Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Dam removal wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Ecology of the San Francisco Estuary wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Draft – July 28, 2006 Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Steelhead in the Oregon Portion of the Mid-Columbia Distinct Population Segment: Results of Expert Panel Deliberations Introduction This chapter describes one step of an iterative process that Oregon is using to develop information on key and secondary limiting factors and threats impairing the viability of Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. This information is meant to serve as a starting point for the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Planning Team (with input from the Stakeholder Team) to develop life stage specific recovery actions designed to strategically address factors limiting the recovery of Oregon’s populations of steelhead within the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). This step of the process, henceforth referred to as the “Expert Panel”, was based on convening a group of 12 individuals with extensive scientific, technical, and local expertise related to limiting factors and threats to the recovery of Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. Limiting factors and threats were identified for each population by considering impacts across the entire life cycle (gravel to gravel) rather than considering only impacts that might occur in tributaries that define the populations. This distinction is especially important because it will advise potential management actions that might be needed across the entire life cycle in order to improve viability of the populations. Definition of Terms and Components of Expert Panel Deliberations Limiting Factors Limiting factors are the physical, biological, or chemical conditions and associated ecological processes and interactions (e.g., population size, habitat connectivity, water quality, water quantity, etc.) experienced by the fish that may influence viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters (i.e. abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Limiting Factor Categories NOAA’s Draft Guidelines for Limiting Factors and Threats Assessments encourages use of a set of limiting factor categories in a 2005 Report to Congress on the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. After considering the suggested list, Oregon has chosen a set that is similar-to but different-from the set NOAA has recommended. Oregon believes that its list and the effort to identify limiting factors and threats at specific life stages and spatial scales will more effectively inform recovery actions that will remediate the causes of limiting factors. The categories of limiting factors and definitions used in Oregon’s expert panel deliberation are as follows: 1. Water quantity/hydrograph – Timing and magnitude of flow conditions. 1 Draft – July 28, 2006 2. Water quality – Water characteristics including temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, pH, toxics, etc. 3. Predation – Consumption of naturally produced fish by one or more species (not to include fishery mortality). 4. Competition – Adverse interaction between naturally produced fish and hatchery fish or other species, both of which need some limited environmental factor (i.e. food or space). 5. Nutrients – This limiting factor is primarily directed toward the role of salmon carcasses. 6. Disease – Pathological condition in naturally produced fish resulting from infection. 7. Physical habitat quality/quantity – Quality or quantity of physical habitat. Examples include instream roughness, channel morphology, riparian conditions, fine sediment, etc. 8. Habitat access – Impaired access to spawning and/or rearing habitat. Examples include impassable culverts, delayed migration over dams, dewatered stream channels, etc. If, for example, a stream has been diked, thereby eliminating access to off-channel habitat, habitat access should be considered a problem. If off-channel habitat to which access has been eliminated is in impaired condition, it also considered an element of the physical habitat quality/quantity limiting factor. 9. Population traits – Impaired population condition(s) including: genetic, life history, morphological, productivity, fitness, behavioral characteristics, and population size. Although population traits are caused by other limiting factors, they may also and independently be a limiting factor. Threats Threats are the human actions (e.g., fishing, operation of hatcheries, operation of the hydro system, road building, riparian habitat degradation, channel straightening, etc.) or natural (e.g., flood, drought, volcano, tsunami, etc.) events that cause or contribute-to limiting factors. Threats may be associated with one or more specific life cycle stages and may occur in the past, present, or future. Threat Categories Five categories of threats were used to describe causes of limiting factors: 1. Current harvest practices – Direct and indirect mortality associated with fisheries on naturally produced fish. 2. Current hatchery practices – Negative impact of hatchery practices on naturally produced fish. Hatchery practices include: number of fish released, removal of adults for broodstock, breeding practices, rearing practices, release practices, water quality management, blockage of access to habitat, etc. 3. Current hydropower – Negative impact of current hydropower-system management on naturally produced fish. 4. Landuse practices – Negative impact of current landuse activities on naturally produced fish. Landuse practices include timber harvest, agriculture, urbanization, transportation, mining, etc. This category includes both current landuse practices that are causing limiting factors and impairing fish populations as well as current practices that are not adequate to restore limiting factors caused by past practices. 2 Draft – July 28, 2006 5. Introduced species – Negative impact of non-native plants or animals on naturally produced fish. The impact of hatchery fish should be considered under the hatchery threat category. Life Stage Considerations Limiting factors and threats were identified for each population by considering impacts across the entire life cycle (gravel to gravel) rather than considering only impacts that might occur in tributaries that define the populations. In order to be as spatially explicit as possible given the time constraints of the process, the Expert Panel considered life stage specific limiting factors and threats for four specific geographic areas that together encompass the entire lifecycle of Mid-Columbia steelhead. These geographic areas and the specific life stages considered are: 1. Tributaries – All streams and rivers within a specific population area (Life stages: eggs, alevin, fry, summer parr, winter parr, smolts, returning adults, spawners). 2. Mainstem Columbia – The mainstem Columbia River above Bonneville Dam (Life stages: pre-smolts, smolts, returning adults). 3. Estuary – All tidally influenced areas of the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, including the Columbia River Plume (Life stages: pre-smolts, smolts, returning adults). 4. Ocean – All saltwater areas that Mid-Columbia steelhead spend part of their life cycle in that are outside of the estuary (Life stages: sub-adults, adults). Other Considerations The Expert Panel also had discussions on the potential impact of ocean conditions, climate change, and human population growth on steelhead population viability. The consensus of the group was that all these issues may have significant impacts on the ability to recover Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. However, the group also felt that it was beyond their purview to develop predictions about the trajectory of these impacts, as well as beyond the scope of this recovery plan to do anything about them. The panel also considered the issue of legacy threats; i.e. practices or events that occurred in the past that do not occur today but created conditions that continue to impact population viability. The purpose of these discussions were to acknowledge that some population viability problems observed today are due to past practices or events that cannot be assigned to an existing entity, but nevertheless need remediation. During their deliberations, the panel noted whether or not a specific limiting factor was the result of legacy threats, current threats, or a combination of both. Panel Composition The Expert Panel was composed of 12 individuals with a broad range of science and technical experience. The names and affiliations of these panelists, along with those of the two facilitators of the process are shown in Table 1. Some panel members had expertise across all potential limiting factors and threats; some had expertise in ecology and evolutionary biology; and some members were familiar with local conditions and 3 Draft – July 28, 2006 data specific to individual steelhead populations within the DPS. An effort was made to enlist panel members with diverse employment perspective (e.g., Oregon, federal, Tribal, private sector, academic). Panelists were selected by Oregon in consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service. Prospective panelists were identified entirely based on scientific and technical expertise rather than representation of employer’s interests. Participation by panel members was by assignment within ODFW and was voluntary for others. Table 1. Names and affiliations of expert panelists and facilitators. Name Tim Bailey Ray Beamesderfer Mark Chilcote Rod French Mike Gauvin Chris Jordan Affiliation ODFW Consultant ODFW ODFW CTWSR NOAA Name Sue Knapp Hiram Li Dale McCullough Michelle McClure Jim Ruzycki Tim Unterwegner Affiliation Name Affiliation ODFW Jay Nicholas ODFW (facilitator) OSU Jeff Rodgers ODFW (facilitator) CRITFC NOAA ODFW ODFW Panel Preparation Panel members were provided access to a variety of background information relevant to the deliberation. Access was provided in the form of document copies or internet access to (1) viability assessments for populations within the ESU/DPS; (2) a synthesis of current knowledge regarding limiting factors associated with hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and habitat; and (3) sub-basin plans. Overview of Panel Deliberation Process The panel deliberation consisted of seven elements, or stages. Stages 1-4 were designed primarily to get panel members focused on considering limiting factors and threats in the context of Oregon’s recovery planning effort and to provide a starting point for detailed discussions and final guidance regarding life stage specific key and secondary limiting factors and threats. Stages 5-7 were designed to provide panel members with a forum to identify, discuss and reach consensus on the details of the life stage specific key and secondary limiting factors and threats they were tasked with developing. Below are more detailed descriptions of each stage. First Stage Panelists rank limiting factors. A spreadsheet was placed on each panelist’s laptop computer. The spreadsheet contained worksheets for each steelhead population within the Oregon portion of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS. An example of the essential content of each worksheet is shown in Table 2. 4 Draft – July 28, 2006 Table 2. Example of worksheet used by expert panelists in stage one to assign relative scores to the impact of limiting factors on population viability, and impact of potential threats on limiting factors. Score limiting factors in relation to effect on population viability (based on VSP parameters): 0=no effect 1=minor effect 2=moderate effect 3=major effect Limiting Factors Threats Water Quantity Hydrograph Water Quality Predation Competition Nutrients Disease Physical Habitat Quality/ Quantity Habitat Access Population Traits Current Harvest Current Hatchery Current Hydro Current Landuse Introduced Species Score threats based on their impact on limiting factors: 0=no impact 1=minor impact 2=moderate impact 3=major impact For each population, panelists assigned a limiting-factor-category score to each limiting factor category to indicate the relative effect they believed the limiting factor has on VSP parameters for the specific population they were scoring. Allowable limiting-factorcategory scores were: 0 = no effect; 1 = minor effect; 2 = moderate effect; and 3 = major effect. Next, each panelist assigned a threat-factor-category score to each threat category and limiting factor to indicate the relative impact they believed each threat category has on the individual limiting factors. Allowable threat-factor-category scores were: 0 = no impact; 1 = minor impact; 2 = moderate impact; and 3 = major impact. An example of a completed population spreadsheet is shown in Table 3. Second Stage Calculate composite threat/limiting factor category score for each panelist. For each panelist, a composite score for the relative importance of each threat category within a limiting-factor category was calculated (the product of the limiting-factorcategory raw score and the threat-category raw scores). Table 4 shows the results of this stage for the hypothetical panelist worksheet shown in Table 3. Third Stage Calculate average composite threat/limiting factor category score for Expert Panel. An average score of composite threat/limiting factor category scores for all panelists was calculated (sum of all composite threat scores divided by the number of panelists that completed scoring for the population). 5 Draft – July 28, 2006 Table 3. Example of completed stage one worksheet depicting an individual panelists view of the relative effect of limiting factors on VSP parameters and impact of threats on limiting factors for a hypothetical steelhead population. Score limiting factors in relation to effect on population viability (based on VSP parameters): 0=no effect 1=minor effect 2=moderate effect 3=major effect 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 Habitat Access Population Traits Limiting Factors Water Quantity Hydrograph Water Quality Predation Competition Nutrients Disease Physical Habitat Quality/ Quantity Current Harvest 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Current Hatchery 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 Current Hydro 2 2 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 Current Landuse 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 3 0 Introduced Species 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Threats Score threats based on their impact on limiting factors: 0=no impact 1=minor impact 2=moderate impact 3=major impact Table 4. Example of calculation of stage two composite scores calculated from hypothetical limiting factor and threat scores presented in Table 3. Limiting Factors Threats Current Harvest Current Hatchery Current Hydro Current Landuse Introduced Species Water Quantity Hydrograph Water Quality Predation Competition Nutrients 0 (2x0) 0 (2x0) 4 (2x2) 4 (2x2) 0 (2x0) 0 (2x0) 0 (2x0) 4 (2x2) 4 (2x2) 0 (2x0) 0 (2x0) 2 (2x1) 2 (2x1) 2 (2x1) 4 (2x2) 0 (0x0) 2 (1x2) 0 (0x0) 0 (0x0) 0 (0x0) 2 (2x1) 2 (2x1) 2 (2x1) 2 (2x1) 0 (2x0) Disease Physical Habitat Quality/ Quantity Habitat Access Population Traits 0 (1x0) 1 (1x1) 0 (1x0) 0 (1x0) 0 (1x0) 0 (3x0) 0 (3x0) 9 (3x3) 6 (3x2) 0 (3x0) 0 (2x0) 0 (2x0) 6 (2x3) 6 (2x3) 0 (2x0) 1 (1x1) 1 (1x1) 0 (1x0) 0 (1x0) 0 (1x0) Fourth Stage Display initial prioritization of relative threat/limiting factor categories An initial prioritization of key and secondary threats and limiting factors was established by the panel facilitators. Break points between key, secondary, and other threats/limiting factors categories were as follows: >5-9 key; >4-5 secondary; <4 other. An example of this prioritization of the averaged threat/limiting factor category scores is shown in Table 5. It is important to realize that the outcome of this and the preceding stages were intended to serve as a focal point for panel discussions leading to the final limiting factor and threats identification and prioritization as outlined in stages 5-6. Because the information generated in stages 1-4 were designed to stimulate panel deliberations and do not represent the final consensus of the Expert Panel, the specific results generated by stages 1-4 are not included in this report. 6 Draft – July 28, 2006 Table 5. Example of stage four approach of applying break points to average threat/limiting factor category scores to identify key (black cells) and secondary (gray cells) concerns. Limiting Factors Threats Current Harvest Current Hatchery Current Hydro Current Landuse Introduced Species Physical Water Habitat Quantity - Water Quality/ Habitat Population Hydrograph Quality Predation Competition Nutrients Disease Quantity Access Traits 0.0 0.0 4.6 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 8.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 7.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 4.0 4.0 0.2 Fifth Stage Panelists develop final threat/limiting factor categories prioritizations. Panelists reviewed and discussed the initial prioritization of key and secondary threats. This discussion allowed panelists to recall specific data or experience that may have been overlooked during initial scoring of limiting factors and threats. Discussion also provided the panelists an opportunity to examine the ESU/DPS perspective of the initial prioritization of key and secondary threats – and to reach consensus to accept or change initial prioritizations that were derived solely from an average of panelists’ scores. At this stage in the deliberation, agreement was reached regarding the final prioritization of key and secondary threats for each limiting factor. Sixth Stage Panelist identify specific life stages and geographic locations of key and secondary threat/limiting factor categories For each key and secondary threat/limiting factor category, the panel was asked to identify specific life stages and geographic locations where the impact needs to be addressed. Seventh Stage Panel facilitators compile limiting factor and threat concerns provided by the Expert Panel into life stage and geographic area specific tables for review by panelists Panel facilitators compiled the information generated in stages 5-6 into tables for each Mid-Columbia steelhead population depicting the specific life stage and geographic location of each key and secondary threat/limiting factor category along with a description of the specific threat and limiting factor. These tables were sent to panelists for final review. These tables represent the final guidance of the Expert Panel regarding key and secondary threats and limiting factors to Oregon’s Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. 7 Draft – July 28, 2006 Caveat: Panel’s Guidance Is-What-It-Is Simply stated, the panel’s guidance stands on its own merit – as informed hypotheses that are meant to be evaluated, tested, accepted, or rejected by the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Planning Team with input from the Stakeholder Team. These hypotheses are based on the considerable scientific and on-the-ground knowledge of the panelists. Although the approach and scope of effort dedicated to this Expert Panel deliberation precluded documentation of rationale, data references, and experience to support each individual element of the panel’s overall guidance, Oregon believes their work represents a valuable and timely assessment of limiting factors and threats to viability of Mid-Columbia steelhead. General Conclusions of the Expert Panel Harvest: With the exception of concerns over the impact that mortality associated with catch and release fisheries have on West and East Side Deschutes populations, harvest was not considered by the Expert Panel to result in any key or secondary concerns in Oregon’s Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. Hatcheries: The impact of hatchery strays was considered to be a key concern in the West and East Side Deschutes and Lower John Day populations, and a secondary concern in the Umatilla and Walla Walla populations. Hydropower: The Expert Panel listed the impact of the Pelton/Round Butte hydropower complex as a key concern for West Side Deschutes and Crooked River populations. The panel also listed the following secondary concerns associated with the hydropower system: 1) direct mortality of juvenile steelhead at mainstem Columbia River dams; 2) impaired passage of adults; 3) predation; and 4) habitat degradation. Landuse: Past and/or present landuse was identified by the Expert Panel as having the most key concerns of any of the threat categories. Depending on the population, the panel listed the following as either key or secondary concerns attributable to landuse: 1) impaired upstream and downstream movement of juvenile and adult steelhead; 3) impaired physical habitat quality; 4) impaired water quality due to elevated water temperatures and agricultural chemicals; 5) reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph. Listed as secondary concerns for all populations were the impacts of fine sediment on steelhead eggs and alevins, and the impact of predation by birds on presmolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. Introduced Species: Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia was listed by the Expert panel as a secondary concern for all Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. 8 Draft – July 28, 2006 Population Specific Conclusions by the Expert Panel The following summarize the results of the Expert Panel’s deliberations on key and secondary threats and limiting factors for each of Oregon’s Mid-Columbia steelhead populations. 15 Mile Creek Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro 10 Landuse 5a 5b 8 9b 7 2e 6b 9a Introduced Species 6a Key Concerns: Code 8 Description . Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 9b Agricultural chemicals in tributary streams that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a 2e Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville) 9 . Draft – July 28, 2006 15 Mile Creek Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 5a Description . Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 10 Draft – July 28, 2006 West Side Deschutes Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults 1b 3 Hatchery Hydro 2 a 2 5a 6a 1a b 10 Landuse Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults 7 5a 5b 8 9 2e a 6b Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 2a Description Impaired downstream migration of smolts moving through Lake Billy Chinook. . 2b Pelton Dam prevents the upstream migration of returning adults. 3 Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributary streams with wild population creating a risk of genetic introgression. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code Description . 1a Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 1b Mortality of returning adults in tributary streams resulting from catch and release fishery. 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville) 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 11 Draft – July 28, 2006 West Side Deschutes Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 6a Description . Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 9a 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 12 Draft – July 28, 2006 Crooked River Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 2a Hydro Landuse 7 5a 6a 1a 2b 10 2c 2e 5a 5b 8 6b 9a Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 2a Description Impaired downstream migration of smolts moving through Lake Billy Chinook. . 2b Pelton Dam prevents the upstream migration of returning adults. Note: This population is extinct due this threat. If and when passage is provided, a steelhead re-colonization plan will first need to be developed before recovery actions targeted at the other threats and limiting factors have benefit. 2c Impaired upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by irrigation diversions. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 13 Draft – July 28, 2006 Crooked River Population (continued) Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville) 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 14 . Draft – July 28, 2006 East Side Deschutes Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults 1b 3 Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro 10 Landuse Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults 7 5a 5b 8 9 2e a 6b Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code Description . 3 Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributary streams with wild population creating a risk of genetic introgression. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description . Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 1b Mortality of returning adults in tributary streams resulting from catch and release fishery. 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville) 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 15 Draft – July 28, 2006 East Side Deschutes Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code Description . 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 16 Draft – July 28, 2006 Lower John Day Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults 3 Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hyro 10 Landuse Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults 7 5a 2e 5b 8 9 2f a 6b Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 3 Description . Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributary streams with wild population creating a risk of genetic introgression. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville) 2f False attraction of returning adults over McNary Dam. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 17 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Lower John Day Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 6b Description . Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 18 Draft – July 28, 2006 North Fork John Day Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro 10 Landuse 7 5a 2e 5b 8 9 2f a 6b Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 8 9a Description . Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville) 2f False attraction of returning adults over McNary Dam. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 19 . Draft – July 28, 2006 North Fork John Day Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 7 Description . Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 20 Draft – July 28, 2006 Middle Fork John Day Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro Landuse 7 10 2d 2f 5a 2e 5b 8 2d 6b 9a Introduced Species 6a Key Concerns: Code 8 9a Description . Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 2d Impaired upstream passage of returning adults and upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by pushup dams. 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 2f False attraction of returning adults over McNary Dam. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 21 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Middle Fork John Day Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 6a Description . Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 22 Draft – July 28, 2006 Upper John Day Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro 10 Landuse 7 5a 2e 5b 8 9 2f a 6b Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 8 Description . Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville) 2f False attraction of returning adults over McNary Dam. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 23 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Upper John Day Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 6a Description . Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 24 Draft – July 28, 2006 South Fork John Day Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro Landuse 7 10 2d 2f 5a 2e 5b 8 2d 6b 9a Introduced Species 6a Key Concerns: Code 2d Description . Impaired upstream passage of returning adults and upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by pushup dams. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles and Bonneville). 2f False attraction of returning adults over McNary Dam. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 25 . Draft – July 28, 2006 South Fork John Day Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 5b Description Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 26 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Willow Creek Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro Landuse 7 10 2c 2e 5a 5b 8 2c 6b 9a Introduced Species 6a Key Concerns: Code 2c Description . Impaired upstream passage of returning adults and upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by irrigation diversions. Note: This population is extinct due this threat. If and when passage is provided, a steelhead re-colonization plan will first need to be developed before recovery actions targeted at the other threats and limiting factors have benefit. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville) 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 27 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Willow Creek Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code 5b Description Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 28 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Umatilla Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults 3 Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro Landuse Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults 7 10 2c 2e 5a 5b 8 2c 6b 9a Introduced Species 6a Key Concerns: Code 2c Description . Impaired upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by irrigation diversions. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles, Bonneville, and McNary). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles, Bonneville, and McNary). 3 Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributary streams with wild population creating a risk of genetic introgression. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 29 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Umatilla Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code Description . 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 30 Draft – July 28, 2006 Walla Walla Population Threats Harvest Eggs Alevins Fry Mainstem Columbia (above Tributaries Bonneville) Summer Winter Returning PreReturning Parr Parr Smolts Adults Spawners Smolts Smolts Adults Ocean SubAdults Adults 3 Hatchery 5a 6a 1a Hydro Landuse Estuary (below Bonneville) PreReturning Smolts Smolts Adults 7 10 2c 2e 5a 5b 8 2c 6b 9a Introduced Species 6 a Key Concerns: Code 2c Description . Impaired upstream and downstream movement of fry and summer parr due to blockage by irrigation diversions. 8 Impaired physical habitat quality from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impacts the growth and survival of fry, summer parr, and winter parr in tributary streams. 9a Elevated water temperatures from past and/or present agricultural and forest practices that impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. 10 Reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph from unspecified landuse activities that negatively impact the growth and survival of fry and summer parr in tributary streams. Secondary Concerns: Code 1a Description Direct mortality of pre-smolts and smolts at mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles, Bonneville, and McNary). 2e Delayed upstream migration of returning adults over mainstem Columbia dams (The Dalles, Bonneville, and McNary). 3 Stray hatchery steelhead spawn in tributary streams with wild population creating a risk of genetic introgression. 5a Cumulative impact of Columbia River hydropower system on mainstem Columbia and estuary habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 31 . Draft – July 28, 2006 Walla Walla Population (continued) Secondary Concerns (continued): Code Description . 5b Cumulative impact of past and present landuse activities on estuarine habitat for pre-smolts and smolts. 6a Predation by non-native piscivorous fish on pre-smolts and smolts in the mainstem Columbia exacerbated by habitat conditions created by the Columbia River hydropower system. 6b Predation by birds on pre-smolts and smolts in the estuary as a result of habitat conditions resulting from the creation of dredge spoil islands. 7 Fine sediment from past and/or present agricultural and forestry practices that impacts the survival of eggs and alevins in tributary streams. 32