. For each plan, program, and activity, a description and relationship to the recovery of listed species, VSP parameters, and ESA threat criteria can be evaluated. Analyzing the direct and indirect impacts to listed species to establish the relationship is relatively straightforward and is primarily based on whether the plan or program entails a physical action. However, a determination of the adequacy of existing regulations may require more analysis. Next, an evaluation regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory programs should be done to determine: 1) whether any mechanism exists, 2) whether a mechanism exists but needs improvements, and 3) whether the existing mechanism is adequate. An important assumption in this evaluation process is that local compliance with state growth management planning (specifically critical areas) and shoreline master programming mandates is the benchmark for the measurement of adequacy. This assumption is based on the fact that both the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act have been revised in recent years as part of the State’s efforts to recover listed species. Both acts require local governments to plan and implement programs aimed at protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and related environmental attributes. Under the Clean Water Act regulations, local governments and those subject to the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Program are required to have stormwater Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 67 December 2006 Version management programs. New NPDES rules (Phase II) extended coverage to operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving less than 100,000, and required these facilities to apply for a stormwater permit by March 2003. The state also issued its final revisions to the Surface Water Quality Standards on June 25, 2003 (Chapter 173-201A WAC). The listing of salmon under the Environmental Species Act (ESA) requires that streams and wetlands be protected. All local governments with salmon habitats are encouraged to develop storm water management plans. Those seeking 4(d) rule exemptions will be required to meet National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stormwater requirements (excerpt from MRSC http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/water/SW-main.aspx?r=1). It is clear from that local governments have an important role to play in the recovery of listed species. The wide range of mandated planning and regulatory programs provide a solid foundation for local governments to implement and enforce actions needed to recover listed species. 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION UNKNOWNS There are currently a number of major “unknowns” regarding implementation of the recovery plan including policy, legislation, funding, and science. This section describes information and data gaps and discusses ways to address them. 8.3.1 8.3.1.1 Policy and Legislative Uncertainties Funding The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board is continuing to design a process to determine how actions will be prioritized for funding and implementation. Under the Salmon Recovery Act, the Lead Entities for the Washington Snake River watersheds have exclusive authority to recommend actions to the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, but it is unclear how the SRSRB and the statewide Salmon Recovery Board will authorize and fund the actions submitted for implementation. Uncertainties remain regarding authority and responsibility for actions at different geographic scales and in different watersheds. Actions proposed to meet instream flow goals are an example of this problem. Instream flows and the actions to achieve them are set by watershed planning units. The official adoption of such actions, however, is taken by the regional and statewide Salmon Recovery Boards. These entities may have priorities that conflict with local priorities and it is possible that local priorities may not be preserved. Funding recovery actions is also problematic. Direct SRFB funding is clearly insufficient for the largescale actions included in the recovery plan. In addition, two major funding sources (BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the SRFB) address identical kinds of recovery actions, but have not standardized and coordinated their application procedures (see below). Funding for RM&E actions is also problematic. For instance, RM&E is ineligible for funding by the SRFB, and RM&E funding from the BPA is limited to 25 percent of a subbasin’s allocation. While the participants in the development of this recovery plan emphasize the need for RM&E, current policy and program limitations significantly limit the Region’s ability to effectively carry out the RM&E needed to evaluate project effectiveness. A wide variety of funding sources will be required if the complete Snake River Recovery Plan is to be implemented. The Fish and Wildlife Program and the SRFB alone are insufficient resources. With this in mind, the authors of the Walla Walla Watershed Plan listed a number of potential funding sources to supplement the Fish and Wildlife Program and the SRFB. The potential funding sources include: Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 68 December 2006 Version • Appropriations from the Washington State Legislature for state agency budgets (Department of Ecology, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Districts): provides funding and/or staffing that could be utilized under existing state programs to implement elements of the Plan. Direct appropriation from the Washington State Legislature for specific projects, based on requests to be prepared as the Plan is implemented. Appropriations from the U.S. Congress for federal agency funds (USACE, USFWS, NRCS, USGS, USFS) under existing programs. Grants or low interest loans from existing funding programs, such as the Public Works Trust Fund, the State Revolving Fund, and other sources4. Rates and hookup charges collected from customers by public water systems such as cities which operate a water system, public water utilities, etc. County permitting fees or general fund revenues. Assessments on property through local improvement districts for projects that benefit those properties, subject to local approval. Private industry funds for voluntary projects at selected industrial facilities, supplemented by public funds where possible. Voluntary projects at selected sites by private, supplemented by public funds where possible. Public Utility Districts and Conservation Districts have the authority to levy property taxes subject to a vote of the affected public. This funding source might be an option for activities that cross local jurisdictional boundaries. Many agencies and jurisdictions are currently funding programs that match aspects of the recovery plan. Coordination of such programs could aid the recovery plan with minimal additional cost. • • • • • • • • • • Finally, certain projects should be funded primarily by regional, state, or federal sources. These types of projects would be implemented by one community, but would serve the interests of the region, the State of Washington, or the nation as a whole. For example, a local community that decides, for the good of a listed fish population, to switch its water source from surface water to an alternative such as a well. It would not be equitable for the considerable costs of such a program to be borne exclusively by the local community. While some cost burden may be appropriate at the local level, the majority of funding for such a project should come from regional, state, and federal sources. 8.3.1.2 BPA/SRF Board Standardization The application procedures for funding under BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Program or the SRFB are complex and lengthy processes. The procedures are completely different and there is no reciprocity between the processes. It is recommended that BPA and the Governor’s SRFB standardize their application processes so that funding of recovery actions for salmon and steelhead can be streamlined to the extent possible. 4 The Phase 4 Committee Report to the Legislature includes an appendix listing several dozen grant and loan programs that may be suitable for funding the recovery plan. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 69 December 2006 Version 8.3.1.3 Exculpation In order to raise public interest in supporting salmonid recovery plans, assurances are needed that good faith recovery efforts based on best available science will absolve the public of culpability in regard to adverse impacts on listed stocks. In other words, if a public entity has corrected problems which have been identified as detrimental to salmonids, there must be a point at which they are no longer responsible for salmonid population problems. A legally binding definition of discharge of responsibility for impacts to salmon and steelhead populations would increase voluntary participation in recovery planning considerably. 8.3.1.4 Longevity and Funding of Snake River Salmon Recovery Board The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board is currently not funded for the duration of the recovery planning period (15 years). Specifically, existing Phase 4 grants established by the Washington State Legislature in their amendments to the Watershed Planning program cover only the first 5 years of implementation at a rate of $100,000 for the first 3 years, and $50,000 for the last 2 years. Funding at this level is inadequate and too short-lived to accomplish the goals of the SRSRB under the recovery plan. Legislative action is needed to preserve the coordination and oversight functions of the SRSRB. Needed funding could come from the state operating budget or a SRFB directive. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board must remain active throughout plan implementation to provide coordination and oversight. Some functions which the SRSRB must fulfill include: • • • • Tracking Plan actions implemented by various organizations to ensure that projects are completed in a timely fashion and that the highest priority concerns are being addressed. Coordinating efforts to secure funding for Plan actions to avoid duplication of effort. Providing information to the public on Plan implementation and improvement in watershed conditions and the performance of listed stocks. Functioning as an “early warning system” and response coordinator in the event of changing conditions (altered physical status of the watershed, unforeseen impacts of recovery actions, new regulatory developments, new project proposals, etc.) Monitoring across jurisdictional boundaries and agencies, data standardization and data management through an umbrella group such as a Watershed Monitoring Council sponsored by the SRSRB. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH • 8.4 As implementation of the recovery plan progresses, continued stakeholder and public interactions such as those that occurred during Plan development will be necessary to provide final shaping, maintain support, and ensure effective execution of recommended management strategies and actions. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board established a public involvement program during plan development to increase public participation in the planning process and encourage support for various management strategies. It is recommended that the public involvement program be continued into Plan implementation. The purposes of the program would include: • Coordination and facilitation of public meetings to collect SEPA scoping documents and public input on planning objectives. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 70 December 2006 Version • • • • Distribution of newsletters to update planning efforts, advertise participation opportunities, and highlight successful projects. Maintain comprehensive recovery planning websites for the entire Snake River Salmon Recovery Region and its constituent subbasins. Schedule and facilitate public conferences in each subbasin and for each WRIA in the recovery region. Support and inform local fish, habitat, and watershed restoration groups, such as the Walla Walla Backyard Stream Team, the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance, the Kooskooskie Commons, the Native Creek Society, the Mill Creek Passage Work Group, the Tri-State Steelheaders and other hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation groups about the progress of the recovery plan. Make recovery plan presentations in other planning venues, such as planning units, regional fisheries enhancement groups, and civic groups. Issue press releases, participate in radio interviews, and publish articles describing recovery planning and restoration projects. Regularly update the bi-state coordinating committee in the Walla Walla watershed regarding subbasin-wide coordination of recovery efforts. Regularly update the Conservation Districts of Recovery Plan developments (notices in monthly newsletter). Regularly update the Asotin Conservation District of recovery plan developments to allow them to incorporate recovery information into their own public outreach program. SCHEDULE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COMMITMENTS Schedule and Milestones • • • • • 8.5 8.5.1 The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan assumes a 15-year planning period; however, many details of the schedule remain undefined due to lack of information. Information is lacking on such aspects of the plan as identification of specific actions to upgrade individual habitat factors, identification of response triggers, frequency and location of monitoring activities, identification of milestones, and designation of management responses to triggering events. Nonetheless, broad features of the implementation schedule can be described including the approach to the prioritization of actions and to designation of milestones. Within each subbasin, actions will be implemented in order of their importance. Actions, as described in Chapter 7.0, will be prioritized in the following manner from most important (and urgent) to less important. • • • • Actions targeting imminent threats such as unscreened or impassible diversion dams, dewatered stream sections, sources of toxic effluents, etc. Actions in Priority Restoration Areas identified by EDT analysis and modified in subbasin plans. Actions addressing specific environmental attributes most responsible for limiting current production of listed species within Priority Restoration Areas. Actions targeting key environmental attributes in order of likely effectiveness and feasibility (in terms of both cost effectiveness and technological practicability) in Priority Restoration Areas. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 71 December 2006 Version A preliminary scheme has been proposed to determine precedence for implementing recovery actions within Priority Restoration Areas. This scheme entails sorting limiting environmental attributes into three categories corresponding to their impact on current production: High, Medium, and Low. Candidate actions would also be sorted into three categories based on combined effectiveness and feasibility. Within this scheme, the High-Attribute, High-effectiveness/feasibility actions would be implemented first, followed by High – Medium, Medium - High, Medium – Medium, High – Low, Medium – Low and, lastly, by all actions targeting environmental attributes with low impacts on current production. Establishment of milestones is an important aspect of implementation. At this point, no specific milestones have been identified, although it is agreed that a mid-cycle progress evaluation is imperative. The approach to identification of milestones will be based on progress toward attaining habitat objectives. In addition, it is recognized that milestones are essential to guaranteeing timely management responses to changes in conditions. 8.5.2 Responsibilities and Commitments It is premature to talk about a “level of commitment” by any provisional Lead Agency to any specific recovery action until the recovery plan has been approved by the SRSRB and affected counties and provisional Lead Agencies have given their consent. However, it is clear that community support will be high for actions that improve fish habitat while maintaining the local culture and economy. It is also clear that actions that come at the expense of the local culture and economy will be strongly opposed. Identification of the “Responsible Agency” or “Lead Agency” for actions proposed under the recovery plan is somewhat problematic. For example, actions that do not involve a federal agency are voluntary until approved by the SRSRB and the commissioners of the affected counties. Even so, there are obvious affinities and associations between various agencies and organizations and actions that affect specific environmental attributes. Conservation easements, for instance, are typically arranged through the efforts of Conservation Districts, and impacts to habitat diversity associated with urban development should be the concern of a particular municipality. 8.6 LEAD ENTITY STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION The Lead Entity process is one of the programs that will be used to identify and solicit habitat protection and restoration projects. As the Lead Entity, the SRSRB will be responsible for reviewing and ranking projects. The SRSRB will use this ranking for submitting funding requests to be sent to the SRFB. The Lead Entity committee reviews, scores, and ranks proposed projects before sending them to the SRSRB for its review and concurrence. The scoring criteria were developed by the Lead Entity and have been in use since 1999. The recovery plan analyses provide the technical foundation for priority protection and restoration areas and actions. Stream reaches are rated for preservation based on current habitat conditions. Reaches rated for restoration are based on comparisons between current and historic habitat conditions. MSAs and mSAs were overlaid on the priority restoration and protection reaches to illustrate that actions in these areas will contribute to augmented spatial structure for salmonids within the recovery region. Prioritized projects are organized into “tiers.” Tier 1 comprises imminent threats and Tier 2 includes projects to restore habitat functions currently impacting survival within priority reaches of MSAs. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 72 December 2006 Version Projects designed to protect priority areas within mSAs are included in Tier 3. Tier 4 comprises projects in areas supporting salmon outside of identified MSAs and mSAs. Points are awarded to projects based on the area in which they will occur and on proposed actions. Evaluators will rate each project according to its benefits to salmonids and their habitats. Benefits may be High, Medium, or Low based on the project’s proximity to priority areas, fish health and population status, fish productivity, life stage, number of fish species, habitat conditions, watershed-forming processes, and cost effectiveness. Evaluators will also assess the certainty that a proposed project will accomplish its stated benefits for fish. This determination is based on the project location, current habitat conditions, habitat-forming processes, the degree to which historical functions will be protected or restored, the success of similar projects, the likelihood that benefits will be achieved, the appropriateness of the proposed methodology, and the potential for continued habitat degradation if the project does not take place. Projects are awarded points for certainty, longevity, and size. Projects that have a high degree of certainty, will last in perpetuity and affect the largest amount of habitat will receive the highest number of points. Those whose certainty is highly speculative, whose benefits will persist for less than 10 years, and that affect a relatively small area of habitat will receive the lowest number of points. Agencies, citizens, tribal representatives, and conservation districts identify potential projects. Project sponsors apply to the Conservation District (co-lead entity) in the county in which the project would be located. The co-lead entity reviews the project and determines community support and technical applicability. The Lead Entity then reviews proposed projects forwarded from the co-lead entities. Any technical and/or social concerns are addressed at this point before the rigorous assessment of benefit and certainty occurs. 8.7 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RESULTS Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are important to the people of the recovery region as well as the Pacific Northwest as a whole. Recovery of listed populations is expected to have positive effects that would extend through the social and economic fabric of the region. Recovery actions proposed by this plan should benefit salmon without negatively affecting the culture or economic base. Abundant populations of salmon and steelhead would attract sport fishers and visitors to the region to spend money in local businesses. More salmon would also benefit treaty tribes and out-of-region commercial fisheries. In addition, implementation of the recovery actions would bring funds and employment to the region. The recovery of listed populations is expected to have positive effects on society and the culture of the region. Many of these benefits are intangible and cannot be quantified, but it is expected that the citizens of the region would take pride in augmentation of a resource important to their identity as residents of the Pacific Northwest. The importance of salmon to the treaty tribes cannot be overstated; this plan is aimed at restoring salmon to levels that sustain tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest as well as non-tribal harvest to other communities. It is important to fulfill obligations to the tribes to provide fish for these needs. Finally, the recovery plan is structured so that it will not result in detrimental effects to the region. On the contrary, doing nothing to aid the recovery of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout would be more detrimental to the region’s economy, society, and culture. Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 73 December 2006 Version 9. RM&E PLAN The Washington State Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan does not encompass any ESU in its entirety, and therefore cannot directly facilitate the recovery and ultimate delisting of any ESU. Instead, this plan aims to support recovery at the ESU level through improvements in performance at the population and MSA levels of aggregation. Hence, RM&E discussions in this document are limited to those that can detect change at the spatial levels of aggregation that are relevant to this plan, and to the adaptive management process associated with tributary habitat restoration and protection. These RM&E activities do not include: 1) Hatchery or fisheries mitigation programs that are managed at broader scales 2) Hydro-system operations 3) Marine or mainstem harvest Current and planned activities included in this plan are limited to the monitoring and evaluation of the status and viability of relevant populations, action effectiveness, monitoring of tributary habitat restoration and protection programs. A standardized procedure has been adopted for evaluating the nature and extent of current RM&E activities (this section), and prescribing and planning future RM&E activities that would result in a comprehensive RM&E program to meet the adaptive management needs identified in this document. Current and proposed RM&E activities discussed in this chapter are those that address uncertainties associated with the management and conservation of the listed stocks. To denote those activities, the Regional Technical Team worked with managers to: 1) Identify relevant management objectives 2) Describe corresponding assumptions associated with the salmon recovery program 3) List the critical uncertainties associated with the manager’s assumptions 3) Describe current, and prescribe future activities needed to address the critical uncertainties 4) Define the nature and level of RM&E effort needed statistically 9.1 CURRENT RM&E ACTIVITIES A description of existing monitoring projects is shown in Appendix 2. The appendix includes information on project costs, lead agency, funding source, time frame, and monitoring type (i.e., habitat or biological). A review of the RM&E program currently in place indicates that much of the data needed to document the effects the SRSRP would have on stream habitat conditions and salmon performance is being collected in many areas, at least at the subbasin scale. However, because the recovery goals established by the ICTRT requires that fish populations be tracked at the mSA and MSA scale, additional RM&E would be needed (see below). Additionally, few populations in southeast Washington are currently adequately monitored to provide estimates of adult escapement. Tucannon spring Chinook is one of the few exceptions where adequate escapement estimates are available every year. Current steelhead escapement abundance in southeast Washington is available for most years from redd surveys in index areas in portions of Asotin Creek and the Touchet and Tucannon Rivers. Other redd counts are periodically collected in other geographic areas to provide distribution and relative abundance information. However, currently there are no means to compile spawning escapements consistently that would allow appropriate Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 74 December 2006 Version comparisons from year to year to track population trends for entire populations. Filling this data need is a very high priority. The co-managers will be meeting during the winter of 2007 to both agree upon study methodologies and coordinate RM&E activities in the recovery region. 9.1.1 Coordination of Data Gathering and Research Currently, the research and monitoring carried out by various entities, including the Tribes and state and federal governments, are not coordinated, resulting in inefficiencies, duplication of effort, missed opportunities, and a lack of standardization. These problems could be resolved by the creation and longterm funding of a “Watershed Monitoring Council” for the region, including WRIA 32 and WRIA 35. This would coordinate and standardize research and monitoring related to recovery plan implementation and adaptive management in the Snake River Recovery Region. Such a “one stop” venue for coordination would result in greater consistency among research and monitoring programs and would ensure greater accountability. During the first year of implementation, the RTT and Recovery Board will explore these options within the development of a Southeast Washington Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and the Intensively Monitored Watershed Program supported by the Federal Caucus. 9.1.2 Coordination of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Under the guidance of the Watershed Monitoring Councils, the co-managers will develop a “Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for Environmental and Biological Monitoring”. The QAPP will generally follow the QAPP requirements put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which sets the national standard for environmental monitoring quality control requirements. The QAPP will identify data quality objectives, training requirements, data management procedures, sampling designs, detailed sampling methods, sample handling, analytical methods, quality control requirements, equipment maintenance and control requirements, instrument calibration, assessment, response, and validation associated with each of the performance metrics described in this RM&E plan. 9.2 DATA GAPS Data gaps important to the recovery plan can be divided into three major categories: 1) those dealing with critical uncertainties (status and trends), 2) gaps in knowledge about the linkages between specific actions and their impacts on habitat factors (project effectiveness), and 3) data dealing with the biological response of focal species to changes in habitat (program effectiveness). Some of the data gaps can be filled through monitoring and evaluation while others must be filled through research. The information needs prescribed by managers and referenced in this Plan are associated with unfulfilled scientific data gaps needed to address hypotheses relevant to the adaptive management program discussed below. Management Information Need Corresponding Hypothesis Scientific Data Gap Figure 12. Conceptual Model for Discerning Relevant Data Gaps Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 75 December 2006 Version The broad-scale management objective of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington is summarized in the vision; “a healthy ecosystem that fulfills the requirements of the key species and the people of the recovery region.” In Chapter 5 the biological performance requirements needed to achieve that objective are specified for each of the target populations in terms of their viability, and in terms of the corresponding conditions that are needed to achieve viability in the population, assuming out of subbasin conditions do not degrade significantly during the management period. Each of these management objectives has associated information requirements and hypotheses that must be addressed by the scientific community to support adaptive management of salmon in the recovery region. Table 9-2 summarizes the corresponding objectives, assumptions and uncertainties within the recovery region. The general harvest objective identified in this plan is that “Harvest would not adversely affect abundance, productivity, distribution, and genetic diversity of any key species.” The hypotheses associated with this objective are more elusive than those of the habitat objectives. In general, one must assume that harvest can be quantified, that sustainable harvest criteria can be established, and that adherence to these criteria would contribute to the achievement of VSP. Six specific harvest planning objectives identified in this plan are: 1. Harvest management in all areas would be based on the abundance of the weakest population components. 2. Harvest opportunities would be optimized by the use of selective fishing strategies and/or terminal fishery areas targeting abundant populations while minimizing impacts to weak populations. 3. Fishery management agencies would take timely actions to keep harvests within pre-determined limits. 4. Enforcement would be sufficient to reduce violations to insignificant levels. 5. Adequate funding and staffing are available to address the above assumptions. 6. Substantial population monitoring is funded and implemented to quantify impacts on the weakest stock impacted by each fishery. These objectives carry with them information needs, hypotheses, and scientific data gaps regarding harvest, stock composition, target and non-target selectivity of specific practices, and the effectiveness of management and enforcement programs to nurture and/or hold harvest at or near specified limits. Similarly, specific viability objectives for population performance are identified in Chapter 5 and were established by the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). These criteria include abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure metrics and carry with them information needs and the hypotheses that: 7. VSP criteria are adequate to ensure population persistence. 8. VSP criteria can be attained within the timeframe of this recovery plan. 9. Population performance can be quantified using standard techniques and practices. These hypotheses carry with them data gaps associated with population performance, as well as those surrounding the error and power associated with prescribed methods and survey designs. In this section we identify the connections between management objectives, information needs, hypotheses, data gaps, and RM&E activities. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 76 December 2006 Version The management process is prescribed by this plan and the overarching federal documents which dictate the management process under the ESA. In terms of recovery and delisting, the agencies and authorities are charged to address the uncertainties associated with viability, and with the effectiveness of the management program in building habitat capacity and population productivity of tributary systems to support viability. Other data gaps associated with hatchery risks, hydrosystem operations, and out-ofsubbasin harvest will be dealt with in the federal NOAA Salmon Recovery Plan which is ESU-wide and targeted to broader spatial scales. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 77 December 2006 Version Table 20. Management Objectives, Assumptions, and Critical Uncertainties for the Recovery Region Management Domain Essential Fish Habitat Management Objective Restore riparian function Focal Subbasins All Hypothesis Riparian function is limiting Flood plain connectivity is limiting Data Gap Condition of riparian function Condition of flood plain Current RM&E Effort Ongoing Required effort Increase in-situ habitat assessments Expand remote sensing of floodplain conditions Improve flood-plain connectivity Asotin Walla Walla Tucannon Lower Grande Ronde Asotin Walla Walla Tucannon Walla Walla Lower Snake Tribs Walla Walla Lower Snake Tribs Joseph Creek Ongoing Improve passage conditions Passage conditions are limiting Flow is limiting Fine-sediments are limiting Condition of fish passage Flow conditions Sediment inputs Ongoing Site specific expansion of passage conditions None Need sediment monitoring programs in Lower Snake Tribs and Joseph Creek Need temp monitoring program for Lower Snake Tribs and Joseph Creek Need habitat monitoring program in all subbasins other than Walla Walla Need habitat monitoring program in all subbasins other than Walla Walla Increase in-stream flow Reduce fine-sediments Ongoing but at Risk Ongoing but at Risk Walla Walla Minimal – Lower Snake Tribs and Joseph Creek Reduce stream temperatures Walla Walla Lower Snake Tribs Joseph Creek Stream temps are limiting Temp profiles Ongoing but at Risk – Walla Walla Minimal – Lower Snake Tribs and Joseph Creek Increase large woody debris All Large woody debris is limiting LWD distribution and abundance Ongoing but at risk in Walla Walla Minimal in other tribs Improve habitat diversity All Habitat Diversity is limiting Diversity of available habitat Ongoing but at risk in Walla Walla Minimal in other tribs Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 78 December 2006 Version Table 20. Management Objectives, Assumptions, and Critical Uncertainties for the Recovery Region (continued) Management Domain Management Objective Increase habitat quantity Focal Subbasins All Hypothesis Tributary habitat quantity is limiting Data Gap Availability of EFH Current RM&E Effort Ongoing but at risk in Walla Walla Minimal in other tribs Required effort Need habitat monitoring program in all subbasins other than Walla Walla Broad remotesensing based habitat monitoring program Improve assessment of poaching and harvest impacts for listed stocks Requires robust creel program Protect critical habitat in priority geographic areas All Tributary habitat is not being significantly degraded Harvest impacts escapement Availability of EFH Requires expansion Harvest Manage harvest for weakest population components All Quantity and distribution of harvest impacts Stock specific Optimize harvest opportunities Touchet, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Grande Ronde All Harvest of surplus biomass does not impact ESA listed stocks Data is sufficient to result in adaptive management changes Poaching is detectable and enforceable Non-selective fishing impacts ESA listed stocks Funding is limiting assessment actions. Abundance criteria are sufficient Magnitude and distribution of harvest impacts Adaptive response to changing impacts Magnitude and distribution of poaching Incidental mortality of nonselective fishing is unknown Harvest impacts Minimal – limited WDFW creel Fishery managers will take timely actions No formal program Develop formal evaluation of management programs Improve public awareness and outreach Focused mortality assessment. Enforcement will minimize poaching and violations Monitoring will be funded and implemented All County officer surveys Touchet, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Grande Ronde Touchet, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Grande Ronde All Minimal – limited WDFW creel. Funding and staff will be available Minimal – limited WDFW creel. Limited for all stocks Enhanced monitoring. Achieve statistically viable assessment of abundance or escapement for all MSAs Population Responses Achieve adult abundance criteria Abundance of recruits by stock Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 79 December 2006 Version Table 20. Management Objectives, Assumptions, and Critical Uncertainties for the Recovery Region (continued) Management Domain Management Objective Achieve productivity criteria Focal Subbasins All Hypothesis Productivity criteria are sufficient Data Gap Productivity by brood year or age class Current RM&E Effort Limited for all stocks Required effort Achieve statistically viable assessment of productivity for all stocks and age classes Achieve regionwide monitoring of life-history metrics for all stocks Achieve statistically defensible spatial coverage for all spawning-ground surveys Expand collections slightly, significantly increase analysis Maintain and improve life-history diversity All Life-history metrics relate to viability Spatial distribution improves viability Run timing and life-history information by stock Distribution of spawners on relative to intrinsic potential Genetic diversity, Noeff, and genetic flow among MPGs Sufficient by metric, but does not target all stocks Insufficient for all stocks Maintain or improve spatial occupancy All Maintain or improve genetic diversity All Genetic diversity improves viability Collections near sufficient but require some improvement. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 80 December 2006 Version 9.3 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) program for the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan is aimed at filling data gaps, analyzing the effectiveness of actions, modifying the plan when new information becomes available (adaptive management), and ensuring consistency with the statewide monitoring plan and federal guiding documents. The RM&E objectives and proposed tasks in this plan were taken from the gap assessment described above. We have asked what uncertainties can be addressed using the current design and which assumptions require more powerful information. An overview of the proposed RM&E approach is presented in Table 21. Table 22 lists the critical uncertainties identified in the Data Gaps analysis, and defines the RM&E Objectives and methods needed to address them. In addition the table highlights the proposed design and statistical power of the proposed level of effort associated with each methodology. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 81 December 2006 Version Table 21. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan – Overview of RM&E Status and Trends General Description Snake River The recovery plan is based on the proposition that a set of actions can change the environment to achieve the desired biological response (i.e., increased salmon production). Research and monitoring will be used to reduce critical uncertainties, fill in scientific data gaps and track resulting change to the environment and fish production from the implementation of the actions included in the plan. Implementation Monitoring Yearly Check Point At the end of each year provide a brief report detailing the actions implemented in each subbasin by MSA and mSA. In addition, for each action, information on cost, expected level of improvement in stream habitat conditions or fish response will be stated. All actions will be recorded in the EDT Scenario Builder so as to document progress toward established habitat objectives. Biological and Fish Subbasins defined as intensive- yearly Other (non-intensive) basins: 5-years (or rotating dependent on funding). Focused on determining VSP and ICTRT parameters of population productivity, diversity, abundance, spatial structure. and number of hatchery fish present on spawning grounds (by MSA). Smolt monitoring proposed for all subbasins to track program success and separate improvements due to actions taken within the recovery region compared to outside. Research to better understand habitat relationships and fish performance would be undertaken/coordinated with other resource agencies and tribes. Research to evaluate hatchery supplementation program benefits and risks. Habitat Habitat monitoring will be coordinated with the Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy (CMS). Baseline data to be collected on streams where information is lacking. Critical habitat uncertainties identified by local biologists and EDT modeling results will receive a higher priority than other environmental attributes. Habitat monitoring in MSAs will be prioritized over mSAs. Effectiveness Biological- 1-5 years (consistent with TRT) Habitat- 1-30 years Expected change or increase in habitat quality and quantity from the implementation of each action will be clearly defined. Monitoring methodologies and time frames will be established based on action type, scale, location, cost and the environmental attribute(s) affected by the action. For example, riparian actions likely monitored over 15-30 years, flow actions every year. Data Mgmt and Reporting Utilize preexisting data infrastructure (EDT, StreamNet, APRE, PTAGIS, RMIS) to archive data and metadata. Simple yearly report and presentation to document progress and present draft conclusions from ongoing monitoring to the public and decisionmakers. More detailed reports every 5-years. Final report year 15. Organization Structure SRSRB will provide policy direction, coordination and oversight throughout the implementation of the Monitoring, Research, and Evaluation Technical Working Group, will be convened and work with and report to the SRSRB. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 82 December 2006 Version Table 22. Critical Uncertainties And Corresponding Monitoring And Evaluation Activities Needed To Adaptively Manage The Recovery Process Outlined In This Plan. Desired Statistical Power 0.80 Critical Uncertainty Condition of riparian function Condition of flood plain Condition of instream habitat Condition of passage barriers Condition of temperature profiles Condition of sediment inputs Diversity of available habitat Quantity of available habitat Quantity and distribution of harvest mortality Catch and release (hooking) mortality Abundance of spawners in MSA RM&E Objective 1: Assess and monitor riparian conditions in priority geographic areas 2: Assess and monitor flood plain conditions in priority geographic areas 3: Assess and monitor instream conditions in priority geographic areas 4: Assess and monitor passage conditions in priority geographic areas 5: Assess and monitor key water quality variables priority geographic areas “” 6: Estimate diversity of available habitat 7: Estimate the quantity of available habitat 8: Estimate the quantity and distribution of harvest mortality by MSA 9: Estimate the magnitude and distribution of hooking mortality 10: Estimate the abundance of spawners in each MSA Method In-situ stream surveys Remote sensing plus in-situ surveys In-situ stream surveys In-situ barrier assessments TMDL-focused Census Design Opportunistic variable Census 0.80 Census 0.95 Stratified design to achieve EPA criteria by metric “” Census 0.80 “” In-situ stream surveys plus remote sensing In-situ stream surveys Creel and catch card “” 0.80 Census Probabilistic creel survey (Malvestuto design) Animal focal analysis 0.80 Variable by species and stock 0.90 Radio-telemetry studies Escapement estimates plus spawner surveys Point estimates for escapement, test probabilistic design for summer steelhead, census surveys for bull trout, spring Chinook, and fall Chinook Model approach 0.80 Adult productivity of MSA by brood year or age class Smolt productivity Life-history and genetic diversity by MSA Spatial Structure of MSA 11: Calculate the brood year or age-class productivity for each MSA or population 12: Estimate smolt output for each stock 13: Estimate the relative or comparative life-history diversity for each MSA. 14: Assess and monitor the spatial structure of spawning and rearing for each MSA. Run reconstruction 0.80 Smolt trapping Variable by lifehistory metric Spawning ground surveys and summer electrofishing/ snorkeling surveys Expanded trap abundance estimates Opportunistic by lifehistory metric Probabilistic design for summer steelhead, census for bull trout 0.80 Variable by metric 0.80 Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 83 December 2006 Version 9.3.1 Environmental Monitoring Environmental monitoring will provide: 1) measurement of progress toward meeting the environmental objectives described in Chapter 6.0 and 2) information to refine the current diagnosis of habitat limitations. Planners in the affected subbasins have used the EDT model to formalize the working hypothesis linking actions, environmental condition, and fish performance. It must be emphasized that the expected improvement in the environment from the implementation of SRSRP actions is just a hypothesis that needs to be tested and confirmed. Although the actions selected are expected to improve stream habitat conditions over time, it is not possible to predict the absolute change or the time frame required for the change to occur. EDT describes conditions in each subbasin at a stream reach scale in terms of environmental attributes related within the model to survival and capacity of salmonid life stages and, ultimately, to entire fish populations. The hypothesis is that change in one or more of these attributes as a result of restoration actions will affect fish performance in a positive manner. Change in EDT attributes over time will be tracked to refine the hypothesis, to incorporate unforeseen circumstances, and to measure progress. Critical uncertainties are a subset of the key attributes (Table 23). The EDT analysis relies upon information currently available to planners, regardless of its completeness. Some information consists of reliable, empirical measurements while other information is more qualitative or based on expert opinion. Attributes identified as critical uncertainties will receive special investigation in the short-term to refine the EDT diagnosis. They will also be part of the long-term environmental monitoring effort. Once these data are collected and analyzed, they will be used to review proposed habitat actions. It should be noted that environmental information was almost totally lacking for some streams in the recovery area. These streams include three tributaries considered satellite populations of the Tucannon River (Penawawa, Alkali Flat, and Meadow Creeks) and three tributaries considered satellite populations of Asotin Creek (Steptoe, Wawawai, Couse, and Alpowa Creeks). EDT diagnosis of habitat limiting factors was not possible in these streams due to the lack of data. Therefore, before proceeding with actions in these tributaries, habitat data will be collected to determine the critical limiting factors in each; recovery actions will be assigned accordingly. Table 23. Environmental Monitoring Indices for Snake River Recovery Area Environmental Attribute Alkalinity Bed Scour Benthic Production Channel Length Maximum Channel Width Minimum Channel Width Confinement – anthropogenic Confinement – natural P P P P Walla Walla Other Lower Snake Tributaries Lower Grande Ronde and Wenaha Tucannon Asotin Almota Deadman Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 84 December 2006 Version Table 23. Environmental Monitoring Indices for Snake River Recovery Area (continued) Environmental Attribute Dissolved Oxygen Embeddedness Fines Fish Community Richness Fish Pathogens Exotic Fish Species Flow – High Flow – Low Flow – Diel Fluctuations Flow – Flashiness Gradient Pools (Quantity and Quality) Off-channel Habitat Harassment Outplants Icing Metals – Water Column Metals – Soils/Sediment Nutrients (eutrophication) Obstructions Predation Risk Riparian Function Salmon Carcasses Temperature – Maximum Temperature – Minimum Turbidity Withdrawals (Diversions) Woody Debris Note: Key attributes were identified through EDT analysis. Critical uncertainties are key attributes that also have a high level of uncertainty regarding current condition. ● = Critical uncertainties. ○ = Key attribute. * = No data available. P= Based on professional opinion of RTT. Walla Walla P Tucannon Asotin Almota Deadman Other Lower Snake Tributaries Lower Grande Ronde and Wenaha P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 85 December 2006 Version In addition to the environmental attributes identified through EDT modeling, the RTT also concluded that enough uncertainty existed in the baseline habitat data used to run EDT that more information was needed on certain key attributes. These attributes are identified with a “P” in Table 8-3 and include gradient, withdrawals, maximum stream temperature, icing (Grande Ronde), bed scour, and pools. More information is also needed on pesticides and other toxicants that may be present in the streams. This type of data is being collected as part of the Walla Walla TMDL study and should be expanded to other subbasins. As results become available they will be reviewed to determine if new actions should be developed to address identified problems. 9.3.1.1 Environmental Monitoring Protocols Environmental monitoring to track the progress of the SRSRP and address critical uncertainties will be coordinated with on-going monitoring by state and tribal entities wherever possible. In particular, monitoring will be coordinated with the comprehensive statewide monitoring strategy (CMS) developed by the Washington Salmon Recovery Board (Monitoring Oversight Committee 2002). The CMS will be especially important in the identification of deficiencies in current and proposed monitoring programs. The documentation presents a detailed draft plan for monitoring associated with subbasin plan implementation in the Walla Walla River, including an outline for activities in all recovery region subbasins. It is expected that the monitoring program will be implemented and supervised by technical advisory committees in the recovery region. The exact process for establishing this committee will be developed once funding for a technical team administrator and monitoring programs has been determined. In the initial years of the recovery plan implementation, emphasis would be placed on collecting baseline data on stream habitat conditions in MSAs and mSAs where little or no data are currently available for listed species. This data collection would start in year one of the plan and continue on a rotating basis dependent on available funding. All salmonid reaches will be assessed in the recovery region; however, the order in which reaches are surveyed will be based on priority geographic area designations and a randomization routine. The EMAP site selection and rotating panel design developed by the EPA will be employed for some of the habitat inventory or the monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Use of this probabilistic sampling approach would be used so results can be statistically analyzed and rolled up at various large spatial scales such as Subbasin, Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA), ESU, and state levels, as recommended by larger regional monitoring efforts. We plan to pursue the systematic habitat inventory approach similar to Hankin and Reeves to cover large reaches in priority geographic areas first to provide detailed information quickly that is useful at smaller spatial scales such as reach, drainage, or even the watershed. By using both the probalistic sampling needed at the larger scales with the Hankin and Reeves intensive reach inventory procedure habitat conditions and changes useful at both the local and regional scales can be evaluated. 9.3.2 Biological Monitoring Population monitoring will provide information on the abundance, productivity, biological diversity, and spatial structure of each MPG in the recovery region. Scientifically defensible estimates of abundance, productivity and distribution (spatial structure) will be developed, as these are quantitative performance metrics that directly impact the delisting process. Life history and genetic information is collected opportunistically as part of numerous survey efforts including survival monitoring (i.e., PIT-tag derived estimates of run timing), carcass surveys (i.e., scale collections and run reconstruction), and virtually every opportunity where fish are being directly handled or remotely interrogated. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 86 December 2006 Version Biological monitoring will monitor baseline conditions and track progress toward meeting the recovery (delisting) goals for listed populations presented in Chapter 5. Monitoring would be focused on the VSP attributes are based on the four VSP parameters (population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and biological diversity). The ICTRT is in the process of developing specific population standards that relate to the VSP parameters. A list of measurable attributes and their relation to the VSP parameters is presented in Table 24. The attributes are based on the latest guidance from the ICTRT. The ICTRT is continuing to review fish recovery needs and to identify specific standards for tracking recovery of listed populations. Table 24. Measurable Attributes Related to VSP Parameters Likely to be Included in Biological Population Monitoring Metrics Adult Returns Harvest Origin (hatchery vs. natural) Juvenile Outmigrants Age at Outmigration Adult Age Structure Monitoring of Major and Minor Spawning Aggregations Morphology Juvenile Survival Adult Survival Age at Return Outmigration Timing Adult Return Timing Fecundity Abundance Productivity Spatial Structure Biological Diversity The SRSRP prioritization approach requires that most fish-bearing streams in the recovery area be monitored, although certain streams should be monitored much more intensively than others. Intensive monitoring is defined by the RTT as annual, long-term monitoring of: 10. Smolt production including both estimates of abundance and smolts per adult, which the SRSRB believe are critical for determining the effectiveness of proposed recovery area actions and tracking plan progress. 11. Adult returns by type (hatchery/wild), juvenile and adult age composition, distribution of spawners and juveniles, relative abundance by species and age-class, genetic characterization, smolt-to-adult survival rates, and adult recruitment rates. This information will be used to determine if NMFS recovery goals for each population are being achieved. Biological monitoring would also occur to resolve environmental critical uncertainties and to fill data gaps. The portions of the recovery area that would receive intensive monitoring include the Walla Walla River, Touchet River, Tucannon River, Asotin Creek, and possibly Mill Creek. The scope of the reaches monitored in these areas should extend far enough up into the watershed to include bull trout spawning areas. The data shown in Table 8-3 would be collected yearly in the intensively monitored basins. All other areas would be monitored on a non-intensive basis. Such areas would be monitored 2 to 3 years in succession, on a 5-year rotation. The objectives of non-intensive monitoring include spawner Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 87 December 2006 Version abundance and distribution, relative juvenile abundance and distribution, collection of genetic samples, and periodic habitat monitoring similar to that for intensively monitored areas. In the initial years of the recovery plan implementation, emphasis would be placed on collecting baseline data on fish distribution and abundance in major and minor spawning areas where little or no data are currently available for listed species. For example, baseline data are lacking for Asotin Creek bull trout, all listed species in the Wenaha River, and steelhead abundance in small mainstem Snake River tributaries. Steelhead abundance in the smaller Lower Snake River tributaries and Grande Ronde would also be collected in year one of the plan to supplement on-going efforts. 9.3.3 9.3.3.1 Analysis and Model Evaluation Productivity Smolt Components Salmonids will be PIT-tagged at hatcheries and at trapping locations and potentially in the headwaters. The number and allocation of PIT tags deployed to any cohort and species in any watershed is managed using the PTAGIS system. Recaptures of PIT tags are used at traps or from in-basin fisheries or spawning surveys for abundance and survival estimations, and Snake or Columbia River mainstems for hydrosystem and whole-life-cycle performance evaluations. Out-of basin survival will be estimated using the CRiSP (www.cbr.washington.edu) and SURPH models. Survival estimates for hatchery and natural salmonids are conducted to assess in-basin and out-of-basin loss by species and life-stage. Survival estimates are also generated to support hatchery production monitoring and evaluation of optimal release and rearing strategies. A mark-recapture methodology utilizing PIT tags and subsequent detections at in-basin PIT tag detection antennae arrays, the mainstem rotary screw traps, and interrogation facilities at Snake or Columbia River dams is used to calculate survival. Growth Components Growth information is a strong indicator of within cohort productivity across space and time. Growth patterns can explain the life history of anadromous fish, displaying age at migration, timing of migration timing, and can help assess certain management implications. Circuli spacing and the growth function are reliable indicators of fish health, population production and habitat quality. Scales are usually the structure of choice for ageing of fish, due to their ease of collection and non-lethal sampling nature. Hard structures (scales, otoliths, fin rays, and opercula) will be collected from juvenile and adult fishes during a variety of sampling activities. However, this will be carefully planned and sampling will be targeted as necessary. These structures can be used to assess age as they all grow in tandem with the fish. Hard structures will be analyzed to detect growth rings and other growth patterns including accelerated development of the nuclei (indicating hatchery-reared origin) and marine/freshwater transitional depositions (indicating years at sea and years in-river). Run Reconstruction Representative samples of multiple age and abundance samples can be used to determine year class abundance and assess cohort strength. This process, often termed “run re-construction,” is the foundation for developing productivity performance indicators. Life-stage specific estimates of productivity provide common units for comparing population performance across geographic and temporal scales. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 88 December 2006 Version Subbasin information will be integrated using a relational database. Age, abundance, and distribution information will be used to assign fractions to cohorts, and reconstruct brood years. Brood year by lifestage information will be used to calculate the standard life-history performance metrics such as adult-toadult, smolt-to-adult, and smolt-to-smolt productivity. 9.3.3.2 Analysis of Distribution We will use associative analysis to assess the distribution, correlation, and covariance among abundance and distribution performance metrics. Traditional inferential statistics including ANOVAs, t-tests, regression, and principle components analysis all utilize the associative paradigm. The general equations for associative analysis of any variable X are the probability functions: Equation 1 μ = ∑ x • P(x) Equation 2 σ 2 = ∑ [( x − μ ) 2 • P( x)] Equation 3 σ = [∑ x 2 • P( x)] − μ 2 where P is the probability of encountering any given value of x, μ is the mean of that probability function, σ is the variance, and σ2 is its standard deviation. Similar frequentist statistics will be applied in multivariate regression of abundance and distribution information. In addition, juvenile population and community estimates will be expanded from the site and reach scale to the tributary, watershed, and subbasin levels of aggregation using geostatistical stock assessment based on habitat data, and fish-habitat relationships. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 89 December 2006 Version 9.3.3.3 Run Timing and Time Series Analysis In the short term, predictions of run timing are powerful tools for managing fisheries and flow regimes. The Columbia Basin is a tightly managed system, and the harvest and water management regimes are expensive endeavors that are continually scrutinized. For some stocks in some years success can depend on a handful of naturally produced fish escaping to the spawning grounds. On longer time scales we are interested in the probability that trends in performance will persist. The current models for run prediction are based solely on the number of returns in years previous to the run, while more sophisticated and powerful methods could be adopted (www.cbr.washington.edu). In addition to the use of simple multivariate regression for predicting and explaining performance, we will employ multivariate time series analysis. Juvenile population and community information will be analyzed using trend analysis for all index sites, and for the aggregation of all index and randomly selected sites to the watershed and subbasin scale. Through time the stability, resilience, and resistance of populations will be quantified. Immigration and emigration timing are key performance measures of life history diversity, as are disease resistance and condition at age. Information on life history diversity will be collected during outmigrant and adult abundance enumeration. Emigration timing is a key performance measure used to assess life history diversity. To monitor emigration timing in the mainstem rivers or at other smolt trapping locations, weekly abundance estimates will be derived and expressed as a percentage of the total run over time. Weekly frequency distributions will be compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. PIT tag detection data will also be used to compare smolt migration characteristics between hatchery and natural smolts. Age at emigration is characterized as the annual proportion of smolts in a particular age class migrating past the rotary fish trap. Percent age composition analysis from a 5-year mean of adult returns is applied to annual smolt abundance estimates to derive the total estimated number of emigrants by freshwater age class for a particular year. To account for the impacts of environmental variability, smolt-per-adult metrics will be regressed against environmental variables including river discharge, flow augmentation, water temperature and water clarity. These are monitored annually and analyzed using associative and time-series analysis to characterize conditions in the Walla Walla River and to assess their effects on emigration timing and fish passage. The net results of this assessment are smolt-per-adult metrics of tributary performance that are likely highly indicative of habitat success, and highly independent from out-of-subbasin processes. Environmental variables including river discharge, flow augmentation, water temperature and water clarity are monitored annually and analyzed using associative and time-series analysis to characterize conditions in the river or subbasin and to assess their effects on emigration timing and fish passage. Daily river discharge and water temperature data is available from stream flow gauging stations near the trap sites. Water clarity will be measured using a secchi disk. The relationship between river discharge, temperature, and water clarity and the daily proportion of emigrants passing a trap site will be tested using the Spearman rank correlation test. The variable reflecting the river discharge or water temperature during the passage period is the average of the mean of the day before and the day of passage. The time period used for the analysis is between the day when the first and last emigrant was observed. Any missing discharge or temperature records are estimated by taking the average of the mean daily discharge or temperature 3 days prior and 3 days after the missing record. Linear regression is used to evaluate the possible relationship of environmental variables and Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 90 December 2006 Version smolt emigration timing by comparing the day of year of median emigration with average daily water temperature and river discharge from November 1 to July 1. Migration parameters will be monitored using PIT tags and subsequent detections at the lower river screw traps. Parameters analyzed include emigration timing, duration, and travel speed and will be monitored to evaluate the migration success of hatchery-reared species compared with that of naturally reared counterparts. Smolt emigration timing will be expressed as the proportion of juvenile salmonids moving past the rotary screw trap during a particular period. Peak smolt movement will be defined as the date when the maximum number of tagged emigrants passed through the trap. Median emigration will be the date when 50 percent of the tag detections are observed. Diel movement will be determined by the percentage of fish detected within hourly blocks of time, and migration duration will be considered the period between the first and last date of tag detections. Travel speed will be calculated for each tagged fish detected at screw traps and at mainstem dams. The median travel speed will be calculated for all naturally reared fish and comparable release groups of hatchery-reared fish. Median rather than mean travel speeds will be computed because detection distributions are usually skewed. Negative travel speed estimates from volitional movement of hatcheryreared fish will be omitted from the analysis, along with tagged fish interrogated during trapping operations, because of the inability to assign an accurate date and time stamp of detection. 9.3.3.4 Genetic Characteristics Development of new techniques and methods of data analysis has greatly expanded the role of genetics in fish research and management. In particular, the role of genetics in conservation and recovery of rare species has been increasingly significant. The role of cultured fishes in recovery of depleted populations is heavily influenced by genetic concerns. Similarly, recovery efforts for ESA-listed anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest are driven to a large extent by genetics issues. Applications using nuclear DNA (nDNA) are currently receiving the most widespread use, due to the great variability observed. Recent published nDNA research can be broadly grouped into demographic and population structure, mechanisms of change, intervention evaluation, and planning. Sampling on various geographic and temporal scales can define population structure and effective population size and reproductive isolation or connectivity, or hybridization. Life history attributes may be heritable to various degrees, including size, age, and fecundity run and spawn timing, juvenile development and resistance to pathogens. Current genetic collections, or samples needed will be evaluated, and prioritize analyses and further collections of samples. Collections and analyses will concentrate on characterization of identification and relatedness of populations and their stability or change over time. 9.3.3.5 Evaluation of action effectiveness. The recovery plan describes specific strategies and projects to restore habitat for listed fish populations in the affected subbasins. Planners have estimated the effectiveness of these actions to change specific environmental attributes based on published information and professional experience. The expected environmental changes have been entered into EDT to estimate their collective benefit to listed fish populations. As with all information underlying the EDT working hypothesis, the actual effect of actions on the environment must be evaluated for specific portions of specific watersheds. As knowledge of the effectiveness of prescribed actions on specific habitat problems increases, the working hypothesis will be revised to accommodate the changed database. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 91 December 2006 Version To the maximum extent possible, effectiveness monitoring will be coordinated with on-going monitoring using established protocols. Appropriate protocols include those developed by the Washington Salmon Recovery Board for use across the state (Crawford 2004a, b, c and d). Reeves et al. (2004) provide guidance for effectiveness monitoring relative to the Federal Northwest Forest Plan. Also, the intensity and frequency of effectiveness monitoring would be based on the attribute being tested. For example, monitoring of slow maturing actions such as riparian restoration would likely occur at 5-year intervals over a 30-year time frame. In contrast, the effectiveness of a new fish screen would be examined for 1-2 years, after which time the monitoring would likely end. 9.3.3.6 Evaluation of species-habitat relationships. The working hypothesis used to select habitat actions for this plan is based primarily on a set of speciesspecific relationships between environmental attributes and species productivity and capacity. These relationships reflect the prevailing scientific knowledge available today. However, as this knowledge improves through scientific research and as EDT is refined over time, the working hypothesis will be refined to provide adaptive corrections to recovery strategies. Because these relationships are needed region-wide, the plan calls for working collaboratively with other groups to more effectively utilize limited resources. 9.3.3.7 Evaluation of external factors. Because salmon are anadromous and spend the majority of their lives outside the recovery region, the success of efforts to rebuild fish populations through the recovery plan will depend, to a large degree, on human actions and natural factors outside the recovery region. Factors outside the recovery region (Chapter 4.0) include the FCRPS; water quality and conditions throughout the Columbia River, the estuary, and the Northeast Pacific Ocean; as well as commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries in the ocean and Columbia River. In constructing the EDT working hypothesis for the affected subbasins, planners have incorporated a simple set of assumptions to account for the “out-of-subbasin effects.” Those assumptions may need to be revised as monitoring and scientific investigation refines knowledge of conditions outside the recovery region. Conditions through the Columbia River hydroelectric system are monitored through a variety of state and federal monitoring programs; the Fish Passage Center (www.fpc.org) and the University of Washington DART system (http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/dart.html) collect and provide access to much of the information and will be consulted to determine if adjustments in EDT assumptions are needed. Fishery management agencies including the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington and Oregon state fish and wildlife agencies, and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission all collect and summarize harvest information that will be used to update harvest assumptions as necessary. Conditions and environmental cycles in the ocean and regional climate are the subjects of on-going and active areas of research. The scientific literature will be consulted regarding the latest understandings of ocean survival conditions and regional climates. 9.3.4 New RM&E Projects A list of the new RM&E projects required for addressing the environmental, biological, and model uncertainties is shown in Appendix 3. It should be noted that the costs associated with the new RM&E projects are only estimates, which were developed based on past experience; these costs will be updated after study plans are developed for each project. In addition, a remote sensing effort (using aerial photographs), with a rotating spatial panel, should be used to monitor habitat loss or gains to ensure a net Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 92 December 2006 Version increase in good quality habitat occurs over time. Otherwise, increasing development, channel modifications, roads, etc., could negate any accrued habitat improvements to benefit salmonids. A major uncertainty in the SRSRP is the level of regional commitment to funding the RM&E program. Currently, it is estimated that RM&E costs associated with monitoring habitat and fish communities in the recovery area as part of the SRSRP and other processes may be as high as $6 million per year ($90 million over 15 years). Current monitoring is inadequate to evaluate habitat conditions, stock status or trends, or the effectiveness of habitat actions. With limited funding, certain monitoring and evaluation activities should be prioritized. The first priority should be to adequately estimate adult escapement within each MSA and population and adequately estimating smolt production from several of the major stream systems. These priorities will fulfill much of the abundance and productivity aspects of VSP. Another high priority is habitat condition assessment and monitoring. These priorities will accomplish primary aspects of status and trend monitoring and they allow direct assessment of the freshwater tributary fish production and assessment of the effectiveness of tributary habitat restoration and protection actions. Monitoring of other portions of the VSP criteria (spatial distribution and diversity) may have to be kept very limited without additional funding. Because resources are limited, the plan proposes that the co-managers meet with NMFS and USFWS to better define the level (scale, frequency, location) of monitoring required to determine when recovery goals are achieved. A major discussion topic of these conversations would be the need to track fish performance at the mSA and MSA scales. Conducting monitoring activities at this scale increases RM&E costs significantly as multiple adult and juvenile monitoring facilities are required to determine production as this smaller scale. The results of these conversations would be used to better define monitoring tasks and allow for the prioritization of expenditures. 9.3.5 Data Documentation and Reporting All data collected will be entered into the appropriate databases each year. New habitat data would be entered into the EDT model, biological data into StreamNet, and tagging data into either RMIS (Regional Mark Information System) or PTAGIS (PIT Tag Information System). This approach allows for both archiving of the data, and performing the modeling needed to track plan effectiveness as well as select and prioritize new actions over time. At the end of each year, a public meeting will be held to describe RM&E activities, present results and provide an overview of activities proposed for the next year and a rationale for why they are being taken. Summary reports of all RM&E activities will be developed at 5-year intervals. The report will include analyses of fish abundance (adult and juveniles), productivity, distribution (hatchery and natural origin), harvest levels (ocean, mainstem, and tributaries), overall survival and updated EDT runs showing assumed habitat progress to date both within and outside of the recovery area. The 5-year report developed at the end of year 15 would be considered the final report. This report would summarize all activities completed during the previous 15 years. In addition to summarizing all actions and analyses, the report will also provide recommendations as to what actions, if any, should be taken over the next 5 to 15 years to achieve recovery and restoration goals. 9.3.6 Adaptive Management Adaptive management has been defined in Washington State law as “reliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that the management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately” (RCW 79.09.020). It is described as a cycle occurring in four stages: identification of information needs, information acquisition and assessment (monitoring), evaluation and decision-making, Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 93 December 2006 Version and continued or revised implementation of management actions. The essence of adaptive management is captured in the sequence “monitor,” “evaluate,” and “respond.” The Walla Walla Watershed Plan states that a true adaptive management program for a salmon recovery plan is an intensive exercise involving the development of biotic and abiotic systems models and their interaction. At present, the EDT model is used to link environmental conditions to fish population performance. The watershed planning process is expected to develop an adaptive management plan in Phase 4 (Implementation). An adaptive management program has not yet been developed for the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. However, basic elements of an adaptive management plan and some issues and problems (including funding and oversight) can be identified now. Performance standards should be established for each management action whenever possible. At the level of environmental effectiveness monitoring, these standards consist of the reach-specific conditions proposed as objectives in the recovery plan. The biological performance standards cannot so easily be tied to specific management actions, although the net effect of all actions has been expressed in terms of equilibrium abundance, productivity, carrying capacity, and life history diversity. These parameters can be considered biological performance standards for an entire recovery plan. For each performance standard, a threshold level that triggers management changes must be identified. The trigger must be measurable over a period short enough to allow for timely management changes or, at a minimum, soon enough to serve as an early warning of ineffective or unforeseen adverse impacts. When a performance metric reaches the triggering threshold, a management response is required. Three general management responses are possible: 1) predefined mandatory responses; 2) mandatory, but circumstancespecific responses; and 3) responses made as a result of newly discovered opportunities. During the first few years of recovery plan implementation, it is expected that most of the management response triggers will be of types 2 and 3 due to the large uncertainties associated with implementation of a new program. Before a complete adaptive management plan for the Snake River Recovery Plan can be put into effect, the following issues must be resolved. • A coordinating and oversight entity must be created and funded. The Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy (Crawford et al. 2002) refers to this monitoring oversight entity as a “Watershed Monitoring Council.” This entity would lead the adaptive management effort, directing monitoring work and analyzing and summarizing data. The Watershed Monitoring Council would also interact directly with stakeholders, sharing new insights, and identifying and promoting revised management actions. Standardized monitoring protocols must be developed to facilitate comparison of information across geographical and temporal scales. Threshold values for performance standards must be developed for each environmental objective included in the recovery plan. Currently, the lack of accurate and effective response triggers is a significant limitation on the recovery plan. In the opinion of the SRSRB, natural resource specialists (stream temperature modelers, experts in sediment routing, hydrologists, etc.) should be retained in the near future to identify basin-specific response triggers, an appropriate monitoring frequency for such triggers, and management responses most likely to be needed in the event of failure to make adequate progress toward the objective. • • Priority habitat and fish status and trends and effectiveness monitoring must be funded and implemented as identified in the recovery plan, the subbasin plans, limiting factors reports, and the draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington 94 December 2006 Version APPENDIX 1 Ongoing Recovery Actions Appendix 1 – Actions Proposed in the WRIA 32 and WRIA 35 Portion of the Recovery Region in 2006–2011 Expected to Improve Salmonid Abundance, Productivity, Diversity, Capacity, or Spatial Structure WRIA 35 (Lower Snake Subbasins) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Asotin Expected Source of funds BPA/CREP No. 1 Action Name Asotin Enhancement Restoration Description Coordinate, assess, protect, restore and monitor holistically-based fish habitat cost-share programs in Asotin Creek watershed. Continue "grass-root" public and agency cooperation and collaboration for identified priority projects benefiting ESA species Contribute to an on-going watershed restoration effort to address sedimentation into stream and tributaries from road-related sources on forested ground within the watershed Reduce sources of wild salmon mortality by installing fish screens Implement BMPs to protect and enhance watersheds in Asotin County. Utilize costshare from USDA, WCC and SRFB as match to BPA funds to implement riparian buffers under the CREP Program (RPA Actions 152 & 153) Action Agency Asotin County Conservation District (NPPC 1994-018-05) Objective Reduce erosion and sediment load to streams through the implementation of direct seed projects and planting of 37 acres of CREP Continue riparian plantings and fencing projects to improve riparian conditions Schedule 2006– Ongoing Cost $280,214 2 Protect & Restore Asotin Creek Watershed Nez Perce Tribe – Lapwaii (NPPC 2002-054-00) Decommission a minimum of 10 miles of road in the South Fork Asotin Creek Asotin BPA 2006– Ongoing $128,400 $50,000 in Cost share matching by USFS With USFS as a coImprove fish passage operator with road conditions at 6 culverts obliteration and contract administration. ACCD Reduce salmon mortality caused by water withdrawal and diversions Re-establish and protect riparian areas with fencing and alternative water developments to reduce impacts to the stream channel Reduce cropland erosion and sediment inputs to the stream through the use of CREP ACCD Control sources and delivery George Creek SRFB of sedimentation and MSA erosion 2006–2011 Asotin MSA SRFB 2006 3 Asotin County Fish Screen Projects Riparian Buffer Couse/Tenmile $48,000 4 Asotin County Conservation District (NPPC 2002-050-00) Couse/Tenmil e BPA, CREP 2006– Ongoing $241,000 5 George Creek Upland Sediment Reduction Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from upland land uses $224,500 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-1 December 2006 Version WRIA 35 (Lower Snake Subbasins) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) South Fork Asotin Creek Expected Source of funds SRFB No. 6 Action Name South Fork Asotin Creek LWD Replenishment and Riparian Enhancement Description Place LWD in South Fork Asotin Creek and plant native conifers and other large woody trees in the riparian to establish shade, sediment control and future wood recruitment Ongoing assessment of fish abundance and distribution Action Agency WDFW Objective Re-establish large woody debris in upper South Fork Asotin Creek, enhance riparian function, and establish a source of natural wood recruitment for the future Enumerate adult and juvenile steelhead in the Asotin Creek watershed Schedule 2006–2008 Cost $200,000 7 Assess Salmonids on Asotin Creek Asotin Creek Wildlife O&M Curl Lake Intake Improvement Habitat For Fall Chinook, Steelhead (Garfield sediment reduction…) WDFW (NPPC) 2002-053-00 Asotin Creek BPA 2006– Ongoing 2006Ongoing 2007 $260,000 8 Operation and Maintenance of WDFW (NPPC) Schlee Property in Upper 2006-005-00 Asotin Creek watershed Make improvements to the intake to improve fish passage success Coordinate, implement, and monitor conservation practices for the reduction of sediment from the uplands of Garfield County and enhance habitat in the riparian zones of the streams to improve water quality for steelhead and Chinook salmon WDFW/USFWS Increase fish passage success and survival Sediment reduction through the establishment of CREP (1,333 acres no-till seeding, 1,500 acres of direct seeding) Reduce sediment by developing 10 aces of terrace and sediment basins Fencing (0.63 miles) and off-site watering (2-sites) 10 acres of native tree and shrub planting Asotin Creek BPA $120,000 9 Tucannon SRFB $108,000 10 Pomeroy Soil & Water (NPPC 1994-018-07) Tucannon BPA 2006– Ongoing $80,000 11 Larger Hatchery Smolt Size on the Tucannon Tucannon School and Pattit Sale area KV projects WDFW Tucannon BPA unknown 12 Plant native grasses and USFS shrubs components within timber sale boundaries and roads. Control noxious weeds. Reduce erosion and increase stream shade within riparian habitats and reduce noxious weeds Tucannon USFS 2007–2011 $14,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-2 December 2006 Version WRIA 35 (Lower Snake Subbasins) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Tucannon Tucannon Expected Source of funds DOE USFS/Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) BPA No. 13 14 Action Name Tucannon River Storage Ponds Tucannon Road Cutslope Stabilization Project Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration Curl Lake Fish Barrier Removal School Fire Riparian Recovery Touchet and Tucannon River Endemic Summer Steelhead Stock Program Description Construct water retention pond at Hartsock Creek Plant native grasses and shrubs along Road 47, 4712, 4713 and 4726 Continue implementation of the Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan Connect isolated habitat to increase the range and distribution of salmon. Restore riparian areas damaged during fire. Develop and test (see RME table) endemic hatchery program to potentially replace Lyons Ferry Hatchery Steelhead Stock in the Touchet and Tucannon Rivers Action Agency WDFW/CCD USFS Objective Reduce peak stream flows Reduce erosion from cutbanks and reduce the need for channel cleanout Provide administrative activities to implement the plan, prioritize projects, establish strategies Increase access to areas blocked by human-caused impediments. Restore fire damaged riparian and upland habitat damaged from School fire Tucannon R. goal is for supplementation of natural steelhead population and to achieve mitigation goals. Touchet R. goal is to minimize adverse effects of the mitigation program on native population while maintaining mitigation. Schedule Start work by 2007 2007–2011 Cost $250,000 $10,000 15 Columbia Conservation District Tucannon 2007– Ongoing $75,000 16 WDFW Tucannon MSA Tucannon MSA Tucannon R and Touchet River SRFB 2007 $108,000 17 WDFW/USFS/PCD/ CCD WDFW/USFWS SRFB, USFS, WDFW WCC, BPA BPA 2006–2011 $986,000 18 Ongoing $150,000 19 Tucannon Steelhead Captive Brood Program Collect Native Brood for the hatchery to expand Tucannon River Endemic Steelhead Stock Program WDFW Increase supplementation of Tucannon endemic Tucannon River River Steelhead and increase genetic diversity within the hatchery brood stock. Minimize adverse impacts to native steelhead (prevent brood stock mining) Rebuild naturally reproducing Tucannon Spring Chinook and meet hatchery mitigation goals/harvest Tucannon River/ Lower Snake River BPA 2006–2008 ~$20,000 20 Tucannon Spring Chinook Hatchery Supplementation Program Enhance natural population using conventional hatchery program with endemic stock and captive brood supplement WDFW/USFWS BPA Ongoing ~700,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-3 December 2006 Version WRIA 35 (Lower Snake Subbasins) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Wooten Wildlife Area Tucannon River – Cummins Creek – Tumalum Creek- others. Expected Source of funds USFS, CREP, Conservation Commission, CCD, PCD, SRFB No. 21 Action Name Description Action Agency WDFW/USFS/NRCS/ CCD Objective Restore riparian are damaged by the School Fire and restore 15 miles of riparian through CREP and modify campgrounds to reduce impacts to riparian function. Upland grass seeding to reduce sediment caused by the fire to the streams Schedule 2006–2008 Cost $1 million + Wooten Wildlife Area Riparian Recovery and LWD and School Fire replenishment project, 15 Riparian Recovery miles of CREP Project WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Coppei Creek Expected Source of funds SRFB No. 1 Action Name Description Action Agency Inland Empire Action Coalition Objective Permanently protect riparian zone on 2 miles of S. Fork of Coppei Creek from grazing or development and allow to develop into mature, fully functional riparian forest buffer Make available 3 miles of perennial spring branch spawning and rearing habitat for ESA listed species. Schedule 2006–2007 Cost $140,000 Hughes Secure a permanent 44-acre Conservation conservation easement with Easement on S. Fork riparian restoration of Coppei Creek 2 Restoration of Doane Creek Spring Branch Reestablish stream characteristics to Doane Creek by excavating a channel with natural alignment and geometry, revegetating riparian buffers and reintroducing flow Provide endemic Snake River Fall Chinook hatchery production for release in the Snake River Basin by Nez Pierce Tribe (NPT), Idaho Power/ODFW/IDFG and WDFW. WWCCD/WDFW/RFEG Lower Mill Creek SRFB 2005–2008 $100,000 3 Lyons Ferry Fall Chinook Stock Recovery Program WDFW/NPT/USFWS/ BPA/IPC/IDFG/ODFW Rebuild Naturally Reproducing Snake River Fall Chinook and Tribal and mitigation goals, as well as harvest goals Lower Snake River/Lower Grande Ronde/Middle Snake River USFWS/USACE/BPA Ongoing ~3 million + Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-4 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Lower Touchet IT Lower Touchet R. Expected Source of funds BPA No. 4 Action Name Piping the east and west irrigation ditches in the Lower Touchet River Hofer Dam fish passage project Description Convert canal systems to pipes Action Agency Walla Walla Conservation District Objective Improve water quality and quantity Schedule 2008–2009 Cost $1 million + 5 Reconstruct the irrigation diversion at Hofer Dam to improve fish passage and fish screening WWCCD/WDFW/RFEG Improve adult and juvenile passage and reduce juvenile irrigation entrainment mortality for ESA listed steelhead and bull trout and reintroduced Chinook Improve adult and juvenile passage and rearing by reducing the quantity of irrigation water lost in conveyance Improve adult and juvenile passage and rearing by reducing the quantity of irrigation water lost in conveyance Improve adult and juvenile passage and by reducing the quantity of irrigation water lost in conveyance Make available 5 miles of perennial tributary spawning and rearing habitat for ESA listed steelhead trout Restore historic channel meander, create pool and riffles, add cobble and LWD, replace culverts, and plant riparian along the entire stream SRFB Design in 2005 and construct in 2006 $900,000 6 Pipe Irrigation District No. 2 Canal Replace earth-lined open ditches with closed-conduit gravity flow piping WWCCD/Ditch Board Lower Walla Walla River SRFB By 2010 unknown 7 Piping Garden City Ditch Replace earth-lined open ditches with closed-conduit gravity flow piping. WWCCD/Ditch Board Lower Walla Walla River Unknown By 2009 $800,000 8 Piping Lowden 2 irrigation district Pipe open ditch conveyance system of Lowden 2 irrigation district WWCCD Lower Walla Walla River Unknown Design in 2005 and construct in 2006 2005–2008 $900,000 9 Restoration of Mud Creek Reestablish natural stream WWCCD/WDFW/ and habitat characteristics to Landowners Mud Creek which is an altered tributary to the lower Walla Walla River. Restore the entire length of McEvoy Creek – 1.25 miles including spring/wetland headwaters to the confluence with the Walla Walla River. WDFW, Landowners, RFEG, USFWS Lower Walla Walla River SRFB $200,000 10 McEvoy Creek Project McEvoy Creek/ Middle Walla Walla River SRFB 2006–2008 $97,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-5 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Middle Touchet Expected Source of funds SRFB No. 11 Action Name Barnes Canyon Road (S. Fork Coppei) Culvert Replacement Barnes Road (S. Fork Coppei) Culvert Replacement North Fork Coppei Creek Conservation Easement South Fork Coppei Creek Stream Crossings McKinley Instream Habitat Enhancement & Streambank Stabilization South Fork Coppei Conservation Easement Piping Gardena Farms irrigation district Description Replace small culvert on S. Fk. Coppei Road and install culverts on Barnes Canyon Road Remove small culvert on Barnes Road Easement on 80 acres in North Fork Coppei drainage Two bridges and one culvert at fords to provide stream crossing Improve instream morphology Action Agency Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Objective Improve fish passage conditions and reduce sedimentation in South Fork Coppei Creek Improve fish passage conditions Protect and restore springfed stream that provides flow to N. Fork Coppei Protect fish, in-stream habitat, and water quality by keeping vehicles from driving through the creek Increase instream cover, spawning and resting areas. Schedule 2006 or 2007 Cost $30,000 12 RFEG/Walla Walla County Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Middle Touchet Middle Touchet Middle Touchet SRFB $8,500 13 SRFB 2007 $76,000 14 Unknown 2008 unknown 15 CCD Middle Touchet MSA SRFB 2007 $55,722.00 16 Conversation easement along Coppei Creek Pipe open ditch conveyance system of Gardena Farms Irrigation District Inland Empire Action Council WWCCD/GFID 13 Restore and protect riparian areas along Coppei Creek Install 2 piping projects to save 2 cfs of flow. Improve adult and juvenile passage and by reducing the quantity of irrigation water lost in conveyance Middle Touchet MSA Middle Walla Walla River SRFB 2007–2008 $162,472 17 Unknown Design in 2006 Construct 2007 $700,000 for projects in 2006-08 18 Design Gose Street grade control structure Design Gose Street grade control structure to improve fish passage WWCCD/CTUIR/ WDFW/RFEG/Walla Walla County Improve adult and juvenile passage for ESA listed steelhead and bull trout and reintroduced Chinook Mill Creek SRFB 2006–2007 unknown Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-6 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Mill Creek Expected Source of funds Unknown No. 19 Action Name Improve Stiller Ditch Intake Description Improve Stiller Ditch intake through completion of improvements suggested in 1999 Montgomery Watson study Action Agency WWCCD/WDFW/ WWCC/DOE/ Landowners Objective Replace a gravel push up dam with a lift pump system which incorporates a compliant fish screen. Improve adult and juvenile passage and reduce juvenile irrigation entrainment mortality Improve adult and juvenile passage for ESA listed steelhead and bull trout and reintroduced Chinook Replace a gravel push up dam with a lift pump system which incorporates a compliant fish screen. Improve adult and juvenile passage and reduce juvenile irrigation entrainment mortality Fill data gaps regarding fish barriers. Schedule By 2008 Cost unknown 20 Remove fish passage barrier at the Gose Street Bridge on Mill Creek Remove fish passage barrier at the Stiller Diversion on Mill Creek Install a fish passage facility at the Gose Street Bridge over Mill Creek Install a screened lift pump system at Stiller Irrigation Diversion WWCCD/CTUIR/ WDFW/RFEG Mill Creek SRFB 2006 $150,000 21 WWCCD/WDFW/ WWCC Mill Creek SRFB Design 2005 Construct 2006 $40,000 22 Mill Creek Fish Passage Assessment Touchet River LWD Sediment Reduction Project Expansion of Rearing Capacity at Lyons Ferry Hatchery Dayton Acclimation Pond Intake/trap /diversion Screens Increase/improve information to help select projects that have a high certainty and benefit. Stream Bank Restoration using LWD and riparian revegetation. Increase capacity for Tucannon Endemic Captive Brood, other endemic steelhead, and Fall Chinook Screen the intake at the Dayton Acclimation Ponds WDFW Mill Creek MSA SRFB 2007 $115,000 23 WDFW/Landowners/ RFEG/USFWS Use LWD to restructure eroding bank and provide fish habitat and plant riparian vegetation. Increase fish production for endemic stock supplementation and/or maintenance. Screen intakes to reduce entrainment North Fork Touchet River SRFB 2006–2008 $30,000 24 WDFW/USFWS Snake River/ Tucannon River/Grande Ronde/ Touchet River Upper Touchet USFWS 2006–2008 ~$350,000 25 LSRCP/WDFW SRFB/BPA 2007–2008 $500,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-7 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Upper Touchet Expected Source of funds DOE No. 26 Action Name Dayton Juvenile fishing pond dredging and outlet structure East End Ditch (Columbia County) Irrigation Efficiency Piping Project. Frame Culvert Replacement Description Dredge pond to increase effluent water quality Action Agency Dayton Non-Profit Group Objective Improve water quality, reduce sediment Schedule 2006–2007 Cost $35,000 27 Continue to replace earthlined open ditches with closed-conduit gravity piping Replaced four undersized culverts on Jim Creek CCD/Ditch Board/ WWWA Improve water quantity, quality y, and improve irrigation efficiency Upper Touchet WWWA 2007 $191,000 28 Dave Frame (landowner Improve fish passage & sponsor)/Family Forest Fish Passage Program Ditch Board/CCD Increase water quantity; improve irrigation efficiency Improve water quality and quantity Upper Touchet RFEG Completed July 2005 $114,125 (est.) 29 Hearn Ditch (Touchet mainstem) Hearn Ditch (Columbia County) Irrigation Efficiency Project Jim Creek Culvert Replacement Replace earth-lined open ditches with closed-conduit gravity flow piping. Implement actions to increase water efficiency of irrigation system Upper Touchet Upper Touchet WWWA By 2008 $261,000 30 Ditch Board/CCD DOE 2007 $30,000 to complete 31 Replace an undersized culvert Tri-State Steelheaders on Jim Creek downstream of RFEG the Patrick and Frame projects Convert fishing pond water source from gravity diversion to screened pump system or consider use of a shallow well. Replaced undersized culvert on Jim Creek CCD/City of Dayton/ WDFW/Walla Walla Improve fish passage Upper Touchet RFEG 2006 construction $50,000 32 Juvenile Fishing Pond in Dayton (Touchet mainstem) Reduce fish entrainment, improve water quality Upper Touchet WWWA/SRFB 2007 $50,000 33 Patrick Culvert Replacement Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Improve fish passage Upper Touchet RFEG Completed July 2005 $21,849 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-8 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Upper Touchet Expected Source of funds BPA No. 34 Action Name Rainwater Wildlife Area Operations Description Project designed to off-set habitat losses associated with hydro system Action Agency CTUIR (NPPC 2000-026-00) Objective Increase LWD by placing trees, reconstruction of approximately 3 miles of drawbottom road and planting 2,400 trees and shrubs in upland areas and riparian areas to reduce sediment input and stream temperature. Maintain 6 miles of existing fencing to protect riparian habitat. Schedule 2006–2007 Cost $304,926 35 Steelhead Acclimation Pond Improvements Touchet River Consolidation and Fishway Project Project entails constructing a fish ladder, screens and consolidating diversions Combine three irrigation diversions and utilize a formal intake dam to its full potential. Build a Pool and Chute fishway to provide fish passage for ESA salmonids and other native species in the Touchet R. Combine water intakes to reduce entrainment Implement actions to improve irrigation efficiency Convert canal to piping system WDFW/USFWS/SRFB/ CCD/Local Irrigators Reduce entrainment and improve fish passage Eliminate stream habitat impacts associated with irrigation activities, provide fish passage, alleviate flooding issues, improve stream habitat and water quality. Reduce entrainment Upper Touchet Upper Touchet SRFB 2007 ~$150,000 36 SRFB 2007–2009 +1 million 37 Touchet River Hearn and West End ditch Consolidation Touchet Valley Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency Project West End ditch (Columbia County) Irrigation Efficiency Project South Fork Touchet River Road WDFW Upper Touchet Upper Touchet Upper Touchet SRFB 2007–2009 ~$500,000 to 1 million ~$500,000 to 1 million $25,000 plus 38 Columbia County Improve water quantity and quality Improve water quality and quantity DOE 2007–2008 39 WWWA 2007 40 Increase or maintain adequate flows for wild salmon. CTUIR Reduce over appropriation of water in salmon bearing streams. Upper Touchet MSA SRFB Summer 2006 $35,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-9 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Upper Touchet MSA Upper, Middle Touchet, Tucannon Walla Walla Expected Source of funds SRFB No. 41 Action Name Touchet River Consolidation Weed Control Description Connect isolated habitat to increase the range and distribution of salmon Weed control in various areas of Columbia County Increase or maintain adequate flows for wild salmon. Action Agency WDFW Objective Increase access to areas block by human-caused impediments. Reduce weed load. Schedule Summer 2006 2006–2007 Cost $1,185,000 42 CC Weed Board BPA $15,000 43 Burlingame Diversion Dam Modification and Fish Passage Improvement City of Walla Walla Service Area Water Efficiency Improvement Gardena Farms Irrigation District No. 13 Reduce over appropriation of water in salmon bearing streams. SRFB Summer 2006 $26,500 44 Implement DOH-compliant water conservation program that includes: leak detection/pipe replacement (and other measures to get unaccounted for water at or below 10%); public education, technical assistance, flat or inclining rates structure, largeuser audits, incentives to reduce water use, and other elements as defined in the city’s water system plans. Instream Habitat - restoration City of Walla Walla Improve water quality and quantity Walla Walla DOE Ongoing unknown 45 Doane Creek WWCCD/WDFW Restore creek to original Walla Walla channel and improve instream and riparian habitat Project is to reduce over appropriation of water in salmon bearing streams. Increase water quantity; improve irrigation efficiency Reduce fish entrainment Remove Dam Walla Walla SRFB 2007–2008 30,000 46 Dry Creek Stream Fords Assessment Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13 ditch piping Garrison Creek Fish Screen Hofer Dam Fish Passage Project Increase or maintain adequate flows for wild salmon. Replace irrigation canal with pipe system Screen off migratory fish access to Garrison Creek. Restore natural river function by removing dam structure. Walla Walla County Watershed Planning DOE SRFB 2007–2008 $77,000 47 Walla Walla DOE 2008–2010 $100,000 48 49 WWCCD WWCCD Walla Walla Walla Walla SRFB SRFB, State, BPA By 2008 Summer 2006 $250,000 $987,686 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-10 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Walla Walla Expected Source of funds RFEG No. 50 Action Name Johnson Walla Walla River Riparian Restoration & Conservation Easement Juvenile Screens and Traps- Walla Walla River Description Install LWD for in-stream habitat and stream bank stabilization, plant riparian buffer, protect 5 acres in conservation easement Provide safe fish passage for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla River by constructing and maintaining passage facilities at irrigation diversion canals and dams Remove dam on upper Mill Creek Install fish screen on Rec. Fields Ditch. Evaluate opportunities to modify diversion to improve fish passage. Remove a small dike on the lower Walla Walla River Re-route Yellowhawk stormwater runoff to SAR site and provide treatment and indirect discharge and replant native vegetation along riparian corridor Continue implementation of shallow aquifer recharge project Action Agency Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Objective Provide in-stream habitat, protect eroding stream bank, restore riparian buffer, protect streamside acreage Improve fish passage facilities at Hofer dam and design of screens at Old Lawden and BergervinWilliams ditches. Improve fish passage success at Gose Street in Lower Mill Creek. Schedule 2006 Cost $50,000 51 CTUIR (NPPC 1996-011-00) Walla Walla BPA 2006–2007 $1.91 million + $300,000 cost share. 52 53 Kooskooskie Dam Removal Rec. Fields (Schulke) Ditch Fish Screens Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG WWCCD Improve fish passage by removing passage barrier Reduce entrainment Walla Walla Walla Walla SRFB SRFB 2006 2007 $200,000 unknown 54 55 Remnant Dike Removal Re-route Yellowhawk Creek Stormwater Runoff DOE DOE Restore floodplain connectivity Walla Walla SRFB DOE 2007 2008–2011 $15,000 $125,000 Improve water quality; Walla Walla reduce sediment and stream temperature 56 Shallow Aquifer Recharge DOE/Walla Walla Improve water quantity and County/Walla Walla quality conditions in Lower Basin Watershed Walla Walla River Council/USACE/CTUIR/ WWWA/Native Creek Society Reduce sediment, decrease stream temperature Walla Walla WWWA, DOE Ongoing $80,000 + 57 Urban CREP and Riparian Restoration Pilot Improve riparian conditions throughout urban area Walla Walla BPA 2007 $150,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-11 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Walla Walla Expected Source of funds WWWA No. 58 Action Name Urban Landscape Pilot Demonstration Project Walla Walla River Basin Habitat and passage improvements Description Develop urban landscape pilot xeriscape planting project to conserve water along sidewalk planting strips Manage and implement fish habitat and passage improvements in the Walla Walla River Action Agency Objective Improve water quality and quantity Schedule 2007 Cost $25,000 59 CTUIR (NPPC 1996-046-01) Enhance floodplain function by removing 1,360 feet of gravel dike Maintenance of existing long term conservation easements Develop future restoration plan for high priority reaches as defined by the subbasin plan Walla Walla BPA 2006– Ongoing $305,378 60 Walla Walla River Fish Passage Increase survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla Basin by operating passage facilities, flow enhancement measures, trapping facilities, and transport equipment to provide adequate passage conditions Riparian buffer, streambank stabilization, wetland enhancement Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (NPPC 2000-033-00) Improve fish passage and survival conditions Walla Walla BPA 2006Ongoing $117,127 61 Nollette Russell Creek Restoration Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Enhance riparian buffer, stabilize streambank, enhance spring fed wetland (possible ASR) Plant and enhance riparian buffer on 500 feet of Russell Creek and plant adjacent acreage in native upland vegetation Walla Walla SRFB 2007 or 2008 unknown 62 Soden Russell Creek Riparian buffer and upland Restoration restoration Tri-State Steelheaders RFEG Walla Walla SRFB 2007 or 2008 unknown 82 Fish Screens in the Walla Walla and Tucannon Basin. Install fish screens through the Cooperative Compliance Program. WWCCD/WW Community College/ WDOE/WDFW/CCCD Provide technical assistance Walla Walla and cost share for ESA Basin Compliant Fish Screens throughout the basin SRFB 2006–2008 $150,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-12 December 2006 Version WRIA 32 (Walla Walla Watershed) Location (Subbasin (MSA/mSA) Walla Walla Basin Expected Source of funds WDFW No. 63 Action Name Walla Walla Wetland Reserve Assessment Description Identify projects for the WRP Program Action Agency WDFW/NRCS Objective Identify projects to reestablish wetlands in the Walla Walla Basin to promote enhanced water quality, diverse habitat, and natural aquifer recharge. Remove dike along the Walla Walla River around McDonald Road to establish floodplain connectivity and replant. Install 120 acres of trees. Use the CREP program to install riparian buffers Install 90 screens. Reduce entrainment mortality of juvenile salmonids Install 8 projects that save 10 cfs of flow. Improve adult and juvenile passage and by reducing the quantity of irrigation water applied but not utilized by crop Schedule 2006–2008 Cost 5,000 64 McDonald Road Dike Removal and Riparian revegetation Revegetation of Riparian Forest Buffers in Walla Walla Watershed Screening of Irrigation Diversions in Walla Walla Watershed Walla Walla OnFarm Irrigation Efficiency Remove Dike on WDFW Property along the Walla Walla to promote floodplain continuity. Installation of native vegetation along fish bearing streams in Walla Walla County Complete final phase of Cooperative Compliance Fish Screen Program in Walla Walla County Improve efficiency of irrigation application (e.g., convert from flood to sprinkler) on individual farms CTUIR/WDFW/USACE/ Walla Walla County Walla Walla River SRFB 2006–2008 $12,000 65 WWCCD/NRCS/FSA/ Landowners Walla Walla Watershed CREP Ongoing since 2000 2006–2008 2006–2007 Ongoing – complete in 2007 2006–2008 $325,000 66 WDFW/ WWCCD/ WWCC Walla Walla Watershed SRFB $400,000 67 WWCCD Walla Walla Watershed DOE $3,800,000 68 Wolf Fork Fish Habitat Enhancement Dos Rios Project Fish Habitat Enhancement, LWD Riparian restoration on Yellowhawk Creek and Cottonwood Creek. WDFW/Landowners/ RFEG/USFWS WDFW/Landowners/ RFEG/USFWS Construct instream fish habitat with large woody structures and boulders. Restore and increase riparian area along Yellowhawk Creek and Cottonwood Creek on private property. Restore riparian area along Yellowhawk Creek and Caldwell Creek on private property. Wolf Fork Touchet Yellowhawk Creek SRFB 2006–2008 $30,000 69 SRFB 2006–2008 $26,000 70 Arroyos Escondidos Riparian restoration on Yellowhawk Creek and Caldwell Creek WDFW/Landowners/ RFEG/NRCS Yellowhawk Creek/ Caldwell Creek SRFB 2006–2008 $36,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A1-13 December 2006 Version APPENDIX 2 Existing RM&E 2004-2006 Appendix 2 - Existing RME 2004-2006 Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 1 Project Walla Walla Basin (within WA) Salmonid Population and Habitat Assessment Tucannon Bull Trout Telemetry Description Lead Entity Funding Source BPA Annual Cost $175,000 Location Walla Walla Assess habitat conditions, fish WDFW distribution and relative abundance (adult and juvenile), and salmonid genetic characterization. Study the behavior of bull trout in the WDFW and Tucannon and Snake rivers, and USFWS determine numbers and movements of bull trout from the Tucannon into the Snake River to evaluate the effects of the COE hydrosystem on this species Project provides baseline information on WDFW fish and habitat conditions in small Snake and Grande Ronde tributaries, as well as George Creek system and upper Asotin for steelhead and bull trout Collaborative effort between WDFW and WDFW / USFWS to characterize genetics of the USFWS Tucannon bull trout populations in various reaches of the upper Tucannon drainage 2 BPA $150,000 Tucannon 3 Asotin County Salmonid and Habitat Assessment BPA $26,000 Asotin County 4 Tucannon Bull Trout Genetics Sampling USFWS $10,000 Tucannon 5 Bull Trout monitoring in SE Initial study to determine bull trout WDFW WA distribution and relative abundance in the upper Tucannon drainage and the Wenaha basin within WA. Data is being collected through electroshocking and spawning surveys Resident Fish Monitoring Baseline effort to monitor resident fish WDFW populations and plan in SE Washington. USFWS $6,700 Tucannon, Grande Ronde (Wenaha River) Recovery 6 WDFW $15,000 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-1 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 7 Project Anadromous Fish Monitoring Description Lead Entity Funding Source WDFW Annual Cost $20,000 Location Recovery plan Snake River and tribs Snake River and tribs Snake River and tribs Baseline effort to monitor andromous fish WDFW populations and plan in SE Washington. WDFW 8 Anadromous Fish Planning Funds are used for anadromous fish population planning. Spring Chinook Creel Surveys WDFW $30,000 9 Conduct creel surveys to determine WDFW number of spring Chinook caught in sport fisheries. WDFW WDFW $10,000 10 Spring Chinook - Hatchery Evaluate hatchery effects on natural Supplementation and spring Chinook populations; determine Mitigation Evaluation the relative reproductive success of natural vs hatchery spring Chinook; estimate juvenile productivity (survival rates by life stage and smolt production estimates). Fall Chinook - Hatchery Determine the effects hatchery fall Supplementation/Mitigation Chinook have on wild fall Chinook /stock recovery evaluation population genetics. Steelhead - Evaluation of Harvest Mitigation and Supplementation Programs Steelhead Adult Escapement Monitoring USFWS $234,000 11 WDFW USWFS $234,000 Snake River and tribs Snake River and tribs 12 Endemic broodstock development; WDFW determine hatchery steelhead behavior (juvenile residualism, adult straying), juvenile productivity (survival rates by life stage and smolt production estimates). Monitoring of stock status, juvenile production estimate at smolt stage (productivity of unsupplemented natural population), developing a description of life history pathways for this species. WDFW USFWS $234,000 13 BPA $1,100,000 Asotin Creek Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-2 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 14 Project Spring and Fall Chinook Adult Escapement Monitoring Tucannon Captive Brood Project Description Lead Entity Funding Source BPA Annual Cost $10,000 Location Asotin Creek Document adult escapement incidental to WDFW steelhead work in Asotin Creek. A secondary goal is to estimate smolt production if possible. Development and implementation of a captive broodstock program for one generation of Tucannon Spring Chinook to buoy the population through a bottleneck. A comparison of captive, supplementation and wild productivity, genetics and life stage performance will be documented. WDFW 15 BPA $126,000 Tucannon 16 Snake River Fall Chinook Relative Reproductive Success Utilize DNA samples from hatchery WDFW endemic Snake River fall Chinook and wild Snake fall Chinook to assess the applicability of a technique to assign parental origin to outmigrant fall Chinook smolts. The technique is being assessed on the Snake River, a system far too large to conduct a more traditional genetic parentage assignment study, to determine if the relative reproductive success of hatchery and wild Chinook can be accurately measured in a large river system. See habitat actions table – Study to develop lists of roads and culverts that with removal will increase the quality/quantity of salmon habitat. Nez Perce/ USFS BPA $138,000 Snake River and tribs 17 Asotin Creek Road Abandonment Program and Culvert Replacement Program BPA/USFS Asotin Creek Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-3 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 18 Project Walla Walla River Basin Monitoring (NPPC 2000-039-00) Description Lead Entity Funding Source BPA Annual Cost $670,000 Location Walla Walla Natural production monitoring - Monitor CTUIR adult and juvenile abundance, distribution, age and growth, outmigration and survival. 19 Walla Walla Fish Passage Evaluating fish passage conditions in Mill CTUIR Project (1996-011-00) Creek and other locations in the basin. Monitor Natural Fish Production Walla Walla River Walla Walla Flow Enhancement Feasibility Evaluation Walla Walla IFIM Study CTUIR BPA $317,000 Walla Walla 20 BPA $300,000 to Walla $500,000 Walla Walla Walla Walla Walla Asotin Creek 21 Determine the need and opportunities for CTUIR increasing stream flow. USACE Conduct and IFIM evaluation of stream Conservation flow, and in the Walla Walla River basin. District 22 23 24 25 Asotin Creek Water Quality Determine water quality in Asotin Creek. Conservation Analysis District Walla Walla Mainstem Bull Monitor bull trout abundance and usage Trout Evaluation of mainstem habitat in the Walla Walla. Walla Walla Bull Trout Abundance and Life History Determine bull trout abundance/life history data in Oregon portion of Walla Walla. USFWS Utah State University/ USFWS ODFW/ USFS USFWS USFWS Walla Walla Walla Walla Walla Walla (Mill Creek) Walla Walla 26 Upper Mill Creek Bull Trout Determine abundance, distribution, Study spawning of bull trout in Upper Mill Creek. Walla Walla Bull Trout Evaluation Evaluating bull trout populations on USFS lands. BPA 27 USFS Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-4 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 28 Project Video Monitoring of Adult Passage (Walla Walla River) Description Conduct video dam counts of adult passage at Bennington Dam and Yellowhawk Diversion (Mill Creek). Lead Entity USACE Funding Source USACE Annual Cost Location Walla Walla (Mill Creek) Walla Walla 29 Walla Walla Water Budget Develop a water-budget for the Walla Walla River. Project is inventoring all water sources including springs, wells, and surface flows. Walla Walla TMDL Study Walla Walla Watershed Council 30 31 WDOE is conducting a TMDL evaluation WDOE/OWR WDOE of the Walla Walla River basin. In Oregon only CTUIR BPA $337,023 Walla Walla Grande Ronde Grande Ronde Develop, implement, and evaluate Supplementation program integrated conventional and captive M&E (NPPC 1998-007-03) brood hatchery projects to prevent extinction and stabilize populations of threatened spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead populations in the Grande Ronde River. Life Studies of Spring Chinook (NPPC 1992-026-04) 32 Investigate the abundance, migration In Oregon only ODFW patterns, survival, and life history strategies of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead from distinct populations and implement fish population and habitat monitoring in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River basins. WDOE is conducting a TMDL evaluation WDOE of the Walla Walla River basin. BPA $949,504 Grande Ronde 33 Snake River TMDL Study WDOE Snake tributaries in SE WA Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-5 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 34 Project Watershed Planning Description Setting instream flows and allocation recommendations. Lead Entity WDOE Funding Source WDOE Annual Cost Location Walla Walla 35 Watershed Planning Setting instream flows and allocation recommendations. WDOE WDOE Snake tributaries in SE WA 36 Tucannon Cobble Embeddedness Assessment Assess habitat conditions pertaining to percent fines and sediment using Wolmans’ Pebble counts and embeddeness transects on Tucannon mainstem and its tributaries. Study will compare current conditions to those collected previously. USFS and CCD BPA $12,000 Tucannon 37 Tucannon Watershed Sediment and Temperature Monitoring Project provides baseline information on USFS fish and habitat conditions in the Tucannon River and its tributaries. Hobos to monitor temperature and ISCO sediment samplers for turbidity are placed for continuous assessment of project activity effects. USFS $8,000 Tucannon 38 Asotin County Sediment and Temperature Monitoring Project provides baseline information on USFS/ACCD USFS/BPA $12,000 fish and habitat conditions in the Asotin Creek and its tributaries. Hobos to monitor temperature and ISCO sediment samplers for turbidity are placed for continuous assessment of project affects. Asotin Creek Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-6 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 39 Project Tucannon/Asotin Watersheds Macro Invertebrate Study Description Lead Entity Funding Source USFS Annual Cost $10,000 Location Asotin/ Tucannon Rivers and Tribs Asotin Creek Project provides baseline information on USFS species and population diversity within the Tucannon Watershed. Study of species as an indicator of the healthy water conditions. This project implements the RM&E criteria specified in the Asotin Subbasin Plan by providing estimates of abundance, productivity, survival rates, and temporal and spatial distribution of ESA-listed species. WDFW 40 Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed (2002-053-00) BPA $212,000 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A2-7 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat APPENDIX 3 Proposed New RM&E Appendix 3. Proposed New RM&E Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 1 Project Touchet River Smolt Trapping Description Estimate smolt production (all species) from the Touchet River. Trap would be located near Waitsburg Improve adult counting operations at Touchet Dam Enumerate adult fish entering the creek (all species) Video count adults at both fish ladders (all species) Lead Entity WDFW Funding Source Cost $150,000 # of Years 15 Location Walla Walla (Touchet River) 2 3 4 5 Touchet River Adult Counts Coppei Creek Adult Counts Adult Counts Nursery Bridge Conduct Spawning Surveys in the Recovery Area Tucanon River Adult Counts PIT Tag Monitoring WDFW WDFW ODFW/CTUIR $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $150,000 15 15 15 15 Walla Walla (Touchet River) Walla Walla (Coppei Creek) Walla Walla Walla Walla Spawning surveys would be WDFW/ODFW/ conducted in all MSAs and mSAs on CTUIR a yearly basis Develop new method and facility for counting adult migrants in the lower Tucannon River. WDFW 6 $75,000 15 Tucannon 7 Maintain and fund PIT Tag systems WDFW/CTUIR designed to monitor juvenile and adult production in the Asotin Creek, Tucannon River and Walla Walla River. Monitor adult and juvenile production in George Creek (Asotin Creek) WDFW $50,000 15 Asotin Creek, Tucannon River, Walla Walla River Asotin Creek (George Creek) 8 George Creek Juvenile and Adult Enumeration $50,000 15 Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-1 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 9 Project Hatchery Fish Marking Description Expanded or maintaining current marking/tagging of hatchery fish released in the recovery area Lead Entity WDFW/ CTUIR/NPT WDFW Funding Source Cost $250,000 # of Years 15 Location Recovery Area 10 Genetic Collect genetic data/samples on key Evaluation of Fish fish populations throughout the Populations recovery area Baseline Habitat Data Collection Conduct baseline habitat surveys in all tributaries where this data does not currently exist. Additionally, collect information on key environmental attributes listed in Table 8-2 (SRSRP) $25,000 5 Snake River and Tribs Recovery Area 11 WDFW/CTUIR $200,000 10 12 Conduct Baseline Population Sampling Throughout Recovery Area Bull Trout Fish Distribution and Abundance Surveys Evaluation of External Factors Presence/absence and estimates of WDFW/ODFW/ CTUIR abundance would be collected in all streams throughout the recovery area Presence/absence and estimates of WDFW/ODFW abundance would be collected in all bull trout streams throughout the recovery area Quantify to the extent possible the impacts factors outside of the subbasins or recovery area are having on recovery goals (harvest, hydro, estuary, predation etc.) Conduct studies to ensure that implemented actions are changing the environment as expected NPPC/NOAA NPPC $50,000 3 Recovery Area 13 $75,000 15 Wenaha, Tucannon, Mill Creek Columbia Basin 14 $50,000 15 15 Evaluation of Action Effectiveness WDFW/CTUIR $75,000 15 Recovery Area Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-2 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 16 Project Evaluation of Species Habitat relationships Adult Monitoring at Bennington Dam Monitor Stream Fisheries Substrate Assessment Tucannon River and Tributaries Description Implement research to better define linkages between habitat attributes and fish performance Monitor adult passage Lead Entity WDFW/CTUIR Funding Source ? Cost $100,000 # of Years 15 Location Columbia Basin 17 WDFW/ USACE/CTUIR WDFW $50,000 15 Walla Walla 18 Monitor fish harvest (creel surveys for salmonid fisheries) throughout recovery area Assess habitat conditions pertaining to percent fines and sediment using Wolmans’ Pebble counts and embeddeness transects on Tucannon mainstem and its tributaries. Study will compare current conditions to those collected previously. Seven additional ISCO sediment samplers for turbidity would be placed for continuous assessment of project activity effects. Samplers were previously in place at the selected sitesStudy will compare results of previously collected data for trends. $100,000 15 Recovery Area 19 CCD/USFS BPA/USFS $8,000 annually 3-5 Tucannon River 20 Suspended Sediment Tucannon River CCD/USFS BPA/USFS $20,000 annually ? Tucannon River Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-3 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 21 Project Hooking Mortality Study on Salmonids in Snake River Hooking Mortality Study on Salmonids in Snake River Description Assess adverse impacts of hooking mortality from incidental catch on listed salmon and steelhead within the recovery area Lead Entity WDFW Funding Source Cost 40,000 # of Years 5 Location Snake River/ Grande Ronde 22 Reproductive Genetic study in upper Tucannon Success of Spring River to determine reproductive Chinook and success of hatchery fish. Summer Steelhead in Tucannon River Fall Chinook Production in the Lower Tucannon River Implement research and monitoring to describe factors limiting fall Chinook production in the lower Tucannon River WDFW 150,000 3 Tucannon 23 WDFW 80,000 3 Tucannon 24 Monitor Natural Increase monitoring efforts for Coho Coho Production salmon in the lower Tucannon River in the Lower Tucannon River Predation of Fall Chinook in the Tucannon River by Summer Steelhead and Other Predatory Species Implement a study to document the amount of predation on fall Chinook in the Tucannon River by hatchery summer steelhead or other predatory species. WDFW 10,000 10 Tucannon 25 WDFW 25,000 3 Tucannon Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-4 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 26 Project Description Lead Entity WDFW Funding Source Cost $100,000 # of Years 15 Location Asotin Creek Tucannon Touchet Remote Adult Deploy 2-3 remote adult summer Counting Stations steelhead counting weirs using in Small Resistivity Counters Tributaries Fall Chinook Run Funding for biologist to compile and Reconstruction finalize data for accurate run reconstruction at Lower Granite Dam for Snake Rive fall Chinook Wildlife Area Management Plans Asotin Creek Wildlife Area Update the previous Wildlife Area Management Plans (Chief Joseph, Wooten, Asotin Ck Wildlife Areas Assess existing habitat conditions and public utilization of the Asotin Creek Wildlife Area implement projects to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Assess existing habitat conditions and public utilization of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area implement projects to enhance fish habitat and improve instream and riparian habitat. Assessment Fish Passage Barrier Assessment 27 WDFW Nez Perce Pacific Salmon Treaty $35,000 annually Snake River 28 WDFW $15,000 1 Asotin Ck/ Tucannon R. /Grande Ronde R. Asotin Creek Wildlife Area Asotin CreekGeorge CreekPintler Creek Chief Joseph Wildlife Area/ Joseph CreekGrand Ronde 29 WDFW $50,000 1 30 Chief Joseph Wildlife Area Habitat Projects WDFW $50,000 1 31 32 Tucannon Mill Creek Assessment HDR WDFW/Mill Creek Work Group $50,000 $115,000 1 1 Tucannon Walla Walla Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-5 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat Biological Parameters Spatial Structure Hatchery Effects Harvest Effects Productivity Abundance Project # 33 Project Description Lead Entity WWCCD/ WDFW/Ditch Board Funding Source Cost $100,000 # of Years 1 Location Walla Walla River Old Lowden, Explore feasibility of consolidating Bergevin the diversions and upgrade screens Williams, and Byerley Irrigation Consolidation All priority Use Remote Sensing to assess and geographic Areas monitor quantity and quality of habitat and effects to ensure net gains in habitat conditions All priority Assess barriers or imminent threats geographic Areas Touchet-Lowden Assemble background data for an Area Assurances “Assurances” agreement between Strategy irrigators in the Touchet Lowden area and the USFWS and NMFS. 34 WDFW SRFB, BPA, etc. 75,000 15 All 35 36 WDFW WWCCD/ NRCS SRFB, BPA, etc. $100,000 $200,000 5 1 All Walla Walla Watershed in heavily irrigated Touchet Lowden Area Summary Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington A3-6 December 2006 Version Diversity Habitat