Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead
Annual Report January 2014-December 2014
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms …………………………………………………………………...…….…..3
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………...……..4
2010 Status Review…….…...…………………………………………………………………..………...5
Desired Status …………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Status of VSP Monitoring of Salmon and Steelhead Population in the Lower Columbia………...……...6
Establishment of Specific Measurable Criteria ……………...…………………………….……………..7
Measurable Criteria and the Early Warning Indicator System…………………………………………...10
Oregon’s Chum Recovery Strategy ……………………………………………………………………...13
Oregon’s Lower Columbia River Population Fact Sheets ………………………………………………14
Youngs Bay………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
Big Creek …………………………………………………………………………………………………...22
Clatskanie …………………………………………………………………………………………...……...27
Scappoose ……………………………………………………………………………..…………….……...32
Clackamas …………………………………………………………………………………………….…….36
Sandy ………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..44
Lower Gorge ………………………………………………………………………………………….…….51
Upper Gorge ………………………………………………………………………………………….…….55
Hood …………………………………………………….……………………………………………….…..57
Implementation Coordination ……………………………….……………………………………….…..63
Adaptive Management Recommendations …………………….………………………………………...64
References and Endnotes ………………………………………….………………………………...…...65
Cover Photo: Columbia River Near Lindsey State Park Photo: ODOT Electronic versions of this annual progress report and the Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Lower Columbia River are available on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_river_plan.asp 2 Abbreviations and Acronyms:
Acronym Name Hood River Research Columbia North Coast Abundance/ HRSWC Soil and Water Monitoring The Freshwa- A/P CSWC Slough Water- NCWA Watershed RM&E TFT Productivity D Conservation and Evalua- ter Trust shed Council Association District tion
Confederate Portland Bureau Tribes of the Native Fish Reasonable United States Hood River USAC- BES of Environmen- CTWS Warm Spring HRWG NFCP Conservation RPA and Prudent Army Corps Working Group OE tal Services Reservation Policy Alternative of Engineers of Oregon
United States Johnson Creek Coded Wire Remote Site Fish and BLDR Boulder CWT JCWC Watershed NFK North Fork RSI USFWS Tag Incubator Wildlife Ser- Council vice
U.S. Bureau of Oregon Dept. National Ma- Secondary Viable Salm- Key or Primary BLM Land Manage- DEQ of Environ- K NMFS rine Fisheries S Limiting VSP onid Popula- Limiting Factor ment mental Quality Service Factor tions
National Oce- Washington Distinct Popu- Scappoose Best Manage- Lower Colum- anic and At- Department of BMP DPS lation Seg- LCR NOAA SBWC Bay Water- WDFW ment Practice bia River mospheric Fish and ment shed Council Administration Wildlife
Willamette Lower Colum- Nicolai-Wickiup Lower Colum- Bureau of Ducks Unlim- LCRCR bia River Con- Side Chan- WLC- BOR DU NWWC Watershed SCH bia Technical Reclemation ited P servation and nel TRT Council Recovery Recovery Plan Team
East West Multnomah Lower Colum- St. Helens Multnomah EMS- Oregon Dept. WMSWC ChF Fall Chinook Soil and Wa- LCEP bia Estuary ODF SHHS School Dis- Soil and Wa- WCD of Forestry D ter Conserva- Partnership trict ter Conserva- tion District tion District
Lower Colum- Oregon De- Sandy River Endangered bia River Wa- partment of SRBW ChS Spring Chinook ESA LCRWC ODFW Basin Water- yd3 Cubic Yards Species Act tershed Coun- Fish and Wild- C shed Council cil life
Evolutionary Oregon De- Skippanon Columbia Land Light Detection CLT ESU Significant LiDAR ODOT partment of SRWC River Water- Trust and Ranging Unit Transportation shed Council
Greater Ore- Large Woody Pacific General Spatial CR Columbia River GOWC gon City Wa- LWD PGE SS Debri Electric Structure tershed Coun-
Clackamas Generalized Percent Hatch- River Basin Random- ery Fish on Summer CRBC GRTS m2 Meter squared pHOS StS Watershed Tessellation Spawning Steelhead Council Stratified Ground Columbia River Middle Fork Habitat Con- Portland Water Winter Steel- CREST Estuary Task HCP MFID Irrigation Dis- PWB StW servation Plan Bureau head Force trict
Mount Hood Tryon Creek Chum Recovery High Intrinsic CRS HIP MHNF National For- rKm River Kilometer TCWC Watershed Strategy Potential est Council
3 Introduction The Lower Columbia River Conserva- tion and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead (LCRCRP), referred as to the Plan hereafter, was adopted by the Ore- gon Fish and Wildlife Commission on August 10, 2010. The plan serves as both a federal recovery plan for Ore- gon fish populations listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a State of Oregon conservation plan under Oregon’s Native Fish Conser- vation Policy (NFCP). The plan is de- signed to guide the strategic and vol- untary implementation of actions needed to conserve and recover salmon and steelhead in the Oregon portion of the area designated as the Lower Columbia River sub-domain, which includes the Columbia River and its tributaries in Oregon and Washington from Hood River down- stream to the Pacific Ocean, exclud- ing the Willamette River above Figure 1. The three management units in the Lower Columbia River sub- Willamette Falls which is a separate domain, and the Upper Willamette River sub-domain. This Plan addresses the sub-domain. The plan is based on Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit. science, supported by stakeholders The Plan provides a framework and roadmap for the con- and built on existing efforts and new servation and recovery of three lower Columbia River salm- proposed actions. This annual report on (Oncorhynchus species) Evolutionarily Significant Units serves as a yearly review of popula- (ESUs) and one steelhead Distinct Population Segment tion status, implementation actions, (DPS); henceforth, the ESUs and DPS will be collectively and adaptive management direction referred to as ESUs in Oregon that are listed under the for the LCRCRP. ESA: Lower Columbia River coho (O. kisutch), Lower Co- lumbia River chinook (O. tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss), and Columbia River chum (O. keta). These species occupy habitat in Oregon tributaries of the lower Columbia River below, and including, the Hood River at river kilometer (rkm) 270 (Figure 1). They are also present in Washington tributaries to the lower Columbia River. The Plan also considers the unlisted steelhead pop- ulations in Oregon downstream of the Willamette River and the Clackamas spring chinook population, which is ESA- listed, as threatened, as part of the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU. Photo: USFWS This annual report summarizes the status of the Oregon LCR Recovery Plan’s Implementation for the period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. This report will be updated annually to provide a continuous tracking of progress toward recovery plan action implementation and goals.
4 2010 Status Assessment Chapter 4 of the Plan discusses the assessed status of each independent population and used the best available data and scientific inference, to determine extinction risk classes. The assessments took into account a number of biological Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters related to salmonid viability, including abundance, productivity, spatial distribution and diversity. Assessments were done for all Oregon LCR populations, excluding chum, which are considered functional extir- pated from the Oregon portion of the ESU. In 2010, NOAA completed a 5-year status review for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act which evaluated status based on the most recent viability (VSP) criteria data and trends in threats limiting salmon and steelhead viability. The NOAA review did not indicate a change in the listing status for the Lower Columbia River salmon or steelhead populations. LCR coho, chinook, chum and steelhead remained listed under the ESA and classified as threatened. The most up to date available information regarding VSP parameters is found on the ODFW Recov- ery Tracker at: http://www.odfwrecoverytracker.org.
Desired Status Chapter 6 of the Plan describes the desired status of Oregon’s salmon and steelhead populations in the Lower Columbia River Recovery Domain, as well as the approach to achieving the desired sta- tus through threat reduction scenarios.
Threat reduction scenarios are the suite of threat reductions (achieved through actions) and result- ing VSP parameters within a population that are intended to achieve the desired status for that pop- ulation.
Oregon has two recovery goals that frame the State of Oregon’s path toward recovery of the lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. First, delisting, the populations must reach designated statuses of biological viability determined by the Willamette Lower Columbia Technical Review Team (WLC-TRT) to support removal of the LCR coho and chinook ESUs, the LCR steel- head DPS, and CR chum ESU from the threatened and endangered species list. Second, broad sense recovery, seeks to rebuild the populations to provide for sustainable fisheries and other eco- logical, cultural and social benefits.
To meet the delisting goal, Oregon based the Plan on WLC-TRT’s biological viability criteria and rec- ommended that NMFS consider delisting the four listed salmonid ESUs addressed by the Plan when the following biological delisting criteria are achieved: 1) ESU/DPS: all historically existing strata meet Stratum delisting criteria. 2) Stratum: the stratum has a high probability of persistence, where high probability of stra- tum persistence is defined as: a) at least two populations in the stratum meet Population viability criteria, b) the average of all stratum population extinction risk category scores is 2.25 or greater, and c) all populations not meeting Population viability criteria do not deteriorate and are maintained. 3) Population Viability: a population is "viable" based on an integrated assessment of the population's abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity statuses that produc- es an extinction risk classification score ranging from 0-4, based on the WLC-TRT’s scor- ing system.
5 Status of VSP Monitoring of Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Lower Columbia River
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) are needed to assess the biological status of listed species and their habitat, track progress toward achieving recovery goals, and provide information needed to refine recovery strategies and actions through the process of adaptive management. Chapter 8 outlines the RM&E needs of this Plan as they pertain to biological criteria (i.e. abun- dance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure) and listing criteria (i.e. habitat degradation, fish harvest, hatcheries, disease and predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors) affecting the continued existence of Oregon’s salmon and steelhead populations in the lower Columbia River Measurable VSP criteria related to biological recovery are based on the specific goals for each lower Columbia salmon and steelhead population established in threat reduction and recovery scenarios and based on the desired delisting status. With regards to the assessment of biological criteria (i.e. abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity), the benchmarks outlined in chapter 8 are intended to serve as interim measures of progress towards achieving recovery goals absent full via- bility analyses (as conducted for development of this Plan), which require long term data trends to show progress. The suite of RM&E identified as necessary to evaluate these measurable criteria will also ultimately provide the foundation for more comprehensive viability analyses, such as those described in McElhany et al. (2007) that follow the viability criteria framework established by the WLC-TRT (McElhany et al. 2006).
ODFW Life Cycle Monitoring Photos: ODFW As directed by the plan, ODFW conducts RM&E to assess the status and trends of VSP criteria per independent population which serves as an early warning system that will alert Oregon to unex- pectedly adverse marine conditions; management conditions; biological characteristics of the LCR fish populations; or the habitat that supports the ESU’s. The information will also assist with adap- tive management decisions and prioritization of RM&E efforts and actions.
ODFW has not conducted a comprehensive ESU status review since the Plan was adopted. A twelve-year ESU assessment will be conducted in 2022. The comprehensive assessment will in- clude fish performance, trends in habitat, and implementation and effectiveness of restoration and management commitments. The RM&E data collected during this reporting period are detailed in the biological monitoring status section for each independent population and compared to the VSP goals established under the threat reduction scenarios to achieve each desired delisting goal. 6 Establishment of Specific Measurable Criteria Against Which Progress Toward Achieving Recovery Goals are Measured
Chapter 8 of the plan lists specific measurable criteria and evaluation thresholds (benchmarks) for the biological (VSP) and listing factor criteria.
Biological (VSP) Criteria
1. Abundance/productivity (A/P)-A viable population should demonstrate a combination of popu- lation growth rate, productivity, and abundance that produces an acceptable probability of popula- tion persistence.
Stock-recruitment curves were developed for each Oregon lower Columbia River population of salmon and steelhead as a way of determining the abundance and productivity needed to achieve delisting and broad sense recovery.
Annual benchmarks (goals) of the A/P metric are formulated yearly which allow managers to pro- vide more timely assessments of the progress made in achieving recovery goals.
Each annual benchmark contains buffers against climate change and a “recovery scalar” which is defined as the amount that the current survival rate needs to be improved to get the probability of the critical risk threshold to the threshold for the risk category targeted for the population. The an- nual benchmark assumes full recovery which will most likely need a majority of actions listed in chapter 9 be completed.
A pass/fail is assigned during each 12-year assessment. Pass is achieved by having the observed spawner abundance greater to or equal than the abundance modeled for delisting desired status at least six times in a 12-year period and the average observed spawner abundance is greater or equal to the average modeled abundance for delisting desired status over that same time period.
Fall Chinook Photo: NOAA
2. Spatial Structure (SS)– The occupancy of spawning adults or juveniles at spatially balanced, random survey sites.
Occupancy thresholds were set based upon the watershed size and delisting risk goal.
A pass/fail is assigned during each 12-year assessment. Pass is achieved if the percentage of sites not occupied by spawning adults or rearing juveniles is less than or equal to the thresholds listed in Table 8-1 of the Plan at least six times during a 12-year period and the overall average percentage of sites not occupied during that same time period is less than or equal to the thresh- olds show in Table 8-1 of the Plan. 7 Diversity- Life-history diversity must exist to sustain a population through short-term environmen- tal perturbations and to provide for long-term evolutionary processes.
There are 5 diversity metrics. Two of the metrics have not yet been established.
1. Effective Population Size: Since the population abundance goals formulated for the abun- dance/productivity metric are designed to equal or exceed abundance needed to satisfy effec- tive population size requirements, passing/failing the abundance/productivity thresholds means that effective population size requirements are or not met. 2. Interbreeding with Hatchery Fish: Hatchery related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not, and will not, limit attainment of the desired status of populations relative to the via- bility criteria. Pass is achieved if the average percentage of the total number of spawners that are of hatchery origin is on average less than or equal to the targets found under the Errata section (page 326) of the plan. 3. Anthropogenic Mortality: Over-utilization of populations for commercial, sport, recreational or scientific purposes. Based upon threat reduction scenarios harvest rate impacts have been set for each population. Currently harvest rates are determined at the ESU scale and need further refinement to determine population level harvest rates.
Listing Factors In addition to RME needed to address the biological criteria, to be approved by NMFS, a recovery plan must also include RME that addresses the five ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes C. Disease or predation D. The adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence
In contrast to the viability assessment for biological recovery, the decision framework for listing fac- tors does not rely on explicit criteria when considering the Stratum (major population group) scale, but steps down directly from the ESU to the individual population, when possible. Also in contrast to the assessment of biological criteria, NMFS offers no explicit analytical guidance for decisions relat- ed to the listing factors. In contrast to the measurable criteria developed for biological recovery (which have a direct connection to assessments of population viability), the measurable criteria de- scribed below for the listing factors are primarily related to directly tracking the success of actions designed to reduce the impact of current threats or serve as an early warning for emerging threats. Listing Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of a Spe- cies’ Habitat or Range. The metrics for this listing factor relate to habitat improvement needed over time to ameliorate the threats of on-going modification of species habitat. Three of the metrics are determined through aquatic habitat surveys and reported habitat restoration implementation. 1. Is there a positive trend in the status of habitat metrics? 2. Is the restoration action quantities equal or exceed “x”/15 from those noted in Table 8.2 of the plan? “X” is the number of years after adoption of the plan (2010) and 15 is the number of years the plan allows for tributary habitat restoration. 3. Is the number of additional/new miles of high quality coho habitat equal or exceed that shown in Table 8-2 of the Plan? 2 additional metrics pertain to meeting the goals outlined in the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Fish Passage and Protection Plan and providing fish passage at Laurance Lake Dam in the Hood River population. 8 Listing Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes. Harvest was briefly described in the Biological Criteria- Diversity section and serves as both biologi- cal and listing factor metrics.
Listing Factor C: Disease and Predation This listing factor pertains to Caspian Tern, Double Crested Cormorant and pinneped predation. Studies have yet to be implemented to detect population level threats.
Listing Factor D: Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms No measurable criteria have been determined for this metric.
Listing Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the ESU. Percent hatchery fish on spawning grounds was briefly described in the Biological Criteria-Diversity section and serves as both biological and listing factor metrics.
Photo: WDFW
9 Measurable Criteria and the Early Warning Indicator System
The effectiveness of ODFW’s LCRCRP as a platform to aid in the recovery of LCR salmon and steelhead will be determined during the State’s first full assessment in 2022. While a status assess- ment cannot be evaluated over a shorter period of time, trends may be discernable prior to the full assessment. Prior to the first full assessment, RME will collect VSP attributes for each population annually. These VSP attributes are then compared against the interim measureable criteria identi- fied in Chapter 8 of the plan.
The trend analysis is then incorporated into an early warning system that will raise “red flags” re- garding the need for potential corrections to the plan. The early warning system for the Plan is based on annual reviews of the likelihood of attaining the measurable criteria goals over the time in- terval specified by the criteria in chapter 8, given previously observed results. This analysis allows timely guidance to those responsible for the adaptive management of this recovery plan.
Coho VSP Trends Since Plan Adoption
Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations were monitored during 2010-2012, but population-scale monitoring was discontinued beginning in 2013 to prioritize efforts towards primary populations. These two populations attained all measurable criteria goals for A/P, SS, and pHOS -diversity goals. The Scappoose, Clackamas and Lower Gorge have attained the A/P goal in 1 of 5 years while the remaining populations (Clatskanie, Sandy and Upper Gorge/Hood), which all are primary populations, have yet to attain the A/P goals. Additionally, the 5 year average abundances ranges from a high of 60% in the Lower Gorge to a low 29% in the Hood when compared to the 5 year av- erage A/P goals.
For SS (percent occupancy of habitat), the Upper Gorge/Hood has attained the goal in 2 of 5 years, and the 5 year average occupancy is equal to the spatial structure goal (80%). The Clatskanie has met the goal in 1 of 5 years and the 5 year average is 11% below the goal of 90%. The Sandy, Clackamas and Scappoose have not met the goal in any year. The Clackamas and Scappoose will not be able to attain a 12 year average that exceeds the goal when the first full assessment is made in 2022. The Lower Gorge is a positive at this time, having attained the SS goal in 5 of 5 years with a 5 year average that exceeds the goal by 32%.
For diversity (harvest) the goal has been met for all years at the ESU level. For diversity (average pHOS), both the Scappoose and Sandy are meeting the goal, while the Clatskanie, Clackamas, Lower Gorge and the Upper Gorge/Hood population have been characterized by pHOS greater than the goals (for this criteria we want to be below the goal) during the 5 years since plan adop- tion. For the populations that are not attaining the goal, the Clatskanie is the closest at 4% above and the Upper Gorge/Hood is the furthest from attainment at 70% above the goal. The Lower Gorge and the Upper Gorge/Hood River populations will not be able to obtain a 9 year average that is below the goal when the first full assessment is made in 2022.
10 Fall and Late Fall Chinook* VSP Trends Since Plan Adoption
Mass marking of hatchery fall chinook fry began in 2006. GRTS based spawning surveys began in the LCR in 2009 and include the Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Clatskanie, Scappoose, Clackamas and Sandy populations. No fall chinook have been observed in the Scappoose population since surveys began. The lower and upper Gorge populations are not monitored with GRTS-based spawning surveys, and annual estimates of VSP metrics have been unavailable for Hood River- fall chinook since the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010. Work to develop reliable alternative methods for accurate characterization of this population is ongoing.
At this time, abundance goals are only be calculated for the Clatskanie population due to the short data series available for the Youngs Bay, Big Creek, and Clackamas populations. The Clatskanie population has not reached the goal in 5 of 5 years and the average abundance is less than 1% of the average abundance goal.
For all sampled populations, there is no method developed to determine spatial structure at this time.
For diversity (harvest): for all populations, the NOAA harvest cap for the ESU has been exceed- ed in 2 of 5 years. For the Hood population there are no methods to determine additional im- pacts from Zone 6 fisheries.
For diversity (pHOS), the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations missed the goal of less than 90% in 2 of 2 years for these maintaining populations, while the Clatskanie missed the goal of less than 10% for 5 of 5 years. The Clackamas population missed the goal of less than 30% in 1 of 2 years. The average 5 year pHOS ranged widely from 80% above the goal in the Clatskanie to 10 % below the goal for the Clackamas.
*Sandy chinook and late fall chinook: staff are currently in process of developing methodology to determine abundance and pHOS for Sandy fall and late fall chinook which have a degree of spa- tial and temporal overlap.
Spring Chinook VSP Trends Since Plan Adoption
Census based surveys are conducted for Clackamas and Sandy ChS and have occurred yearly since plan adoption. Sandy ChS have attained the A/P goal for 3 of 5 years and the 5 year aver- age abundance has exceeded the goal by 1.5%. The 9 year average pHOS is 28% higher than the goal (for pHOS, a value higher than the goal means that the goal has not been attained). The high pHOS is attributed to removal of Marmot Dam with a high of 77% following dam removal (2010). Since that time, multiple plan actions have been implemented and pHOS has dropped to 9-13% over the last 2 years. Clackamas ChS have attained the A/P goal for 5 of 5 years and the 5 year abundance exceeds the goal by 65%. The 9 year average pHOS is 6.4%, which attains the goal of 10%.
There are no current methods to determine spatial structure.
Annual estimates of VSP metrics have been unavailable for Hood River spring chinook since the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010. Work to develop reliable alternative methods for accurate characterization of this population is ongoing.
For diversity (harvest), there is no reportable data at this time. 11
Winter Steelhead VSP Trends Since Plan Adoption
Winter steelhead redd counts began in 2012 for a majority of the Lower Columbia populations, and calibration of a fish per redd relationship allowed redd abundance to be converted to fish abundance in 2013. The coastal stratum is considered part of the SW Washington DPS and therefore does not have delisting goals. GRTS based redd surveys for Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Clatskanie and Scap- poose populations were discontinued in 2014. The Sandy and Hood populations have longer data sets.
During 2014, LCR steelhead in the Clackamas, Sandy and Hood populations were monitored while the upper and lower gorge were not. The Sandy population has attained the A/P goal in 2 of 4 years, the Hood population has attained the goal in 1 of 4 years and the Clackamas has not attained the goal in 2 of 2 years. The Sandy’s average abundance is 4X the average abundance goal while the Clackamas and Hood have average abundances that are 49% and 37% (respectively) below the average abundance goal.
For SS (percent occupancy of habitat) there is no current method to determine percent occupancy of habitat.
For diversity (average pHOS) the Sandy and Clackamas are meeting the goals while the Hood ex- ceeds the goal by 61%. The Hood population will not be able to attain a 9 year average that is be- low the goal when the first full assessment is made in 2022.
Summer Steelhead VSP Trends Since Plan Adoption
Native summer steelhead distribution is limited to the Hood River basin within the LCR ESU. Annu- al estimates of VSP metrics have been unavailable for Hood River summer steelhead since the re- moval of Powerdale Dam in 2010. Work to develop reliable alternative methods for accurate char- acterization of this population is ongoing.
Oregon State University 12 Oregon’s Columbia River Chum Recovery Strategy
Year 4
The Columbia River Chum Recovery Strategy (CRS) represented the first step in the State of Ore- gon’s plan for recovering chum salmon in Oregon LCR tributaries and outlined the overall approach. Oregon now has a Chum Salmon Reintroduction Plan (Homel 2014). This plan has been devel- oped as a supplement to the Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead and is part of a bi-state joint recovery strategy. The plan identifies target streams and abundance goals and outlines the specific techniques, monitoring, and adaptive management that will be employed during the re-establishment of chum salmon.
Year 4 of the Chum Recovery Strategy, development of the Chum Reintroduction Plan
ODFW and volunteer crews assisted with 4th and final year of adult brood collection on the Grays River. 135 unmarked adult chum returned to the Big Creek Hatchery Weir and passed upstream. 165 CWT adult chum returned to Big Creek Hatchery. 85 were spawned at Big Creek Hatchery for fry release, 31 adults were out-planted in Stewart Creek (Clatskanie) and 40 were spawned for eyed-eggs placement in Remote Site Incubators (RSI’s) into Perkins Creek (Clatskanie). The remaining 9 fish were in poor condition and died at the hatchery before they could be spawned. Chum fry releases (197,000) into Big Creek nearly doubled from 2013 due to CWT adult returns to Big Creek Hatchery. All fry received a coded wire tag and a unique thermal mark on the oto- lith. Adult and fry were trapped at Stewart and Big Creeks to assess egg to fry survival. Egg-to-fry mortality was also assessed in the RSI’s by counting dead eggs and dead/ dying alevins after fry outmigration was complete. Egg to fry survival varied from a low of 8% at Big Creek to a high of 94% at Perkins Creek (not including egg loss at the hatchery prior to outplanting in RSIs). The 2010 brood year marine survival is estimated at 0.2% which requires at least a 38% fresh- water survival rate to maintain a stable population which is currently only occurring with RSI’s, hatcheries, and one high quality spawning stream in Washington. Adult spawning ground surveys were conducted within high intrinsic potential (HIP) habitat in the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations. Low numbers of adult chum were observed in both populations. Physical habitat surveys were conducted in HIP habitat within the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations. The Scappoose population is no longer a targeted population for reintroduction due to the poor quality of habitat and discussions are underway to determine if another popula- tion should be targeted for reintroduction.
Year 5 of the program will no longer require broodstock collection from Grays River and will be reli- ant on Big Creek returns. Evaluation of egg to fry survival rates for different reintroduction meth- ods will continue with the thought that RSI’s provide the best survival until existing habitat is im- proved. The project is also transitioning to a greater focus on assessing limiting factors. This will occur in conjunction with continued monitoring and reintroduction efforts. The Chum Work Group will continue with discussions regarding deviations from the Chum Recovery Strategy regarding the most appropriate locations for reintroduction. Additional discussions will focus on whether the Big Creek Broodstock will remain “integrated” by incorporating unmarked chum salmon returns to the hatchery, or will be managed as “segregated,” using only marked returns to the hatchery. 13 Oregon’s LCR Population Fact Sheets Since populations are the Primary Recovery Group, pages 16-62 are presented in the population fact sheet format to summarize:
Key Limiting Factors: To successfully recover Oregon Lower Columbia River populations of salmon and steelhead, actions must be implemented that are effective at reducing or eliminat- ing the limiting factors and threats that impact viability as identified in Chapter 5 and prevent factors that do not currently impact viability from doing so in the future.
Restoration and Protection Actions: The success of action implementation will require signif- icant funds and the coordinated work of ODFW, state agencies, tribes, counties, irrigation dis- tricts, agriculture and private forest land managers, NMFS, USFS, BLM, other federal agencies, municipalities, local residents, citizen groups, utilities, other agencies, and individuals.
RM&E: Is critical to assess the status of species and their habitat, to track progress toward achieving recovery goals, and to provide information needed to refine recovery strategies and actions through the process of adaptive management.
Helpful tips for reading the fact sheets:
1. The maps display spatial structure information and spawning distribution. Spawning distribution has changed from historic conditions in some popula- tions due to dams. 2. The limiting factor tables summarize the primary factors and threats affecting the viability and recov- ery of each population. Addressing primary factors/threats are the highest priority for improving a population’s viability and meeting recovery goals. Secondary limiting factors, threats and concerns are not listed for each population. Lower Columbia River Restoration Actions implemented to address the limiting factors Photo: LCEP and threats are summarized in the protection/ restoration tables for each population. 3. The protection and restoration tables summarize those activities reported and completed during this reporting period for each population. These tables reflect the best available information from existing reporting databases, agency staff and local imple- menters. Graphics depict habitat restoration quantities com- pared to target amounts needed to assist in over- come listing factor A. 4. Research, monitoring and evaluation results are presented in graphics to depict the most current status of VSP parameters and compared to the delisting goals. Cascades of Columbia River; General View. Hood River County, Oregon. 1899. Photo: USGS 14 Oregon’s LCR Population Fact Sheets ESU Wide Restoration Goals
ESU wide restoration goals were developed in 2014 and are found at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ fish/CRP/docs/lower-columbia/Setting_ESU_wide_restoration_goals.pdf. The original restoration goal quantities from the plan were based in best available science and mod- eled in threat reduction scenarios to reduce tributary habitat mortality to a level that is consistent with the recovery plan mortality rates for each population. These quantities were determined for an ap- proximate population-level estimate of cumulative restoration projects for five different, specific habi- tat restoration types for each independent population. The restoration quantity needs listed in Table 9-2 of the plan were not modeled to determine the amount of any single action necessary for achiev- ing a species given desired status. The habitat restoration quantity need will ultimately be deter- mined by fish response.
The ESU wide restoration goals (Table 1) are a modification of the methodology used in the plan cost estimation. The alterations were made to provide the restoration community more achievable goals. The new restoration quantities are based on either the desired delisting scenario or the maxi- mum feasible scenario as determined by the planning team.
The habitat restoration quantity goals depicted in the LCR population fact sheets do not represent a target or goal in which listing Factor A will be evaluated. The listed quantities should be reviewed with caution due to the limited amount of information existing during plan development and the un- certainty about the quality and functionality of restored habitat and fish use in restored habitats. Ad- ditionally, the graphics under the independent populations for restoration quantities completed should be viewed in a cautious manner due to the lack of consistent reporting metrics for the amount of work completed (i.e. riparian plantings one side v. both sides of the stream, a 20’ wide strip v. 100’ wide strip). However, the identified habitat restoration needs are useful as a starting point to visual- ize the relative amounts and types of restoration work needed in tributaries versus completed resto- ration since plan adoption for the desired delisting/maximum feasible scenario.
Where the restoration quantities appear to be met, implementers are encouraged to continue to con- duct these types of projects until biological listing (VSP) factor parameters are fully met.
Table 1. ESU Wide Restoration Goals by activity type and independent population
15 Oregon’s LCR Population Fact Sheets Miles of High Quality Coho Habitat
The miles of high quality coho habitat are determined using ODFW’s Habitat Limi ng Factors Model (HFLM). The HFLM emphasizes the importance of beaver ponds and alcove habitat. The model provides an assess‐ ment of habitat features that influence the survival of coho salmon juveniles from parr to smolt with a focus on winter habitat capacity and quality.
In the winter, coho salmon parr prefer complex pool habitat which has low velocity refugia from high winter stream flows. This habitat is o en found in the form of off‐channel alcoves, dam pools, and beaver ponds. Large wood is an important structural component contribu ng to the complexity of these preferred habi‐ tats. Juvenile coho salmon may extend their distribu on downstream in the winter to habitat areas previ‐ ously limited by high water temperature, including dally influenced wetlands. Complex off‐channel habi‐ tats along these large stream reaches may also be important in these large stream reaches to juvenile coho
ODFW-Poor summer habitat
CauƟon is advised in interpreƟng the number of miles of high quality coho habitat within the LCR individual populaƟon fact sheets. While winter rearing habitat is frequently listed as a primary limi ng factor for coho salmon, this is not always the case. Occasionally summer rearing habitat is the primary limi ng factor, such as the Scappoose popula on (Trask 2012). Some loca ons within the ESU may contain high levels of high quality coho habitat (per the HFLM) while s ll needing large quan es of stream restora on. In this case ,this is explained by the primary limi ng factor affec ng the Scappoose popula on. Watershed en‐ hancement prac oneers are strongly urged to con nue to restora on in their perspec ve high priority sub‐ watersheds un l salmonid popula on meet not only the desired delis ng status but the broad sense recov‐ ery goals.
16 Young’s Bay Populations Coast Stratum
Photo: Youngs Bay Bridge Steve Morgan
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Youngs Bay Coho, Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead Threat Cat‐ Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter egory nook Steelhead Tributary 5c Altered hydrograph/water quantity from upslope land use. X X X Habitat 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to past and/or X X X current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X X Habitat hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X X hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams. 6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild X X fish.
17 Coast Stratum 18
Fish
Percent
Hatchery
Stray Percent
Grounds
2013 steelhead are not part Year therefore there is no Steelhead:
, Spawning
by the estimated hatchery by the estimated on Winter Spawning
Bay
Goal
ove the hatchery weir contains 5% rked adult fish passed above the Youngs ng
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Broad Sense pHOS
Delis
year. Youngs Bay winter redd surveys do not occur above the hatchery nine Hatchery and divided ring will remain (i.e. fish:redd calibration and above and above calibration (i.e. fish:redd ring will remain Low High
10%). GRTS surveys for StW were discontinued in were 10%). GRTS surveys for StW bundance determined from the GRTS redd surveys plus from bundance determined ≤ Very High Goal Very Desired ‐ d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation PS and are not listed under the federal ESA PS and are not listed under the federal wild fish spawners. The area ab VSP metrics are unavailable for 2014. are unavailable for 2014. VSP metrics hery weir, and the number of unma hery weir, and the number Assess
in the Youngs Bay population. in the Youngs Plan
Low High
Very High ment Very 2010 ‐
on Steel
nc Chinook
See page 12 for a description of observe
Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: abundance from GRTS reddabundance from surveys. The random GRTS to be 100% weir, where it is presumed of available spawning miles the number of wild fish passed above the weir at Klaska the number Youngs Bay pHOS is a function of estimated wild a Youngs Bay pHOS is a function of estimated head Winter Fall Coho Risk Ex hatchery weir. Youngs Bay yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS redd estimates, which do not of GRTS redd estimates, combination are a Youngs Bay yearly observed abundance estimates include area above Klaskanine Hatc Young’s Bay Populations Populations Bay Young’s of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead D River Steelhead of the Lower Columbia
GRTS based redd surveys began during the 2012-2013 return GRTS based redd surveys began desired delisting goal for pHOS (broad sense goal is desired delisting goal for pHOS monito limited Some 2014 to address budge constraints. GRTS based NFK Klaskanine Weir). Youngs Bay Populations Coast Stratum Coho Population Status
Youngs Bay yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS spawning ground estimates, which do not include area above Klaskanine Hatchery weir, and the number of unmarked adult fish passed above the hatchery weir.
1.20 1.20 Youngs Bay Coho: Percent Hatchery Fish on Spawning Grounds Youngs Bay Coho Percent Occupancy of Habitat 1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60 Occupied
0.40 0.40 pHOS
0.20 0.20 Percent 0.00 0.00 2010 2011 2012 Delisting2010 Goal 2011 2012 Percent Occupied Spawing Year Delisting Goal Broad Sense Goal Spawning Year Stray Percent 9 Year Ave. Broad Sense Goal
Youngs Bay pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground surveys plus the number of wild fish passed above the weir at Klaskanine Hatchery and divided by the esti- mated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The random GRTS spawning surveys do not occur above the hatchery weir, where it is presumed to be 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the hatchery weir contains 5% of available spawning miles in the Youngs Bay population.
* Due to budget constraints, ODFW discontinued GRTS surveys in the Youngs Bay coho population in 2013. Some limited monitoring remains (i.e. standard index sites and hatchery weir counts) but GRTS-based VSP metrics will be unavailable until the budget can support expansion of monitoring efforts. See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 19 Coast Stratum 20
Goal
from the GRTS spawning Spawning locations are of- Spawning
2014 Delisting Broad Sense Goal Goal Sense Broad on
Abundance sed which spawning ground surveys,
Fish
Chinook
Year
Year Hatchery
kanine Hatchery Weir. Fall e abundance estimate. Additional years of data are years of data Additional estimate. e abundance
chery abundance determined chery abundance determined Spawn Spawn Ground Wild Percent
d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation Ave. Bay
are determined from GRTS ba are determined
not passed above the hatchery weir. Year
2013 9 Chinook:
reams, which pose challenges for visual-based spawning surveys and fre- surveys spawning for visual-based which pose challenges reams, 2013 2014 Youngs Fall
Bay Abundance
Percent
Youngs Observed 0 Stray
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Observed Abundance
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 pHOS See page 11 for a description of observe began in 2009. Adult ChF are not passed above the Klas began in 2009. Adult ChF are not ten in non-wadable portions of st exceed th which in confidence intervals quently result goals. needed to develop annual abundance Youngs Bay annual abundance estimates Youngs Bay Populations Populations Bay Youngs Youngs Bay pHOS is a function of estimated wild:hat Youngs Bay pHOS is a function of estimated ground surveys. Adult fall chinook are Fall Chinook Population Status Population Fall Chinook Coast Stratum Young’s Bay Populations
Table 2. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed
Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type
South Tongue Point Wetland Coho, StW, ChF, 113-YB K Columbia River NCWA Habitat Planting, .25 mile riparian Chum
Skipanon River Comprehensive 105-YB View, Cullaby Lake Dam fish NA Skipanon River Coho, StW SRWC Plans ladder design
Maintain Wild Fish Sanctuary 117-YB K Klaskanine River Coho, StW, Chum ODFW Hatchery Above Klaskanine Hatchery Weir
Pass Wild Chum at Klaskanine 118-YB K Klaskanine River Chum ODFW Hatchery Hatchery
108-YB, 113- Sharnell Fee Property Dike K Klaskanine River Coho, StW, ChF CREST Habitat YB Breach, 30 acre, .25 mile riparian
unnamed trib to Lewis and Lewis and Clark 113-YB 270 Fish Pipe, .16 mile riparian K NA Habitat Clark Oregon Timber *See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
Amount of Tributary Habitat Restored from 2010-2014 Relative to Habitat Restoration Goals: Youngs Bay 140 Broad Sense Goal 100.00% 120 100% 90% 84.78% 100 80% 70% 80 60% 50% 60 40% 30% 40 20% 10% 20 0.00% 0% Delisting Goal Percent Complete Toward Goal Off channel hab Instream hab Riparian Restoration Side Channel 0
Miles of Higy Quality CohoHabitat 2012
Habitat Category Year
Figure 2. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared to Figure 3. Miles of High Quality Plan Restoration Quantities Coho Habitat
Habitat restoration goal for the Youngs Bay population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit plan quantities in 15 years. Miles of high quality coho habitat needed has met the delisting goal. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs. 21 Coast Stratum Big Creek Populations
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Big Creek Coho, Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter Category nook Steelhead Tributary 5c Altered hydrograph/water quantity from upslope land use. X X X Habitat 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to past and/or X X X current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X X Habitat hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia Ba- X X X sin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydropow- X X X er dams. 6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild X X X fish.
22 Coast Stratum 23 therefore there is no therefore , steelhead are not part and divided by the esti-
ng year. Big Creek winter year. Big Creek mbination of GRTS redd estimates, which do not in- of GRTS redd estimates, mbination
Delis
itoring will remain (i.e. fish:redd calibration and calibration (i.e. fish:redd itoring will remain 10%). GRTS surveys for StW were discontinued in were 10%). GRTS surveys for StW The random GRTS redd surveys do not occur above The random wild fish spawners. The area above the hatchery weirs ≤ g and Gnat Creek Hatcheries Low High bundance determined from the GRTS redd surveys plus from bundance determined
Very High Goal Desired Very d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation PS and are not listed under the federal ESA PS and are not listed under the federal based VSP metrics are unavailable for 2014. are unavailable for based VSP metrics ‐ miles in the Big Creek population. miles k Hatchery weirs, and the number of unmarked adult fish passed above of unmarked k Hatchery weirs, and the number As
Plan High High
Low Very sessment Very 2010
Risk
on Steelhead
nc Chinook
See page 12 for a description of observe mated hatchery abundance from GRTS redd surveys. hatchery abundance from mated to be 100% the hatchery weirs, where it is presumed contains 50% of available spawning Big Creek yearly observed abundance estimates are a co Big Creek yearly observed abundance estimates of wild fish passed above the weirs at Bi the number GRTS based redd surveys began during the 2012-2013 return GRTS based redd surveys began Big Creek pHOS is a function of estimated wild a Big Creek pHOS is a function of estimated desired delisting goal for pHOS (broad sense goal is desired delisting goal for pHOS mon limited Some 2014 to address budge constraints. GRTS above Big Creek Hatchery Weir). clude areas above Big or Gnat Cree the hatchery weirs. of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead D River Steelhead of the Lower Columbia Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: Big Creek Populations Populations Creek Big Winter Fall Coho Ex Big Creek Populations Coast Stratum Coho Population Status
Big Creek yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS spawning ground estimates, which do not include areas above Big or Gnat Creek Hatchery weirs, and the number of unmarked adult fish passed above the hatchery weirs.
1.20 1.20 Big Creek Coho: Percent Hatchery Fish on Spawning Big Creek Coho Percent Occupancy of Habitat 1.00 Ground 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60
Occupied 0.40
0.40 pHOS 0.20 0.20
Percent 0.00 0.00 2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012 Spawning Year Percent Occupied Broad Sense Goal Spawing Year Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal Stray Percent 9 Year Ave
Big Creek pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground sur- veys plus the number of wild fish passed above the weirs at Big and Gnat Creek Hatcheries and divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The random GRTS spawning surveys do not occur above the hatchery weirs, where it is presumed to be 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the hatchery weirs contains 50% of available spawning miles in the Big Creek population. * Due to budget constraints, ODFW discontinued GRTS surveys in the Big Creek coho population in 2013. Some limited monitoring remains (i.e. standard index sites and hatchery weir counts) but GRTS-based VSP metrics will be unavailable until the budget can support expansion of monitoring efforts. See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 24 Coast Stratum surveys. Adult fall chi- ased spawning surveys and Abundance
Year
Gnat Creek Hatchery Weirs. locations Spawning Creek Hatchery Gnat the abundance estimate. Additional years of data are data Additional years of estimate. the abundance Spawn from GRTS based spawning ground surveys, which from GRTS based spawning ground Chinook
pose challenges for visual-b ce from GRTS spawning ground ce from bundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground sur- from bundance determined Fall
d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation Wild
2013 2014 Creek
Big Abundance
0
80 60 40 20
Observed
100 Observed Abundance See page 11 for a description of observe Big Creek annual abundance estimates are determined Big Creek annual abundance estimates began in 2009. Adult ChF are not passed above the Big or began in 2009. Adult ChF are not which of streams, are often in non-wadable portions frequently result in confidence intervals which exceed frequently result in confidence intervals goals. needed to develop annual abundance 25 nook are not passed above the hatchery weirs. veys and divided by the estimated hatchery abundan veys and divided by the estimated Big Creek pHOS is a function of estimated wild a Big Creek pHOS is a function of estimated Fall Chinook Population Status Population Fall Chinook Big Creek Populations Populations Creek Big Coast Stratum Big Creek Populations
Table 3. Status Summary of Protection and restoration Activities Completed
Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type
Alder Lagoon Riparian Restoration, Coho, StW, ChF, 126-BC K Columbia River NWWC Habitat .25 mile riparian Chum
Maintain Wild Fish Sanctuary 132-BC K Big Creek Coho, StW, Chum ODFW Hatchery Above Big Creek Hatchery Weir
Pass Wild Chum at Big Creek 133-BC K Big Creek Chum ODFW Hatchery Hatchery
Karlson Island Dike Breach, 320 122-BC, 125-BC Coho, StW, ChF, acres, 1/4 mile LWD 40 pc, .05 mile K Columbia River CREST Habitat 126-BC Chum riparian
Backbreak Combination, surface 129-BC S Blind Slough Coho ODF Habitat drainage improvements
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
90
75 Broad Sense Goal 60
45
30
15 Delisting Goal 0 2012 Miles of High High Miles of Quality Habitt Coho Year
Figure 4. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared to Figure 5. Miles of High Quality Plan Restoration Quantities Coho Habitat
Habitat restoration quantities for the Big Creek population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit targets in 15 years. Miles of high quality coho habitat has met the delisting goal. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs.
26 Coast Stratum Clatskanie Populations
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Clatskanie Coho, Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter Category nook Steelhead Tributary 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to past and/or X X X Habitat current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Ba- X X X Habitat sin hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge ma- terials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia X X X Basin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydro- X X X power dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropow- X X X er dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild X fish.
27 Coast Stratum 28 therefore there is no ,
ng year. Clatskanie winter steelhead are not part Delis
10%). GRTS surveys for StW were discontinued in were 10%). GRTS surveys for StW Low Low ≤
obtained from GRTS redd for the entire popu- obtained from estimates
Very Goal Low Desired Very d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation ‐ PS and are not listed under the federal ESA PS and are not listed under the federal e from GRTS redd surveys. e from Assess
Plan
Low High
High Very ment Very 2010
Risk
on Steelhead
nc Chinook See page 12 for a description of observe
bundance determined from the GRTS redd surveys divided from wild abundance determined Clatskanie pHOS is a function of estimated by the estimated hatchery abundanc lation. Clatskanie yearly observed abundance estimates are Clatskanie yearly observed abundance estimates desired delisting goal for pHOS (broad sense goal is desired delisting goal for pHOS 2014. are unavailable for based VSP metrics GRTS 2014 to address budge constraints. GRTS based redd surveys began during the 2012-2013 return GRTS based redd surveys began of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead D River Steelhead of the Lower Columbia Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: Clatskanie Populations Populations Clatskanie Fall Winter Coho Ex Coast Stratum 29 (have call into (have Delisting Goal Goal Sense Broad
ained from GRTS spawning ground estimates for the GRTS spawning estimates ground ained from based on peak counts done by CRM) based on peak counts done by abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground sur- from abundance determined nce from GRTS spawning ground surveys. nce from d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation (have call into Julie, think this is call into Julie, (have See page 11 for a description of observe Clatskanie Populations Populations Clatskanie entire population. Clatskanie yearly observed abundance estimates are obt estimates Clatskanie yearly observed abundance Fall Chinook Population Status Population Fall Chinook Clatskanie pHOS is a function of estimated wild Clatskanie pHOS is a function of estimated veys divided by the estimated hatchery abunda veys divided by the estimated Julie, think this is based on peak counts done by CRM) Coast Stratum Clatskanie Populations Coho Population Status
Clatskanie yearly observed abundance estimates are obtained from GRTS spawning ground estimates for the entire population.
Broad Sense Goal Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal
Clatskanie pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground sur- veys divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 30 Coast Stratum Clatskanie Populations Table 4. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed
Action ID Project Limiting factor Location Species Implementer Action Type
Clatskanie River Fish Passage NA K Mainstem Clatskanie Coho, StW, ChF LCRWC Habitat Improvement, crossings 2 and 3
Maintain Existing Wild Fish Sanc- 148-CT K Clatskanie Coho, StW, ChF ODFW Hatchery tuary
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
20 Delisting and Broad Sense Goals 16
12
8
4
0 2012 Miles of High Quality Coho Habitat Year
Figure 6. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared Figure 7. Miles of High Quality to Plan Restoration Quantities Coho Habitat
Habitat restoration quantities for the Clatskanie population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit targets in 15 years. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs. 31 Scappoose Populations Coast Stratum
Sturgeon Lake, Oregon Photo: Wikipedia-lumachrome
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Scappoose Coho, Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Cat‐ Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter egory nook Steelhead Tributary 5c Altered hydrograph/water quantity from upslope land use. X Habitat 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to past and/or X X X current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X X Habitat hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X X hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild X 32 Coast Stratum 33 Percent
Percent Grounds
Stray 2013 therefore there is no therefore steelhead are not part ., Steelhead:
Spawning Year
on
tchery abundance from GRTS tchery abundance from spawning miles in the Scap- spawning miles Winter
Fish
Spawning Goal
streams, which pose challenges for streams, d spawning ground surveys, which d spawning ground surveys, which
Hatchery ng Scappoose
Broad Sense 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 year. Scappoose winter pHOS Delis
ce determined from the GRTS redd surveys plus the from ce determined mbination of GRTS redd estimates, which do not in- of GRTS redd estimates, mbination ccur above Bonnie Falls, where it is presumed to be ccur above Bonnie Falls, where it is presumed confidence intervals which exceed the abundance esti- the abundance which exceed confidence intervals Low Low 10%). GRTS surveys for StW were discontinued in were 10%). GRTS surveys for StW
≤ divided by the estimated ha divided by the estimated unmarked adult fish passed above the falls. unmarked Very Goal Low Desired Very ‐ d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation PS and are not listed under the federal ESA PS and are not listed under the federal are determined from GRTS base are determined e often in non-wadable portions of e often in non-wadable portions tected since surveys began in 2009. tected since surveys began in 2009. Assess
Plan
Low
Very ment Moderate High 2010
Risk
on Steelhead
nc Chinook
See page 12 for a description of observe Fall Chinook Population Status Notes: Fall Chinook Population Status visual-based spawning surveys and frequently result in and visual-based spawning surveys No fall chinook have been de mate. began in 2009. Spawning locations ar began in 2009. Spawning locations Scappoose annual abundance estimates Scappoose annual abundance estimates Scappoose Populations Populations Scappoose Winter Fall Coho Ex Scappoose yearly observed abundance estimates are a co Scappoose yearly observed abundance estimates of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead D River Steelhead of the Lower Columbia (broad sense goal is desired delisting goal for pHOS 2014. are unavailable for based VSP metrics GRTS 2014 to address budge constraints. of clude area above Bonnie Falls, and the number GRTS based redd surveys began during the 2012-2013 return GRTS based redd surveys began number of wild fish passed above Bonnie Falls and number redd surveys. The random GRTS redd surveys do not o contains 15% of available 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the falls poose population. Scappoose pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundan Scappoose pHOS is a function of estimated Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: Coast Stratum Scappoose Populations Coho Population Status
Scappoose yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS spawning ground estimates, which do not include area above Bonnie Falls, and the number of unmarked adult fish passed above the falls.
0.20 Scappoose Coho: Percent Hatchery Fish on 0.15 Spawning Ground
0.10 pHOS 0.05
0.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Broad Sense Goal Spawing Year Delisting Goal Delisting Goal Stray Percent
Scappoose pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground surveys plus the number of wild fish passed above Bonnie Falls and divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The random GRTS spawning surveys do not occur above Bonnie Falls, where it is presumed to be 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the falls con- tains 15% of available spawning miles in the Scappoose population.
See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 34 Scappoose Populations Coast Stratum Table 5. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed Action ID Project Limiting Fac- Location Species Implementer Action Type tor
North Unit Sauvie Island Phase 2, water control structure 150-SC, 153- removal and marsh plain lowering, 10 acre, 1.5 mile K Sauvie Island Coho, StW, ChF CREST Habitat SC, 163-SC riparian
Cedar/ North Scap- 150-SC, 153-SC Cedar Creek Barrier Removal Project, .1 mile riparian K Coho, StW SBWC Habitat poose
168-SC Maintain Wild Fish Sanctuary K Scappoose Basin Coho, StW, ChF ODFW Hatchery
Restoring Connectivity for Salmon at a 300-acre Multnomah Chan- 163-SC Multnomah Channel Wetland, dike breach and culvert K nel/Crabapple Coho, StW, ChF DU/Metro Habitat replacement between two wetlands Creek
St. Helens 41-Trib SHHS Greenhouse Bioswale NA McNulty Creek Coho, StW Habitat School District
Multnomah Chan- 145-SC Duck Lake Design Alternatives K Coho, StW LCEP Plans nel
166-SC Scappoose Bay State of the Watershed 2014 NA Scappoose Basin Coho, StW SBWC Report
153-SC WMSWCD Healthy Streams Program 1.75 mile riparian K McCarthy Creek Coho, StW WMSWCD Habitat
150-SC McCarthy Creek Fish Passage NA McCarthy Creek Coho, StW NRCS Habitat
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
Amount of Tributary Habitat Restored from 2010-2014 Relative 30 to Habitat Restoration Goals: Scappoose
25 100% Broad Sense Goal 87.41% 90% 20 80% 70% 60% 15 50% 40% 30% 10 20% Delisting Goal Percent Completed Toward Goal Toward Completed Percent 7.28% 10% 3.33% 5 0% Off channel hab Instream hab Riparian Side Channel Restoration 0
Habitat Category High Miles of Habitat Quality Coho 2012 Year Figure 8. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared to Figure 9. Miles of High Quality Coho Plan Restoration Quantities Habitat
Habitat restoration quantities for the Scappoose population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit targets in 15 years. The delisting goal for additional miles of high quality coho habitat is met. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs. 35 Cascade Stratum Clackamas Populations
Fishermen’s Bend, Clackamas River Photo: ODFW
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Clackamas Coho, Spring and Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter Category Spring nook Steel‐ Chinook Tributary 5c Altered hydrograph/water quantity from upslope land use. Habitat 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to past and/ X X X X or current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia X X X X Habitat Basin hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia X X X X Basin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydro- X X X X power dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydro- X X X X power dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with X X X
Hydro 4b Impaired habitat access, downstream passage due to dam con- X 36 Cascade Stratum 37 Delisting Goal Broad Sense Goal Goal Sense Broad m contains 50% of availa- m Goal
mbination of GRTS redd surveys, which do not in- mbination
return year. The 2014 observed abundance is 3404 return year. The 2014 observed ng ners. The area above the da area above ners. The ed wild abundance determined from the GRTS redd from ed wild abundance determined sh passed above the dam and divided by the estimated and divided by the estimated sh passed above the dam Low Low
e random GRTS redd surveys do not occur above NFK e random Low Moderate Very Very Desired Delis ‐ d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation Assess
Plan
High
the Clackamas population. the Clackamas Moderate ment Moderate Moderate Very 2010
‐
on Steel
Chinook
nc Chinook
See page 12 for a description of observe Clackamas Populations Populations Clackamas Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: head Winter Spring Coho Ex Risk Fall Clackamas whole basin pHOS is a function of estimat Clackamas surveys below NFK Dam of wild plus the number fi hatchery abundance from GRTS redd surveys. Th to be 100% wild fish spaw where it is presumed Dam, in ble spawning miles GRTS based redd surveys began during the 2012-2013 GRTS based redd surveys began with a 95% confidence interval of 917. with a 95% confidence interval of of unmarked adult fish passed above the dam. adult fish passed above the dam. of unmarked and the number clude area above North Fork Dam, Clackamas yearly observed abundance estimates are a co yearly observed abundance estimates Clackamas Cascade Stratum 38
Goal Goal
Sense
ng Delis Broad Spawning
on
streams, which pose challenges streams, Fish
Abundance
Year Year
Hatchery
from GRTS based spawning ground surveys, which from GRTS based spawning ground Chinook Spawn Spawn
ild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ild abundance determined result in confidence intervals which exceed the abun- intervals which exceed result in confidence Fall
Grounds Percent
d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation Wild are needed to develop annual abundance goals. are needed to develop annual abundance
Ave.
not occur above NFK Dam. not occur above NFK Dam. are often in non-wadable portions of are often in non-wadable portions 2013 2014 Year
2013 2014 Chinook:
9 Fall
Clackamas Abundance
Percent
Clackamas
0 Observed 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Stray
pHOS
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Observed Abundance
See page 11 for a description of observe began in 2009. Spawning locations began in 2009. Spawning locations frequently and surveys for visual-based spawning of data dance estimate. Additional years Clackamas annual abundance estimates are determined are annual abundance estimates Clackamas ed hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The ground surveys divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning surveys do random Clackamas basin pHOS is a function of estimated w of estimated basin pHOS is a function Clackamas Fall Chinook Population Status Population Fall Chinook Clackamas Populations Populations Clackamas Cascade Stratum Clackamas Populations Coho Population Status
Clackamas yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS spawning ground estimates, which do not include area above North Fork Dam, and the number of unmarked adult fish passed above the dam.
Broad Sense Goal Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal
Clackamas whole basin pHOS (blue line) is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground surveys below NFK Dam plus the number of wild fish passed above the dam and divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The random GRTS spawning surveys do not occur above NFK Dam, where it is presumed to be 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the dam contains 50% of available spawning miles in the Clackamas population.
See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 39 Cascade Stratum Clackamas Populations
Spring Chinook Population Status
4,500 Clackamas Wild Spring Chinook Abundance 4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 Abundance
1,500
1,000
Observed 500
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Observed Abundance Abundance Goal Spawn Year
Clackamas yearly observed abundance estimates are a count of unclipped fish passed at NFk Dam.
Broad Sense Goal
Delisting Goal
Clackamas pHOS is determined from carcass recoveries recovered above NFK Dam. Only non-fin clipped fish are allowed to pass the dam. Approximately 4% of the hatchery releases are not fin marked to assist with monitoring impacts of selective fisheries on wild fish (these fish are double-index tagged).
See page 11 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals.
40 Cascade Stratum Cascade Clackamas Populations Table 6. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type (key=k, second- ary=s, none=n)
Coho, ChS, ChF, 206-CM Pesticide Reduction Campaign S Basin Wide CRBC Habitat StW Coho, ChS, ChF, 24-Trib Stash the Trash\Down by the River Clean-up S Basin Wide CRBC Habitat
StW Coho, ChS, ChF, 24-Trib Tour de Clack S Basin Wide CRBC Habitat StW Coho, ChS, ChF, 24-Trib Teacher Workshop S Basin Wide CRBC Habitat StW Coho, ChS, ChF, 24-Trib Celebrating Water Earth Day S Basin wide CRBC Habitat StW
Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project, Fish Clack River Coho, ChS, ChF, 191-CM Passage and Protection Plan measures are K PGE Hydro Hydro Project StW on schedule
210-CM Maintain Wild Fish Sanctuary K NFK Dam Coho, ChS, StW ODFW/PGE Hatchery
Smith Memorial Stormwater Management/ Willamette Trib, 183-CM S NA CSWC Water Quality Naturescaping, bioswale 38,000ft2 parking lot Columbia Slough
Willamette Trib, Westmoreland Union Manor Project, .17 mile 189-CM K Crystal Springs Coho, StW, ChS JCWC Habitat riparian both sides Creek
Springwater Wetland Habitat Enhancement, Willamette Trib, 189-CM K Coho, StW JCWC Habitat .04 mile riparian Johnson Creek
Rikert Restoration on Forest Park's Edge, .05 Willamette Trib, 189-CM K Coho, StW WMSWCD Habitat mile riparian Blatch Ck
Willamette Trib, 189-CM 3121 SW Spring Garden, .1 mile riparian K Coho, StW TCWC Habitat Tryon Creek
Newell Invasive Removal, Revegetation, .36 Willamette Trib, 189-CM K Coho, StW GOCWC Habitat mile riparian Newell Creek
Rock Creek Confluence Restoration Project, Rock Creek/ 189-CM, 198- Coho, StW, ChS, .4 mile LWD 140pc & 140 BLDR, .45 mile K Clackamas Main- CRBC Habitat CM ChF riparian stem
Willamette Trib, 183-CM SW Huber Green Street Project S Coho, StW BES Water Quality Tryon Creek
Willamette Trib, 183-CM TriMet Park and Ride Stormwater Retrofit S Coho, StW BES Water Quality Tryon Creek
Willamette Trib, 183-CM Spring Garden Park Project, 5 rain gardens S Coho, StW BES Water Quality Tryon Creek
Willamette Trib, 183-CM SW Marigold Green Street S Coho, StW BES Water Quality Tryon Creek
41 Cascade Stratum Cascade Clackamas Populations
Action ID Project Limiting Fac- Location Species Implementer Action Type tor (key=k, secondary=s, none=n)
Willamette 186-CM, 189- Luther Road Habitat Restoration, 2000' LWD, 2000' ripari- K Trib, Johnson Coho, StW BES Habitat CM, 198-CM an and 2 alcoves Creek
Willamette 189-CM Meadowview HOA Riparian Revegetation, .1 mile riparian K Trib. Park Coho, StW TCWC Habitat Creek
189-CM, 197- Coho, StW, Ross Island Riparian, .8 mile K Willamette BES Habitat CM ChS, ChF Mainstem Coho, StW, 36-Trib River Island Concept Report and Design K Metro Plans Clackamas ChS, ChF
Willamette 188-CM Newell Canyon Acquisition, 227 acres K Trib, Newell Coho, StW Metro Acquisition Creek
Willamette 188-CM Fairview Creek Headwaters Acquisition, 33 acres K Trib, Colum- Coho, StW Metro Acquisition bia Slough
Willamette 198-CM Johnson Creek LWD, 1 mile K Trib, Johnson Coho, StW Metro Habitat Creek
185-CM, 193- Milo McIver Park 2 Side Channels, .45 mile, 312 LWD, Mainstem Coho, StW, K PGE Habitat CM, 198-CM 1105 BLDR, ground water gallery Clackamas ChS, ChF
185-CM 193- Oak Grove Fork 6 jams, 24 LWD, 6 Side channel, .67 Oak Grove Coho, StW, K PGE Habitat CM, 198-CM miles, 68 LWD Fork ChS
Winslow 170-CM Winslow Fish and Flow Culvert NA NA MHNF Habitat Creek Clear, Deep, Coho, StW, 189-CM Shade Our streams Program, 5.07 mile riparian K CRBC Habitat Eagle ChS, ChF
189-CM Rock Creek Partnership riparian, .5miles K Rock Creek Coho, StW CRBC Habitat
Clackamas 209-CM 3 Bag Limit Hatchery Coho Salmon K Coho ODFW Hatchery Mainstem
Willamette Lower Tryon Creek Bank Stabilization, 1 lwd jam, 7 LWD, Coho, StW, 198-CM K Trib, Tryon BES Habitat .01 mile ChS Creek
Upper Clack- Coho, StW, 198-CM Tar and Two Rivers Side Channel LWD project..1 mile K amas Main- MHNF Habitat ChS stem
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
42 Cascade Stratum 43 Year 2012 habitat explana-
Broad Sense Goal Goal Sense Broad Delisting Goal . Additional Miles of High 0 80 60 40 20 100
ities, off-channel
on page 15 of this report. Miles of High Quality Coho Habitat Coho Quality High of Miles met. are high quality coho habitat Figure 11 Quality Habitat egory would hit targets in 15 years. quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). ils regarding restoration action quant r the Clackamas population are found r the Clackamas e recovery goals for additional miles of e recovery goals for additional miles Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Compared Completion of approx. 6%/year in each cat Completion The delisting and broad sens See page 15 of this report for deta of high quality coho habitat needs. tion* and miles Habitat restoration quantities fo of all habitat restoration Achievement Figure 10. to Plan Restoration Quantities to Plan Restoration Quantities Clackamas Populations Populations Clackamas
South Fork Clackamas River Fork Clackamas South finetooth Photo:
Cascade Stratum Cascade Sandy Populations
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Sandy Coho, Spring and Fall and Late Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Key Limiting Factor and Code Coho Spring Fall Chi‐ Late Fall Winter Category Chi‐ nook Chinook Steel‐ nook head Tributary 5c Altered hydrograph/water quantity from upslope land use. Habitat
6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to X X X X X past and/or current land use practices.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Co- X X X X X Habitat lumbia Basin hydropower reservoirs, revetments and dis- posal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to X X X X X Columbia Basin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin X X X X X hydropower dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin X X X X X hydropower dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fish- X X eries.
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding X X X X with wild fish. 44 Cascade Stratum 45 Cedar Creek at Sandy River Photo: ODFW
ng
Delis
Low Low
Very Goal Desired Low Low Moderate Very ‐ Assess
Plan
High High
High ment 2010 Moderate Very Low Very
Risk
Chinook on
Steelhead
Chinook
Fall nc Chinook
Winter Spring Fall Late Coho Ex Sandy Populations Populations Sandy Cascade Stratum 46 ed through GRTS redd surveys basin wide. To cal- ed through GRTS redd surveys basin te fall and spring chinook which have a degree ently in process of developing methodology to ead, additional years of observed abundance are need- years of observed abundance ead, additional ries during basin wide GRTS redd surveys. ries during basin wide GRTS d VSP criteria in relation to goals. to goals. d VSP criteria in relation Delisting Goal Broad Sense Goal Goal Sense Broad See page 12 for a description of observe determine abundance and pHOS for Sandy fall, la of spatial and temporal overlap. Sandy chinook and late fall chinook: staff are curr Sandy pHOS is determined from carcass recove from Sandy pHOS is determined Fall and Late Fall Chinook Population Status Fall and Late Fall Chinook Sandy Populations Populations Sandy Sandy yearly observed abundance estimates are determin estimates Sandy yearly observed abundance Sandy winter steelh culate yearly abundance goals for ed. Winter Steelhead Population Status Population Status Steelhead Winter Cascade Stratum Cascade Sandy Populations Coho Population Status
Sandy yearly observed abundance estimates are a combination of GRTS spawning ground estimates, which does not include area above the Cedar Creek Hatchery Weir plus the number of unmarked adult fish passed above the weir.
Broad Sense Goal Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal
From 2010-present pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground surveys basin wide except above the Cedar Creek hatchery weir plus the number of wild fish passed above the weir and divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. The random GRTS spawning surveys do not occur above the weir, where it is presumed to be 100% wild fish spawners. The area above the dam contains 2% of available spawning miles in the Sandy population.
See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals.
47 Cascade Stratum Sandy Populations
Spring Chinook Population Status
3000 Sandy Wild Spring Chinook Abundance
2500
2000
1500 Abundance 1000
500 Observed 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Observed Abundance Abundance Goal Spawn Year
Sandy yearly observed abundance estimates are determined by redd counts above former Marmot Dam site.
1.00 Sandy Spring Chinook: Percent Hatchery Fish on Spawning 0.80 Ground
0.60
0.40 pHOS
0.20
0.00
Broad Sense Goal 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Delisting Goal Spawing Year Stray Percent 9 Year Ave
Sandy pHOS is determined by a redd count survey. Relationships between redd counts, recovered carcasses and fish passing the dam were examined between 2002-2007 and applied. Prior to 2008 only unclipped fish were allowed to pass over Marmot Dam. From 2008 to current, the past redd and carcass relationships are applied to redds observed from surveys.
See page 11 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 48 Cascade Stratum Cascade Sandy Populations Table 7. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type (key=k, sec- ondary=s, none=n)
City of Portland HCP- For 2014 the city was in full compliance with Coho, StW, ChF, 218-SY S Basin Wide PWB Habitat the terms and conditions of the HCP late ChF, ChS
229-SY 1200 yd3 Gravel Augmentation for Spawning S Bull Run River Coho, StW, ChS PWB Habitat
Cedar Creek, 238-SY Acclimate 100% Hatchery Spring Chinook Releases in the Sandy K ChS ODFW Hatchery Bull Run
Salmon, Zig- 239-SY Trap and Sort Hatchery Adults (weir and trap) K ChS ODFW Hatchery zag, Bull Run
218-SY, Sandy Main- ChS, Coho, StW, City of Portland HCP, off site measure, 91 acre riparian easement K PWB Habitat 235-SY stem ChF, Late ChF
218-SY, City of Portland HCP, off-site measure, Alder Creek Fish Ladder at N Alder Creek StW PWB Passage 219-SY City of Sandy water intake structure
218-SY, City of Portland HCP, off-site measure, Little Sandy 1&2 LWD, 63 Little Sandy S Coho, ChF, StW PWB Habitat 232-SY log, .75 mile River
236-SY Everist Side Channel Restoration, .06 mile riparian K Salmon River Coho, StW, ChS SRBWC Habitat
221-SY, Upper Sandy River Restoration, 15 LWD structures 398 pc, .54 mile, K Salmon/Still Coho, StW, ChS TFT/USFS Habitat 232-SY 80 boulder riffle-Salmon R.,1.05 mile side channel
232-SY, Sandy Stronghold Restoration, 2.5 mile LWD, 800 pc, 100 BLDR, at K Salmon/Still Coho, StW, ChS TFT/USFS Habitat 236-SY 47 sites. 1/2 mile side channel and 48, 562 off-channel
232-SY, Lower Sandy River Restoration Implementation Phase 2 - Camp Sandy Main- Coho, StW, ChF, 233-SY, K SRBWC Habitat Collins, .57 mile SCH, 178 LWD, 260 BLDR, .5 mile riparian stem late ChF, ChS 236-SY
232-SY, 1000 Acres Implementation, remove tidegate 28 acre, 1.38 mile Coho, StW, ChF, 233-SY, K Columbia River LCEP Habitat LWD, 133 pc late ChF, ChS 236-SY
Beaver and Big 236-SY EMSWCD Stream Care Program 5.17 mile K Coho, StW EMSWCD Habitat Creeks
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
49 Cascade Stratum 50 habitat explana- Year 2012
Delisting and Broad Sense Goals Goals Sense Broad and Delisting . Miles of High Quali- 0 50 40 30 20 10 ities, off-channel
page 15 of this report. Miles of High Quality Coho Habitat Coho Quality High of Miles Figure 13 ty Coho Habitat egory would hit targets in 15 years. egory would hit targets in 15 years. ntities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). ntities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). ils regarding restoration action quant target in the Sandy basin. for the Sandy population are found on for the Sandy population are found ty coho habitat needs. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 tion and miles of high quali tion and miles Completion of approx. 6%/year in each cat of approx. 6%/year in each Completion are on activities All restoration See page 15 of this report for deta Habitat restoration quantities qua of all habitat restoration Achievement 2011 Flood; Upper Sandy River Photo: ODFW Sandy Populations Populations Sandy
Compared to Plan Restoration Quantities Quantities to Plan Restoration Compared Figure 12. Gorge Stratum Lower Gorge Populations
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Lower Gorge Coho, Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Chi‐ Winter Category nook Steelhead
Tributary 6f Degraded physical habitat quality due to transportation corridor de- X X X Habitat velopment and maintenance.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Ba- X X X Habitat sin hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge mate- 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia X X X Basin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydro- X X X power dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X X dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild X X
51 Gorge Stratum Lower Gorge Populations
2010 Plan Assess‐ Desired Delis ng
Ex nc on Risk ment Goal
Coho Very High Low
Fall Chinook Very High Moderate
Winter Steelhead High Low
Fall Chinook Population Status Notes:
Lower Gorge annual abundance estimates are determined from GRTS based spawning ground surveys, which began in 2009. Spawning locations are often in non-wadable portions of streams, which pose challenges for visual-based spawning surveys and frequently result in confidence intervals which exceed the abundance esti- mate.
Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes:
No GRTS based spawner abundance estimates exist.
52 Gorge Stratum Lower Gorge Populations
Coho Population Status
Lower Gorge observed abundance estimates are determined by GRTS based spawning ground surveys. No fish or surveys are passed or conducted above hatchery weirs at Bonneville or Cascade Hatcheries.
Broad Sense Goal Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal
Lower Gorge pHOS is a function of estimated wild abundance determined from the GRTS spawning ground surveys divided by the estimated hatchery abundance from GRTS spawning ground surveys. See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 53 Gorge Stratum Lower Gorge Populations Table 8. Status Summary of Protection and Restoration Activities Completed
Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type
Wahkeena and Multnomah Creek Restoration, retrofit 245-LG, 246- Wahkeena and diversion (40% flow improvement), 80 pc LWD, .12 mile K Coho, StW LCEP Habitat LG Multnomah Creeks riparian, stormwater bioswale
Coho, StW, Oregon State 36-Trib Gorge Comprehensive Plan K Lower Gorge Population Plan Chum, ChF Parks
*See table 7.3 of the plan to link the action ID to the plan action.
30 Broad Sense Goal 25
20
15
10 Delisting Goal
5
0
Miles of High High Miles of Habitat Quality Coho 2012 Year Figure 15. Miles of High Quali- Figure 14. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Com- ty Coho Habitat pared to Plan Restoration Quantities.
Multnomah Falls Photo: ODFW
Habitat restoration quantities for the Lower Gorge population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit targets in 15 years. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs. 54 Gorge Stratum Upper Gorge Populations
Coho NOAA has defined the Upper Gorge and Hood River populations of coho as one independent population. See Hood River coho for the Upper Gorge/Hood population monitoring report.
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Upper Gorge Fall Chinook and Winter Steelhead
Threat Cat‐ Key Limi ng Factor and Code Fall Chi‐ Winter egory nook Steelhead
Tributary 6f Degraded physical habitat quality due to transportation corridor develop- X X Habitat ment and maintenance. 6g X X Degraded physical habitat quality, inundation from Bonneville Dam.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X Habitat hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to Columbia Basin X X hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin hydropower X X dams.
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fisheries. X
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish. X
55 Gorge Stratum 56 e were cross-referenced streams, which pose chal- which pose streams, te toward the specific restoration restoration the specific te toward
ng
Delis
System. The action agencies typically produce an The action agencies typically System. http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Images/BiOp/ past LCRCRP reports thes the 2013 Annual Progress Report on FCRPS BiOp im- the 2013 Annual Progress Report tly result in confidence intervals which exceed the which exceed intervals in confidence tly result Goal Moderate High Desired ‐ s have been completed which contribu s have been completed Assess
mates are determined from GRTS based from surveys, spawning ground are determined mates
Plan
High
High ment Very 2010
Risk
on Steelhead
nc Chinook
Fall Chinook Population Status Notes: Fall Chinook Population nce estimates exists. nce estimates No GRTS based spawner abunda Winter Fall Ex No tributary habitat restoration project annual report detailing RPA action implementation. In implementation. annual report detailing RPA action metrics. action quantity Many of the actions listed for the Upper Gorge Populations are reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPA’s) are reasonable and prudent Upper Gorge Populations Many of the actions listed for the Hydropower River the Federal Columbia associated with with Plan actions. with Plan actions. produced 2014, the action agencies During November can be found at The 2013 Annual Report plementation. FCRPS%20APR%202013%20Section%201.pdf. Winter Steelhead Population Status Notes: Upper Gorge annual abundance esti Upper Gorge annual non-wadable portions of in non-wadable portions Spawning locations are often which began in 2009. spawning surveys and frequen lenges for visual-based abundance estimate. Upper Gorge Populations Populations Gorge Upper Gorge Stratum Hood Populations
Key Limiting Factors Affecting Upper Gorge/Hood Coho and Hood River Spring and Fall Chinook and Winter and Summer Steelhead
Threat Key Limi ng Factor and Code Coho Fall Spring Winter Summer Category Chi‐ Chi‐ Steel‐ Steel‐ nook nook head head Tributary 6e Reduced physical habitat quality/habitat access due to X X X X Habitat past and/or current land use practices. 5d Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to irrigation with- X X X X drawals.
Estuary 3a Altered food web, reduced macrodetrital input due to X X X X X Habitat Columbia Basin hydropower reservoirs, revetments and disposal of dredge materials. 3b Altered food web, increased mircodetrital input due to X X X X X Columbia Basin hydropower reservoirs.
5b Altered hydrograph/water quantity due to Columbia Ba- X X X X X sin hydropower dams.
6c Impaired physical habitat quality due to Columbia Basin X X X X X
Harvest 7a Loss of population traits due to consumptive, target fish- X X X eries.
Hatchery 7c Loss of population traits, stray hatchery fish interbreed- X X X ing with wild fish. 57 Hood Populations Gorge Stratum
Desired Delis ng Ex nc on Risk 2010 Plan Assessment Goal
Coho Very High Low
Fall Chinook Very High Low
Spring Chinook Very High Very Low
Winter Steelhead Moderate Low
Summer Steelhead Very High Low
Summer Steelhead Population Status Notes*:
No yearly abundance estimates are available post Powerdale Dam removal.
Spring Chinook Population Status Notes*:
No yearly abundance estimates are available post Powerdale Dam removal.
Fall Chinook Population Status Notes*:
No yearly abundance estimates are available post Powerdale Dam removal.
* Annual estimates of VSP metrics have been unavailable for Hood River populations of summer steelhead, spring chinook and fall chinook since the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010. Work to develop reliable methods for accurate characterization of these populations is ongoing.
Photo: Finetooth- Wikipedia
58 Gorge Stratum Hood Populations
Winter Steelhead Population Status
Hood River escapement estimates are based on mark-recapture of radio-tagged adult wild steelhead and re- duced by 10% to account for within-basin pre-spawn mortality.
Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal
Hood River pHOS is determined by mark-recapture and survival models (CJS, White and Burnham 1999) and adjusted for harvest, broodstock and select removal from trapping facilities. See page 12 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 59 Gorge Stratum Upper Gorge/Hood Populations Coho Population Status
Hood yearly observed abundance estimates (post Powerdale Dam Removal) are determined solely from GRTS spawning ground surveys located within the Upper Gorge and Hood population areas.
Broad Sense Goal Broad Sense Goal Delisting Goal Delisting Goal
Upper Gorge/Hood pHOS (post Powerdale Dam removal) is a function of estimated wild abundance deter- mined from GRTS spawning ground surveys conducted in the Upper Gorge portion of the population divided by the estimated number of hatchery fish from the Upper Gorge portion of the population and expanded for the Hood River portion.
See page 10 for a description of observed VSP criteria in relation to goals. 60 Gorge Stratum Hood Populations Table 9. Status summary of protection and restoration activities completed.
Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type (key=k, second- ary=s, none=n)
10-Trib, 278- Small Scale Restoration Initiative, .27 mile riparian & K Neal Creek StW, Coho, StS CTWS Habitat HD,280-HD fencing
East Fk Hood River LiDAR Mapping and Intrinsic Po- East Fork Hood Coho, StW, StS, 36-Trib K CTWS Habitat tential Studies River ChS, ChF
Hood River Basin Planning Study: Water Supply and Coho, StW, StS, 273-HD K Hood River BOR/HRWG Habitat Conservation Assessment ChS, ChF
Hood River RM1 Habitat Restoration, .5 mile riparian, Lower Mainstem Coho, StW, StS, 280, 283-HD K CLT Habitat 2600' pipeline removed, floodplain (160) LWD Hood River ChS, ChF
Lower Middle Fork ChS, StS, StW, 272, 277-HD Munk Irrigation Improvement Project K HRSWCD Habitat Hood River Coho
Lower East Fork Coho, StW, StS, 272, 277-HD Wells Irrigation Improvement Project K HRSWCD Habitat Hood River ChS, ChF Lower Middle Fork ChS, StS, StW, 272, 277-HD Hilton Irrigation Improvement Project K HRSWCD Habitat Hood River Coho Lower Middle Fork ChS, StS, StW, 272, 277-HD Oats Irrigation Improvement Project K HRSWCD Habitat Hood River Coho
Lower East Fork Coho, StW, StS, 272, 277-HD McKnight Irrigation Improvement Project K HRSWCD Habitat Hood River ChS, ChF
Lower Mainstem Coho, StW, StS, 280-HD Whiskey Creek riparian, .02 mile K HRWG Habitat Hood River ChS, ChF
Lake Branch Hood 284-HD Lake Branch LWD, 1.7 mile, 603 pc K ChS, StS CTWS Habitat River Upper Middle Fork ChS, StS, StW, 284-HD Clear Branch Gravel Augmentation, 66 cy K MFID Habitat Hood River Coho
Orchard Spray Buffer Riparian Revegetation and Fenc- East Fork Hood Coho, StW, StS, 278, 280-HD K CTWS Habitat ing Project, .05 mile riparian River ChS, ChF
278-HD,294- Water Quality and Fish Habitat Protection at West Fork West Fork Hood S ChS, StS, Coho CTWS Habitat HD BPA crossing (Veg Mngt-eliminating chemical control) River
Provide Education to Assist with Water Saving Coho, StW, StS, 273-HD K Basin Wide HRSWCD Outreach Measures ChS, ChF
Coho, StW, StS, 276-HD Continue Ed and Outreach from HRWAP K Basin Wide HRWG Outreach ChS, ChF Coho, StW, StS, 294-HD Implement BMP's for Ag Chemicals S Basin Wide HRWG Outreach ChS, ChF
Coho, StW, StS, 295-HD Improve Residential Chemical Use S Basin Wide HRWG Outreach ChS, ChF 61 Gorge Stratum Hood Populations
Action ID Project Limiting Factor Location Species Implementer Action Type (key=k, secondary=s, none=n) Upper Middle Coe Branch Diversion Grade Control and Fish 270-HD K Fork Hood ChS, StS, StW, Coho MFID/USFS Habitat Passage Project River
Trib-5 Phillips Pump, new fish screen installed NA Coho, StW, StS Neal Creek HRSWCD Habitat
Pesticide Stewardship Partnership, pesticide Coho, StW, StS, ChS, DEQ/HRWG/ 276-HD Basin wide Habitat sampling S ChF CTWS
Pipe Christopher Ditch - piped 3,000' of open East Fork Hood 272-HD StW, ChS, Coho CTWS Habitat ditch K River
East Fork Irrigation District Water Conservation East Fork Hood 277-HD StW, ChS, Coho CTWS Habitat Plan K River
36-Trib Neal Creek Aquatic Habitat Survey S Neal Creek StW, Coho CTWS Habitat
36-Trib Neal Creek LiDAR Mapping and Intrinsic Poten- K Neal Creek StW, Coho CTWS Habitat
60 Delisting and 50 Broad Sense Goals
40
30
20
10
0 2012 Miles of High Quality Coho Habitat High Miles of Quality Habitat Coho Year Figure 16. Habitat Restoration Completed 2010-2014 Com- Figure 17. Miles of High Quali- pared to Plan Restoration Quantities ty Coho Habitat
Habitat restoration quantities for the Hood population are found on page 15 of this report. Achievement of all habitat restoration quantities is planned for 15 years (2010-2024). Completion of approx. 6%/year in each category would hit targets in 15 years. See page 15 of this report for details regarding restoration action quantities, off-channel habitat explana- tion and miles of high quality coho habitat needs.
Mt Hood 62 Photo: Wikipedia: Moribunt Implementation Coordination
A number of general coordination activities have taken place during this reporting period of Janu- ary 1, 2014-December 31, 2014. These include:
Formed a sub-group of the Implementation Team to discuss method to increase the amounts of restoration at the ESU scale. Developed ESU wide restoration goals with the assistance of the stream restoration sub- group, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/docs/lower-columbia/ Setting_ESU_wide_restoration_goals.pdf The 3 Year Implementation Schedule (2015-2017) was developed and posted for habitat restoration projects across the ESU. All on-the-ground watershed enhancement implementers within the LCR sub-domain contin- ue to meet with the Implementation Coordinator to discuss plan outreach and its implemen- tation. The third Annual Report was completed and work began on the forth annual report. Member of the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership Science Work Group, focused on inte- grating LCR recovery plan priorities with the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership's prioriti- zation of estuary habitat for restoration. Member of Oregon’s chum recovery workgroup. Member of Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Region 3 review team and providing input regarding LCR recovery plan priorities. Member of the USACOE General Investigative Study project development team. This study is using recovery plan priorities and locations to potentially put projects on the ground in the estuary and Oregon tributaries. Member of the NOAA led Lower Columbia Steering Committee, which assisted with finaliza- tion of the federal Lower Columbia River Recovery Plan. Participated in the development of the revised coho harvest matrix for ocean and Columbia River fisheries.
Mouth of the Columbia River Photo: Wikipedia– Little Mountain 5 63 Adaptive Management Recommendations
The 2013 annual report listed 9 recommendations to pursue. Seven of the nine have either been completed or in progress/on-going. Alternative monitoring measures for improving VSP confidence intervals for chinook and development of criteria for evaluating listing factors were not accomplished in 2014. Accomplishment highlights include setting ESU wide restoration goals, beginning the eval- uation process of VSP metrics versus evaluation criteria and VSP reporting for Hood River StW. This report’s adaptive management section was built in response to progress within the previous recommendations and new challenges which surfaced during this reporting period.
Although not adaptive management actions per se, the forth year of implementation highlighted the general need to accomplish the following coordination needs in order to assure successful plan im- plementation:
Continue to meet with watershed enhancement practioneers to update watershed actions plans to reflect LCR recovery plan priorities where needed (i.e. Clackamas). Work with funding entities to assure that funding priorities are consistent with LCR plan priorities and mechanisms are in place to assure that funding is allocated according to these priorities. Continue coordination with the Hood River Research Program to capture VSP metrics for all ba- sin species.
Develop alternative methods of VSP monitoring in glacial systems (i.e. Sandy, Hood). Reinstitute steelhead VSP monitoring in the coastal stratum if funding becomes available. Conduct studies to assess effectiveness of harvest management actions needed to achieve har- vest impact goals. Continue working with the Chum Workgroup to discuss re-introduction strategies in light of habi- tat assessment for the Scappoose basin. Early warning system: begin the process of intra-agency discussion regarding adaptive manage- ment where interim evaluation criteria will not be met during the plan timeframes. Replace Table C.1-1 in Appendix C. Methodology to determine the proportion of Sandy late fall chinook hatchery spawners is explained in the text on page 15/16 of Appendix C in the plan. The proportion of hatchery spawners was erroneously carried forward in Table C.1-1 as the propor- tion of wild spawners used in the basic data set (this was a typographic error and does not reflect an error carried into the plan’s viability analysis). Clackamas ChS are not in the LCR sub-domain, but in the Upper Willamette sub-domain. The Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan contains the most recent viability analy- sis and recovery targets. The Upper Willamette Conservation and Recovery Plan is found at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/upper_willamette_river_plan.asp.
Crystal Springs Coho Portland BES 64 Reference: Anlauf, K., K. Jones, C. Stein, and P. Kavanagh. 2006. Lower Columbia River Basin Coho Salmon Habitat Assessment: Status of Habitat and Production Potential and Capacity for Coho Salmon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. Hommel, K., 2014. Chum Salmon Reintroduction Plan, draft report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recov- ery Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Populations in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Oregon’s Columbia River Chum Salmon Recov- ery Strategy. Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Populations in Oregon. McElhany, P., M.H.Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. Department of Com- merce, NOAA Technical Memorandum: NMFS-NWFSC-42. NOAA, Seattle, WA. McElhany, P., C.Busack, M. Chilcote, S. Kolmes, B. McIntosh, J.M. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, C. Steward, D. Ward, T. Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2006. Revised viability criteria for salmon steel- head in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. Draft Report, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. McElhany, P., M.Chilcote, J. Myers, R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of Oregon salmon and steelhead populations in the Willamette and lower Columbia basins, review draft. National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Lower Co- lumbia River Chinook, Lower Columbia River Chum, Lower Columbia River Coho and Lower Co- lumbia River Steelhead. U.S Department of Commerce. 53pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan and U.S. Frasier Panel Fisheries in 2010 and 2011on the Lower Columbia River Chinook Evolutionary Significant Unit and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Rockfish Distinct Popula- tions Segments Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. U.S. Department of Commerce. 155pp. Reagan, R.E. and E.A. Olsen, E.A. 2009. Hood River and Pelton ladder evaluation studies. An- nual Report 2087 of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Project Number 1988-053-04; Contract Number 00029641) to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Schroeder, R. K., K. R. Kenaston, and L.K. McLaughlin. 2007. Spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette and Sandy rivers. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Report F- 163-R-11/12, Annual Progress Report, Salem, OR. Trask, S., K.F. Harding, and D. Higley. 2012. Limiting Factor Analysis and Restoration Plan, Mil- ton Creek 6th Field of Scappoose Bay. Scappoose Bay Watershed Council. St. Helens, OR. White, G.C. and K.P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement, 120-138.
Kerry Island West Port Slough Clatskanie Photo: Bonneville Power Association
65 Table C.1-1. Basic data set developed for Sandy Fall Chinook. Spawn Total Proportion of Brood Year Proportion by Age at Spawning Year Spawners Wild Spawn- Average Total Age3 Age4 Age5 Age6 ers Fishery Ex- ploitation Rates 3156 0.55 1981 0.763 0.143 0.694 0.157 0.006 3655 0.763 0.59 0.157 1982 0.143 0.694 0.006 2575 0.763 0.68 0.157 1983 0.143 0.694 0.006 3323 0.763 0.46 0.157 1984 0.143 0.694 0.006 2087 0.763 0.45 0.157 1985 0.143 0.694 0.006 2845 0.763 0.42 0.157 1986 0.143 0.694 0.006 9160 0.763 0.38 0.157 1987 0.143 0.694 0.006 6958 0.763 0.47 0.157 1988 0.143 0.694 0.006 8557 0.763 0.44 0.157 1989 0.143 0.694 0.006 3516 0.763 0.43 0.157 1990 0.143 0.694 0.006 2939 0.763 0.31 0.157 1991 0.143 0.694 0.006 4185 0.763 0.26 0.157 1992 0.143 0.694 0.006 5733 0.763 0.29 0.157 1993 0.143 0.694 0.006 2420 0.763 0.21 0.157 1994 0.143 0.694 0.006 4382 0.763 0.19 0.157 1995 0.143 0.694 0.006 2119 0.763 0.16 0.157 1996 0.143 0.694 0.006 8443 0.763 0.38 0.157 1997 0.143 0.694 0.006 3251 0.763 0.41 0.157 1998 0.143 0.694 0.006 1890 0.763 0.25 0.157 1999 0.143 0.694 0.006 363 0.763 0.30 0.157 2000 0.143 0.694 0.006 3510 0.763 0.52 0.157 2001 0.143 0.694 0.006 5463 0.763 0.66 0.157 2002 0.143 0.694 0.006 3993 0.763 0.157 2003 na 0.143 0.694 0.006 2524 0.763 0.157 2004 na 0.143 0.694 0.006 3998 0.763 0.157 2005 na 0.143 0.694 0.006 5359 0.763 0.157 2006 na 0.143 0.694 0.006 2006 na 0.143 0.694 0.006
Sandy River backwater Photo: ODFW 66