Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Recovery

all actions that safeguard required habitat features of listed species. This plan does not recommend land acquisition, unless “no net loss” of the tax base to the county in which the land is being sold is accomplished.

113 The distribution of steelhead throughout the Okanogan subbasin (U.S. and Canada) has been severely reduced. Although this plan has no authority to dictate recovery actions in Canada, this plan encourages U.S. managers and scientists to continue to work cooperatively with Canadian managers and scientists in identifying and implementing habitat actions that would benefit Okanogan steelhead. The process for this collaboration currently exists and has been used in subbasin planning.

114 This plan recommends the use of instream structures (such as boulders and LWD) as an immediate, short-term action to increase habitat diversity. These structures can be used while other actions are implemented to restore proper channel and riparian function (i.e., natural watershed processes). The manual addition of instream structures is usually not a long-term recovery action and should not be used in place of riparian or other restoration activities that promote reestablishment of natural watershed processes. However, if recovery of natural watershed processes cannot be achieved, the use of instream structures is a reasonable option.

115 This objective is identified as a critical uncertainty in this plan. Depending on the results of research, actions may be identified that directly reduce abundance and distribution of predators and competitors and/or indirectly affect their abundance and distribution by increasing habitat conditions that are favorable to listed species but unfavorable to exotic fish species.

116 “Healthy” is a relative term and is used in this plan to mean the habitat conditions necessary to sustain the listed species indefinitely.

117 This action should include various workshops and seminars to increase the publics understanding of the ecology of the species and their habitat requirements.

118 Despite a large body of knowledge about the habitat needs of fish, there still are uncertainties about which actions will be most effective. The intent of this plan is to make the best possible choice of actions based on available information and monitoring results, and modify actions as necessary.

119 This includes studies that assess the effects of various activities that recharge aquifers that feed surface waters.

120 In many cases the effects of these changes on environmental indicators and population VSP parameters are not clearly known.

121 This type of protection can only be met if better standards are implemented and enforced. At this time there are institutional and social problems with improving the standards. Although NNI protection is unlikely to occur, this form of protection was included in habitat modeling.

122 The use of professional judgment was not a haphazard approach at identifying recovery actions. Professional judgment required an indepth understanding of life-stage specific habitat requirements of the listed species and an understanding of current habitat conditions within the subbasins.

123 This plan only identifies actions for the primary limiting factors. It does not identify actions for secondary limiting factors. Although secondary factors may limit VSP parameters of listed species, their effects are not well understood. Therefore, research actions will be identified to assess the effects of secondary factors on VSP parameters of listed species.

124 In some areas (e.g., Wenatchee, Entiat, and Foster/Moses Coulee), Watershed Planning Groups are currently identifying and prioritizing “specific” actions within assessment units.

125 A local habitat group exists or will be established within each of the five subbasins. As described later in this plan, these local groups will be responsible for recommending specific actions, overseeing implementation and monitoring of actions, and coordinating activities within their respective subbasin. Membership within each group is described in Section 5.5.6.

126 The same unit may be recommended for both protection and restoration. This may occur because (1) an areas may be both important to the protection of an existing population and possess substantial unrealized production potential, and (2) all priority restoration areas are automatically recommended for protection in order to keep from further degrading the reach before restoration can take place and to protect its newly enhanced condition once it is restored.

127 The UCRTT also identified a fifth category that only addressed the mainstem Columbia River.

128 It was not an objective of the Biological Strategy to rate small tributaries the drain into the mainstem Columbia River. Therefore the Strategy did not create a category for them.

129 This scenario did not consider potential effects from future development (see Appendix F).

130 Action is necessary to improve passage for steelhead and bull trout. Preclude passage of out-of-basin fish (Carson stock).

131 These actions are appropriate in the stream where the existing highway precludes restoration of riparian habitat and off-channel conditions.

132 Both water quality and quantity will improve in the lower Wenatchee River as restoration actions are implemented throughout the subbasin.

133 The Upper Columbia Strategy does not require that all habitat actions be assessed for effectiveness. Rather, a random subset of actions from each habitat class will be monitored for effectiveness.

134 Recall that in Section 2 steelhead productivity was estimated using hatchery effectiveness rates of 0% and 100%.

135 Wenatchee-Entiat, and Methow-Okanogan returns per spawner cannot be separated because the base population (dam counts) is the same (see Appendix C for further details).

136 There is currently a study underway to estimate spring Chinook hatchery spawner effectiveness in the Wenatchee River, and Chelan and Douglas PUDs will be determining the same for steelhead through their HCP hatchery M&E programs.

137 In the Entiat, a different model run was used. Since the Entiat Watershed Plan has run EDT for various scenarios, we used their Scenario 5, as described in the Watershed Plan, and compared it to the “33%” run from the other subbasins. The Entiat Watershed Plan did not model steelhead and there has been no attempt to model steelhead in the Entiat.

138 Hydropower effects in the AHA model are captured in SARs, which include factors in addition to just hydropower effects (see Section 3.9).

139 Integration refers to a hatchery program that includes a significant proportion of naturally produced fish in the broodstock.

140 Currently, 61,000 of these spring Chinook are for DPUD mitigation, 288,000 for CPUD, and 201,000 are for GPUD. In the future, the CPUD and GPUD proportion will most likely change, but the total may not, although it could be increased to over 700,000 with facility modifications.

141 100,000 of these fish are for GPUD.

142 109,000 of these fish are for DPUD mitigation and the rest are for CPUD mitigation. In the future (no later than 2013), CPUD mitigation numbers may be reduced.

143 The $154 million represents direct recovery costs in Upper Columbia tributaries. See Appendix M.3. Costs associated with the hydrosystem and Columbia River estuary may both be found at (available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Other-Documents.cfm

144 (NIIP), National Income Indicators Project, Smith, Gary, PhD, “Shift-Share Analysis Results” for Chelan, Douglas and Okanogan Counties, <http://niip.wsu.edu/washington/laod.niipReport.htm>, Accessed Jan., 2006.

145 Schotzko, R. Thomas and Smith, Timothy J., WSU Extension Educator, “The Economic Significance of Washington Apples,” 2002

146 Jensen, William S., Ph.D., “Economic Impact of the Tree Fruit Industry in Washington State and the Northwest”, August, 2004.

147 Schotzko, op. cit.

148 This number represents the total of all the tree fruit acreage in Chelan, Douglas, and Okanogan counties, combined, in 2005 (WASS)

149 It is important to distinguish between monitoring and research. In simple terms, monitoring measures change, while research identifies the causes (mechanisms) of the change. In some cases, both monitoring and research have very similar statistical and sampling designs, differing only in their objectives.

150 The Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy was implemented within the Wenatchee subbasin as a pilot study in 2004. The strategy will be refined as new information becomes available through the pilot study and through other monitoring programs (e.g., Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program).

151 Triggers and thresholds will be developed by the Implementation Team with NMFS and USFWS.

Directory: planning
planning -> Condominium Name Index to Map Sheets Name Address Map
planning -> Guidelines for implementation of Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities
planning -> Conservation Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog in Oregon and Washington As
planning -> Project name
planning -> Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries
planning -> Toward the development of a strategic technology plan
planning -> Program Review and Forecast Guideline for Getting Started on Prof background and Context
planning -> Introduction Current State