Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 FINAL UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY PLAN FOR CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD August 5, 2011 APPENDICES Appendix A: Planning Team and Stakeholder Team Members ...............................................2 Appendix B: CATAS Support Information ................................................................................5 Appendix C: Background Material for Limiting Factors and Threats..................................32 Appendix D: SLAM Model Support Information ....................................................................36 Appendix E: Background Information on the Role of Chinook Hatcheries and Reintroduction Strategies for UWR Chinook above Willamette Project barriers and in other subbasins..............................................................................120 Appendix F: Related Management Plans and Conservation Efforts....................................137 Appendix G: Summary of State Programs to Implement Recovery Actions.......................146 Appendix H: Crosswalk of Terms - Limiting Factors, Threats, and Ecological Concerns ................................................................................................................................167 Appendix I: Methodology for Conservation Gaps..................................................................172 Appendix J: Summary of Analysis and Chapter Organization ............................................183 Appendix K: Addition Background Information on Threats to UWR Chinook and Steelhead .........................................................................................................187 Appendix L: Handbooks Summarizing Subbasin Implementation Opportunities.........................................................................................................................188 1 Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 Appendix A: Planning Team and Stakeholder Team Members Planning Team Members Name Agency Bob Ruediger BLM Daniel Spear BPA Ed Moore DLCD Gary Lynch DOGAMI Joy Vaughan DSL Lisa McLaughlin EWEB Sue Knapp GNRO Anne Mullan NOAA Ben Meyer NOAA Lance Kruzic NOAA Stephanie Burchfield NOAA Ray Jaindl (contact) ODA Nancy Gramlich ODEQ Jim Ewing ODF Dave Jepsen ODFW Jeff Ziller ODFW Kevin Goodson ODFW Kirk Schroeder ODFW Manny Farinas ODFW Steve Mamoyac ODFW Todd Alsbury ODFW Wendy Hudson OWEB Greg Taylor USACE Mindy Simmons USACE Deborah Virgovic USDA Corey Lewellen USFS Bob Danehy Weyerhauser David Primozich Willamette Partnership Bill Ferber WRD 2 Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 Stakeholder Team Members Interest Group Area Name Agriculture Grass Seed Dave Nelson Agriculture Nurseries Eric Gossler Agriculture Orchards Peter McDonald Agriculture Veggies Peter Kenagy Commerce Gravel (OCAPA) Rich Angstrom Commerce Or. Homebuilders Ernie Platt Conservation/Recreation Eric Hartstein Conservation/Recreation McKenzie Trust Joe Moll Conservation/Recreation TNC Leslie Bach Conservation/Recreation Willamette River Travis Williams Conservation/Recreation Willamette Riverkeeper Gerry St. Pierre County Government Marion County Sam Brentano Facilitator Cogan Owens Alisha Dishaw Facilitator Cogan Owens Bill Blosser Facilitator Cogan Owens Jim Owens Federal ACOE Mindy Simmons Federal BLM Al Doelker Federal BLM Joe Moreau Federal BLM Nikki Moore Federal BPA Dan Spear Federal BPA John Gleason Federal USFS (Willamette NF) Dallas Emch Federal USFS (Willamette NF) Kathy Bulchis Federal USFS (Willamette NF) Scott Fitzwilliams Fishing Guides Dave Walp Fishing NW Steelheaders Alan Girod Fishing NW Steelheaders Bill Sanderson Fishing OR Anglers Dennis Richey Fishing OR Fishing Club (Alternate) Bruce Harpole Forestry OSWA Bob Obermire Forestry Pulp/Paper Kathryn VanNatta Forestry Weyerhaeuser Kevin Godbout Local Government Salem Paul Eckley Local Government Wilsonville Kerry Rappold Project Management Governor's office Sue Knapp Project Management NOAA Lance Kruzic Project Management ODFW Dave Jepsen Project Management ODFW Tom Stahl SWCDs Benton Co. Gordon Cumming SWCDs Polk Co. Jackie Hastings Tribal Grand Ronde Brandy Humphreys 3 Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 Tribal Grand Ronde Kelly Dirksen Tribal Grand Ronde Michael Karnosh Tribal Siletz Tom Downey Tribal Siletz (alternate) Stan Van de Wetering Utilities EWEB Steve Newcomb Wastewater ACWA Dave Breitenstein Wastewater ACWA (alternate) Wayne Gresh Watershed Council Luckiamute Watershed Council (alternate) Michael Cairns Watershed Council McKenzie Larry Six Watershed Council North Santiam Liz Redon 4 Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 Appendix B: CATAS Support Information B.1. Data sets used to estimate recruitment functions for Willamette salmon and steelhead populations Background The purpose of Appendix B.1 is to document the abundance data sets that were used to develop recruitment models for Willamette River basin salmon and steelhead. We also provide these data here so that those who wish to delve more deeply into our methodology or try alternative methods to analyze these data are able to do so. We note that for Willamette spring Chinook the number of populations for which we had spawner abundance data was fewer than the populations for which this information lacking. For those populations for which we had no data, we estimated the form of each population’s recruitment model through a process of inference described in Appendix B.3. Much of the following narrative describing each population’s data set is taken from an earlier summary of this information in McElhany et al. (2007; also see Appendix B.3). However, the data sets provided here differ from those of the earlier description in several respects. In several cases, additional years of data have become available and therefore the data series have been updated to reflect this. Also, there were a variety of corrections to the previous data sets based on new information; especially with respect to what fraction of the natural spawning population were hatchery fish. In providing this information it is important to acknowledge that the collection of data from these populations has been neither comprehensive nor consistent. Data are lacking for a substantial number of the populations. For those populations where data are available, the nature of these data and the methods to collect them were often dissimilar. For example, spring Chinook abundance for the McKenzie River population was based on counts of fish passing Leaburg Dam. In other cases , steelhead spawner abundance estimates were based on redd density estimates in short stream survey sections, then expanded for all of the estimated stream kilometers of spawning habitat in the basin. Even for populations for which data existed, it was common that the information was incomplete. Sometimes a year or more of survey data was missing. In other instances, impact rate estimates for a particular fishery were not available. To assemble a full data set required the development a variety of methods to “fill in” these data gaps. It is recognized there is no single correct method for accomplishing this. A range of alternative estimation methods could be used to generate numbers needed to approximate the missing data. Here we document the steps used to fill these data gaps, with a narrative for each population outlining specific details of how we built each data set and dealt with ‘data gaps’. The reader will note that for all populations we represent the proportion of different aged fish at spawning as a fixed distribution, without annual variations. This was a pragmatic decision in that annual estimates of spawner age composition are generally lacking. There is risk that the use of a fixed age composition may introduce another source of error in our run reconstructions and estimation of recruitment equation parameters. However, we were faced with either fitting our recruitment models from data built using a fixed age composition or not doing the recruitment analysis at all. For Chinook, only in the recent years has there been the ability to distinguish wild from hatchery fish. Invariably most of the age determinations for Chinook are based on hatchery fish. The age composition of hatchery Chinook is known to differ from wild Chinook. Therefore, prior to early 2000s the likelihood of annual age data accurately representing wild spring Chinook populations is low. 5 Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead FINAL – August 5, 2011 For steelhead, because their age complexity exceeds that of the other species, a large sample is required each year to fully capture the range of expression for this population attribute. The likelihood of obtaining a sufficient number of samples to accurately estimate annual age compositions is low. Especially, for the majority of steelhead populations where the primary observation method is the spawning surveys conducted in late winter and spring. Redds are the primary observation in such surveys, live fish are infrequently observed, and spawned out carcasses, which could be sampled for age determinations are almost never observed. Population Data Descriptions 1. Spring Chinook - Clackamas