LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER SUBBASIN (Mouth to Bonneville Dam)

Transcription

1 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER SUBBASIN (Mouth to Bonneville Dam) September $1990

2 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER SUBBASIN (Mouth to Bonneville Dam) Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan September 1, 1990 Lead Agency: Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington Co-writers: Washington Department of Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon Columbia Basin System Planning Funds Provided by the Northwest Power Planning Council, and the Agencies and Indian Tribes of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

3 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... INTRODUCTION... i... PART PART PART PART I. DESCRIPTION OF SUBBASIN Location and General Environment Water Resources : Landuse... II" HABITAT PROTECTION NEEDS History and Status of Habitat Constraints and Opportunities for Protection. Habitat Protection Objectives and Strategies. III. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESTABLISHING PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES Institutional Considerakons... Legal Considerations... Critical Data Gaps... IV. ANADROMOUS FISH PRODUCTION PLANS SPRING CHINOOK SALMON Fisheries Resource'... Natural Production... Hatchery Production... Harvest Specific Consi~erak&... Objectives... Alternative Strategies... Recommended Strategy... l.. l FALL CHINOOK SALMON... Fisheries Resource Natural Production... Hatchery Production... Harvest Specific Consic!ierakons... Objectives Alternative &iategies... Recommended Strategy... l. l

4 COHO SALMON. Fisherie: Reiource' Natural Production... Hatchery Production... Harvest Specific ConsideraG&... Objectives... Alternative Strategies Recommended Strategy... l. 0. e CHUM SALMON... Fisherie; IkeAo&e Natural Production... Hatchery Production... Harvest Specific Consi~eraG&... Objectives... Alternative Strategies... Recommended Strategy.... l SUMMER STEELHEAD. Fisheries Resource' Natural Production Hatchery Production'... Harvest Specific Considera&.oni... Objectives and Strategies WINTER STEELHEAD... Fisheries Reso&e Natural Production... Hatchery Production... Harvest Specific Consideration:... Objectives Alternative &a;e&s'... Recommended Strategy PARTV. SUMMARY AND IMPLEMENTATION... Objectives and Recommended Strategies. Implementation LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX A NORTRWEST POWER PLANNING SYSTEM POLICIES... COUNCIL 71 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES 73

5 Members of the System Planning Group would like to acknowledge the wide array of people who participated in the technical advisory groups and public advisory groups throughout the Columbia Basin. Their valuable time and effort have helped shape this and other subbasin plans. Special recognition also goes to the individual writers from the various fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes who have spent countless hours writing and rewriting the plans. The System Planning Group also wants to acknowledge Duane Anderson of the Northwest Power Planning Council*s staff for his assistance and expertise in computer modeling. Eric Lowrance and Leroy Sanchez from the Bonneville Power Administration also deserve recognition for developing the useful salmon and steelhead distribution maps, which appear in many of the subbasin plans. Last, but not least, the System Planning Group recognizes the members of the System Planning Oversight Committee and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority's Liaison Group for their guidance and assistance over the past several months. 1

6 2

7 INTRODUCTION The Northwest Power Planning Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program calls for long-term planning for salmon and steelhead production. In 1987, the council directed the region's fish and wildlife agencies, and Indian tribes to develop a systemwide plan consisting of 31 integrated subbasin plans for major river drainages in the Columbia Basin. The main goal of this planning process was to develop options or strategies for doubling salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River. The strategies in the subbasin plans were to.follow seven policies listed in the councills Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Appendix A), as well as several guidelines or policies developed by the basin's fisheries agencies and tribes. This plan is one of the 31 subbasin plans that comprise the system planning effort. All 31 subbasin plans have been developed under the auspices of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, with formal public input, and involvement from technical groups representative of the various management entities in each subbasin. The basin's agencies and tribes have used these subbasin plans to develop the Integrated System Plan, submitted to the Power Planning Council in late The system plan will guide the adoption of future salmon and steelhead enhancement projects under the Northwest Power Planning Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. In addition to providing the basis for salmon and steelhead production strategies in the system plan, the subbasin plans attempt to document current and potential production. The plans also summarize the agencies' and tribes' management goals and objectives; document current management efforts; identify problems and opportunities associated with increasing salmon and steelhead numbers; and present preferred and alternative management strategies. The subbasin plans are dynamic plans. The agencies and tribes have designed the management strategies to produce information that will allow managers to adapt strategies in the future, ensuring that basic resource and management objectives are best addressed. Furthermore, the Northwest Power Planning Council has called for a long-term monitoring and evaluation program to ensure projects or strategies implemented through the system planning process are methodically reviewed and updated. It is important to note that nothing in this plan shall be construed as altering, limiting, or affecting the jurisdiction, authority, rights or responsibilities of the United States, individual states, or Indian tribes with respect to fish, wildlife, land and water management. 3

8 4

9 PART I. DESCRIPTION OF SUBBASIN Location and General Environment The Lower Columbia River Subbasin Plan encompasses the Columbia River from its mouth to Bonneville Dam at RM 146, including tributaries that are not covered by individual subbasin plans of their own. Tributaries lumped into this subbasin plan vary widely in size and character. The entire length of this section of river forms part of the boundary between Oregon and Washington. The lower reaches of these tributaries are usually tidally influenced, and many empty into broad sloughs. A number of small tributaries in the Columbia Gorge area have high, scenic waterfalls a short distance from their mouths. From Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the slope of the Columbia River is very flat and subject to tidal action. The daily tidal influence on water level during low water periods ranges from one to two feet at Bonneville Dam to seven to nine feet at Astoria. Most of the region falls within the western hemlock zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Climax forests are dominated by western hemlock and western red cedar. Douglas fir and red alder are common subclimax species. Along the riverbanks, red alder and cottonwood predominate and willows pioneer on the gravel and sand bars, which may change annually. The geology of the subbasin is of two types -- mountainous regions of volcanic origin, and the lowland regions of lacustrine sediment and alluvial materials. The Coast Range Mountains, parts of the Willapa Hills, and the Cascade Mountains are drained by subbasin streams in the western and eastern portions of the subbasin. Between the mountain ranges lies the Willamette-Puget Trough. This area was once flooded, following the last glaciers, forming a drowned valley that subsequently has been filled with stratified sand, silt, and clay. The climate along the lower Columbia River is characterized by mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. With the exception of short periods when continental air masses prevail, maritime air dominates the area. The region is subject to frequent winter storms from November to March. The headwaters of most subbasin streams lie in the timbered foothills of the Cascade and Coast Range Mountains where rainfall is in excess of 100 inches annually. 5

10 Water Resources Streamflow data for subbasin waters is lacking due to the absence of gauges. However, it can be assumed that flow patterns closely follow other gauged streams in the lower Columbia. Maximum discharge is in the rainy winter months with minimum flows occurring in late summer. Snowpack in the subbasin has very little effect on flow patterns. Land Use The vast majority of land in the subbasin is dedicated to forestry activities, with agriculture a distant second. Port development and urbanization occupy prominent locations in the subbasin. Timber resources in the region support large, integrated timber processing industries in the major population centers. Timber practices are typically clearcut and slash burn, subject to Forest Practices Act regulations of both states. Most of the farmland is situated along the Columbia River and tributary floodplain, and has been diked to prevent flooding. Major population centers include Portland, Astoria, and St. Helens in Oregon, and Vancouver, Longview-Kelso, and Camas- Washougal in Washington. Municipal and industrial pollution from these urban areas have chronically affected the water quality of the mainstem Columbia River. Population densities along subbasin tributaries are not as great and pressures on the streams are not as significant. Habitat alteration and loss due to logging or agriculture are more common threats on these small streams. The eastern-most tributaries of this subbasin lie in the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. Three national wildlife refuges are located on land covered by this subbasin plan -- Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, just downstream from the Portland/Vancouver area; the Columbia White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge near Cathlamet, Washington; and the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge, which includes most of the lowlying islands between River Miles 20 and 40. A number of hatcheries are located on tributaries covered by this subbasin plan. These include Clatsop Economic Development Committee Hatchery (CEDC), Big Creek Hatchery, Bonneville Hatchery, Gnat Creek Hatchery, Wahkenna Pond, Trojan Ponds, and Klaskanine Hatchery, all in Oregon, and Abernathy Salmon Technology Center, and the privately owned Sea Resources Co-op Hatchery, both in Washington. 6

11 PART II. HABITAT PROTECTION NEEDS History and Status of Habitat Prior to any active state or federal regulation of forest practices, significant damage was done to the region's fisheries resources. Indiscriminate logging through streams, the use of splash dams to transport logs, and poor road construction with associated siltation problems reduced or eliminated anadromous fish from many streams. Other kinds of problems, more typically destruction of riparian vegetation, land reclamation and nonpoint source pollution were caused by agricultural development. Today, numerous laws limit many major impacts, but the cumulative loss of habitat continues. This subbasin encompasses a large geographic area and its streams traverse areas dedicated to a multitude of different land uses, historically and at present. Forestry, agriculture and urban development, including industrial pollution, are the most common impacts to subbasin streams. Constraints and Omortunities for Protection In spite of the best efforts of numerous state and federal agencies, and the imposition of regulatory programs some of the public deem onerous and excessive, there is a gradual loss of stream habitat. This cumulative loss is occasioned by the routine development of natural resources, and dedication of shoreline and water resources to other uses. These incremental losses have, and will, continue to result in reduced anadromous fish production in the Columbia Basin. Subbasin planning needs to address the problem of cumulative habitat loss if the goals of the Northwest Power Planning Act are to be achieved. In many cases, important factors affecting the quantity and quality of stream habitat are outside the direct regulatory authority of the fisheries management agencies. Interagency cooperation is one important way this difficult management situation can be counteracted. Better interagency communication of goals and objectives within watersheds, and then cooperative administration and enforcement of rules could improve habitat protection. A good example of how interagency cooperation strengthens a regulatory program is the procedure the Washington Department of Natural Resources uses to review forest practice applications. These new rules and agreements, implemented through the interagency framework commonly referred to as the Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) agreement, encourage interdisciplinary review of individual forest practice applications. 7

12 Institutional Considerations Listed below are the federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes that have statutory or proprietary interests and mandates over elements of the physical and biological resources affecting salmon and steelhead production in this subbasin. Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) U.S. Forest Service (USFS) U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) State Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) Department of Wildlife (WDW) Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Department of Ecology (WDOE) Department of Agriculture (WDOA) Department of Transportation (WDOT) Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODOA) Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Department of Forestry (ODOF) Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Department of Transportation (ODOT) Division of State Lands (ODSL) Land Conservation and Development Commission (OLCDC) Water Resources Department (OWRD) Washington County Pacific County Wahkiakum County Cowlitz County Clark County Skamania County Oregon County Clatsop County Columbia County Multnomah County 8

13 Interagency Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Columbia River Gorge Authority Columbia River Estuary Task Force Specific authority or interest of these entities varies widely. This list demonstrates the complex demands on the Columbia's resources. The multiple uses of the river and its resources have often pitted user groups and agencies against each other. Resolution of these problems has led to the establishment of numerous interagency technical and policy.committees that work cooperatively for sustainable solutions. Legal Considerations Habitat management for fish production embraces two elements that fish managers have varying degrees of control over -- management of the water and management of the physical habitat structure including the riparian edge. Physical modification of the aquatic habitat is controlled by federal and state statutes. This overlapping patchwork of regulation is designed to limit impacts to public stream and shoreline resources. Rules governing development are generally poorly understood by the public. Laws that set standards for, regulate, or otherwise disclose for public and agency comment, development that could degrade stream and shoreline resources are listed below. Federal Washington 1) Clean Water Act, Section 404 and 10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with state of Washington, Dept. of Ecology certification. 2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Agency taking action 1) State Water Quality Laws RCW 90.48, Dept. of Ecology, Washington 2) State Surface Water Codes RCW 90.03, Dept. of Ecology 3) State Groundwater Codes RCW 90.44, Deptof Ecology 4) Shorelines Management Act, local government with state oversight by Dept. of Ecology 9

14 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Oregon 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Hydraulics code RCW and 103, Washington Dept. of Fisheries or Dept. of Wildlife Minimum Flow Program, Dept. of Ecology State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), local government or Dept. of Ecology Flood Control Statutes, local government Forest Practices Act, Dept. of Natural Resources. The Forest Practices Act (ORS to ) The Riparian Tax Incentive Program Water rights (ORS and ) Fill and Removal Law (ORS to ) Dredged Material Law ODEQ Water Quality Law (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340) ODFW Statutes (several ORSs) Critical 1) 2) 3) Data Gaps Production potential of the aggregate streams is unknown. Even though the carrying capacity of the subbasin has been estimated for each stock using the Smolt Density Model (SDM), the input data on habitat measurements should be refined and the fish distribution data needs to be field checked. Density dependent factors in the Columbia River estuary or early marine life stages may exist for stocks originating from this subbasin. Uncertainty about these factors makes it difficult to project the benefits from increased freshwater production or conduct detailed planning. No quantitative measure has been developed to measure progress toward a **no net 10s~~~ policy of habitat management. This makes it a difficult policy on which to base adaptive approaches to habitat protection. 10

15 Habitat Protection Objectives and Strateuies In general, all the fisheries management agencies subscribe to some statement of "no net 10s~~~ of existing habitat as a management goal. Even though this goal is difficult to attain, it is an appropriate policy, one that subbasin planning should support and the only one that will protect the production potential of entire river systems for the long term. Washington Policy and Guidelines It is the objective of the Washington departments of Fisheries and Wildlife to achieve a net gain of the productive capacity of the habitat of food fish, shellfish and game fish resources of the state of Washington. This policy guides the agencies in decisions affecting habitat. Progress toward the objective of a net gain in the productive capacity of the state's food fish, shellfish and game fish habitat can be achieved by pursuit of three goals: 1) Maintain the present productive capacity of all aquatic habitat.

16 Objectives 2) The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will coordinate with and advise agencies that manage land and water resources to protect and enhance fish habitat of the lower Columbia River tributaries. 3) Potential losses of fish production from habitat alteration will be prevented or reduced to the extent possible. 4) When loss of fish habitat as a result of stream or riparian alteration is unavoidable, in-kind and inplace compensation for the habitat affected will be the first priority. 1. Maintain or improve upstream and downstream passage for fish at dams, water diversions, other man-made obstacles, and existing passage facilities, and where appropriate, at. natural barriers. Rationale: Well designed fish passage facilities are necessary to allow adult migratory fish access to upstream spawning areas and to allow juveniles to emigrate without undue delay or injury. Tide gates are believed to impede fish passage and reduce attraction into some subbasin streams. Improvements in fish passage are necessary to meet the objectives for anadromous species in the subbasin. Responsibility for maintaining fish passage at man-made facilities lies with the owners or operators of the facilities. Fish passage at natural barriers is provided and maintained by state and federal agencies, county diking districts, volunteer groups, and individuals. Opening or enhancing the passage at natural barriers may provide additional carrying capacity for anadromous fish. STRATEGY 1: Provide adequate personnel to conduct periodic inspections of fish,passage at passage facilities. * A) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife district personnel will continue to monitor and advise operators regarding fish passage at their passage facilities. B) District personnel will conduct periodic investigations to monitor and maintain fish passage operations at projects for which Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible. 12

17 STRATEGY 2: Reduce the impacts of diversions on fish passage. A) Work with municipalities, landowners, and other water users to ensure that diversions are properly screened, laddered, and maintained. B) Inventory and evaluate the tide gates on the lower end of subbasin streams, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and diking districts. Cl Advise and request repair and.modification of those tide gates found to be operating in a manner that impedes adult or juvenile fish passage. D) The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service will review plans and advise water users in the construction of dams and fish passage facilities. STRATEGY 3: Improve passage at natural barriers to permit fish access to spawning and rearing habitat, where appropriate. Identify and implement passage projects at natural barriers on streams, consistent with policies for protecting resident fish. These may include, but are not limited to, the Lewis and Clark River and the South Fork Klaskanine River. 2. Provide necessary instream flows for fish production, fish habitat, and maintenance of aquatic life. Rationale: Flow in many streams is insufficient at times for optimum fish production. Establishment of instream water rights or minimum streamflows will maintain or increase fish production. Instream water rights and additional minimum streamflows can be established through application to the Oregon Water Resources Department by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Improvements in streamflow will require the support and coordination of the regulatory agencies and water users. STRATEGY 1: Determine minimum and optimum flows 'necessary for fish production, given seasonal fluctuations. A) Identify critical streams where any additional diversion would be detrimental to fish production, fish habitat, or where protection of fish populations is a priority. 13

18 B) Utilizing Water Resources Department basin reports and past Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife flow investigations, make recommendations on necessary flows for fish production. STRATEGY 2: Acquire instream water rights through application to the Water Resources Department. File for instream water rights on tributaries with important fish production and recreational value that require flow protection. STRATEGY 3: Coordinate with the Water Resources Department to enforce instream flows and water rights. A) Identify and prioritize streams for monitoring and water-use enforcement by the Water Resources Department. B) Encourage compliance with existing instream water rights and improve streamflow monitoring by documenting and reporting violations to the Water Resources Department. Cl Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife should, encourage the Water Resources Department to investigate and record water rights violations, and to take necessary actions to discontinue illegal withdrawals, including use of the newly authorized civil penalty process. STRATEGY 4: Increase public awareness regarding the importance of maintaining streamflows and increase public involvement in the acquisition of instream water rights. A) Encourage citizens to participate in STEP's 18Adopt-a-Stream11 program to monitor flow and to support additional instream water rights. B) Purchase, lease, or accept as gifts, existing water rights from private citizens. Cl Support additional legislation and regulations to protect instream flows for fish production, fish habitat, or aquatic life. 14

19 3. Maintain or improve the water quality of the subbasin. Rationale: High water quality is essential for fish production. Activities such as gravel washing and livestock grazing have reduced water quality in some subbasin streams. Potential urban and agricultural growth may increase nonpoint source pollution in the subbasin. STRATEGY: Coordinate with state and county agencies to maintain monitoring and enforcement of water quality standards. A) Identify and evaluate existing and potential streams in the subbasin with water quality problems. B) Encourage the Department of Environmental Quality to monitor point and non-point source pollution that affects fish production, especially on those streams identified in Action A with habitat degradation. Cl Explore alternate water quality monitoring sources such as students, landowners, angling clubs, community groups, and individuals. 4. Protect existing stream habitat from degradation associated with timber harvest, road construction, rock pits, and related activities on forested lands. Rationale: Forest management can have major impacts on stream productivity. Fish habitats within forested lands need special consideration and a unique set of management strategies to ensure appropriate protection. The subbasin has areas of unstable soils with a high risk of mass soil failure. Management activities in these areas can have adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitat. STRATEGY 1: Ensure compliance with state and federal forest management regulations and considerations of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations. A) Continue to support Department of Forestry efforts in monitoring ongoing timber harvest activities for compliance with rules and guidelines to protect fish habitat. 15

20 B) Cooperate with the Department of Forestry to develop a restitution plan for violation of rules and guidelines of the Oregon Forest Practices Act and related federal regulations. Encourage legislation allowing higher civil penalties for violation. Cl The Department of Forestry should conduct comprehensive field inspections and make written recommendations prior to proposed timber harvest activities that are likely to impact fish habitats. When forestry officials have concerns that proposed activities may have acute effects on fish habitat, then Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel should participate in field inspections. D) Encourage the Department of Forestry to provide additional protection to stream reaches with a high risk of catastrophic flooding and mass soil failure. STRATEGY 2: Support adoption of needed refinements and additions to the Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules, federal timber management regulations, and forest land management plans. A) B) C ) D) El Recommend consideration of off-site (downstream) cumulative impacts in timber sale plans. Recommend the adoption of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife protection criteria for Forest Practices Act Class I and II streams. Recommend that guidelines for identification of Class IISP streams be developed, including identification of streams on a case by case basis. Recommend changing the definition of Class IISP to include water temperature, sediment, turbidity, recruitment of woody debris, watershed stability, and other effects that may degrade downriver Class I streams. Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife should continue to review timber harvest management plans. Recommend that unstable areas that pose high risk for negative cumulative effects on water quality and fish habitat be withdrawn from scheduled road building and timber harvest until technology is available to safeguard against those effects. 16

21 F) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that no programmed harvest be allowed in riparian management areas on federal and state lands, and that any timber harvest in the riparian area shall be for maintaining or enhancing riparian dependent resources. 5. Protect existing stream habitat in lowland areas from degradation associated with agricultural, residential, highway, and commercial development, and other human activities. Rationale: Streams in the lowland areas of the subbasin have been extensively altered due to development. Urban growth and increased agricultural use in the lower subbasin will increase impacts on fish habitat. STRATEGY: Cooperate with other agencies to increase protection of stream habitat. A) B) Cl D) El Support increased enforcement of existing laws and regulations that protect fish habitat and report violations to enforcement agencies. Work with agencies to identify additional laws and regulations, and refinements to existing ones that will increase protection of stream habitats. Work with county planning departments to ensure that Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historical Areas and Natural Resources) standards are met by comprehensive plans and their implementation. Work with county planning departments to ensure appropriate zoning for areas where increased density of development is likely to impact fish habitat or angling. Work with counties to develop or strengthen riparian protection ordinances. Work with the Land Conservation and Development Commission, Department of Agriculture, Division of State Lands, and other appropriate agencies to develop riparian protection standards for agricultural lands, such as Practices ActI' or inclusion of riparian areas under the Fill and Removal Act. 17

22 F) G) HI 1) J) K 1 L) Work with the Division of State Lands and Corps of Engineers to develop procedures for monitoring compliance with fill and removal permit requirements and to report information on the quantity of habitat affected, the number and nature of permit violations, and the enforcement action taken. Where development is unavoidable, compensation for lost instream or riparian habitat should be pursued by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Forestry, or Division of State Lands. Work with county extension agents to inform landowners of improved methods for erosion control. Urge and cooperate with the Division of State Lands to develop standards and long-range plans for gravel extraction that protect fish habitat. Continue to review fill and removal applications submitted to the Division of State Lands and the Corps of Engineers, and recommend permit conditions that will protect fish habitat and populations. Recommend and cooperate with the Corps, Department of Forestry, Soil Conservation Service, Division of State Lands, and the counties to develop a restitution plan to penalize entities who are found in violation of rules or permit specifications that protect stream habitats. Include provisions for restoration of affected habitat in the restitution plans. Evaluate the adequacy of current personnel to provide the necessary coordination with natural resource management agencies. 6. Expand public informational and educational programs dealing with habitat protection. Rationale: Increased awareness of the concerns for and of the benefits derived from habitat preservation will lead to increased protection. 18

23 STRATEGY: Promote public education and cooperation in safeguarding stream habitats. A) Promote increased habitat protection and enhancement through public participation in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP). B) Promote increased involvement and educational opportunities for angling clubs, service organizations, youth programs, schools, and landowners. Cl Encourage increased public involvement in reporting violations of habitat-related laws and regulations. Develop a toll-free number for such reporting. 7. Inventory stream and watershed characteristics that affect fish production. Rationale: There is a lack of current habitat information particularly on private lands. Habitat inventories are necessary to determine what the habitat needs are and how best to protect those habitats. Previous inventories do not adequately identify habitat factors that limit production and are needed to increase public and interagency understanding of management recommendations and decisions. STRATEGY 1: Develop an inventory method to meet current and foreseeable needs. A) Review and update the current method for collecting habitat information on an interagency basis, putting together a list of inventoried and non-inventoried reaches in the subbasin. B) Develop priorities and a schedule for completion of stream inventories. STRATEGY 2: Conduct the surveys necessary for management, protection, and enhancement of the subbasin's fish habitat. Using the above mentioned collection method.and priority list, survey the streams identified. 19

24 STRATEGY 3: Promote increased interagency sharing of inventory information. A) Coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management to determine common information needs. B) Identify information currently available from other land and water management agencies such as U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Forestry, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands, Soil Conservation Service, and Water Resources Department. C) Establish a procedure to update and computerize inventory information by drainage and stream, and encourage sharing between agencies. D) Add current and future inventory information into the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Habitat Data Base System (ODFW Habitat Conservation Division). Habitat protection is an area that does not lend itself to easily implemented strategies. As a result, there is a danger that this portion of subbasin planning may be given less attention than it should receive. The struggle to prevent cumulative loss of habitat is ultimately one of public policy. Existing methods for implementing these kinds of guidelines generally are outside the normal activities of the Northwest Power Planning Council. The typical approach is through regulatory programs. However, this defensive approach to habitat protection has not resulted in the desired level of protection. tistewardship of the public resources requires more than a defensive philosophy..." (from Restorina the Balance, 1988 Annual Report of the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout). Being based on prescriptive ordinance, existing habitat protection programs by definition deploy defensive measures. The combination of an effective public education program, aggressive regulatory program with stiff penalties, tax incentive program for riparian landowners, and demonstrated resource benefits to local residents is likely the only way the production potential of the region's stream habitat resources will be preserved. Within these broad categories, there is ample opportunity for the Northwest Power Planning Council to take a leadership and coordinating role. However, the day-to-day business of protecting small habitat units will continue to be 20

25 the burden of the agencies and tribes. The effectiveness of these programs will depend on agency staffing levels of field management and enforcement positions, public and political acceptance of program goals, local judicial support and perhaps most importantly, the level of environmental awareness practiced by the individual landowner. The area of cumulative habitat loss is one that the Northwest Power Planning Council must be involved in for the sake of the investments made in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to date. Unless the cumulative loss of habitat can be halted, today's losses will become tomorrowls "debt to the past" and the winvestment in the future" will have been ill spent. An excellent example of getting out in front of habitat problems before they happen is the nprotected areas" program accomplished through the auspices of the Northwest Power Planning Council. Inventory of indispensable habitat and recommendation packages such as this, developed in the full light of public participation, stand as strong statements of intent to protect habitat. The Northwest Power Planning Council could support the regulatory habitat protection work of the agencies and tribes become more involved by: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Continuing to broaden the public education and information program it already supports. Hosting a habitat protection symposium entitled, "Atie the Investments Being Protected?" Purchasing riparian property adjacent to critical habitat. Purchasing water rights if they can revert to instream uses. Publishing additional inventories of c)keym habitat for specific stocks that must receive absolute protection if the goals of the act are to be realized. Working with state and federal government for the development and passage of improved habitat protective legislation. and 21

26 22

27 PART III. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESTABLISHING PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES Institutional Considerations Existing harvest management for stocks originating below Bonneville Dam is largely based on hatchery escapement needs. This overriding consideration sets the basic framework for all production strategies. Since the harvest management system accounts for only large aggregate stocks, production plans for subbasins below Bonneville should avoid management complexity. In general, subbasin plans should promote production that: 1. Stabilizes harvest. 2. Provides fishing opportunities for a variety of user groups. 3. Addresses long-term habitat productivity. 4. Optimizes production from existing opportunities and explores new ones. 5. Promotes stock diversity and relies on a variety of production methods. 6. Relies on adaptive practices to maintain dynamic plans. Lecral Considerations The United States vs. Oreson management plan imposes some specific production constraints that must be considered in subbasin plans below Bonneville (transfer of approximately 1.7 million coho smolts from the Bonneville/Cascade hatchery complex to the Umatilla and Yakima rivers). Harvest allocation of production originating below Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River is not presently subject to specific treaty and non-treaty fishery allocation requirements. It is unlikely though that significant shifts of production that would substantially upset existing fishery balances would be acceptable to the parties to United States vs. Oreson. Critical Data GaDS Significant data gaps frustrate detailed planning for anadromous fish in the Columbia River and its minor tributaries below Bonneville. Even though many of these pertain to natural production, others impinge on hatchery production options. Some 23

28 information needs are specific to the subbasin, such as carrying capacity, others like estuary limiting factors are regionally important. Strategies should be developed so that their implementation and evaluation provide data in these critical areas: 1) Natural stock status (coho, winter steelhead). 2) Carrying capacity of subbasin (all stocks). 3) Stock productivity (all stocks). 4) Estuary and early marine limiting factors (all stocks). 5) Species interactions (coho, winter steelhead, chum). 24

29 PART IV. ANADROMOUS FISH PRODUCTION PLANS SPRING CHINOOK SALMON Fisheries Natural Resource Production Spring chinook are not indigenous to any of the minor Oregon and Washington tributaries covered by this subbasin plan. Spring chinook were historically present in the larger tributaries, such as the Willamette, Sandy, Lewis and Cowlitz rivers. Hatchery Production Only one hatchery, Oregon's Clatsop Economic Development Committee (CEDC) net pen facility in Youngs Bay rears spring chinook. Pilot level production began with the 1988 brood year. In October 1988, the CEDC received 350,000 spring chinook eggs from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Willamette Hatchery to be incubated at the South Fork Klaskanine facility. Vandals shut off the water supply to the eggs that winter and 200,000 of the eggs died. After hatching, the remaining 150,000 were transferred to the net pens and released in June In May of 1989, to help replace the lost production, the Willamette Hatchery transferred two lots of spring chinook fingerlings, 110,000 fish each, to the CEDC net pens. The fish were delivered at 152 fish per pound, and were scheduled to be released in August 1989 and March 1990, at 25 fish per pound and eight per pound, respectively. The high summer and fall temperatures typical in Youngs Bay will cause a critical period in the rearing of the group to be released in March Approximately 25,000 fish in each of the three release groups will be marked and coded-wire tagged for evaluation. Harvest The Clatsop Economic Development Committee program is designed to develop a spring chinook gill net fishery in Youngs Bay. Youngs Bay is considered a terminal area; a fishery there should not conflict with fishery restrictions in the mainstem to protect other spring chinook stocks. Spring Chinook - 25

30 SDecific Considerations 0 Spring chinook have a high market value. 0 The Clatsop Economic Development Committee program is principally funded by voluntary assessments on the Youngs Bay fishermen catch and donations of money and equipment by local residents and fishermen. 0 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will supply eggs or fingerling to the Clatsop Economic Development Committee program from the Willamette River Hatchery annually as available. Objectives There is no opportunity for natural production in the subbasin and only the Clatsop Economic Development Committee hatchery program has been identified for hatchery production. Biological Objective An escapement of approximately 70 females will be required to supply hatchery production goals for this stock. This escapement will occur at the Willamette Hatchery. No other biological goal has been identified for this stock. Utilization Objective Provide a terminal harvest of 6,000 fish. It is expected that the Youngs Bay gill net fishermen will be the primary beneficiaries of this production. Alternative Stratecries Only one strategy is presented, which has been implemented by the Clatsop Economic Development Committee fisheries program. This program needs several years of evaluation by coded-wire tagging and enumeration of smolts at release. STRATEGY 1: Rear 300,000 spring chinook juveniles in net pens in Youngs Bay. Depending on survival rates and fishery success, production may need to be increased to meet the harvest objective. Spring Chinook - 26

31 Planners estimate that the 300,000 additional juveniles will cost approximately $69,000 in capital and $7,500 in annual operation and maintenance costs over 50 years (see Appendix B) l Recommended Stratew Planners recommend Strategy 1 for implementation. The tributary streams in this subbasin are not suitable for natural spring chinook production. To minimize fishery conflicts on other spring chinook stocks in the mainstem,.any production developed in this subbasin should be harvested in terminal areas. Spring Chinook - 27

32 Spring Chinook - 28

33 FALL CHINOOK SALMON Fisheries Resource Natural Production The size of historical runs of fall chinook to the various tributaries covered by this subbasin plan are difficult to determine. At the time the first fisheries surveys were conducted in the 194Os, the natural stream habitat had been seriously damaged by logging practices. Records of initial surveys done for the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program in 1948 and 1949 document serious problems such as impassable log jams, splash dams forming complete blockages, and logging-related landslides, siltation, and erosion. These impacts, coupled with harvest, limited natural production during this period. These early surveys did little but document the presence and suggest the potential for restorative passage improvements for chinook. Log jam removal, splash dam removal, and laddering or blasting of falls restored or extended chinook production in many of the minor tributaries to the lower Columbia. In Washington, considerable work was done in Crooked and Jim Crow, Skamokawa, Germany, Abernathy and Mill creeks and in the Chinook River. Similar passage improvement work was done in minor tributaries on the Oregon side. Chinook production today persists in these tributaries, including the Klaskanine, Youngs, Lewis and Clark and Clatskanie rivers, as well as Big, Gnat, Plympton and Bear creeks in Oregon. All fall chinook production from tributaries covered in this subbasin are considered lower river hatchery (LRH) stock with the exception of the bright Rogue River stock cultured in small numbers at the Clatsop Economic Development Committee Hatchery in Youngs Bay and Big Creek Hatchery in Oregon. Tule fall chinook were the native stock to these tributaries, and the LRH stock today is a blend of lower Columbia River tributary tule stocks dominated by transfers from Spring Creek Hatchery just above Bonneville. Egg transfers between stations have developed the large, blended LRH stock used at most facilities and that commonly strays to spawn naturally with returns from natural production. Entry of adults into the subbasin occurs from mid-august to November. Available escapement data for the minor Washington and Oregon tributaries are given in Tables 1 and 2. Spawning occurs from late September to mid-november with a peak usually in early October. Mark sampling on the spawning grounds indicates some hatchery fish spawn with the natural fish. The run is predominately composed of 4-year-old fish with ages 2, 3, 4 and 5 Fall Chinook - 29

34 represented by 5.5 percent, 35.2 percent, 51.5 percent and 7.8 percent of returns, respectively (Howell et al. 1985). Twoyear-olds are exclusively males, 3-year-olds are predominately males, and the majority of 4- and 5-year-old fish are females. Table 1. Fall chinook peak fish counts in several minor Washington tributaries of the lower Columbia River, (Unpubl. WDF data, peak fish counts). Year Skamokawa Mill Abernathy Germany Fall Chinook - 30

35 Table 2. Estimated fall chinook escapement in minor Oregon tributaries, (ODFW unpubl. data). Stream Bear Creek Big Creek Plympton Creek Gnat Creek Clatskanie R NF Klaskanine R SF Klaskanine R. Lewis and Clark R Youngs R In the Klaskanine River and Big, Gnat and Abernathy creeks, hatchery trapping procedures limit use of upstream habitat by fall chinook. Additionally, some of the passage improvements undertaken by the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program need maintenance to be effective. The Washington Department of Fisheries is currently surveying some of these structures in Washington to determine the scope of work necessary. Natural production may be limited in subbasin streams due to a number of factors, including poor quality spawning habitat, unfavorable temperatures and predation by warmwater species in slough habitat. Hatchery Production Fall chinook are produced in the subbasin from the Bonneville (upriver bright and lower river hatchery stocks), Big Creek, Klaskanine, and Clatsop Economic Development Committee (Youngs Bay) fish hatcheries in Oregon and from the Abernathy Salmon Technology Center in Washington. Big Creek and Klaskanine hatcheries have complete hatchery facilities, but the Clatsop Economic Development Committee facility is principally a rearing station relying on eggs from other stations. Adult returns to Abernathy, Big Creek and Bonneville hatcheries are given in Tables 3 through 5, respectively. Tule fall chinook are not always collected at the Klaskanine Hatchery, which receives eggs Fall Chinook - 31

36 from Big Creek. Collection at Klaskanine facilities have averaged 51 adults between 1977 and Table 3. Fall chinook returns to Abernathy Salmon Technology Center, (hatchery records, unpubl. data). Return Year Females Males Jacks Total Average 1524 Fall Chinook - 32

37 Table 4. Big Creek Hatchery fall chinook returns, (ODFW Columbia Region Hatchery Coordinator's data). Year Fraction Jacks Males Females Total Female Eggs ,189 3,879 8, , ,295 3,100 5, , ,241 1,361 2, , ,487 1,304 2, , ,868 1,923 4, , ,820 4,425 10, , ,754 2,158 3, , ,710 2,458 6, , ,510 4,080 10, , ,554 2,932 3,154 9, , ,123 7,236 20, ,103 Average ,181 2,784 6, ,545 Fall Chinook - 33

38 Table 5. Tule fall chinook returns to Bonneville Hatchery, (hatchery records, unpubl. data). Year Jacks Males Females Total ,094 8,849 8,294 18, ,104 15,660 18,462 35, ,916 11,062 10,170 23, ,202 9,050 10,109 21, ,162 14, , ,199 9,409 11,672 23, ,497 6,319 13, ,954 2,280 5, ,163 3,576 8, ,937 4,132 3,356 14,425 Average 19,762 The Bonneville fall chinook program is obligated through mitigation agreements to provide 15,000 adult upriver bright (URB) fall chinook to Columbia River fisheries, evenly split between Zone 6 and below-bonneville Dam fisheries. A substantial evaluation program is under way to develop rearing and release procedures to meet these obligations. Until such procedures are worked out, an interim goal of returning 30,000 URB fall chinook to the mouth of the Columbia River was adopted. Acclimation ponds constructed in the John Day pool area will probably be needed to meet the 7,500 Zone 6 fishery requirement (Hansen 1988). In addition to these production requirements, approximately 10 million lower river hatchery fall chinook are released annually. Straying of lower river hatchery fall chinook from a number of Oregon and Washington hatcheries is common and contributes to natural production. The overall result of straying fall chinook and transfers at lower Columbia River hatcheries is the development of a widely distributed, blended hatchery 'stock. Fall Chinook - 34