California’s Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Trout
Recovery Plan
By Michael Martin, Ph.D*
* Conservation Director, Merced Fly Fishing Club, PO Box 2216, Mariposa, CA 95338
Introduction
Under the Endangered Species Act [ESA § 4(f)], NMFS published a recovery plan for listed species
from California’s Central Valley. Recovery plans are the basis for the recovery process and ESA
implementation. Recovery plans are guidance documents, not regulatory documents. This plan for
the Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead outlines steps, strategy, and actions by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to restore these species to viable and sustainable populations. The basic
elements of recovery plans are 1) delisting objectives and measurable criteria, 2) site-specific actions,
and 3) estimates of implementation time and costs.
In addition to describing measures for species recovery, recovery plans are the basis for addressing
other ESA provisions. One example is the inclusion of Comprehensive Plans [§ 10(a), Federal
Power Act] for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) re-licensing of hydroelectric power
plants.
In October, 2009, NMFS published the Draft Recovery Plan and public comment request (NMFS,
2009). They expect to produce a final Recovery Plan document in November, 20101 .
This report presents the current status of steelhead and salmon populations in Central Valley,
California, a summary of the NMFS Draft Recovery Plan, and a short discussion of current and
future regulatory issues.
Background and Population Status
Chinook Salmon
In the 1800's, several million Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawned throughout rivers
and streams of the foothills and lower western Sierra Nevada and Cascades slopes. Salmon and trout
were the most abundant fish in these streams, providing energy to the ecosystems, food for Native
Americans, and a commercial fishery during the mid 1800’s Euro-American settlement of California.
The Central Valley Rivers (Sacramento-San Joaquin) were widely recognized for salmon production
(Clark, 1929a; Moyle et al., 1996). Most California commercially harvested Chinook salmon originate
from the Central Valley. Historically, Clark (1929a, fig. 2) reported commercial salmon harvest
annually at 11,000,000 lbs (1872) declining to 917,000 lbs (1927). At that time, he concluded that
overfishing, blocked access to spawning by dams, diversions of excessive water, and predation by
1
H. Brown, NMFS, pers. comm.
native fishes depleted the salmon resources. Dam blockage removed over 80% of the spawning
access (Clark 1929a). Beginning in the 1850’s, Chinook salmon populations declined dramatically.
Other factors increased salmon population stress, including hydraulic gold mining in the 1850s.
Hydroelectric and agricultural diversions reconfigured streams, destroying salmonid spawning and
nursery habitats. By 1859, 5,000 miles of mining flumes and canals diverted water from Chinook
salmon and steelhead streams. In 1872, state law (Deering, 1909, California Penal Code § 637)
required fish ladders to be installed and repaired on all dams blocking fish passage. The Legislature
outlawed hydraulic mining in 1884, but habitat degradation continued. From 1890, anadromous
salmonid habitat quality and quantity further declined in the Central Valley rivers due to: levee
construction, further dam fish blockage, more diversions, decreased flows, elevated temperatures,
and increased pollution. Mid-1900’s reports identified streams with salmon spawning access and the
human-made barriers (dams) present at those times, including qualitative abundance figures for
salmon [(Clark (1929a); Hatton (1940)].
More recently, Fry (1961) provided data on Chinook abundances in Central Valley streams, from
1940–59. Between 1950 and 1957, total Chinook salmon spawning stocks for the Central Valley
ranged between 102,000 and 597,000 (average 275,000), with 89% from the Sacramento River
watershed (Fry, 1961). Between 1980 and 1990, commercial anglers harvested an average of 360,000
ocean-caught Chinook salmon annually (CDFG, 1990). California Department of Fish and Game
has conducted salmon population surveys (CDFG 1990, 1993). CDFG (2010) maintains a current
“Grand Tab” of Chinook Salmon Escapement from 1952 to 2009 (Figure 1).
There are four distinct runs of Chinook salmon: fall-run, late fall-run, winter-run, and spring-run
(CDFG, 1990). Timing of these life history events characterizes the run: adult migration, spawning,
juvenile residency and out-migration. Each run occupies different habitats: fall-run in lower
elevation, late-fall run in upper mainstem rivers, winter-run in spring-fed headwaters, and spring-run
in high-elevation streams. Fall- and spring-runs have been the largest (Yoshiyama et al., 2001). Fallrun existed in all streams with adequate flows even if the stream were dry during portions of the
year. Although many stressors were evident by the 1930’s, rates of decline of these species2
accelerated. In the 1940’s-1960’s following the completion of significant water projects3 (USFWS
2001), salmon populations further declined because of blockage of passage to spawning habitats,
modified flows, and altered temperature regimes. Increasing water development and diversions
caused additional stress affecting salmon population viability. NMFS’ Recovery Plan identifies
present day stressors to salmon populations: reduction in historical spawning and rearing habitat,
continued commercial and recreational harvest, predation from introduced and native species,
increased water demands and decreased in-stream flows, increased water temperatures, and
increased alteration of natural hydrology in the rivers and Delta.
2
Referred to as Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs for salmon) or Distinct Population Segments (DPS for
steelhead).
3 Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River; Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River, and many enlargements or constructions,
such as the Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne and the New Exchequer Dam on the Merced River
Figure 1. Estimated yearly natural production and in-river escapement of adult fall-run
Chinook salmon in the Central Valley Rivers. CDFG Grand Tab (March 8, 2010) provided
numbers for 1952 - 1966 and 1992 - 2009. Between-year numbers (i.e., 1967 - 1991) are from Mills
and Fisher (1994). Source: http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/GrandTab_030910.pdf
Steelhead Trout
Prior to the 1880’s, anadromous steelhead trout (O. mykiss) were common in the Central Valley
(USBCF 1876; Latta, 1977; CDFG 1993) (Figure 2). There has been little documentation of
historical steelhead populations because they are difficult to identify and count. In the 1990’s, DFG
reported 35,000 steelhead returns to the Sacramento drainage each year, mainly to three hatcheries,
but with a downward trend (CDFG 1990). Central Valley Rivers supported from 1 to 2 million
steelhead (McEwan, 2001). Steelhead were well-distributed throughout the Sacramento - San
Joaquin River systems. They occurred throughout the Central Valley from the upper Sacramento
and Pit Rivers, south to the San Joaquin and Kings River (possibly in the Kern River in wet years)
(McEwan, 2001; McEwan and Jackson 1996; Yoshiyama et al., 1996). Steelhead and Chinook
salmon have some similar habitat needs: juvenile habitat and rearing (Yoshiyama et al., 1996).
Conversely, steelhead have some different habitat needs from salmon and can ascend higher into
headwater tributaries via: 1) superior jumping abilities, 2) migration during the height of the rainy
season (January-March), and 3) lesser gravel requirements (Yoshiyama et al., 1996).
Distribution of steelhead in the Central Valley has been significantly reduced in recent years. Clark
(1929b) estimated that power and irrigation dams blocked 80% of their spawning grounds in the
Central Valley (Figure 3). More recently, the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and
Steelhead Trout (CACSST 1988) reported a 95% reduction in spawning habitat for Central Valley
anadromous fish (300 linear miles of 6000 miles).
The numbers of steelhead currently residing in the Central Valley is not known. In the 1950s,
Hallock et al. (1961) published a report of 20,540 adults from the Sacramento River system (above
the Feather River). In the early 1960's, California Fish and Wildlife Plan (DFG 1965) estimated
30,000 steelhead from Central Valley Rivers. DFG (2007) estimated that anglers caught 165,000
steelhead in 2002, statewide; however, most fish (> 75%) are caught outside of the Central Valley
domain. The upper Sacramento River and tributaries (Mill, Deer, and Butte creeks), as well as the
Feather, Yuba, American, Mokelumne, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced
rivers, contain naturally-spawning stocks of steelhead rainbow trout. Many of these populations are
not well known. The number of estimated naturally spawning steelhead in a watershed is
proportional to the watershed monitoring efforts or studies. Zimmerman et al. (2009) found
steelhead progeny in all of the Central Valley streams examined, including several tributaries of the
San Joaquin (Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers).
There are few historical estimates of steelhead abundance before comprehensive water development
occurred in the Central Valley. McEwan (2001) believes that the Central Valley steelhead population
is similar in size to Chinook salmon population, based upon steelhead production in relatively
unimpaired river systems (the Eel River). If this is accurate, historical steelhead numbers in the
Central Valley are 1 to 2 million adults annually.
In summary, Central Valley steelhead populations have declined more quickly and in greater
proportions than fall-run Chinook salmon populations, due to water development and water
management. The greatest current day stressors are significant losses of spawning and rearing habitat
due to dams for hydropower generation and consumptive water diversions, followed by alternations
in watershed hydrology.
Figure 2. Central Valley historical distribution of steelhead. Documented historical evidence of
steelhead in streams is shown with thick lines. Thin lines represent the expected steelhead
distribution based on Chinook salmon distribution or absence of barriers above known steelhead
populations. The entire gray area is an estimate of the historical range where steelhead likely occur.
The gray shadowed areas on the map represent numerous small tributaries that are not individually
shown (from McEwan, 2001; courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game).
Figure 3. Current steelhead distribution in the Central Valley. Shaded areas are the present
range within which steelhead likely occur. The map does not show the individual, small tributaries.
Question marks are streams where steelhead have access, but have not been scientifically
documented (from McEwan, 2001; updated from Zimmerman et al., 2009; courtesy of California
Department of Fish and Game).
Status under Endangered Species Act
Central Valley Rivers contain three groups of anadromous salmonid ESA populations (known as
Evolutionarily Significant Units or ESUs or a Distinct Population Segment or DPS)4. This section
describes the current regulatory status, summary of listing reasons, and current threats. Each of the
three populations’ status has undergone an extensive public review and decision-making in a public
forum (Federal Register). The Draft Recovery Plan contains References to each population, with
NMFS proposed classification, public comment period, and final decisions (NMFS, 2009).
Sacramento River winter-­‐run Chinook salmon ESU
In seven Federal Register publications, NMFS proposed ESA listings or modifications listings for
the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon. In 2005, NMFS issued a final listing
determination for the Sacramento River winter-­‐run Chinook salmon ESU5, which concluded that it
continues to justify listing as an endangered species under the ESA because of threat of extinction
due to risks to diversity and spatial structure. It is also listed as endangered under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). Figure 4 shows the past and the current trend population sizes of
the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon.
Current ESA/CESA listing designation: ESA endangered (Federal); CESA endangered (State).
Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU
In three Federal Register publications, NMFS proposed ESA listings or modifications listings for the
Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. Currently listed as threatened, NMFS proposed
Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon as endangered on March 9, 1998. NMFS (NMFS 1998)
concluded that the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU was in danger of extinction
because they are no longer found in the San Joaquin River Basin, which represented a large portion
of the historical range and abundance of the ESU as a whole. On June 28, 2005, NMFS reaffirmed
the threatened status of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU6. Figure 5 shows the
historical and current population of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU.
Current ESA/CESA listing designation: ESA threatened (Federal); CESA threatened (State).
4
Also called “species” in the Draft Recovery Plan.
5
6
70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005
70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005.
Figure 4. Estimated Sacramento River Winter run Chinook Salmon Run Size (1970 – 2008).
Numbers of Salmon are estimates from mainstem and tributaries of rivers, hatcheries, and angler
harvest. Prior to 2001, the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) counts are the basis for mainstem
in river estimates upstream of RBDD. Carcass survey data provided subsequent estimates; courtesy
of NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program Source:
http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/GrandTab_030910.pdf .
Central Valley steelhead DPS
In five Federal Register publications, NMFS proposed ESA listings or modifications listings for the
Central Valley steelhead trout. On January 5, 2006, NMFS reaffirmed the threatened status of the
Central Valley steelhead and applied the DPS policy to the species because the resident and
anadromous life forms of steelhead remain “markedly separated” as a consequence of physical,
ecological and behavioral factors; therefore, it warrants delineation as a separate DPS7. NMFS (1998)
based its conclusion on conservation and protective efforts that, “mitigate the immediacy of
extinction risk facing the Central Valley steelhead DPS.” Figure 6 depicts the currently understood
7
71 FR 834, January 5, 2006.
Figure 5. Central Valley Spring-­‐run Chinook Salmon Run Size Estimates (1970–2008).
Source: (CDFG Grand Tab 2010); courtesy of NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and
California Department of Fish and Game. Source:
http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/GrandTab_030910.pdf
Figure 6. Central Valley steelhead qualitative abundance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River basins. Citations for historical estimates found in the NMFS Draft Recovery Plan (2009);
courtesy of National Marine Fisheries Service.
population trends of Central Valley steelhead DPS. Because of a lack of quantitative estimates,
NMFS has relied upon “CDFG Steelhead Report Card” data in particular rivers, which is a less
reliable data base than direct stream survey sampling (CDFG, 2007).
Current ESA/CESA listing designation: ESA threatened (Federal); CESA not listed (State).
Recovery Plan Strategy
NMFS (2009) developed a strategy for recovering two Chinook salmon ESUs and a single steelhead
DPS in the Central Valley. NMFS has selected three basic actions for focusing recovery efforts: 1)
evaluating viability conservation at the ESUs/DPS and population levels; (2) placing watersheds into
three tiers: Core 1, 2, or 3; and (3) identifying unoccupied watersheds for reintroduction. These
actions lead recovery efforts and address primary effects and risk factors, originally developed by the
scientific review process, public and agencies’ comments, and the Central Valley Technical Recovery
Team (TRT).
There are four salmonid population diversity groups in the Central Valley Domain: a) basalt and
porous lava (in the upper Sacramento River); b) northwestern California (northwestern Sacramento
River); c) northern Sierra Nevada (eastern Sacramento River to Mokelumne River), and d) southern
Sierra Nevada (San Joaquin River). Historically, each of the ESUs/DPS occupied some or most of
the rivers-streams in the identified regional areas. For example, the Central Valley spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU occurs in all of the diversity groups, consisting of 18 or 19 populations.
Currently, the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU populations (three diversity groups)
occur in 12 watersheds. Three of those watersheds include viable spring-run Chinook salmon
populations. The steelhead DPS contains at least four diversity groups (some outside the Central
Valley) in 26 widely distributed populations.
NMFS assigned a priority for each watershed: Core 1 (highest) to Core 3 (lowest). Core 1 watersheds
have (1) independent populations; (2) spatial or redundancy viability; (3) lower population threats;
(4) ecological or genetic diversity in the watershed or population; and (5) capacity for recovery
actions. Core 2 watersheds provide geographic diversity. Core 3 watersheds are dependent upon
nearby populations for survival. NMFS is evaluating reintroduction of populations to historically
and currently unoccupied watersheds NMFS TRT ranked those watersheds on their abilities to allow
and maintain reintroductions. NMFS acknowledges that recovery efforts are expensive and timeconsuming and will require some adaptive management and monitoring of aquatic resources and
habitats, as well as requiring support, efforts, and resources of many stakeholders, and time.
Briefly, the near-term strategic steps are 1) Secure all extant populations; 2) Collect distribution and
abundance data for steelhead (O. mykiss) in habitats with anadromy; 3) Minimize hatchery straying to
natural spawning areas; 4) Conduct research on fish passage, reintroductions, and climate change; 5)
Employ conservation management efforts, because of currently limited existing habitat.
There are long-term strategic elements or actions: 1) maintain high probabilities of persistence of
extant diversity groups; 2) make all efforts to strengthen a population’s probability of persistence
until fully meeting viability criteria; 3) attempt recoveries in several populations because of lack of
some recovery success; 4) select populations with high probability of diversity group persistence; and
5) select populations from within a diversity group for restoration at a viable status to allow for
normative meta-population processes, allow for normative evolutionary processes, and reduce
susceptibility to catastrophe.
The NMFS goal is to re-establish at least two viable populations within each diversity group to
improve winter-run, spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs, and Central Valley steelhead DPS. The
Draft Recovery Plan acknowledges that there has to be flexibility around these steps and tactical
elements; this topic is further discussed below in “Recovery Scenarios”. This section explains and
gives top-down, conceptual descriptions of what a recovered ESU/DPS might look like for each of
three species.
Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria
The goal of this plan is to remove the three listed species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. The Central Valley TRT developed the framework, objectives, and criteria for
attaining this goal (Lindley et al., 2004; 2006; 2007).
The recovery criteria are that each Diversity Group must be represented, with sufficient population
redundancy: three viable populations of winter-­‐run Chinook salmon within its Diversity Group
(basalt and porous lava) with low-extinction risk; a minimum of two viable populations of springrun Chinook salmon within each of four Diversity Groups, except for the Northwestern California
Diversity Group that did not historically include spring-run; and a minimum of two viable
populations of steelhead within each of four Diversity Groups with low extinction risks.
Lindley et al. (2007) published population-level recovery criteria incorporating four viable salmonid
population (VSP) parameters into assessments of population viability (McElhany et al., 2000). They
also developed two sets of population viability criteria to determine extinction risks. The first criteria
estimated extinction risk from population viability models. The second, alternative criteria included
population size, population decline, catastrophic risk rate and effect, and hatchery influence. A
population judged to be low risk of extinction (i.e., < 5% chance of extinction within 100 years)
must meet: 1) effective population size > 500 or population size > 2,500; 2) population growth rate
increasing; 3) little or no risk of catastrophic disturbance; and 4) little hatchery influence.
Qualitative threat abatement criteria must demonstrate a lack of continuing threats: spawning
grounds, habitat quality and quantity; overutilization; disease or predation; inadequate regulatory
mechanisms; artificial propagation; climate change; water diversion; and non-indigenous aquatic
nuisance species.
The Recovery Plan includes criteria for downlisting or delisting the three species (ESUs, DPS).
Recovery Scenarios
Each species has a conceptual ESU/DPS recovery scenario in the Recovery Plan. Using the
aforementioned recovery tools (for example, recovery goals, etc.), NMFS developed recovery
scenarios for rivers and streams. ESUs/DPS viability depends upon the number of populations
within each ESU/DPS, individual status, catastrophic disturbance risk, population viability,
population diversity, and habitat diversity. All recovery scenarios must: 1) incorporate general
ecological or habitat objectives; 2) include entire ecosystems; 3) require interconnected habitats; 4)
allow for spatial distribution and productivity capacity of freshwater and estuarine habitats; 5)
include habitat diversity historically present; and 6) restore and protect habitat for salmonid viability.
NMFS evaluated the biological significance and feasibility for recovery of each population. Current
status was the basis for establishing its biological significance. Other factors analyzed for biological
significance were improvement potential, historical significance, catastrophic risk, and suitable
spatial diversity. Feasibility for recovery depends upon the expected progress of existing programs,
along with included absence of impediments toward recovery, and other management considerations
(for example, feasibility for fish passage). With the implementation of the Recovery Plan, additional
information will become available to inform NMFS of the progress of restoration, along with
monitoring and adaptive management measures. This additional information will cause the initial
recovery scenarios to be modified.
Recovery Actions
The Recovery Plan must address complex biological, economical, social, and technological issues in
implementation. Many recovery actions will require changes in current policy. For example,
improvement of anadromous habitat, fish passage and changes in water use policies must be
accomplished to allow recovery. Consolidation of and focus on multiple regulatory mandates
emphasize the need for an improved governance structure for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Most importantly, recovery for most species is not likely without reintroduction of fish to
unoccupied watersheds, in order to restore the ecological functions of interconnected habitats.
Implementation and Cost Estimates
NMFS developed the Central Valley Recovery Plan in concert with its overall Protected Resources
Division Strategic Plan (NMFS 2006).
To promote and implement recovery planning, NMFS shall include these actions: program-wide
recovery planning for work load allocation and decision, outreach and educational program, a
research, monitoring, and adaptive management framework, and a tracking system to inform
Congress and provide for Five-Year Reviews.
NMFS’ recovery efforts must extend beyond its direct regulatory authority (i.e., ESA). It will require
technical information and assistance to other agencies with activities that may affect species’
recovery. An example is hydroelectric power regulation (under the Federal Power Act) and fish
passage, which has been a key factor in anadromous fish declines.
This Recovery Plan includes an implementation schedule describing time frames and costs.
Although there is uncertainty, costs of the Recovery Plan range from $1.04 to 1.26 billion over the
next 5 years, and over $10 billion over the next 50 years.
Current and Future Issues
Biological Opinions Under Endangered Species Act
In June 2009, NMFS imposed restrictions on pumping during migration times of salmonid species
for the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), based upon their
Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2009). Several salmonid species were likely jeopardized by the Projects'
pumping operations in the Delta. The pumping adversely affected salmonid critical habitat. In
adopting the “jeopardy” opinion, NMFS imposed a “reasonable and prudent alternative” on the
projects. The United States Bureau of Reclamation agreed to adopt the protection measures. Several
water agencies sued NMFS to challenge the Biological Opinion (BiOp).
In March, 2010, Judge Wanger of the Federal Court, Eastern Division, Fresno, ruled that NMFS had
violated NEPA by not evaluating all environmental consequences of the BiOp alternative (restricting
CVP and SWP Delta Diversions). He later ruled that pumping restrictions had not been developed
in a scientifically correct manner and that they would cause significant impacts on humans. The
court ruled that water users should receive equal protections when balancing harm that they would
suffer versus the salmon, fishing industry and Native Americans. He found that the Federal
Agencies (NMFS and USFWS) had not evaluated the harm that pumping restrictions would cause
the human environment. The court ruled that NMFS had not considered alternative remedial
measures to mitigate this human-related harm. The court gave water users injunctive relief and
ordered further monitoring to insure that salmon (and Delta smelt) were not further jeopardized.
Delta Flows Criteria Issue
On August 3, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board SWRCB adopted the Delta Flow
Criteria Report (SWRCB, 2010) that California Legislative action required. Based on the best
available science, the Board acknowledged that the Delta needs more water to support habitat for
anadromous salmonids. These criteria include “75% of unimpaired Delta outflow from January
through June; 75% of unimpaired Sacramento River inflow from November through June; and 60%
of unimpaired San Joaquin River inflow from February through June. These flows would require
significant reductions in exports and/or upstream diversions.”
The Report states a dual mission" to ensure the highest reasonable water quality and allocate those
waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses". For years, the terms “reasonable” and
“optimum” have created a battle and have allowed politics to trump science. Another loophole in
the Report is that the Board acknowledged that it had not “included evaluation of any balancing of
public trust values and water rights." The report has also been characterized as an “interesting
theoretical exercise” or “term paper”, with no practical or regulatory significance. Others believe
that these flow criteria might inform decision- and policy-makers of the Delta (and river) water
needs of public trust resources, such as anadromous salmonids. The Board also believes that there
are other Delta water quality issues which higher flows alone will not solve, including habitat, water
quality, and invasive species. In the report, the Board recognized that "through-Delta exports, and
perhaps even some current in-Delta uses, are at odds with the water quality and variability needs of
desirable Delta species." These flow criteria recommendations are to be taken into consideration in
developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, as well as potential regulatory actions by the Delta
Stewardship Council (DSC, 2010).
FERC Process Issues
FERC Practice of Rejections of Study Requests Needed for Anadromous Fish Information
In two ongoing FERC relicensings on the Merced River, Conservation Groups and Resource
Agencies (CG-RAs) requested 16 studies to evaluate salmonid anadromous fish populations (CSPA,
2010). Studies included a larger area for hydrology study, the establishment of the baseline fishery
condition, testing the response of salmon and steelhead to changes in flows, evaluating upstream
habitat, and establishing the feasibility of fish passage. Although FERC-licensed projects regulate all
of the water in the river, FERC decided that the studies of anadromous fish were unwarranted.
FERC decided CG-RAs did not meet the study criterion of nexus to project or the criterion that the
studies may inform the development of license requirements. Three Resource Agencies disputed the
initial FERC Study Plan Determination and a Dispute Resolution Panel held a technical meeting,
receiving information from the SWRCB, USFWS, and NMFS. The Panel issued two reports on
December 2, 2010 in which they disagreed with FERC on the adequacy of existing information
regarding anadromous salmonid habitat and the project nexus to direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects of the project. CGs responded to the Dispute Resolution Panel reports and pointed out 8
issues that should be addressed in the second Study Plan Determination. The issues involve habitat
effects, adequacy of existing science and information, adequacy of critical life history information,
inconsistency of FERC decisions on different projects, fish passage evaluation, second-year study
criteria, legal issues, and a technical meeting request. The second FERC Study Plan Determination
did not answer any of these questions. In the end, FERC decided that there was a nexus between the
project and downstream effects of the project. Conversely, FERC found that it was unclear whether
the studies informed the development of license requirements and declined to order the studies be
done.
FERC Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) Should Satisfy Information Needs for Comprehensive
Environmental Evaluations
The Federal Power Act includes sections, involving natural resources and potential project-related
effects. The most important of these are FPA §10(a)(1) (Implementation of comprehensive plans for
uses beyond power generation), FPA §10 (j) (Conditions for protection, mitigation, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources), FPA § 4 (e) (Conditions for protection of a federal
reservation), and FPA§ 18 (Fishway Prescription). The Endangered Species Act requires federal
agencies to protect and contribute to recovery of all listed species [ESA § 7 (a)(1)] that may be
affected by the project. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401, the State must certify that the
project complies with applicable water quality standards. FERC must include any conditions in the
license that the state requires to certify water quality. NEPA requires that a project’s impacts or
effects must be evaluated in an Environmental Impact document. There are cases where there have
been disagreements over the linkage of a nexus, and FERC’s determination of whether the study
requester met this threshold. If FERC defines the “reasonable” application of this threshold so
narrowly that a study requester must prove a project has an impact unequivocally, then it is likely
that many project effects would go unmitigated. This severely limits the ability of relicensing
participants to evaluate and recommend reasonable protection, mitigation, and enhancement of
project-impacted resources. In the Merced River, CGs-RAs clearly and repeatedly emphasized the
agencies (and stakeholder) needs for information from these legal requirements to evaluate project
impacts in order to develop “reasonable” license conditions or protections for anadromous fish.
FERC did not address those issues in ordering Study Plans for the Merced River projects. CGs and
RAs anticipate that these study requests/data needs for anadromous fish in the Merced River will
likely occur outside the ILP boundaries, possibly delaying the relicensing schedule. The studies to
inform the stakeholders and agencies would occur much later in the ILP schedule.
NEPA legal challenges have established that uncertainty regarding a project’s impacts does not
dismiss the need for an Environmental Impact analysis, and agencies must evaluate the scale and
nature of the potential impacts to develop appropriate alternatives and mitigation measures. An
agency’s lack of knowledge about a potential impact does not eliminate the preparation of an
Environmental Impact document, but conversely requires the agency to do the studies and work to
obtain the information. Resource agency and stakeholder fisheries experts have judged the
information needs/data needs to be insufficient to adequately prepare an Environmental Impact
analysis for Merced River Hydroelectric Projects and potential impacts or effects on anadromous
salmonid populations (Thompson, 2009).
Importance of Recovery Plan and Actions
In general, the ESA regulations do not include requirements in the law for federal agencies to
implement the recovery plans. The Central Valley Recovery Plan does not include details of how
they intend to implement the plan. The plan does not include a scientific evaluation process or
framework for determining survival and recovery goals. These changes would make the Recovery
Plan more functional, and the ESA more effective, which would then lead to better recoveries (and
hence more rapid delisting) of species. Agricultural and domestic diversions, altered hydrology,
hydroelectric power generation, temperature or chemical pollution, and human take are activities in
the Central Valley and Bay Delta that compromise the ESA-protected fish populations. The
Recovery Plan should specifically identify these factors by species and watersheds to provide a basis
for actions. In summary, the Recovery Plan lacks specificity in identifying stressors, recovery actions
and detailed guidance for how the federal (and state) resource agencies will implement the plan in
each watershed. In order to facilitate the intended collaborative process, the Recovery Plan should
include clear recovery goals and objectives, so that all stakeholders will understand exactly how
NMFS intends to recover the listed species in each Central Valley domain.
Funding of Restoration
There are no funding sources identified in the Central Valley Recovery Plan. There are general ideas
of where NMFS, resource agencies, and conservation groups might seek funding. This is a serious
default in the Recovery Plan process and NMFS ability to implement ESA actions. One problem
with NMFS Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is that the Central Valley Recovery
Domain receives no PCSRF funding (NMFS, 2010). The CalFed program terminated funding for
salmonid restoration in 2007. The Recovery Plan for the Central Valley Domain did not identify
funding sources for salmonid restoration. NMFS (2009) sums up its situation with respect to
funding as uncertainty in finding long term and future funding.
References
California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout (CACSST). 1988. Restoring the
Balance 1988 Annual Report. 84 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1965. California Fish and Wildlife Plan Volume
III. Supporting Data. Part B Inventory (Salmon-Steelhead and Marine Resources). 1051 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1990. Status and management of spring-run
Chinook salmon. Report by the Inland Fisheries Division to the California Fish and Game
Commission, Sacramento. May 1990. 33 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1993. Restoring Central Valley streams; a plan
for action. Compiled by Reynolds FL, Mills TJ, Benthin R , Low A. Report for public distribution,
November 10, 1993. Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento. 129 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. California Steelhead Fishing Report –
Restoration Card-A Report To The Legislature. California Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries
Branch, Sacramento, CA. 91 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. California Department of Fish and Game
Fisheries Branch Anadromous Resources Assessment Grand Tab California Central Valley
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Systems Chinook Salmon Escapement Hatcheries and Natural
Areas. Accessed: http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/GrandTab_030910.pdf on
August 10, 2010.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010. Draft Development
of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem, Prepared Pursuant to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento. 191 p. Accessed:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/dr
aft_report072010.pdf on August 15, 2010.
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. 2010. FERC shuts out Merced salmon and steelhead
one more time. Accessed: http://www.calsport.org/1-1-10.htm on August 15, 2010.
Clark GH. 1929a. Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon fishery in California. California Division of Fish
and Game. Fish Bulletin 137. 73 p.
Clark GH. 1929b. Sacramento River salmon fishery. California Fish and Game 15(1):1–10.
Deering JH. 1909. The Penal Code of the State of California. Bancroft-Whitney Co., San
Francisco. Pp 350-351.
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2010. Final Draft Interim Plan. California Delta Stewardship
Council, Sacramento. August 16, 2010. 119 p. Accessed:
http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/docs/final_draft_interim_plan_clean_801610.pdf on August 19,
2010.
Fry DH, Jr. 1961. King salmon spawning stocks of the California Central Valley, 1940-1959.
California Fish and Game 47: 55-71.
Hallock RJ, Van Woert WF, Shapovalov L. 1961. An Evaluation of Stocking Hatchery Reared
Steelhead Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii) in the Sacramento River System. Fish
Bulletin No. 114. Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish and Game.
Hatton SR. 1940. Progress report on the Central Valley fisheries investigations. California
Fish and Game 26: 334-373.
Latta FF. 1977. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Santa Cruz (CA): Bear State. 765 p.
Lindley ST, Schick RS, Agrawal A, Goslin M, Pearson TE, Mora E, Anderson J, May B, Greene S,
Hanson C, Low A, McEwan D, MacFarlane RB, Swanson C,. Williams JG. 2006. Historical
Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and its Alteration by Dams. San Francisco Estuary
and Watershed Science 4(1):1 19. February 2006.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol4/iss1/art3 on August 14, 2010
Lindley ST, Schick R, May BP, Anderson JJ, Greene SS, Hanson CC, Low A, McEwan D,
MacFarlane RB, Swanson C, Williams JG. 2004. Population Structure of Threatened and
Endangered Chinook Salmon ESUs in California’s Central Valley Basin. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOAA TM NMFS SWFSC 360. April 2004.
Lindley ST, Schick RS, Mora E, Adams PB, Anderson JJ, Greene S, Hanson C, May BP, McEwan
D, MacFarlane RB, Swanson C, Williams JG. 2007. Framework for Assessing Viability of
Threatened and Endangered Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Sacramento San Joaquin Basin.
San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science Volume 5, Issue 1. Article 4: California Bay Delta
Authority Science Program and the John Muir Institute of the Environment.
McElhany P, Ruckelshaus MH, Ford MJ, Wainwright TC, Bjorkstedt EP.. 2000. Viable
Salmonid Populations and the Conservation of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. Department
of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS NWFSC 42. Seattle, WA.
McEwan DR. 2001. Central Valley Steelhead. In: Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids,
Volume 1; RL Brown, ed. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 179. 43.
McEwan DR, Jackson T. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for California. California
Department of Fish and Game, February 1996. 234 p.
Mills, T.J. and F. Fisher. 1994. Central Valley Anadromous Sport Fish Annual Run-size, Harvest,
and Population Estimates, 1967 through 1991. California Department of Fish and Game.
Moyle PB, Yoshiyama RM, Knapp RA. 1996. Status of fish and fisheries. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume II. Davis (CA): Centers for Water and Wildland
Resources, University of California (Davis). 21 p.
Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Lierheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW,
Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS. 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. Report No. NMFS NWFSC 35. NOAA Tech. Memo. U.S. Department of
Commerce.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook
Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for Decline Report. Portland,
Oregon: Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Protected Resources Strategic Plan.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Public Draft Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily
Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-­‐run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-­‐run
Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of Central Valley Steelhead. NMFS
Sacramento Protected Resources Division. October 2009, 273 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. 2010 Report to Congress: Pacific Coast Salmon
Recovery Fund FY 2000-2009. NOAA Northwest Regional Office, Seattle WA. 12 p. Accessed:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm
on August 16, 2010
Thompson L. 2009. Agency Panelist Findings and Recommendations for Study Requests Not
Adopted in the Commission’s Study Plan Determination, and Disputed by the Resource Agencies
Merced River Project (P-2179). FERC Dispute Resolution Panel, Sacramento, CA. 62 p. FERC Elibrary Accession Number 20091202-5060, Washington D.C. Accessed: http://www.ferc.gov on
December 2, 2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program: A Plan to Increase Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central
Valley of California. Prepared for the Secretary of the Interior by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (USBCF). 1876. Report of the Commissioner for 1873-74
and 1874-1875. Part 3. 829 p.
Yoshiyama RM, Gerstung ER, Fisher FW, Moyle PB. 1996. Historical and present distribution of
Chinook salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final
Report to Congress, Volume III. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California,
Davis. Davis, CA. Pg. 309-361.
Yoshiyama RM, Gerstung ER, Fisher FW, Moyle PB. 2001. Historical and present distribution of
Chinook salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. In: R. Brown, ed., Contributions to the
Biology of Central Valley Salmonids. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish. Bull. 179(1): 71176.
Zimmerman CE, Edwards GW, Perry K. 2009. Maternal Origin and Migratory History of
Steelhead and Rainbow Trout Captured in Rivers of the Central Valley, California. Trans. Amer.
Fisheries Soc. 138:280–291.