2010 Coho Recovery Plan Public Draft

RECOVERY PLAN
FOR THE EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT OF

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON

PhotoCourtesy:CCCcohosalmon,MorganBond,SWFSC
ConceptualModeloftheExtinctionVortexforCaliforniasCohoSalmon,PeterMoyle2009

PUBLIC DRAFT
Version:March2010
SouthwestRegionalOffice
NationalMarineFisheriesService
SantaRosa,CA
DISCLAIMER
Recoveryplansdelineatesuchreasonableactionsasmaybenecessary,baseduponthebestscientificand
commercialdataavailable,fortheconservationandsurvivaloflistedspecies.Plansarepublishedbythe
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams,
contractors, State agencies and others. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official
positionsorapprovalofanyindividualsoragenciesinvolvedintheplanformulation,otherthanNMFS.
They represent the official position of NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant or
RegionalAdministrator.Recoveryplansareguidanceandplanningdocumentsonly;identificationofan
actiontobeimplementedbyanypublicorprivatepartydoesnotcreatealegalobligationbeyondexisting
legalrequirements.Nothinginthisplanshouldbeconstruedasacommitmentorrequirementthatany
GeneralagencyobligateorpayfundsinanyonefiscalyearinexcessofappropriationsmadebyCongress
for that fiscal year in contravention of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341, or any other law or
regulation.Approvedrecoveryplansaresubjecttomodificationasdictatedbynewfindings,changesin
speciesstatus,andthecompletionofrecoveryactions.
LITERATURECITATIONSHOULDREADASFOLLOWS:
National Marine FisheriesService. 2010. Public Draft RecoveryPlan for Central CaliforniaCoast coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit. National Marine Fisheries Service,
SouthwestRegion,SantaRosa,California.
ADDITIONALCOPIESMAYBEOBTAINEDFROM:
NationalMarineFisheriesService
ProtectedResourcesDivision
777SonomaAvenue,Room325
SantaRosa,CA95467
Oronthewebat:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm
or
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm
CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

March 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthorswishtoacknowledgethemanyindividualsandorganizationswhohavebeenvitalpartners
during the development of the CCC coho salmon recovery plan. First, we appreciate the collaboration
with our comanagers, the California Department of Fish and Game. They provided assistance in the
development of this recovery plan, reviewed earlier drafts, provided data, and developed and refined
recoveryactions.Inparticular,wethankJohnMcCamman,KevinShaffer,StephenSwales,ScottDownie,
DougAlbin,Scott Harris,Gail Seymour, JenniferNelson, KrissyAtkinson, Michelle Leicester,andRick
Macedo.AspecialmentiongoestoDerekAcombforhisdedicationincompilingFishandGameHabitat
TypingData,andtoSeanGallagherforhissignificantcontributionstoourmonitoringchapter.
We gratefully acknowledge Wendy Millet, Greg Low, Jeanette Howard (Ph.D.) and Warren Lockwood
from The Nature Conservancy for their training and support in our use of their Conservation Action
Planningmethod.Thisanalysismethodandorganizationaltoolisfoundationaltotherecoveryplan.We
thankDeanneDiPietro,AlexYoung,ZhahaiStewart,ArthurDawson,CaitlinCornwallandLisaMichelli
(Ph.D.),oftheSonomaEcologyCenter,fortheirenduringpatienceanddedicationtotheextensiveand
detaileddatacompilationandanalysis,assistancewithwebsitedevelopment,thehistoricalprologue,and
referencemanagement.WeextendasincereappreciationtoUCBerkeley(JamesHunt,Ph.D.;Norman
Miller, Ph.D.), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Deborah Agarwal, Ph.D.), Berkeley Water
Center(CarolynRemick)andMicrosofteScience(CatherineVanIngen,Ph.D.)fortheircollaborationwith
ustoadvanceourdataanalysiscapabilitiesintothefuturethroughthewatershedanalysistoolcalledthe
datacube.
We are very appreciative of the many public and private entities who have collected watershed and
populationdata,andworkedtirelesslytoconserveandprotectanadromoussalmonidsandtheirhabitats.
Whilemanyhavecontributed,weofferspecialmentionto:MikePodlech;DonandRosalindAlley;Jerry
SmithPh.D.;ChrisBerry;JimRobins;KristenKittleson;BetsyHerbertPh.D.;JeffHagar;KateGoodnight;
SPAWN;CraigBell;CampbellTimberlandManagement(inparticularDavidWright);BigCreekTimber
Company; Coastal Watershed Council; Jackson Demonstration State Forest; Mendocino Redwood
Company;MarinMunicipalWaterDistrict;GualalaWatershedCouncil;countyResourceConservation
Districts; National Park Service (Brannon Ketchum and Michael Reichmuth and Ettlinger); FishNet 4C
(Steve Kinsey; Kallie Kull; Darcy Ashton); and a very warm thank you to all of you who contributed
storiesandpicturestothehistoricalprologue.
WethanktheNorthCentralCaliforniaCoastDomainTechnicalRecoveryTeam(TRT)andNMFSScience
Center, especially TRT Chair, Brian Spence, Ph.D., who provided the biological framework for this
recovery plan and supported us with technical assistance throughout this process. NMFS Southwest
RegionSantaRosaOfficededicatedtheireffortsandcontributedincriticalcapacitiestosupportshifting
workloads,dataanalysis,documentpreparation,developingandcatalogingwatershedinformationand
recoveryactions,GISanalysisandmapping,andmanyotheraspectsofrecoveryplanning.Toallfrom
theNMFSSouthwestRegionSantaRosaOfficeProtectedResourcesDivision,CharleenGavetteandBill
Winner from the Habitat Conservation Division, and Kit Crump from the NOAA Restoration Center;
thankyou.

March 2010
Finally,criticalfinancialsupportfromSonomaCountyWaterAgencyfacilitatedcompilationofthebest
available information at a scale and depth unprecedented for the central coast of California; data that
significantlyinformedouranalyses.OurrelationshipwiththeWaterAgencyhasfosteredpartnershipsat
local, State and Federal levels; partners with a common goal of finding common ground on complex
issueswhileensuringafutureforCaliforniasiconicsalmon.Inoneexample,theWaterAgencyfunds
supportedUCDavisHoplandResearch(ShaneFeirerandScottWebb)incompilingDFGhabitattyping
dataacrosstheNCCCDomain,creatingadatabasethatisspatiallylinkedandqueriable.Ithasbeena
pleasureworkingwiththestaffoftheWaterAgencyandwewishtoextendourthankstoPaulKelley,
GrantDavis,KeenanFoster,ReneeWebber,DavidManning,ConnieBartonandJaneGuteirrez.Above
all,wearethankfulforRandyPoole,retiredGeneralManagerandChiefEngineer.Itwashisvisionof
stewardshipandleadershipinactionthatisembodiedinthisplan.WewishRandytheverybestashe
retiresfromtheWaterAgencyandembarksonnewadventures;Godspeed.

March 2010
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
CURRENTSTATUSANDDISTRIBUTION:TheknownhistoricalrangeoftheCentralCaliforniaCoast
(CCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) extends from Punta Gorda in northern
CaliforniasouthtoElkhornSloughinMontereyCounty,California.ThelistedrangeextendsfromPunta
Gorda south to the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County, California. This species was listed as
threatened with extinction on October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56138). Due to severe population declines its
listing status was reclassified to endangered on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). More recent studies are
indicatingaprobablepopulationcollapse(McFarlaneandHayes2008,indraft)acrossthespeciesrange;
increasing the likelihood of extinction. Only a few watersheds currently support more than remnant
populations(e.g.,PuddingCreek,AlbionRiver,andLagunitasCreek).
LIFEHISTORYANDHABITATREQUIREMENTS:Cohosalmonareanadromousfishandliveinboth
the ocean and freshwater ecosystems where they exhibit distinctly different life stages (e.g., spawning,
egg, alevin, summer rearing, winter rearing, smolt and ocean adult) with unique habitat requirements.
Coho salmon spend approximately one year in freshwater and two years in the marine environment.
Theyliveapproximatelythreeyears,andadultsreturntothestreamswheretheywereborn,spawn,and
thendieafterspawning.Thisspecieshasafairlyrigidthreeyearlifehistoryandfishofoneyearclass
rarelyinterbreedwithfishfromanotheryearclass.Inthefreshwaterenvironmentcohosalmonrequire:
(1) clean gravels for successful spawning and incubation; (2) adequate quantities of cool and well
oxygenated water with complex deep pools for juvenile summer rearing; and (3) sidechannels and
alcovesand/orsufficientquantitiesoflargewoodydebrisforoverwinteringhabitat.
THREATSTOCOHOSALMON:Thefactorsadverselyaffectingthisspeciesarenumerousandinclude
both natural and humanmade threats. Natural threats include disease, predation, droughts, and
fluctuating ocean marine conditions. Humanmade threats include habitat alterations such as water
diversion, road building and maintenance, timber harvest, urbanization, flood control structures and
practicesandclimatechange.Generally,thegreatestthreatsforcohosalmonacrosstheESUcomefrom
three threat categories: (1) Roads and Railroads, and, particularly from the Russian River south, (2)
Droughts, and (3) Residential and Commercial development. Logging and Wood Harvesting is a
significantthreatfromtheRussianRivernorth.Incertainwatersheds,ChannelModificationorLivestock
FarmingandRanchingposedsignificantthreatstothespecies.
RECOVERY PLAN: When a species is listed as federally threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), the listing agency must develop and implement a plan for the species
recovery.ThefinalrecoveryplanwasdevelopedbytheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)Santa
Rosa recovery team with assistance and input from scientists, comanagers, stakeholders, and others.
The foundation of this recovery plan rests upon two NOAA Technical Memoranda prepared by a
Technical Recovery Team (TRT) which was comprised of fishery scientists. The NOAA Memoranda
describedhistoricalpopulationstructureandbiologicalviability(Bjorkstedtetal.2005,Spenceetal.2008)
provided a rigorous scientific framework and numeric population viability goals and scenarios, which
formedthebasisfortherecoverystrategy.

March 2010
Therecoveryteamassessedcurrentconditionsandconductedathreatsassessmentforfuturethreatsfor
thefreshwaterandmarineenvironments,includingananalysisofthepotentialeffectsofclimatechange.
Conditions and threats were assessed using The Nature Conservancys Conservation Action Planning
(CAP) protocol, one of several methods recommended in NMFS (2007) Interim Recovery Planning
Guidance for Threatened and Endangered Species. The recovery team endeavored to use the best
available information to inform the assessments including information from California Department of
Fish and Game habitat typing data, watershed assessments, public/private datasets, and many other
sourcesofinformationanddata.
RECOVERYSTRATEGY:Tofocusrecoveryeffortsandensureproperprioritization,threatabatement
and restoration and enhancement actions were developed for 28 of the 76 watersheds that historically
maintained coho salmon. Within these 28 watersheds, subwatersheds were hierarchically prioritized.
SubwatershedswithpersistingpopulationsweredesignatedasCoreareas.ProtectingandrestoringCore
areas is essential for preventing the extinction of CCC coho salmon and Core areas are targeted for
immediate threat abatement and enhancement and restoration actions. Areas outside of Core
subwatersheds were designated Phase I or Phase II areas. Phase I areas are designated for necessary
recovery actions to expand current populations. Phase II areas are designated for longterm recovery
actions.
RECOVERYGOALS&OBJECTIVES:TheoverarchinggoalofthisRecoveryPlanistopreventthe
extinctionofwildCCCcohosalmonandensuretheirlongtermpersistenceinaviable,selfsustaining,
andeventuallyharvestablestatusacrosstheESU.BeforeNMFSconsidersdownlistingordelistingCCC
cohosalmon,substantiallyhighernumbersofreturningadultsand,successfulspawningandrearing
conditionsinfreshwaterenvironments,areneeded.Toachievethesegoals,itiscriticallyimportantto
preserve,enhance,andrestorethespeciesexistinghabitats.Individualwatershedsmusthavethe
capacitytosupportselfsustainingpopulationsinthefaceofnaturalvariationandconditionssuchas
droughts,floods,variableoceanrearingconditions,wildfires,andlongtermclimatechange.Taken
together,eachwatershedachievingaselfsustainingpopulationcontributestoaviableDiversityStratum
(groupsofwatershedsinecologicallysimilarenvironments),whichinturncontributestoaviableESU.
NMFShasidentifiedthreeobjectivesfortheultimaterecoveryofCCCcohosalmon:
Objective1:PreventextinctionbyprotectinghabitatsinCoreAreaswithinidentifiedfocus
populations.Thiswillbeaccomplishedbyimprovingcurrentconditions,andameliorating
existingandfuturethreats;
Objective2:Reestablishviablepopulationsinthe28prioritizedwatersheds(ataminimum)and
withinfourofthefiveDiversityStratabyprotecting,enhancing,andrestoringhabitatsto
properlyfunctioningconditions,andbycontrollingandabatingexistingandfuturethreatsinall
Core,PhaseIandPhaseIIareas;
Objective3:Implementstandardizedmonitoringofcohosalmonpopulationsandtheirhabitat
acrosstheCCCESU.Standardizationreducesuncertaintyassociatedwithhabitatassessment
methodsandincreasesconfidenceinpopulationestimateswhenevaluatingeffectivenessof
recoveryactions.Standardizationwillalsoimproveaccuracywhenmeasuringprogresstowards
downlistinganddelistingcriteria.


March 2010
It is our hope that the information in this plan will facilitate further discussion on data resources and
analysis,futurethreatsandbeneficialrecoveryactions,andwillfacilitatefundingforhighpriorityactions
neededforCCCcohosalmon.Workingcollaborativelywithcommunities,organizations,andagenciesto
preserveoursalmonheritageisourhighestpriority.
RECOVERY CRITERIA: Recovery criteria were developed to measure progress toward achieving
recoveryobjectives.Recoverycriteriameasureprogresstowardachievingrecoveryobjectives.Criteria
mustbeSMART:specific,measureable,achievable,realisticandtimereferenced.NMFSisproposing
downlistingcriteriaforthetransitionbetweentheendangeredandthreatenedstatus,aswellasdelisting
criteria,fortheESU.Thespecificcriteriarelatedtothestatusofpopulations,improvementsinwatershed
conditionsandtheabatementofthreatsacrosstheESUmustbemetpriortodownlistingordelisting.In
addition,ananalysisofthreatspursuanttothefivestatutorylistingfactorsinsection4oftheESAwillbe
necessary.Criteriaareoutlinedinthefollowingformatintherecoveryplan:
1.DownlistingandDelistingRecoveryCriteriaforPopulationsandESU
PopulationLevelCriteriaforIndependentandDependentPopulations
ESURecoveryCriteriaforDelisting
2.DownlistingandDelistingCriteriaforWatershedHealth
3.DownlistingandDelistingCriteriaforThreats(includingananalysisofthelistingfactors)
FiveListingFactors
Presentorthreateneddestruction,modification,orcurtailmentofhabitatorrange
Overutilizationforcommercial,recreational,scientific,oreducationalpurposes
Diseaseorpredation
Inadequacyofexistingregulatorymechanisms
Othernaturalandmanmadefactorsaffectingthespeciescontinuedexistence
A decision to delist a species must consider the biological performance of the populations (viability
criteria), the threats that contributed to the species decline and listing under the ESA, and the future
threatslimitingtheirrecovery.
RECOVERY ACTIONS: Recovery actions were developed for the ESU, Diversity Strata, and specific
watersheds. The highest priority actions advocated to increase survival and improve the likelihood of
recoveryare:
Finalize and implement the State Coastal Monitoring Plan. Implementation of the State Coastal
MonitoringPlan(includingdevelopmentofanadaptivemanagementandcomprehensivedatabase)
is essential for evaluating the longterm viability of CCC coho salmon and their habitats as well as
otherspeciesoflistedsalmonidsinCalifornia;
Focusrestorationfunds,notablythePacificCoastSalmonRestorationFundandCaliforniasFisheries
GrantRestorationProgram,toprioritizefundinginCoreareasandonactivitiesthatwillincreasethe
probabilityoffreshwatersurvival;

March 2010
Promote restoration projects in overwintering habitats such as alcoves, backchannels, off channel
areas,andestuaries;
Encourage appropriate agencies to secure funding for, and engage in, full enforcement of relevant
laws,codes,regulationsandordinancesprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitats;
Work with DFG to improve freshwater sport fishing regulations to minimize unintentional and
unauthorized take, and incidental mortality, of CCC coho salmon by anglers during the CCC coho
salmon migration period. This effort should include the development of appropriate lowflow
closurethresholds(includingconsiderationofemergencyclosureduringadultmigrationbeginning
2010),seasonalfishingclosures,andangleroutreachprograms;
UrgetheCaliforniaBoardofForestrytodevelopnotakerulesand/orapplyforastatewideForestry
HabitatConservationPlan(HCP)andseekfundingopportunitiestosupporttheeffort;
Assessandaddressthemechanismsdrivingforestconversionsandprovideincentivesforsustainable
forestry;
EncourageforestrylandownerstodevelopHCPsprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitat;
Improvecoordinationbetweentheagencies,particularlytheSWRCB,toeffectivelyaddressseasons
ofdiversion,offstreamreservoirs,andbypassflowsfullyprotectiveofCCCcohosalmon;
Encouragecountiestocontrolforestconversionsandprioritizedevelopmentofrezoningandgrading
ordinancesthatareprotectiveofCCCcohosalmonandtheirhabitats;and
FinalizetheMendocinoRedwoodCompanyHCP.
ESTIMATEDCOSTS:Section4(f)oftheESArequiresrecoveryplanstoincludeestimatesofthetime
requiredandthecosttocarryoutthosemeasuresneededtoachievetheplansgoalandtoachieve
intermediatestepstowardthatgoal(16U.S.C.1533(f)(1)(B)(iii)).NMFSestimatesrecoveryforCCCcoho
salmoncouldtake50to100years.TheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamedevelopedaStateCoho
RecoveryPlanin2004andthisFederalplanbuildsfromtheStatePlanandcontainsmanyofthesame
recoveryactions.TheStateofCaliforniaconductedacomprehensivecostanalysisforcohosalmon
recoveryandestimatedthetotalcosttoachieverecoveryforCCCcohosalmonatbetween3billion
dollarsand5billiondollars(dependingonAlternativesimplemented){DFG,2004}.Thisestimatemay
underoroverestimatethefullcostofimplementation,becausenotallcostscouldbequantified,and
somecostsmaybeincurredevenwithoutimplementationoftheplan.TheStateCohoRecoveryPlan
offeredsomerecommendationsthatdifferfromthosepresentedinthisplan.TheStateCohoRecovery
Planpresentedcostsinthesimplestpossibleterms:thecurrentcostofcompletingtheactionin2004.It
didnotconsiderinflationorfinancingcosts.AlthoughtherearedifferencesbetweentheStateCoho
RecoveryPlanandtheFederalCCCcohosalmonrecoveryplan,NMFSwillusetheStatecostestimatesas
theycurrentlyrepresentthebestavailableinformationmostrelevanttotheCCCcohosalmonESU.
Duringthepubliccommentperiod,wewillfurtherevaluatethecostanalysiswithassistancefromthe
NMFSScienceCenter,NOAARestorationCenterandothersincludingadditionalrequeststothepublic
formoreprecisecostestimatesassociatedwithrestoration,monitoringandthreatabatement.
Recoveryofcohosalmonwillhavesignificantcosts,butwillalsoprovideeconomicbenefits.Recovery
actionsundertakenforcohosalmonwilllikelyimproveconditionsforotherlistedsalmonandsteelhead,
andalsoforavarietyofaquaticandriparianspecies.Becauseoftheirdirectandindirecteconomicvalue

March 2010
asaresourceforfishing,recreationandtourismrelatedactivities,eachdollarspentonsalmonrecovery
maygeneratesignificantlymoredollarsforlocal,state,Federal,andtribaleconomies.Inotherwords,
salmonrecoveryisbestviewednotasacost,butasaninvestmentandopportunitytoderive,diversify,
andstrengthentheeconomy.

March 2010
TABLEOFCONTENTS PAGE
DISCLAIMER ...............................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... II
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...........................................................................................................I
LISTOFFIGURES.......................................................................................................................I
LISTOFTABLES .........................................................................................................................I
LISTOFAPPENDICES ............................................................................................................ II
LISTOFACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. II
APPROACHTORECOVERY&DOCUMENTSTRUCTURE .......................................... 1
PROLOGUE ................................................................................................................................. 3
LetTheFishTellTheStory........................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER1:OVERVIEWOFTHECCCCOHOSALMONESU.................................. 18
ASpeciesattheBrinkofExtinction....................................................................................... 18
TheTaxonomy,RangeandESAListingofCohoSalmon.................................................. 21
TheImperiledCCCCohoSalmon.......................................................................................... 23
CohoSalmonLifeHistory........................................................................................................ 27
LifeHistoryHabitatRequirements ........................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER2:THEESA&NMFSRECOVERYPLANNING............................................ 42
TheFederalEndangeredSpeciesAct ..................................................................................... 42
RecoveringSalmonidsundertheFederalESA .................................................................... 43
CaliforniasRecoveryDomains ................................................................................... 44
GoalsofThisDraftRecoveryPlan............................................................................... 44
Recovery:ACollaborativeEffort................................................................................ 45
NorthCentralCaliforniaCoastRecoveryDomain ................................................... 45

March 2010
CHAPTER3:FACTORSLEADINGTOFEDERALLISTING......................................... 47
Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 47
FactorsAffectingCCCCohoSalmonattheTime,andSince,Listing............................. 48
FactorA(AtTimeofListing):PresentorThreatenedDestruction,Modification,
orCurtailmentofHabitatorRange .................................................. 49
FactorA(SinceListing):PresentorThreatenedDestruction,Modification,or
CurtailmentofHabitatorRange ....................................................... 50
FactorB(AtTimeofListing):OverutilizationforCommercial,Recreational,
Scientific,orEducationalPurposes ................................................... 50
FactorB(SinceListing):OverutilizationforCommercial,Recreational,Scientific,
orEducationalPurposes ..................................................................... 51
FactorC(AtTimeofListing):DiseaseorPredation ................................................ 51
FactorC(SinceListing):DiseaseorPredationSinceTimeofListing.................... 52
FactorD(AtTimeofListing):InadequacyofExistingRegulatoryMechanisms 52
FederalEfforts ................................................................................................... 52
NonFederalEfforts .......................................................................................... 54
FactorD(SinceListing):InadequacyofExistingRegulatoryMechanisms.......... 56
FactorE(AtTimeofListing):OtherNaturalandManmadeFactorsAffecting
theSpeciesContinuedExistence ...................................................... 56
FactorE(SinceListing):OtherNaturalandManmadeFactorsAffectingthe
SpeciesContinuedExistence............................................................. 57
CHAPTER4:ASSESSMENTOFPROTECTIVEEFFORTS ............................................. 60
FederalRegisterAssessmentofProtectiveEfforts .............................................................. 60
ConservationEffortsat,andSince,theListingofCCCCohoSalmon ................... 61
FederalEffortsatTimeofListing ................................................................... 61
FederalEffortsSinceListing............................................................................ 63
StateEffortsatTimeofListing........................................................................ 65
StateEffortsSinceListing ................................................................................ 66
LocalGovernmentEffortsAtListing ............................................................. 67
LocalGovernmentEffortsSinceListing ........................................................ 67
NonGovernmentalEffortsAtListing ........................................................... 67
NonGovernmentalEffortsSinceListing ...................................................... 68

March 2010
PriorityConservationEfforts ....................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER5:POPULATIONSTRUCTURE&VIABILITY ............................................. 70
HistoricalPopulationStructure&BiologicalViabilityCriteria....................................... 70
ViableSalmonidPopulations ....................................................................................... 71
HistoricalPopulationStructure ...................................................................... 72
IntrinsicHabitatPotential...................................................... 72
DefiningPopulationsfortheCCCcohosalmonESU........ 74
GroupingPopulations:ESUDiversityStrata..................... 75
ResultsfromHistoricalStructureAnalysis......................... 76
BiologicalViabilityCriteria ............................................................................. 79
PopulationViabilityCriteria ................................................. 79
ESUViabilityCriteria............................................................. 80
ESUViabilityCriteria............................................................. 81
ApplyingTRTFrameworktocohosalmonESURecoveryCriteria................................. 82
RecoveryGoalsforIndependentPopulations ........................................................... 83
RecoveryGoalsforDependentPopulations .............................................................. 84
ConsideringtheSFBayStratum .................................................................................. 85
CHAPTER6:ASSESSMENTOFHABITATS&THREATS ........................................... 86
MethodstoAssessHabitatConditionsandThreats........................................................... 86
ConservationActionPlanning ..................................................................................... 87
CAPWorkbookStructure ................................................................................ 88
TheViabilityTable.................................................................. 88
ConservationTargets...................................................... 88
KeyAttributes ................................................................. 89
IndicatorsandIndicatorRatings .................................. 89
GeographicLimitsofAnalysis...................................... 90
ViabilityTableDataSources ......................................... 92
ContributionsfromtheSonomaEcologyCenter ....... 92
SpatialAnalysis ............................................................... 93

March 2010
CDFGHabitatTypingSurveyDataandUCHopland
Research............................................................................ 93
UCBerkeley,LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratoryand
MicrosoftResearch.......................................................... 94
TheThreatsTable.................................................................... 95
Stresses.............................................................................. 95
SourcesofStresses .......................................................... 95
ThreatsDataSources ...................................................... 96
RecoveryActions .................................................................... 96
Strategies(a.k.a.RecoveryAction)DataSources ....... 97
RevisionstotheCAPWorkbook ................................................................................. 97
CHAPTER7:POPULATION,HABITAT&THREATSRESULTS................................. 98
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 98
PopulationsSelectedforRecovery ......................................................................................... 98
RevisitingIPintheCoastalDiversityStratum .......................................................... 99
CAPWorkbook:ESUPopulationResults .......................................................................... 102
CAPWorkbook:CurrentHabitatConditionResults....................................................... 104
HabitatResultsbyFreshwaterAttribute.................................................................. 106
HabitatResultsbyFreshwaterLifeStage................................................................. 109
CAPWorkbook:ThreatsandDiversityStrataResults..................................................... 110
ESUThreatResults ...................................................................................................... 110
DiversityStrataThreatResults .................................................................................. 112
LostCoast......................................................................................................... 112
NavarroPointGualalaPoint......................................................................... 112
CoastalGualalaPoint..................................................................................... 112
SanFranciscoBay............................................................................................ 112
SantaCruzMountains.................................................................................... 112
CHAPTER8:STRATEGYFORRECOVERY..................................................................... 117
PreventingtheExtinctionofCCCCohoSalmon ............................................................... 117
PrioritizingPopulations .............................................................................................. 118

March 2010
PriorityAreaswithinPopulations............................................................................. 118
TimingforRecovery .................................................................................................... 120
CHAPTER9:RECOVERYCRITERIA ................................................................................ 121

FrameworkforDownlisting&Delisting ............................................................................ 121
RecoveryGoalsandObjectives............................................................................................. 121
RecoveryCriteria...................................................................................................................... 122
BiologicalViabilityCriteriaversusDelistingRecoveryCriteria........................... 124
DownlistingandDelistingRecoveryCriteriaforPopulationsandESU ............. 124
PopulationLevelRecoveryCriteriaforIndependentPopulations ......... 125
PopulationLevelRecoveryCriteriaforDependentPopulations ............ 126
ESURecoveryCriteriaforDelisting............................................................. 128
DownlistingRecoveryCriteriaforWatershedHealthandThreats ..................... 130
DelistingRecoveryCriteriaforWatershedHealthandThreats ........................... 130
ListingFactorCriteria.................................................................................................. 131
ListingFactorA:Presentorthreateneddestruction,modification,or
curtailmentofhabitatorRange .................................................. 132
ListingFactorB:Overutilizationforcommercial,recreational,scientific,
oreducationalpurposes .............................................................. 132
ListingFactorC:Diseaseorpredation........................................................ 132
ListingFactorD:Theinadequacyofexistingregulatorymechanisms .. 133
ListingfactorE:Othernaturalandmanmadefactorsaffectingthe
speciescontinuedexistence........................................................ 134
CHAPTER10:RECOVERYACTIONS............................................................................... 135
TakingActionforSalmon...................................................................................................... 135
PriorityRecoveryActionsforCCCCohoSalmon ............................................................. 136
ESULevelRecoveryActions.................................................................................................. 137
DiversityStrataRecoveryActions ........................................................................................ 141
LostCoast .............................................................................................................. 141
NavarroGualalaPoint ................................................................................................ 141
Coastal .............................................................................................................. 142

March 2010
SanFranciscoBay......................................................................................................... 142
SantaCruzMountains:................................................................................................ 143
ImplementationSchedule ...................................................................................................... 143
IntroductiontoPopulationLevelActions........................................................................... 144
ALBIONRIVER ...................................................................................................................... 146
APTOSCREEK........................................................................................................................ 158
BIGRIVER ............................................................................................................................... 177
BIGSALMONCREEK........................................................................................................... 192
CASPARCREEK ..................................................................................................................... 202
COTTANEVACREEK ........................................................................................................... 214
GARCIARIVER...................................................................................................................... 223
GAZOSCREEK ....................................................................................................................... 236
GUALALARIVER .................................................................................................................. 248
LAGUNITASRIVER.............................................................................................................. 261
NAVARRORIVER ................................................................................................................. 280
NOYORIVER .......................................................................................................................... 295
PESCADEROCREEK............................................................................................................. 311
PINEGULCHCREEK ............................................................................................................ 334
PUDDINGCREEK ................................................................................................................. 343
REDWOODCREEK ............................................................................................................... 356

March 2010
RUSSIANRIVER.................................................................................................................... 373
SALMONCREEK ................................................................................................................... 401
SANGREGORIOCREEK ..................................................................................................... 414
SANLORENZORIVER ........................................................................................................ 434
SANVICENTECREEK.......................................................................................................... 462
SCOTTCREEK........................................................................................................................ 478
SOQUELCREEK..................................................................................................................... 502
TENMILERIVER................................................................................................................... 524
USALCREEK........................................................................................................................... 537
WADDELLCREEK................................................................................................................. 548
WAGESCREEK....................................................................................................................... 561
WALKERCREEK .................................................................................................................... 571
CHAPTER11:MONITORING ............................................................................................ 584

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 584
MonitoringCCCCohoSalmonESUVSPStatusandTrends ......................................... 585
VSPAdultSpawnerAbundance................................................................................ 585
VSPProductivity.......................................................................................................... 587
VSPSpatialDistribution ............................................................................................. 587
VSPDiversity .............................................................................................................. 587
MonitoringCCCCohoSalmonListingFactorsandThreats........................................... 588
DataManagementandReporting......................................................................................... 589
CostsEstimates ......................................................................................................................... 589

March 2010
CHAPTER12:IMPLEMENTATION&COSTS .............................................................. 590
IntegratingRecoveryintoNMFSActions ........................................................................... 590
WorkingwithConstituents ........................................................................................ 591
OngoingRegulatoryPractices.................................................................................... 592
ESASection4 .............................................................................................................. 595
ESASection5 .............................................................................................................. 595
ESASection6andthePCSRF..................................................................................... 595
ESASection7 .............................................................................................................. 596
ESASection9 .............................................................................................................. 599
ESASection10 .............................................................................................................. 599
FisheriesManagementandEFH................................................................................ 601
CoordinationwithotherNMFSDivisions ............................................................... 602
TimeandCostEstimates ........................................................................................................ 602
CHAPTER13:RESTORATION .......................................................................................... 604

RestoringOurWatersheds ..................................................................................................... 604
PrioritizingRestorationActions ........................................................................................... 604
RestorationPLANNING......................................................................................................... 606
RestorationPartners ................................................................................................................ 608
RestorationAssistance ............................................................................................................ 609
CHAPTER14:5YEARREVIEWSANDPOSTDELISTING........................................ 612
5YearReviewsofSpeciesStatus.......................................................................................... 612
PostDelistingMonitoring ..................................................................................................... 613
LITERATURECITED............................................................................................................. 615

March 2010
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1:ExponentialGrowthofSawmillsandHumanPopulation.7
Figure2:VisualRepresentationofExtinctionVortexofCohoSalmon .......................................... 19
Figure3:HistoricalandCurrentEstimateofCohoSalmonAbundance ........................................ 23
Figure4:AdultcohosalmonreturnstoNoyoEggCollectingStation(19652009) .................... 25
Figure5:HistoricalRangeofCCCcohosalmonandFocusPopulationsforRecovery................ 26
Figure6:Generaloverviewoflifestages(modifiedfromReeves2009). ........................................ 28
Figure7:CaliforniasFourSalmonandSteelheadRecoveryDomains........................................... 46
Figure8:HierarchicalStructureofPopulations ................................................................................. 70
Figure9:TemperatureMaskExample ................................................................................................. 73
Figure10:ViabilityandSelfRecruitment ........................................................................................... 75
Figure11:Population,DiveristyStrataandESUStructure75
Figure12:HistoricalpopulationstructureoftheCCCcohosalmonESU,arrangedbyDiversity
Strata .......................................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure13:ExampleDFGDataOutputs94
Figure 14: Current Percent Poor values for habitat and population attributes across all
populations ............................................................................................................................................. 104
Figure15:CurrentPercentPoorvaluesacrosslifestages.105
Figure 16: Current Percent Poor habitat and population attributes for CCC coho salmon
summerandwinterrearingacrossallpopulations .......................................................................... 106
LISTOFTABLES
Table1:HistoricalEstimatesofcohospawnerabundanceacrosstheCCCcohosalmonESU ... 24
Table2:Seasonalcalendarofcohosalmonpresence ......................................................................... 29
Table3:Maternalbroodyearlineage................................................................................................... 30
Table4:HabitatrequirementsforeachlifestageofCCCcohosalmon .......................................... 32
Table5:FederalRegisterNoticesanalyzedtoassessthreatsandprotectivemeasures ............... 48
Table6:ListingFactors,StatusandAssociatedRecoveryCriteriaReferences .............................. 58

March 2010
Table7:PopulationExtinctionRiskCriteria80
Table8:IndependentPopulationAdultSpawnerAbundanceTargetsforRecovery................... 83
Table9:DependentPopulationAdultSpawnerAbundanceforRecovery....84
Table10:CAPExampleWorkbookPageandLifeStageTargets..................................................... 89
Table11:ExampleCAPWorkbookTableofKeyAttributes,IndicatorsandRatings .................. 90
Table12:TargetedLifeStage,HabitatAttributesandIndicators .................................................... 91
Table13:ProposedAbundanceTargetsfortheRussianRiverandCoastalDiversityStratum 102
Table14:CAPdataanalysisresultsforcurrentconditionsacrosslifestagesandpopulations 114
Table15:CAPthreatrankresultsacrosspopulations. .................................................................... 115
Table16:CCCCohoSalmonESUFocusPopulations,SpawnerTargetsandThreats................ 116
Table1:OutlineandHierarchyofRecoveryCriteriaforCCCcohosalmonESU..122
Table2:Population,WatershedConditionandThreatCriteria...123
Table3:PopulationExtinctionRiskCriteria125
Table4:Delisting&DownlistingSpawnerAbundanceCriteriaforIndependents...126
Table21:DelistingandDownlistingSpawnerAbundanceCriteriaforDependents..128
Table22:RecoveryPlanImplementationundertheESAandMSFCMAbyNMFS ................... 594
LISTOFAPPENDICES
AppendixA MarineandClimateScenariosforCCCcohosalmon
AppendixB AFrameworkforAssessingtheViabilityofThreatenedandEndangeredSalmonandSteelheadin
NorthCentralCaliforniaCoastRecoveryDomain(Spenceetal.2008)
AppendixC NCCCRecoveryDomain,ConservationActionPlanningViabilityTableReportforCCC
CohoSalmon,DraftSeptember2009
AppendixD CCCCohoSalmonRecoveryPlanThreatsDescriptionandTaxonomy
AppendixE NMFSStrategiesDatabaseBibliography
AppendixF NMFSWatershedCharacterizations
AppendixG NMFSPRDStrategicPlan20072011
AppendixH HabitatRestorationCostReferencesforSalmonRecoveryPlanning;CohoSalmonRecoveryin
California:ASummaryofRecentEconomicEvidence
LISTOFACRONYMS

March 2010
Thefollowingisalistofselectedacronymsandabbreviationsusedthroughouttheplan.
ABAG AssociationofBayAreaGovernments
a.k.a. alsoknownas
BACI beforeaftercontrolimpact
BKD bacterialkidneydisease
BLM BureauofLandManagement
BMPs bestmanagementpractices
BOF CaliforniaBoardofForestry
CalFire CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection
Caltrans CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation
C Celsius
CAP ConservationActionPlanning
CCC CentralCaliforniaCoast
CCR CaliforniaCodeofRegulations
CDF CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection
CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
CESA CaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct
CFPA CaliforniaForestPracticesAct
CFIP CaliforniaForestImprovementProgram
cfs cubicfeetpersecond
CGS CaliforniaGeologicalSurvey
CHERT CountyofHumboldtExtractionReviewTeam
Commission CaliforniaFishandGameCommission
CPS coastalpelagicspecies
CRMP coordinatedresourcesmanagementplanning
CRT CaliforniaStatewideCohoSalmonRecoveryTeam
CV coefficientofvariation
CWA CleanWaterAct
CWT codedwiretag
DBH diameter(ofaTree)atbreastheight
DFG CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame
DOC DepartmentofConservation
DP dependentpopulation

March 2010
DPR CaliforniaDepartmentofParksandRecreation
DPS distinctpopulationsegment
DWR CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources
ECS eggcollectionstation
EEZ U.S.ExclusiveEconomicZone
EIS EnvironmentalImpactStatement
ENSO ElNio/SouthernOscillation
EPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
EQIP EnvironmentalQualityIncentivesProgram
ESA EndangeredSpeciesAct
ESU evolutionarilysignificantunit
F Fahrenheit
FEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgency
FEMAT ForestEcosystemManagementAssessment
FERC FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission
FGC CaliforniaFishandGameCode
FIP FunctionallyIndependentPopulation
FLPMA FederalLandPolicyandManagementAct
FMP FisheryManagementPlan
FPA ForestPracticeAct
FPR ForestPracticeRules
FRGP FisheriesRestorationGrantProgram
GIS geographicinformationsystem
GRTS generalizedrandomtessellationsampling
HCD HabitatConservationDivision
HCP habitatconservationplan
HGMP hatcherygeneticmanagementplan
IP intrinsicpotential
IPHC InternationalPacificHalibutCommission
IPkm intrinsicpotentialperkilometer
IUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNature
JDSF JacksonDemonstrationStateForest
LWD largewoodydebris

March 2010
mg milligrams
mm millimeter
MMWD MarinMunicipalWaterDistrict
MOU memorandumofunderstanding
MRC MendocinoRedwoodCompany
MBSTP MontereyBaySalmonandTroutProject
MWAT maximumweeklyaveragetemperature
MWMT maximumweeklymaximumtemperature
OLE OfficeofLawEnforcement
NCCCDomain NorthCentralCaliforniaCoastRecoveryDomain
NCRWQCB NorthCoastRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard
NCWAP NorthCoastWatershedAssessmentProgram
NFWF NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation
NFP NationalForestPlan
NGO nongovernmentalorganization
NMFS NationalMarineFisheriesService
NOAA NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration
NPS NationalParkService
NRC NationalResearchCouncil
NRCS NaturalResourcesConservationService
NTP nonindustrialtimberplan
NTU nephelometricturbidityunit
PAH polycylcicaromatichydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinatedbiphenyl
PCSRF PacificCoastSalmonRestorationFund
PDO Pacific(inter)decadaloscillation
PFMC PacificFisheryManagementCouncil
PIP potentiallyindependentpopulation
PIT passiveintegratedtransponder
ppm partspermillion
PRD ProtectedResourcesDivision
PSMFC PacificStatesMarineFisheriesCouncil
RC RestorationCenter

March 2010
RCD ResourceConservationDistrict
R/K Rogue/Klamath
RM rivermile
ROD recordofdecision
RPA reasonableandprudentalternative
RPF registeredprofessionalforesters
RWQCB CaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard
SEC SonomaEcologyCenter
SLC StateLandsCommission
SMARA SurfaceMineandReclamationAct
SONCC SouthernOregon/NorthernCaliforniaCoasts
SPAWN SalmonProtectionandWatershedNetwork
SWRCB StateWaterResourcesControlBoard
SWFSC SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter
SYP sustainedyieldplans
T&I threatenedandimpairedwaterbody
THP timberharvestplan
TMDL totalmaximumdailyload
TNC TheNatureConservancy
TRT TechnicalReviewTeam
TU TroutUnlimited
UC UniversityofCalifornia
UCCE UniversityofCaliforniaCooperativeExtension
UPGMA unweightedpairgroupmethodwitharithmeticaverages
USACE UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers
USBR UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation
USDA UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture
USEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
USFS UnitedStatesForestService
USFWS UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService
USGS UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey
UILT upperincipientlethaltemperature
UUILT upperultimateincipientlethaltemperature

March 2010
VSP viablesalmonidpopulations
WRP WetlandsReserveProgram
WOC Washington,Oregon,andCalifornia
WSH WarmSpringsHatchery

March 2010
APPROACHTORECOVERY
&DOCUMENTSTRUCTURE
The FederalEndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) was signed intolawin1973for the purposes of conserving
species in danger of extinction. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA)
National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) is responsible for ESA implementation for listed marineand
anadromousspecies,includingtheCentralCaliforniaCoast(CCC)EvolutionarilySignificantUnit(ESU)
cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CCCcohosalmonarelistedasanendangeredspeciesandassuch,
theESArequiresNMFStodevelopandimplementarecoveryplantoensurethesurvivalandrecoveryof
thisspecies.TheplightofCCCcohosalmonissevereandunlessthecausesoftheirdeclineareaddressed
immediately,theywilllikelygoextinctinourchildrenslifetime.
Recoveryisdefinedastheprocessofrestoringlistedspeciesandtheirecosystemstothepointthatthey
no longer require the protections of the ESA. A recovery plan serves as a road map for species
recoveryit lays out where we need to go and how best to get there. Without a plan to organize,
coordinateandprioritizethemanypossiblerecoveryactionsonthepartofFederal,state,local,andtribal
agencies, local watershed councils and districts, and private citizens, our efforts may be inefficient,
ineffective,orevenmisdirected.Promptdevelopmentandimplementationofarecoveryplanwilltarget
limited resources effectively. Although recovery plans are guidance documents, not regulatory
documents, the ESA clearly envisions recovery plans as the central organizing tool for guiding each
speciesprogresstowardrecovery.
Thisrecoveryplanwasconstructedtobeconsistentwiththeconceptualapproachusedtoestablishthe
scientific biological foundations for this recovery plan developed by NMFS and other scientists (e.g.,
TechnicalRecoveryTeam)forCCCcohosalmonviability(seeMcElhanyetal.2000;Bjorkstedtetal.2005;
Spenceetal.2008).TheTechnicalRecoveryTeam(TRT)wasappointedin2000andoperatedunderthe
guidance of NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center to assist with the development of biological
criteriafortherecoveryplan.TheTRTaccountedforlifehistoryconstraints,thephysicalsettingofthe
ESU, and other aspects of coho historical population structure in establishing a viability framework.
Theirworksetsthestageforcohosalmonrecoverybyestablishingminimumpopulationviabilitytargets,
as well as the conceptual approach regarding overall ecosystem processes to support these minimum
populations.
The TRT framework recommends that recovery planners evaluate the full context of the historical and
current population structure. Their framework also recommends implementation of strategies that
restoretheratesofwatershedprocessestowardstheirhistoricalrangeofvalues.Thepremise:increasing
divergence from the historical conditions under which the species evolved substantially increases the
uncertaintyregardingtheabilityoftheESUtopersistoverlongtimescales(Bjorkstedtetal.2005).
CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 1 Public Review

March 2010

NMFS recovery planners recognize that restoring all conditions under which CCC coho salmon have
evolved,persisted,andthrivedfortensofthousandsofyearsacrosstheirhistoricalrangeisunlikely.The
challenge then is to establish a balance of providing for conditions that allow the species to thrive in a
changing environment. The most immediate goal is to implement restoration, planning and policy
actionsintimetopreventextinctionofCCCcohosalmon.
Therecoveryplanisstructuredtoprovidethereaderwith(1)anoverviewofCCCcohosalmon,Federal
Endangered Species Act mandates and the listing factors/protective efforts identified in the Federal
Register, (2) methods of analysis for populations, assessing current conditions and establishing threats
and (3) the overall recovery strategy to include ESU, Diversity Strata and Population (e.g., watershed)
prioritiesforrecoveryactions.
Webelieve,ifthestrategiesinthisplanareimplementedwithinrecommendedtimescales,cohosalmon
can survive and will eventually recover. It is our fervent hope that through good stewardship, our
childrenandtheirchildrenwillenjoythebenefitsofexperiencingabundantandhealthypopulationsof
cohosalmon.

March 2010
PROLOGUE
Dan Jansen looked down from a bluff the water was like glassthe [coho] salmon
were in rowsthey lay there stillevery now and then one would wiggle its tail to keep his
place in line. They lay there by the thousands as far as the eye could see
Thanksgiving on the Garcia River 1930s (Levene 1976)
LET THE FISH TELL THE STORY
N earlyeveryonehasafishstorytotell.Someofthemincludetalesofatimewhensalmon
andsteelheadspawningrunsweresothickthatapersoncouldwalkacrossthestreamontheir
backsorwhenthebigonegotaway.Thesetalesremindusofatimewhencohosalmon
were so abundant and so prolific across all the coastal streams between Mendocino and Santa Cruz
countiestheywerebelievedinexhaustible.TodayCCCcohosalmonexistinsuchlownumbersthere
arenolongerfishstoriestotell.Theonesthataretoldchronicleaspeciesdemise.
Photo Courtesy: Kelley House Museum, Fort Bragg, California, 1920s

March 2010
CCC coho salmon populations persisted for thousands of years in staggering abundance. Now gone
frommoststreams,theirprecipitousdeclineisintimatelytiedtothehumanstoryoftheregionandthe
expanding human configured landscape and harvest pressure of the last 200 years. While the fate of
salmonwilldependonus,humanshavedependedonsalmonforhundredsofyears.Withtheparadigm
that salmon were inexhaustible there were little controls on harvest and channel/riparian modificatins.
Nowcommercialfishingboatslieidleatthedocks,sportsfishermentravelnorthtofish,ouryoungdont
fishwithgrandpaandthesocialsafetynetthathaspreservedthisiconicspeciesintheheartsandminds
ofCaliforniaisunraveling.Today,whenafewdozenwildcohoarriveeachwintertospawninMarins
LagunitasCreekorMendocinosPuddingCreek,itisreasontocelebrate,andtogrieve.Thesefewfish
representthestrugglingremnantsofaonceabundantspeciesandathreadbackintime,notsoverylong
ago,whenourcreekswereclean,cool,andflowedunimpairedfromtheirheadwaterstothesea.
CCCcohosalmonarenearlyextinctandsomearguethatnothingcanbedonetosavethem;wedisagree.
Itisdifficulttobreakoldconceptsandtothinkalong
newlines.Butwhentheevidencepointsstronglyin
favorofachangeofthought,thenitisfairand
necessarytodoso

ShapovalovandTaft1954

Thedogmasofthequietpastareinadequatetothe
stormypresent.Theoccasionispiledhighwith
difficulty,andwemustrisewiththeoccasion.Asour
caseisnew,sowemustthinkanew,andactanew.
AbrahamLincoln,MessagetoCongress,December1,1862

March 2010
ThousandsasFarastheEyeCouldSee
Within the living memories

of Californias elders are
visions of coho salmon in
staggeringabundance.Itwas
late November in the 1930s
when Dan Jansen looked
down from a bluff above the
Garcia River in Mendocino
County. He said the water
waslikeglass,hecouldsee
huge numbers of salmon
linedupinrowsand(n)ota
move out of them. Every
once in awhile one would
wiggle his tail to keep his
Photo Courtesy:Kelley House, Sheppard Album, Post Cards, Noyo River
placeinline.Theylaythere
(1920)
by the thousands as far as
myeyecouldsee(Leveneetal.,1976).Thesewereadultsreturningfromtheoceantotheirnatalriver,
theGarcia,topreparefortheirupstreammigrationtospawnanddie.Otherriversarerememberedfor
theirsizeofcohosalmonrunssuchastheNavarro,theNoyo,theBig,theRussian,andtheSanLorenzo.
These runs were once a mainstay of Californias sport and commercial fisheries (Moyle et al., 2008).
This species, which had survived millennia of predators, droughts, fluctuating ocean conditions, and
other natural hazards, was consideredinexhaustible just fifty yearsago(Janssen2008). But it would
barely survive the 20th century. By 1991 another lifelong resident of the Garcia River, Lando Franci,
reportedthatthe(c)ohoaregone(Monschkeetal.,1992).
Cool,Moist,andCoastal
ThedistributionofCCCcohosalmonatthetimeofEuropeansettlementincludedmostcoastalstreams
from the Santa Cruz County portion of the Pajaro River north to Usal Creek in Mendocino County.
Watersheds draining into San Francisco Bay with similar conditions (e.g. ample cool water and conifer
forests), also supported them. The first scientific specimens of CCC coho salmon in California were
collectedfromaSanFranciscoBaystream,SanMateoCreekinSanMateoCounty,byAlexanderAgassiz
in1860.HistoricalpresenceofcohoisconfirmedforCorteMaderaCreekandArroyoCorteMaderadel
Presidio in Marin County. Less definitive evidence suggests coho presence in streams further east to
includetheNapaRiver,WalnutCreek,SanLeandroCreek,CoyoteCreek,andtheGuadalupeRiver.A
longtime Berkeley resident reported in 1939 that Strawberry Creek, the one which runs through the
University of California Campus . . . [once] supported a run of silver salmon (Leidy 2007). This
observation is supported by archeological evidence predating Spanish settlement (Gobalet et al., 2004).
WhileuptoaquarterofBaywatershedsmayhavesupportedcoho,conditionsmaynothavebeenideal.
The persistence of coho in the Bay probably depended on immigration from coastal populations
(Bjorkstedtetal.,2005).Drierandhotterinlandareasprobablysawthemintermittently,withcohoruns
possiblynotsurvivingdroughtyears.IntheRussianRiver,inSonomaandMendocinoCounties,there
wasasimilarpattern;cohowereabundantinthelowerwatershed,inthecoolfogbeltneartheocean.Its
middlesection,which,historicallyexperienceddryreachesinthesummer(Leveneetal.,1976),doesnot

March 2010
appeartohavehadcoho.IntheupperRussianRiver,
where it was wetter and cooler, occasional migrants
werelikelypresentforshortperiodsoftime.Butin
thelongrunitwastoowarmordrytoallowcohoto
complete their life cycles (Bjorkstedt et al., 2005). A
similar situation existed along the coast south of the
PajaroRiver,wherethepresenceofcohotoatleastthe
Big Sur River (Monterey County) has been
hypothesized, but not documented (Anderson 1995).
Recentlyuncoveredarcheologicalevidenceconfirmed
coho at least as far south as Elkhorn Slough in
Monterey County (Gobalet 2008). Evidence suggests
thattheCCCcohopopulationwaslikelyconcentrated
nearthecoastwherehabitatconditionswereideal.At
the edges and interiors of their range, coho were
probably found occasionally, and likely disappeared
asconditionsbecametoowarmanddry.
Photo Courtesy: Juvenile coho salmon,

EnEspecialSalmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, collected in San Mateo
Creek, a tributary of San Francisco Bay, in 1860.
Salmon, because they represented a significant
Image provided by the Harvard Museum of
seasonal food source, have always attracted humans. Comparative Zoology. Specimen 68471.
This was reflected in the placement of many native
villages, and held true when the Spanish began to arrive in California in the late 18th century. Place
names like Pescadero (fishing place) illustrate the importance of fish as a food source. At the Carmel
Mission, Father Serra had a lagoon created . . . and they diverted the Rio Carmelo and raised
salmon/steelheadinit(Lydon2008).Decadeslater,duringthefoundingofthelastCaliforniamission,
FatherAltimirarecordedtheobservationofanativeguide,whotoldhimthatSonomaCreekhadplenty
of fish, en especial salmon (Altimira 1823). While Spanish and Mexican settlers caught, ate and even
raised salmon, it seems unlikely they had much effect on coho salmon populations. The number of
settlerswassmall,thefishabundant,andtheirhabitatsrelativelyunimpaired.
AChangingLandscape
AstheMissioneradrewtoacloseinthe
1830s, ownership of land shifted from
thechurchtoprivateindividuals.Land
grantsofthousandsofacresweregiven
out. The mature forests and ample
water that coho salmon require
attracted the attention of the new
landowners, and the relationship
between people and salmon began to
change. The population of American
settlers in Mexican California was
slowly increasing, and so was the
Photo Courtesy: Early logging operation, Sonoma County c.
1880. Sonoma County Museum Collection

March 2010
demandforlumber.Fromtheearliestmissiondays,redwoodsandothertreeshadbeencutandmilled
byhand.Twomenworkingasawpitcouldproduceabout100boardfeetoflumberaday(Carrancoand
Labbe1975).Itcouldtakeayearormoretoreduceamediumsizedredwoodtoboards.Severalcoho
streams stillbearSpanishnames which point to early timber harvestingin these watersheds,including
CorteMaderaCreek,andArroyoCorteMaderadelPresidio.ACorteMaderaisaplacetocutlumber.

Californias first waterpowered sawmill was built in 1834 on a coho streamMark West Creek, a
tributaryoftheRussianRiver.Itcouldprocessabout500boardfeetaday(CarrancoandLabbe1975).A
flood washed the mill away before the decade was out, but others were soon in operation. General
VallejobuiltamillonSonomaValleysAsbury
POPULATION GROWTH, SAN FRANCISCO & SANTA CRUZ COUNTIES Creekin1839(Dawson1998).TheSantaCruz
1850 - 1870
160000
area developed its first mill in 1841, with
140000 anotherbuiltin1845.By1857,therewereten
120000
sawmills in the county and by 1864 the
POPULATION
San Francisco
100000
80000
number had increased to twentyeight. This
60000 exponential growth of sawmills was not
40000
driven by local need, but paralleled the
20000
Santa Cruz
0
exponential population growth associated
1840 1845 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870
YEAR
with the Gold Rush and developing San
Francisco(Figure1).SantaCruzbecameone
SAWMILLS, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: 1841 - 1864 ofthemajorsuppliersforthebuildersofSan
32
28
Francisco (Lehmann 2000). North of the
24
Golden Gate, mills appeared along the
# OF SAWMILLS
20 Sonomacoastinthe1840s,andby1852onthe
16
BigRiverinMendocinoCounty(Downieetal.,
12
2006). Again, demand from San Francisco
8
drove these mill operations; Mendocino
4
0
Countys population was so small that its
1840 1845 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870
YEAR
affairs were administered by Sonoma County
until1859.
Figure1:Exponentialgrowthofsawmillsandhuman
population
Cohohabitatwasatthecenterofthisloggingboom.Manycohostreamswerenamedaftertheirmillsor
mill owners: Mill Creek in Marin County; Mark West in Sonoma County; and Waddell in Santa Cruz.
UsalCreekinMendocino,issaidtobenamedfortheinitialsoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaLumber
Company.Likewise,DuncansMillgaveitsnametothesmalltownontheRussianRiverwhereitonce
stood. How did this first wave of logging affect the coho? On Mendocinos Big River, and probably
elsewhere,earlyloggingwasdonenexttotheriver,sothatthelogscouldbefloateddownstreamtothe
mill(Downieetal.,2006).Astreesshadingthepoolswherecohorearedduringsummerwerecut,water
temperatures increased, making the habitat less suitable. Debris in the water created barriers for coho
migrationtoandfromthesea.SouthoftheGoldenGate,streamsdidnothavethevolumeofwaterto
carry logs, so they had to be skidded down using oxen, or processed where they fell. The best the
lumbermen could do was fell the redwoods . . . and split them on site, carrying the posts, pickets, or
shakesout...onmulesorwagons.Cohospawningbedsandrearingpoolsweredirectlyandindirectly

March 2010
altered, as roads were laid out in stream bottoms or drainage swales, and no attempts were made to
control the resulting erosion. Gullies from these early operations are still visible Landslides and
slumpswereoftenprecipitatedbytheseloggingpracticesManyoftodaysmappedlandslidedeposits
probablydatefromthisperiod(CountyofSantaCruz1976).
AhostofproductswereproducedfromforestsofCaliforniascentralcoastlumber,shingles,fencing,as
well as tan oak bark for tanning leather, a major industry at the time. Redwood was, the best wood
known for railroad ties . . . Sonoma and Mendocino Counties provided ties for the Central Pacific
Railroad [the first transcontinental railway]. Every eastern train that crosses the Sierra rolls over the
product of the forests of Sonoma . . . ties from this county synchronized to maximize the flow. To
avoidjams,menclearedthechannelsinthedriermonthsofallobstructionsanddebris.Logdriveshad
severe consequences for coho salmon: they flushed away gravel spawning beds; deposited huge
amountsoffinesedimentintheestuary;destroyedrearingpoolsbyerodingstreambeds,insomecasesto
bedrock;andcreatedjamswhichmayhaveactedasmigrationbarriers.Splashdammingcontinuedinto
theearly1930sandmorethan70yearslater,thedevastatingeffectsoftheselogdrivesarestillapparent.
TheBigRiverwatershedwasrecentlydescribedasbeingbeatuptheworstofanyriveronthecentral
coast,duetothispractice(Downieetal.,2006).SplashdamswerealsousedontheGarciaandNavarro
RiversandperhapsotherpartsoftheMendocinoCoast.
AMovingMassofTurgidFilth
By twentieth century standards, the pace of early logging was modest. About a thousand acres a year
werebeingharvestedinSonomaCountyduringthe1870s(Thompson1877),aratethatmayhavebeen
nearly sustainable for both trees and salmon. However, downstream the operations of the mills
themselvescausedotherproblems.Sawmillsproducedtremendousquantitiesofsawdust.Acommon
practiceinthe19thcenturywastodumpthewasteintothesamestreamthatpoweredthemill.Asearly
as1867,theSantaCruzSentinelreportedthat,thesawmillsonthePescaderohave...injuredthefishing,
fromthesawdustrunningdownthecreek.Fouryearslater,anarticleinthesamenewspaperdescribed
howtheimpactofsawmillsontroutfishingwasalwaysamatterofcontentioninthecommunitiesalong
thestreamsflowingoutoftheredwoodcoveredcanyonsoftheSantaCruzMountains.Foryearsithad
beenthepracticeoflumbercompaniestoremovesawdustfromthevariousmillsbysluicingitintothe
runningstreams.Thissystemhadbecomeuniversal...untilourpurelimpidstreamswerediscolored,
andthewaterbecame,insomeinstances,asblackastar,amovingmassofturgidfilth(Sentinel1871).
Theproblemwasnotlimitedtosawmills.Creekswereseenashandydisposalsystems.InSantaCruz,
BauschBeerGardenslostbusinessondaysanearbywinerydumpedpungenttailingsinthecreekand
the[SanLorenzo]riverranredwhenKronstanneryemptiedatanbarkvat(Gibson1994).Someofthe
earliest environmental protection laws in California were passed during this era. In Santa Cruz local
lawscurbedmilldumpingofsawdust.NorthoftheGoldenGate,theBigRiverMill,nearthetownof
Mendocino,wastemporarilyshutdownin1889toinstigateanewsawdustdisposalsystemrequiredby
the County Fish Commissioner (Downie et al., 2006), and the following year, the Point Arena Record
reported the mill at Gualala was constructing a large furnace . . . to burn their sawdust instead of
dumpingitintotheriver(MendocinoBeacon1890).

Creeks were also used for other purposes besides log transport and waste disposal. In 1873 it was
reportedthateverydairymanalongthemanystreamswhichdrainthewesternslopeoftheSantaCruz

March 2010
range,waspreparingtotapthesecreeksforirrigationanddomesticuse.Theseincludedwaterwayslike
SanVicenteCreek(wherecohoarestillfound),andmoststreamsalongthecoastsouthofWaddells
creek,tothePajaro.Waterwhichflowedintotheoceanratherthanputtohumanuseswasconsidered
wastewater(Sentinel1873).
Hooks,Nets,Pitchforks,andDynamite
Itwasonlyafewyearsbeforetheseimpactsbegantohaveanoticeableeffectonthenumbersoftroutand
salmon. In 1878, A.J.
LaMotte, who arrived in
Sonoma Valley in the early
1860s, lamented, (s)ome
yearsbackgreatnumbersof
trout could be taken, butas
fishermen increased, the
fish rapidly decreased in
number (MunroFraser
1880). The same story was
trueinatleastonetributary
oftheRussianRiver.Inthe
1870s the local newspaper
reported that Santa Rosa
Creek, once a splendid
streamfortrouthadgotten
so bad that now no one
thinks of trying to fish there (The
Photo Courtesy: Kelley House, Post Cards, Noyo River 1930s
SonomaDemocrat 1876). Besides
steelhead, Santa Rosa Creek also supported coho (MerrittSmith
Consulting 1996). In addition to sport fishing, coho were being
commercially harvested in at least a few places during the 1860s, Salmon Spear, Kelley
including Pescadero and San Gregorio Creeks, Santa Cruz County House Museum
(Gobaletetal.,2004).Twodecadeslater,over183,000poundsofsalmon
werecannednearDuncansMillsontheRussianRiverin1888.Thesize
of the fish, 820 pounds,makes itappear that many were cohosalmon.
Coincidentally or not, declining numbers of salmon were first noted in
the Russian River that same year (Steiner Environmental Consulting
1996).
It is impossible to know exactly how much effect commercial and

recreationalfishingbyitselfhadonsalmonpopulationsinthatera.The
popularityoffishingisevidencedbythisaccount:(w)hentherailroad
reached Santa Cruz in 1876, it was the river as much as the beach that
drew tourists. Santa Cruz promoted itself as a sportsmens paradise,
withmosthotelsonlytwoblocksfromtheriver.Hotelsanddowntown
campgrounds saw a business boom each year at the start of fishing
season(Gibson1994).

March 2010
Therewerenolimitsorfishingregulationsinthosedays.Fishwerecaughtwithhooks,nets,pitchforks,
fish wheels, even dynamite: In the San Lorenzo River, railroad workers . . . while building the South
PacificCoastRailroadinthelate1870s,oftenusedexplosivestofish.(Lydon2008).Thoughnolonger
legal, the same technique was used by at least one individual in Sonoma Valley as late as the 1930s
(Dawson1998).Mosthistoricalsourceslumpseveralspeciesunderthetermsalmon,soonecanonly
guessatwhatimpact19thcenturyfishinghadonthecohopopulation.Hardtocatchwithhookandline
(Janssen2008),spawningrunswouldhavebeenvulnerabletonets,pitchforks,fishwheels,anddynamite.
Cohos life cycle makes them especially sensitive to human impact, suggesting that their population
followed the general decline of California salmon and trout recorded during the mid19th century,
perhaps more steeply than other
species.
Decliningnumbersofsalmonand
trout prompted action. As
mentioned,thedumpingofwaste
intostreamswasprohibited.The
California Fish Commission was
created in the 1870s, and
established early fishing
regulations. The states first fish
hatchery was built on a tributary
of the Sacramento in 1872.
Hatcheriessoonproliferated,built
with both public and private
Photo Courtesy: Fishing Fleet at Noyo, Mendocino County,
funding (including railroads California, circa 1930. H. H. Wonacott, photographer. Collection
hoping to attract tourists). While of the Mendocino County Museum
early hatcheries raised steelhead
andChinook,propagationofcohodatesbacktoatleastthe1890s(DFG2002).Beginningaround1906,
theSanLorenzoRiverwasstockedwithcohoandsteelhead(BeckerandReining2007).Itwascommon
practice in those days to plant fry (fish a few months old or less), which have a much lower rate of
survivalthanlarger,yearoldsmolts.HatcheriesalsousedeggsfromwatershedsasfarawayasOregon
andWashington,sotheyoungfishwerenotgeneticallyadaptedto
the waters into which they were released (Bjorkstedt et al., 2005).
Over100,000frywereplantedinWaddellCreekbetween1913and
1933. Scott Creek was also heavily stocked during this time
(Anderson 1995). However, in general, coho planting was
infrequentbefore1929(Bjorkstedtetal.,2005).Formanyreasons,
plantinghatcheryfishprobablyhadlittletonoeffectonwildcoho
beforethemidtwentiethcentury.

BalesofSmokedCoho
Initially, the center of Californias salmon industry was the
Sacramento River, with its abundant runs of Chinook salmon. As
thatfisherydeclined,commercialtrollersbeganharvestingsalmon

March 2010
offshore. By 1904, some 175 sailpowered fishing boats were operating out of Monterey Bay (Lufkin
1991). Coho that had survived more than a year in freshwater and migration out to sea, faced a new
challenge.Humanactivitywasnowaffectingcohoateverylifestage.InMendocinoCounty,commercial
fishingbegannearFortBragg,ontheNoyoRiverinthe1890swithafewmenusingdoriesorrowboats
ontheriver,whonettedorseinedsilversalmoninthewinter(Stebbins1986).ElmerWalker,whowas
bornontheGarciaRiverin1889,recalledhowhisfathersentfishtoSanFrancisco:
Theyhadwhattheycalledacard.[It]hadtimbersthatwouldfloat,withslotsintheresothatthe
fish couldnt get out. But theyd put them right in there and keep them alive . . . everything was
shipped by boat at that time. They towed the cards. From where it was located it wasnt too far
downtothemouthoftheriver...andthentheyhadadipnetthattheydippedthemoutwithwhen
they got ready to ship them. They were shipped in wooden crates and nailed up and sent to San
Francisco.Theyknockedeminthehead.Salmonandsteelhead:therewasnodesignationasfaras
marketablefish

RoyBishop,whoalsogrewupontheGarciaRiver,rememberedseeingbalesofsmokedcohothathis
grandfathersold.Thiswasaround1925(Leveneetal.,1976).
By the 1920s, Californias salmon and steelhead streams had earned worldwide acclaim, and the
economicvalueofthesportfisheryexceededcommercialfishingbytwotoone(Lufkin1991).Special
trains brought anglers from the Bay Area to fish for adult coho in Lagunitas Creek (Brown and Moyle
1991).Byoneaccount,theSanLorenzoRiverbecamethenumber1fishingriverinnorthernCalifornia,
andremainedsoforhalfacentury.Atthesametime,theadventoftheautomobilegrantedfishermen
readyaccesstoonceremotestreams.Soonafter,theGreatDepressionsawaresurgenceofsubsistence
fishingaspeoplefellonhardtimes.VernonPiverrecalled:
Times were really tough. My mother told me, to this day, she dont have a taste for smoked
salmon, because they netted fish on the Garcia River and my grandfather smoked salmon and
soldthemforrevenue,topickupafewnickelsanddimes.Oneoftheirmainstapleswasthat
smoked fish (Russell and Levene
1991).
Whilediminishedtosomedegreefrom
their numbers a century before, CCC
cohosalmoncontinuedtooccupymost
oftheiroriginalrange.Tosomeextent
the land was recovering from the 19th
centurylogging.By1942,theBigRiver
basin, whose channels had been so
badlybeatenupbytheuseofsplash
dams,hadsomeofthefinestredwood
secondgrowthinthestate(Downieet
al., 2006). World War II may have
granted coho a temporary reprieve
Coho salmon. Mouth of Garcia, Oct. 1932. This is what we from fishing and planting, because
caught. Sheppard Album, Kelley House Museum, Mendocino, industryfocusedonbuildingweapons
California
to fight the war. But ultimately, the

March 2010
warhadrepercussionsthatreachedtotheheartofthecohosdomain.
FromWarTankstoBulldozers:BuildingAMoonscape
In the late 1940s, the technologies of World War II . . . spun off the highly mobile trackdriven
bulldozer, which delivered the large trees of the central coast for conversion to twobyfours for a
nationalbuildingboomdrivenbytheaffluenceofthereturningsoldiers(House1998).Inessence,the
industrialcapacityusedtobuildtankswasretooledintobuildingbulldozers.Transientgypsyloggers
and sawmillers invaded the region with Gold Rush zeal(Lufkin 1991). The combination of heavy
equipment and the way it was used caused significant erosion and sediment delivery to streams. The
equipmentssizerequiredtheuseofwideskidroads.Waterbreakstocurberosionwererarelyinstalled.
To brake going downhill, tractor drivers scraped the ground with their blades. The construction of
loggingroadsonunstablegroundwascommonpractice.Evenworse,a1962FishandGamesurveyof
the Garcia River noted that numerous roads were constructed in the stream channels, themselves,
oftentimesmovingthestreamoutofitsnaturalchannel(Monschkeetal.,1992).Treeswereharvested
practicallytothebottomofsmallgullies(Downieetal.,2006).Individuallayoutswerecreated,upto
300feetlongand20feetwide,topreventfallingtreesfromshatteringonimpact.Bytheendof1956it
wasestimatedover1000milesofCaliforniastreamshadbeendamaged.The1962surveyoftheGarcia
found more than 85 percent, of the channels had suffered some damage, and more than a third was
severelydamaged(measuredbylength).Apersonwhosawitfromtheairinthelate1960sdescribed
the upper Garcia as a moonscape. Blueline creeks were skid roads (Monschke et al., 1992). The
intensityofthetimberharvestwassummedupbyaresidentoftheButano/Pescaderowatershed:They
built a road to every tree they cut down (Environmental Science Associates, Pacific Watershed
Associatesetal.,2004).Bythe1970s,morethan80percentofthevirginforestshadbeencut,milled,and
shipped,inmostwatershedsalongthecentralcoast(Lufkin1991).

Even in an average year, such conditions caused serious problems for coho: These hills are prone to
erosioninthefirstplace,soifyoubuildroadsandtakeoutthetrees,itsgoingtocausesedimentation
(CraigBellquotedin(Monschkeetal.,1992).Inanunfortunatecoincidence,twooftheregionsbiggest
floodsonrecordhappenedin1955and1964.SeveralresidentsoftheButanoCreekbasinreportedthat
thecauseofthefirstdamagingfloodinthewatershed...wasduetologgingundertakenbytheSanta
CruzLumberCompany...beginningin1955.Troutfishermensawfishingdeclinerapidly:(t)hecreek
siltedupsobad...thatthepoolatthebottomoftheFallswascompletelysiltedin.Aresidentwho
flew over the area at the time reported hundreds and possibly thousands of landslides in the upper
Butano (Environmental Science Associates, Pacific Watershed Associates et al., 2004). Silt from
landslidescloggedspawninggravelandfilledrearingpools,andlandslidesthemselvesdirectlyblocked
streams,creatingmigrationbarriersforcoho.
Attemptsatfloodcontrolweremadeinresponsetotheseevents.OnthelowerSanLorenzoRiverinthe
CityofSantaCruz,allriversideforestswerestrippedandtheriverwasstraightenedbytheArmyCorps
ofEngineers,whichalsobuiltfloodcontrollevees.Thesetransformedtheriverfromatreelinedand
very scenic part of town, to a sterile drainage ditch. The siltation of the channel and the lack of deep
water pools of water, coupled with low summer flows and a lack of shade . . . decimated fish
populations. Where before, trout and salmon had been routinely caught in the city, now the river
wasbarrenofmostwildlife,andthefishpopulationsdeclined(McMahon1997).

March 2010
TheBabyBoom
The postwar building boom increased the demand for other building materials besides lumber. In the
earlypartofthetwentiethcentury,gravelminingwasdonebyhandinlocalstreams.EldersinSonoma
Valleyrememberpeopledrivingsmalltrucksdowntothecreek.Anumberthreescoop[shovel]anda
strongback,thatwashowyoudidit(Dawson2002).Localgravelwenttoconstructnearbybuildings,
bridges,androads.TheGarciaRiversawitsfirstcommercialgraveloperationinthe1930s(Monschke,et
al.,1992),butitwasnotuntilafterthewarthatsuchoperationsincreasedtothepointwheretheywere
makingasignificantimpacttoriversandstreams(Dawson2002).

Population growth was the engine that drove the postwar boom. The number of people living in the
RussianRiverbasinincreased400percentinthesecondhalfof
the 20th century. More people brought a corresponding
increase in demand for water. Dams of every size were
constructed on coho streams throughout the region. Two
largedamswerebuiltontheRussianRiver;CoyoteDamwas
completed in 1959, and Warm Springs Dam in 1982. While
these dams pose a barrier to other salmonids this was
probably not significant for coho, which never spawned in
large numbers in the middle or upper Russian. Downstream,
however, these dams altered the dynamics of the river,
reducing peak flows, prolonging high winter flows, reducing
replenishment of spawning gravel, and increasing summer
flows to 15 to 20 times above historical levels (Steiner
Environmental Consulting 1996). This last effect may be the
most significant. During the warm months, coho rely on the
cooler water at the bottom of deep pools. Higher summer Photo Courtesy: Hal Janssen with two
flows raise the temperature of this cooler layer by mixing it coho salmon caught in the San Lorenzo
with warmer surface waters. Mediumsized dams were built River, 1964. Alameda Creek Alliance
in smaller coho watersheds, such as Lagunitas and Nicasio
CreeksinMarinCounty.Nevertheless,thesmalldamsmayhavehadthegreatestcumulativeeffect.Five
hundred small dams were counted on tributaries of the Russian River in 1996 (Steiner Environmental
Consulting1996).BesidesactingasmigrationbarriersonthelowerRussianscohostreams,thesedams
alsoreducespawninggravelandsummerwatersupplydownstream.

AnAmazingTimetoLive
Asthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyprogressed,cohofacedeverincreasingpressuresatevery
stageoftheirlifehistory:theywerecutofffrommuchoftheirprimehabitat,theylaidtheireggsin
cloggedspawningbeds,theyhadlostcoolsummerrefugesatthebottomofdeeppools,andtheyfaced
increasingcommercialfishingatsea.Itisreallynosurprisetheirnumbersdeclined;however,itdidnot
happenallatonce.Duringthe1960sand1970s,commercialandsportfishermenwerestillseeingand
catchingthem.Inplaces,cohowerestillabundant.

March 2010
HalJanssen,whogrewuponAlamedaCreekonSan
FranciscoBayinthe1950s,hasspentalifetimeonthecentral
coast,fishing300daysayear...forthirtyfive,forty
years.Halcalledthefiftiesanamazingtimetolive.
Speakingofcoho,herecalls,Wewouldhavehugeschools
andschoolsoftheminCaliforniainthefiftiesandsixtiesin
theSanLorenzoRiverandPescadero.Asfishingdeclined
ontheSanLorenzointheearly1960s,hemovednorth,to
theRussianandthenupintoMendocino.OneSeptembera
friendcalledhimupandsaid,CometotheGarcia;you
Photo Courtesy: Central California Coast cantbelieveit.Itsloadedwithsilvers(coho);theyre
Coho. Hal Janssen collection. jumpingeverywhere!Sureenough,whenhearrivedonthe
Garcia,cohosalmonwereeverywhere.Speakingofthe
Navarro,hesaid,(t)hetidewaterusedtobeabsolutelypackedwithsalmon.Packed!Youdgodown
thereinSeptember,itwasmorepackedthantheGarciawas.HealsomentionedtheBigRiverandTen
MileRiver.
Beingoutsomuchofthetime,Halwitnessedfirsthandthedeclineofcohoandothersalmonids.Ofthe
Navarro, he said, Now there is none! Theyre gone! He attributes the decline to a number of things,
including:poachers,whotakeadvantageofthelackofgamewardensinthefield;thefloodof1955,and
predationbymarinemammals(Janssen2008).
Computers,AccidentalAnglersandMillionsofFry
Cohonumbersareestimatedtohaveplummetedstatewidefromasmanyas500,000inthe1940s,toas
few as 13,000 by 2002 (DFG 2002) (CCC coho would have represented a fraction of this number).
Moreover, while most coho in the 1940s were native to their streams, as few as 500 purely native fish
remained. The gene pool of the rest has been diluted by outofbasin plantings. A troubling
developmentisthedisappearanceofcohofrommanypartsoftheirrange,thegeneralpatternbeingfrom
southtonorth.InSantaCruzCounty,thePajaroRiverandSoquelCreeklosttheirnativerunsaround
1968,followedbyAptosCreekin1973.In1957,theSanLorenzoRiverwascalledthemostimportant
steelheadandsalmonfisherysouthoftheBayarea(BeckerandReining2007).Justtwentysevenyears
later,itscohorunwasgone.ManySanMateoCountystreamslosttheirrunsinthelate1970sandearly
1980s, due to the drought of 1976 1977 coupled with land and water development. By 1995, only
Waddell and Scott Creeks were believed to maintain sustained natural runs of coho south of San
Francisco(Anderson1995).
Urbanization is a prominent factorin the decline of coho, particularly in San Francisco Bay. Aslate as
1965,runsofcohosalmonwerereportedinMarinsCorteMaderaCreek.Thefollowingyear,California
FishandGamereportedthatcohointheNapaRiver(NapaCounty)hadbeeneliminated.Cohoand
othersalmonidsbecamerareintheWalnutCreekwatershedinthelate1960s,andwerelastreportedin
the south Bays Guadalupe River (Santa Clara County) in the 1970s (Leidy 2007). Similar urban
pressures were occurring in the San Lorenzo River watershed. The growth of Silicon Valley fueled a
sharpriseindevelopmentintheupperwatershedthatpeakedinthe1970s(CountyofSantaCruz2001).
Onelikelyeffectofallthisbuildingboomwasahugeincreaseinsiltationfirstnotedinthe1960s(Becker

March 2010
and Reining 2007). Unlike logging impacts, where the impacts from past practices are slowly healing
overtime,theimpactofurbanizationisprofoundandpermanent.Ofall78watershedsthathistorically
hadacohopopulation,allofthosewithsignificantamountsofurbandevelopment,havelosttheircoho
runsaveone,LagunitasCreek 1.
InLagunitasCreek,the2007/2008cohorunwasprobablythesmallestrunobservedsinceannualsurveys
beganin1995.Therewasa70percentdeclineinthenumberofredds(gravelnestswhereeggsarelaid)
comparedtheparentgeneration,whichhatchedthreeyearsearlier.Similarorgreaterdeclineswereseen
inothercoastalwatershedsinMarin.Thisisconsistentwitha73percentdeclineincountsforreturning
CCCcohothroughouttheirrange.Thedeclinehasbeenattributedtoreducedpopulationsandinfluences
of poor ocean conditions and food supply when these coho migrated to the ocean as smolts in 2006
(Ettlinger,Childressetal.,2008).Remarkably,asbadasthe2007/2008spawningrunwasthe2008/2009
spawningrunwasworse,withonly40fishreturningfromtheocean.

OntheRussianRiver,thenumberofcohosmoltsenteringtotheoceanisestimatedtohavedeclined85
percentinjustthesixteenyearsbetween1975and1991.Bythewinterof2007/2008,JoePecharich,acoho
researcherwhoworkedattheWarmSpringsDamFishHatcheryandnowworksforNMFS,said,we
knowofonlytwocohothatcameback.Theyearbeforethatweknowofonlytwo.Theyearbeforethat
werefive.Andinthecurrentwinterof2008/2009,theonlyknowncohofemaletoreturnwascaught
and,inadvertently,killedbyanangler(Norberg2009).

AlongtheMendocinocoast,thepatternwasmorevaried,insomecasesbeingtheoppositeofthatseenin
the southern portion of the species coastal range. On the Big River, which had seen intensive logging,
onlytwocohowerereportedin1955.Yetby1978itscohorunwasestimatedat2000.Stockingofcoho
begantherein1956,andahatcherywasbuiltintheearly1960s(Stebbins1986).Ahalfmillioneggsand
fry were planted in the Big River between 1956 and 1978 (Downie et al., 2006). As with past stocking
effortsusingfry,theeffectivenessoftheplantswasprobablyminimal.Currentrunsizeisunknown,but
juvenileshavebeenconsistentlyfoundinmanytributaries,showingthatsomeadultsarestillspawning
ontheBigRiver.OntheGarcia,LandoFrancirecalledthat(s)almonwerealreadystartingtodwindle
bythe1940s.CraigBellremembersseeing(s)ilversandKings...rollinginthetidewaterinOctober
1979.Butbyabout(19)85itwashistory(Monschkeetal.,1992).Thefishweregone.

As on the Big River, declining numbers of coho inspired vigorous hatchery and planting programs.
Unfortunatelytherewasstillnoefforttoplantnativestreamswithnativestock.Inall,over11.5million
outofbasinfryandfingerlingswerereleasedincentralcoaststreams,mostlyfromthe1950sthroughthe
mid1990s(Bjorkstedtetal.,2005).Despitealltheplanting,commercialcatchofcohodeclinedsharplyin
the late 1970s, believed to be the result of poor conditions in both the ocean and the cohos freshwater
1
Lagunitas Creek coho are persisting due in large part the dedication and organization of local citizens and the
commonvisionoflocalagenciesandpoliticalbodiestoimplementrestorationactionsandpoliciesnecessarytosave
thisfish.

March 2010
habitat. By the early 1990s, ocean stocks of coho were so low that commercial and sport fishing were
closed(DFG2002)andhaveremainedclosedeversince.
RaysofHope
Bythewinter2006/2007,nativecohowereestimatedtohavedeclinedmorethan99percentinlessthan
seventy years. Most spawning populations are reduced to less than fifty fish (Moyle et al., 2008).
Californias once abundant central coast coho are now nearly extinct. Only a sustained and vigorous
effort by the public, landowners, and decisionmakers at every level, will bring them back. While their
survivalhangsinthebalance,ahandfulofplaceshaveseenmodestincreasesincohoinrecentyears.On
atributaryoftheGarciaRiverwherecohohadnotbeenseenforatleasttwentyyears,schoolsofjuveniles
werediscoveredattenlocationsin2008.Oneresearcherbelievesthatthesustainableforestrynowbeing
practiced there, might be the best way left to preserve woodland ecosystems, watersheds and fish
(Fimrite2008).Additionally,gravelmineshaveclosedorimprovedtheiractivitiestobemorecompatible
with habitat needs, such as Homer and Steve Canelis from Austin Creek Aggregates, and extensive
restoration efforts on agricultural and forested landscapes have been ongoing for 15 years and are
resultinginsubstantialimprovementsinhabitatquality.
Largewoodisbeingplacedintostreamstopromotegravelsortingandpooldevelopmentforimproved
spawning and rearing habitats. One such project on the South Fork Ten Mile River facilitated the
restoration of 9.4 miles with 245 logs and 65 rootwads placed across 138 sites. Coho salmon were
observedintheSouthForkTenMileforthefirsttimeinadecade.Similarprojectsarebeingproposedfor
the North Fork Ten Mile; projects that are a very high priority for preventing extinction and ensuring
survivalofcohosalmon.
InSantaCruzCounty,SanVicenteCreekhadapparentlylostitscohorunbytheearly1980s.Yet,inthe
fall of 2002, several hundred coho were discovered in an agricultural offchannel pond on the Coast
DairiesPropertybyNOAAsOfficeofLawEnforcement(TheTrustforPublicLand2004).Researchers
believethecool,deepwaterinthispond,whichisconnectedtothecreekbyaninletandoutletchannel,
mimicsnaturaloffchannelconditionspreferredbycohoforrearing.Recently,whenwaterflowinto
this pond became disconnected, numerous agencies and concerned citizens joined together and
completed a complex restoration effort in record time, solely for the purpose of saving this important
southerncohosalmonpopulation.
Californias redwood forests are now the last areas where coho salmon persist in some abundance.
Unlike other landuses such as agriculture or urbanization, timberland management in California is
regulatedbyForestPracticeRules.TheseRuleshavestandardsforroadconstructionandmaintenanceto
reduce sediment to streams, riparian canopy retention along fishbearing and nonfishbearing
watercoursesandmechanismsforforestgrowthandregeneration.Watershedprocessesthatprovidefor
salmon spawning, rearing and sheltering are relatively intact in forestlands. The future and fate of
salmonisinextricabletothefutureandfateofCaliforniasredwoodforests.

March 2010
If people can come together to prevent the extinction of the condor or raise and fly whooping cranes
across country in an ultralight to teach them migration; we can bring salmon back in California. The
newsofpreventingextinctionsofspeciesisgrowingandoffersarayofhopethatthestoryofCCCcoho
salmonwillcontinue.Thepurposeofthisplanistobuilduponthesesuccessesandeducateourchildren
sothatthespawningrunswitnessedontheGarciaRiverinthe1930saswellashealthyspawningruns
throughouttheCentralCoast,willbeapartofourfuture.
Photo Courtesy: Bob Coey, NMFS

March 2010
CHAPTER1:OVERVIEWOF
THECCCCOHOSALMONESU
Pacific salmon matter not only as a delicacy and an economic resource but also as an
indicator of the states environmental health. Wild salmon are to the rivers and the
watershed and the ocean what the canary is to the miners in the coal mine.
Congressman Mike Thompson 2008
A SPECIES AT THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION
C
entralCaliforniaCoastcohosalmonaregravelyclosetoextinction.Despitebeinglistedunder
both the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts, the populations of the CCC coho
salmon have continued to decline precipitously. The dire status of this salmon requires
immediate and focused action to increase survival of, and provide the highest protection for,
eachindividualandallremainingpopulations.
Photo Courtesy: A juvenile CCCC coho salmon from Scott Creek, Santa Cruz County, California. Morgan
Bond, SWFSC.

March 2010
Regrettably,manyofourstreamsareinhospitabletooursalmon.Formillenniasalmonhavesuccessfully
persisted in abundance under catastrophic and shifting environments. The human altered landscape
overthelasttwocenturies,andhumanharvesting,hasplacedadditionalpressuresonthesepopulations.
This altered landscape with competing demands for water, stream channel modifications (e.g., bank
stabilization,leveedevelopment,etc.),waterpollution,landusepractices,andmanyotherunsustainable
usesofourlandandwaterareresultinginsignificantdetrimentalchangestoourstreamsandrivers.As
riversbecomemoreinhospitabletosalmon,fewersalmonsurviveandpopulationsdecline.Asfewerand
fewer individuals survive, the population as a whole becomes more vulnerable to shifting ocean
environmentsandnaturalcatastrophicevents.Thiscondition,whenlowpopulationscannotovercome
ongoing declines, when genetic diversity is compromised, when habitats become degraded and
fragmented,andwhenspawnersareatsuchlownumberstheycannotfindoneanothertoreproduceis
oftenreferredtoasanextinctionvortex(GilpinandSoule1986).Extinctionvortexisthetermusedto
describetheprocessthatdecliningpopulationsundergowhenamutualreinforcementoccursamongbiotic
and abiotic processes that drives population size downward to extinction (Brook, Sodhi & Bradshaw 2008).
CurrentinformationonadultescapementintheESUisverylimited;however,informationfromcurrent
monitoring on Scott, Lagunitas, Noyo, Caspar and Pudding Creeks indicate a significant CCC coho
salmondeclineandthatcohosalmonareinthisvortex.
Figure2:VisualRepresentationofExtinctionVortexofCohoSalmon (Peter Moyle, pers. comm.)

March 2010
ThedirestatusofCCCcohosalmonisacallforimmediateactiontopreventtheirextinctionby:
1. Implementingactionsthatincreasesurvivalofallcurrentindividualsandpopulations;
2. Expandingtheirdistributionthroughfocusedrestorationactionsincriticalareas;
3. Preventingdegradationofexistinghighqualityhabitatsacrossthehistoricalrange(especiallyareas
thathavesupportedpopulationswithinthelastfourgenerations);
4. Restoringhabitatconditionsandwatershedprocessesacrosstheirhistoricalrange;and
5. Controllingandabatingthreatsandprovidingfortheirlongtermsurvivalandrecovery.
Thesituationisdaunting,butitisnothopeless.Cohosalmonpersistinmanywatersheds,particularlyin
MendocinoCounty,and,insomeyears,theseareaswitnessgoodnumbersofadultsreturningfromthe
oceantotheirnatalstreams.LagunitasCreek,inMarinCounty,alsomaintainsaconsistentrunofcoho
salmon. It is imperative to protect and maintain the remaining populations to ensure survival of the
speciesacrosstheESU.
Photo Courtesy: A very rare sighting; three wild juvenile coho salmon (and one juvenile steelhead bottom left) in
the Russian River in 2008. Joe Pecharich, Russian River coho monitoring project, UC Cooperative Extension
Sonoma County.
Innovative approaches and partnerships will be necessary to save our salmon. The persistence and
recovery of salmon will require rethinking our land and water resource conservation values to work
towardsmutuallybeneficialsolutionstobothmankindandourenvironment.Anyoneeffortwillnotact
alone,butwillworkinsynchronywiththemanyotherswhoareworkingtosavethisspecies.Sincethe
Federallistingin1996muchhasbeendone.TheMontereyBaySalmonandTroutProject(MBSTP)and
CorpsofEngineers(USACE)areworkingwithNMFSScienceCenterandtheCaliforniaDepartmentof
FishandGame(DFG)toensuretheKingFisherFlatfacilityonScottCreekaremanagedappropriately.
TheSonomaCountyWaterAgency,USACE,NMFS,CDFGandothersarecollaboratingonoperationsfor

March 2010
theCongressmanDonClausenfacility(WarmSprings)intheRussianRivertomaximizegeneticdiversity
and improve distribution and abundance of coho salmon. DFG, NOAA Restoration Center, Trout
Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Resource Conservation Districts and many others have dedicated
substantial sums of money to restore passage, install woody debris, and reduce sediment inputs from
problem roads in many watersheds. The Marin Municipal Water District operates their reservoirs and
the nonprofit group, SPAWN, work in such a way to ensure Lagunitas Creek maintains a strong
population. The National Park Service is conducting extensive monitoring for Lagunitas and Olema
Creeks and water agencies have provided funding to the recovery efforts. The Counties have joined
togetherundertheFishNet4Candmeetregularlytopoolresourcesinanefforttostreamlinepermitting,
traintheirstaffs,andobtainadditiongrantmoniesforthebenefitofcohosalmon.Timbercompaniesand
conservation organizations have dedicated numerous resources, including staff and equipment, to
monitorcohopopulationsandtheirhabitat,fixproblemroadsandstreamcrossings,andrestoreinstream
habitat.
Recovery actions have been developed for each watershed, and across the ESU, with the intent of
preventing extinction and reversing the coho salmon trajectory back towards persistence and recovery.
TheserecoveryactionsareindraftandNMFSisrequestingthepublic,stakeholdersandagencieswork
with us to find mutually beneficial solutions to salmon recovery. Working together, we believe it is
possible to restore coho salmon populations to the large numbers witnessed by our parents and
grandparents,justfiftyyearsago.
THE TAXONOMY, RANGE AND ESA LISTING OF COHO SALMON

Taxonomy
There are six species of Pacific salmon within the Oncorhynchus genus: O. kitsutch, keta, gorbuscha,
tshawytscha,nerka,andmasou.Withinthisgroup,cohoandChinooksalmonarethemostcloselyrelated.
The English translation ofthe genus name, Oncorhynchus, is hooked snout. Coho salmon, the common
nameacceptedbytheAmericanFisheriesSocietyforO.kisutch,comesfromaNativeAmericannamefor
the species. Silver salmon is another commonly used name. Other common names include sea trout,
blueback,jacksalmon,hooknose,andsilversides(Hassler1987).
Range
The current North American range of O. kitsutch extends from Point Hope, Alaska, south to the East
Branch Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County, California. NMFS has designated seven evolutionarily
significant populations of coho salmon in Washington, Oregon, and California. The CCC coho salmon
ESU is the southernmost extant population. CCC coho salmon occupy an area from Punta Gorda in
northern California south to Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County, California; their historical range
includes the San Francisco Bay and many of its tributaries). Two artificial propagation programs are
consideredpartofthisESU:theDonClausenFishHatcheryCaptiveBroodstockProgramandtheScott
Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program (MBSTP). Both of these coho salmon programs are
managedasconservationfacilitiesandnotforfishingsupplementation.
Coho salmon may have persisted as far south as the Big Sur River in Monterey County and east into

March 2010
streams of the Sierras in the Central Valley (Gustafson et al., 2007). According to recently discovered
archeologicaldatafromElkhornSlough,thisspeciesoncerangedasfarsouthasthePajaroRiverinSanta
Cruz and Santa Clara counties and/or possibly the Salinas River in Monterey and San Luis Obispo
counties (Gobalet, in press). The first known collection of CCC coho salmon for scientific purposes
occurredin1860whenAlexanderAgassizcollectedthespeciesinSanMateoCreekinSanMateoCounty.
Today, not only are coho extirpated from San Mateo Creek, they have been extirpated from every
tributarystreamandriverflowingintoSanFranciscoBay.
OnNovember12,2003,NMFSreceivedapetitiontoredefinethesouthernextentoftheCCCcohosalmon
ESUbyexcludingcohosalmonpopulationsoccupyingwatershedsinSantaCruzandcoastalSanMateo
counties, California, from the CCC ESU designation. NMFS rejected the petition. The petitioners
assertions were based on the following: (1) early scientific species range descriptions and newspaper
accounts failing to document coho south of San Francisco prior to artificial introductions in 1906; (2)
absence of coho salmon remainsin therefuse sites (middens) of the native people; (3) various physical
characteristics (climate, geology, and hydrology) render the streams of the Santa Cruz mountains
inhospitabletocohosalmon;and4)incorrectapplicationoftheESU/DPSpolicies.
NMFSrejectedthepetitiononallpoints(71FR14683).NMFSfoundthat,notonlydidthebestavailable
evidencecontradictthethesisofPlaintiffspetition,butthepurportedevidencesubmittedbyPlaintiffin
supportofhispetitionwasflawedtothepointofnotbeingreliable.Theevidencewasrefutedbasedon
thefollowing:
1) JuvenilecohosalmonwerecollectedfromfourstreamsinSanMateoandSantaCruzcounty
streamsin1895,elevenyearsbeforeahatcheryprogramwasinitiatedinSantaCruzCounty.
ThesespecimensarehousedattheCaliforniaAcademyofSciencesinSanFrancisco;
2) The midden sampling effort was too small to determine absence, a point made by the
investigatorwhoconductedthesampling(Gobaletetal.,2004) 2;
3) Information suggesting physical conditions are too extreme for coho salmon in Santa Cruz
and San Mateo (in comparison to areas north of San Francisco Bay) was not compelling to
suggesttheseconditionsweresignificantenoughtoprecludespeciespresenceparticularly
since these same conditions are present throughout other watersheds in the CCC ESU that
remainoccupiedbycohosalmon;and
4) NMFSESUpolicywasproperlyappliedtothesepopulations.
AdditionalinformationregardingcohosalmonsouthofSanFranciscoBaywassummarizedinFisheries
(Adamsetal.,2007).
2 Soon after NMFS issued its finding, Dr. Gobalet examined fish remains of two salmonids recovered during
excavations from archaeological site CASMA18 in Ao Nuevo State Park, Santa Cruz County. Those remains,
whichpredateEuropeanarrivalinNorthAmerica,alsowereindependentlyevaluatedbytwootherfishosteological
(bone)identificationexperts,withthefollowingresult:[o]nevertebrawasdeterminedtobefromacohosalmonby
allthreeexpertsandthesecondwasidentifiedascohosalmonbytwoofthethree(Adamsetal.,2007).

March 2010
StateandFederalListingsofCCCCohoSalmon
NMFSlistedtheCCCcohosalmonESUonOctober31,1996,asFederallythreatened(61FR56138)under
the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The State of California listed coho
salmonsouthofSanFranciscoBayasastateendangeredspeciesin1995.In2002,theStatelistedtheCCC
coho salmon ESU as State endangered and the California portion of the Southern Oregon Northern
CaliforniacohosalmonESUasthreatened.ArecoverystrategyfortheCaliforniaESUswasdevelopedby
the State and finalized in 2004 (DFG 2004). Due to severe population declines between 1996 and 2004,
NMFSrelistedCCCcohosalmonandchangeditsstatusfromthreatenedtoendangered(i.e.,indangerof
extinctionthroughoutallorasignificantportionofitsrange)onJune28,2005(70FR37160).Inspiteof
the protections afforded by these listings, the development of a State Recovery Plan and ongoing
implementation of many recovery actions recommended in the plan, the population has not stabilized
andcontinuestodecline.
THE IMPERILED CCC COHO SALMON

OnlyroughestimatesexistofthehistoricalCCCcohosalmonadultabundance.Therearestillnolong
term data sets for wild coho salmon abundances across individual river systems in the ESU. Despite
theselimitations,thepronounceddeclineofCCCcohohasbeendocumentedoverthecourseof70years
by various researchers and agencies with estimates of (Figure 3): 200,000 to 500,000 coho salmon
statewide in the 1940s (Brown, 1994); 99,000 statewide with approximately 56,100 (56%) in CCC coho
salmon ESU streams in the 1963 (DFG 1965); 18,000 wild CCC coho salmon adults in the 1984/1985
spawning season (Wahle and Pearson 1987); 6,000 wild CCC coho salmon adults in the 1990s (61 FR
56138)andthemostrecentestimateoflessthan500wildadultsin2009(Spencepers.comm.2009).In
fact,morerecentstudiesareindicatingaprobablepopulationcollapse(MacFarlaneetal.2009,indraft)
andimpendingextinction.Cohosalmon,asofthiswritingin2009,areextirpatedorseverelyreducedin
mostofthewatershedstheyhistoricallyoccupied.Allearlyestimates(includingbothwildandhatchery
fish)fromwithintheCCCESU(Table1)areconsideredbestprofessionalguessesbasedonalimited
catchstatistics,hatcheryrecords,andpersonalobservationsoflocalbiologists(Brownetal.,1994).
Coho Salmon in California and the CCC ESU

California Coho Salmon Population Estimate
CCC Coho Salmon Estimate
500,000
450,000
400,000 350,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
99,000
100,000
56,100
50,000 30,000 18,000 6,000
<500
0
1940s 1960s 1980s 1990s 2009
Figure3:HistoricalandCurrentEstimateofCohoSalmonAbundance

March 2010
Table5:HistoricalEstimatesofcohosalmonspawnerabundanceacrosstheCCCcohosalmonESU
EstimatedEscapement
River/Region DFG(1965) 3 Wahle& Brownetal.

Pearson(1987) 4 (1994) 5
1963 19841985 19871991
TenMileRiver 6,000 2,000 160 6
NoyoRiver 6,000 2,000 3,740
BigRiver 6,000 2,000 280
NavarroRiver 7,000 2,000 300
GarciaRiver 2,000 500
OtherMendocinoCounty 10,000 7,000 7 470 8
GualalaRiver 4,000 1,000 200
RussianRiver 5,000 1,000 255
OtherSonomaCounty 1,000 180
MarinCounty 5,000 435
SanMateoandSantaCruzCounties 4,100 550 140
SanMateoCounty 1,000
SantaCruzCo(excl.SLRiver) 1,500 50
SanLorenzoRiver 1,600 500
ESUTotal 56,100 18,050 6,160
3
Values excludes ocean catch
4
Estimates are for wild or naturalized fish; hatchery returns excluded.
5
Estimates are for wild or naturalized fish; hatchery returns excluded. For streams without recent spawner estimates (or
estimates lower than 20 fish), assumes 20 spawners.
6
Indicates high probability that natural production is by wild fish rather than naturalized hatchery stocks.
7
Value may include Marin and Sonoma County fish.
8
Appears to include Garcia River fish.

March 2010
No time series of adult abundance free of hatchery influence and spanning eight or more years are
availablefortheCCCESU.AdultcountsfromtheNoyoeggcollectingstation(ECS)representamixture
ofnaturallyproducedandhatcheryfish,andcountsareincompleteformostyearsbecausetrapoperation
wassporadicduringthewinterseasonandtypicallyceasedafterquotasweremet(Figure4).Thesedata,
atbest,representanindexofabundance.Assumingthesecountsreflectgeneralpopulationtrends,there
appears to have been a significant decline in abundance of coho salmon in the South Fork Noyo
beginningin1977.ThatyearwasoneofthedriestrainfallyearsonrecordforCaliforniaandalsomarked
adramaticshiftintheprevailingpolarityintheoscillationoceanatmosphereclimaticvariabilitycentered
overthemidlatitudeoftheNorthPacificbasin.Thisshiftcorrespondedwithdramaticshiftsinsalmon
production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean (Mantua et al., 1997). Since 2000 the ECS has stopped
collectingfishandrecentestimates(seeNoyoRiverstrategiesforgraphofrecentadultescapementinthe
SouthForkNoyoRiver)reflecttheactualrunsizeattheECS.Despitethecaveatsdescribedabove,the
trend for coho salmon in the South Fork Noyo is clear, they have declined and continue to decline in
abundance.
SouthForkNoyoRiver19622009AdultCohoSalmonEstimates*
6000
5000
AdultReturns
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
95 5
96 6
86 6
87 7
8 8 88
89 9
90 0
91 1
92 2
93 3
94 4
77 7
78 8
79 9
80 0
81 1
82 2
83 3
84 4
85 5
72 2
73 3
74 4
75 5
76 6
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
07 9
08 8
9
63 3
64 4
65 5
66 6
67 7
68 8
69 9
70 0
71 1
97 7
98 8
99 9
00 0
01 1
02 2
03 3
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
/8
/8
/8
/8
/8
/8
/8
/9
/7
/7
/7
/7
/7
/7
/7
/8
/8
/0
/0
/0
/6
/6
/6
/6
/6
/6
/6
/7
/7
/7
/9
/9
/9
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/
62
Year
Coho
Hatchery Discontinued
Figure4:AdultcohosalmonreturnstoNoyoEggCollectingStation(19652009)

March 2010

Figure5:HistoricalRangeofCCCcohosalmonandFocusPopulationsforRecovery

March 2010
COHO SALMON LIFE HISTORY
Juveniles:Juvenilesalmonarebluegreen FreshwaterAdult:Adultcohosalmonhavea
onthebackwithsilversidesand812parr fusiform body shape that is laterally
marks(Hassler1987).Theparrmarksare compressed (Hassler 1987). Considered a
centeredalongthelaterallineandare medium to large salmon, coho salmon
narrowerthanthespacesbetweenmarks. typically reach fork lengths of 470 cm and
Theadiposefinisfinelyspeckledwith weights of 36 kg (Shapovalov & Taft 1954;
uniformpigmentationmakingitappeardark Moyle2002).Dorsal,anal,pectoral,andpelvic
grey(Moyle2002).Theanal,pectoral,and fins range from 912, 1217, 1316, and 911
pelvicfinslackspotsandaretintedorange raysrespectively(Moyle2002).Thelateralline
withvaryingintensity.Theanalfinis is straight with 121148 single pored scales.
pigmentedbetweentherayswhichcan The white gum line of coho salmon can be
produceablackbandingeffect(Hassler used to distinguish this species from Chinook
1987). salmon,whichhaveblackgums.Cohosalmon
can be distinguished from chum and sockeye
Characteristicscommonlyusedtoidentify
salmon by the dark spots on the back, dorsal
juvenilecohosalmonfromothersalmonid
fin,andupperlobeofthetail(Hassler1987).
speciesaretheirsickleshapedanaland
dorsalfinsandtheirlargeeyes(Pollardetal.
1997).
Ocean Adult: In the ocean, the coloration ofadult coho salmon is steel blue to greenish on the
back, silvery on the sides, and white on the belly (Hassler 1987). The coloration of spawning
malesisdarkgreenontheback,brightredonthesides,andgraytoblackonthebelly(Scott&
Crossman1973). In addition to the red lateral line, spawning males are alsocharacterized by a
hooked jaw, enlarged and exposed teeth, and slightly humped backs. Females have duller
coloration than males with a pale pink hue on the sides (Moyle 2002). Males and females both
have small black spots on the back, upper sides, base of the dorsal fin, and upper lobe of the
caudalfin.
LifeHistoryStrategy
Coho salmon are anadromous fish, meaning they migrate between the ocean and freshwater
environmentsatdifferentstagesoftheirthreeyearlife;manyreturntothestreamtheywereborn.These
lifestagesareegg,alevin,summerrearing/winterrearingjuvenile,outmigrantorsmoltandoceanadult.
Cohosalmonarealsosemelparous;theydieshortlyafterspawning.
The life history of coho salmon is similar to most Pacific salmonids in that they hatch and rear in
freshwater, migrate downstream, grow to adults in the ocean, and return to natal freshwater to spawn
and die (Figure 6). Within this cycle coho salmon exhibit less flexibility than other salmonid species,
predominantly adhering to a three year life cycle. The exceptions to the three year life cycle are jack
maleswhichreturntofreshwaterattwoyearsofageandasmallpercentageofsmoltswhichremainin
freshwater for two years rather than one year. These exceptions prevent genetic isolation between

March 2010
temporalruns (Moyle2002). Thelife historyand habitat requirements of CCC coho salmon have been
well documented byShapovalov& Taft (1954); Hassler(1987); Emmett et al.,(1991);Sandercock (1991);
Pearcy(1992);andMoyle(2002).

Figure6:Generaloverviewoflifestages(modifiedfromReeves2009).
Cohosalmonexhibitdistinctlifestagesthatoccurduringdefinedseasons(Table2).Adultcohosalmon
migratefromtheoceantonatalstreamsinthefall,generallyenteringfreshwaterfromSeptemberthrough
JanuaryandspawningprimarilyfromNovembertoJanuary(DFG2004).Movingsouth,thetimingof
migration occurs later, with fish entering freshwater in the southern portion of the range in November
through January and spawning into February or early March (Moyle 2002). The upstream migration
typicallycoincideswithlargeincreasesinstreamflow(Hassler1987).Cohosalmonareoftennotableto
enter freshwater until heavy rains have caused the breaching of sand bars that form at the mouths of
manycoastalCaliforniastreams.Spawningoccursprimarilyinstreamswithdirectflowtotheoceanor
largerivertributaries(Moyle2002).

March 2010

Female coho salmon pick a site to spawn at the head of a riffle, just below a pool where water flow
changes from slow to turbulentand medium tosmall size gravel is abundant. Once suitable habitat is
located, females fan the gravels with their tails to create nests in the gravel, known as redds, where
theylaytheireggswhicharefertilizedbyaccompanyingmales.Thenumberofeggsafemaleproducesis
positively correlated with her size (the larger the female, the more eggs), but in general ranges from
1,4003000eggs.Thenumberofeggsdepositedperreddisapproximately100ormore.Reddlocationis
chosen to allow good aeration and removal of metabolic waste from the nest. Eggs incubate in redds
duringNovemberthroughApril,hatchingintoalevinsafteraperiodof3550days(Shapovalov&Taft
1954). The period of incubation is inversely related to water temperature (Moyle 2002, DFG 2004).
Alevinsremaininthegravelfortwototenweeksthenemergeintothewatercolumnasyoungjuveniles,
knownasfry.
Table 6: Seasonal calendar of coho salmon presence in Californias coastal watersheds. Dark shading
indicates months of peak activity for a particular life stage; the lighter shading indicates months of lower
activity.
LIFESTAGE Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Adultmigration
Spawning
EggIncubation
Emergence/Fry
Juvenilerearing
Emigration
Juveniles,orfry,formschoolsinshallowwateralongstreammargins.Fishfeedheavilyduringthistime
andastheygrow,fishseparateandsetupindividualterritoriesindeeppoolswithgoodcover.Juveniles
rearinfreshwaterforaboutoneyearwithdistincthabitatuseduringsummerandwinterrearing.Inthe
summer, when flows are low, juvenile coho salmon concentrate in deep pools. In the winter, when
stream flows are high, juvenile coho salmon require refuge in habitat such as off channel or backwater
pools formed by large woody debris (LWD). After about one year in freshwater juvenile coho salmon
undergotransformationintosmoltsinpreparationforoutmigrationtotheocean.
Smoltification is associated with fish age, size, and environmental conditions (Hassler 1987). Smolt
outmigration begins in late March or early April, and peaks in California from April to early July
(Weitkampetal.,1995).Aperiodofestuarineresidencymayoccurpriortooceanentrytoallowfishto
transition to the saline environment. Estuarine use in the CCC coho salmon ESU is quite variable,
rangingfromsubstantialjuvenilerearingtouseonlyasamigratorycorridor.

March 2010

Ocean adult distribution and behavior are not well studied. After initial entrance to the ocean, smolts
concentrate in schools inshore, gradually moving north along the continental shelf (DFG 2004). Ocean
residencelastsfortwoyears(exceptforjacks)untiladultfishreturntofreshwatertospawnandbeginthe
cycleagain.
ThreeYearFemaleLifeSpan
Coho exhibit an almost completely distinct maternal brood year lineage that is a life history trait of
significantinfluenceonoverallpopulationviability,management,andrecovery(DFG1995).Essentially
all wild female CCC coho salmon spawn as threeyear olds 9 (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). As a
consequenceofallwildfemalecohobeingthreeyearsoldattimeofspawning,therearethreedistinct,
separate maternal brood year lineages for the each stream in the ESU (Shapovalov and Taft 1954; DFG
1995). For example, nearly all coho salmon males and females produced in 2008 were the progeny of
femalesproducedthreeyearsearlierin2005,whichinturnweretheprogenyoffemalesproducedthree
yearsearlierin2001,etc.ThethreematernalbroodyearlineagesareshowninTable3.
Table7:Maternalbroodyearlineage
Lineage:I 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Lineage:II 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
Lineage:III 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
Photo Courtesy: Image of CCC coho salmon scale

from 2006, Scott Creek, Santa Cruz, CA. This fish
hatched in Spring 2005 and instead of outmigrating
in Spring in 2006, it remained in Scott Creek. It
would have migrated in 2007. Jerry Smith, San Jose
State University.
9
Thereisgeneticexchangebetweenyearclassesofaparticularstreamwhentwoyearoldprecociousmales(jacks)ofoneyearclass
spawnswiththreeyearoldfemalesoftheprioryearclass.RecentinformationfromCaliforniahasdocumentedjuvenilesrearingin
freshwater for two years (Bell 2001; Smith pers comm. 2009; Hayes pers. comm. 2009; Wright pers. comm. 2009), and based on
documentation of precocious females at the Noyo ECS (DFG 2008 comments) it appears as though some genetic exchange in
maternalbroodyearsispossible.

March 2010

Theoveralllackofoverlappingmaternalgenerationsplacesbroodyearlineages(i.e.,yearclasses)athigh
longterm risk from the adverse effects of stochastic events (such as floods, droughts, etc.) This risk is
especially high for small, remnant populations. For example, a chemical spill or catastrophic wildfire
mayeliminatealljuvenilesinastreamresultinginacompletelossofayearclassand,thus,lossofadult
spawnersthreeyearslater.Ascontinuouslossesofeachyearclassoccursacrossgenerations,extinction
becomesimminent.Repopulationispossiblebyimprovingfreshwaterconditionsthatallowtheremnant
populationtograduallyreboundorfrompairsstrayingintoneighboringstreamstospawn.
Lowfreshwatersurvivalandreducedpopulationsizecoupledwithpooroceanconditionsplacesfurther
pressureonsurvivalandpersistence.Thisappearstohavehappenedtothelineagesofpopulationsin
thecohostreamssouthofSanFranciscoBay.LineageIandIIhavebeenvirtuallyeliminatedbutLineage
III persisted in many streams, albeit at a greatly reduced population size. This lineage was generally
consideredthelaststrongremainingyearclass.Unfortunately,pooroceanconditionsduring2006/2007
resultedinacatastrophicallylowrateofadultreturnsduringthewinterof2007/2008andnow,thisone
strong year class is almost gone (Spence pers. comm. 2009). Further compounding of the risk to coho
southofSanFranciscoBayoccurredwiththeLockheedfireinAugustof2009.Thatwildfireburnedmost
oftheheadwatersofScottCreekandplacesthissmallpopulationatexceptionalriskofextirpationdueto
highratesofsedimentationwhenthe2009winterrainsbegin.
LIFE HISTORY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

Coho salmon must survive conditions across many different environments between and within
freshwaterandtheocean.Cohosalmonspendthemajorityoftheirlivesintheocean,anenvironment
thatisdifficulttomanageandlargelysubjecttoenvironmentaleventsaffectingfishoutsidethecontrolof
humans. When environmental conditions are favorable the subadult and adult survival rates appear
relatively high. Most coho mortality occurs in freshwater and during the rearing stage where the
juvenilesmaybeexposedtowinterandspringflooding,summerdroughts,orlackofrearingorwinter
refugiaspace(Sandercock1991).
Infreshwater,cohosalmonmusthaveenoughenergytomigrate(insomecases)longdistances,findand
fight for mates (males), build redds, survive through winter flows, avoid predators, obtain food, find
pools and cool water for summer rearing, access offchannel habitats during outmigration and high
winter/spring flowsandfind refugeinlagoon/estuary habitats for successfulsaltwater transition to the
ocean environment. Environmental conditions influence how much energy coho salmon will need to
survive, and whether or not they can survive within the range of available conditions. For example,
turbid water beyond a coho salmons preferred range can increase the energy needed to find food (as
preybecomesmoredifficulttolocate).Thisreducestheenergyavailabletoescapepredators,andasfood
input declines, energy for all necessary life functions is further reduced. As environmental conditions
become less favorable for coho salmon, fewer will be able to survive (Gregory and Bisson 1997,
Lichatowich(1989),Beechieetal.,1994).Table4summarizeshabitatrequirementsforeachlifestage.

March 2010
Table8:HabitatrequirementsforeachlifestageofCCCcohosalmon
FreshwaterStreams Eggs: Incubation requires clean water, free of contamination

andsiltation.Disturbanceofasingleredd(nestofeggs)will
resultinthedeathofthousandsofsalmonembryos.
FreshwaterStreams Alevins: After hatching, alevins remain nestled in the small

spaces between the gravels and feed from their attached yolk
sacs. They are highly vulnerable to siltation and scour. Once

the yolk is absorbed, the young salmon emerge from the
gravels.
FreshwaterStreams Juveniles: Deep cool pools for summer rearing juveniles are
criticalforsurvival.Riparianvegetationhelpssupportsomeof
the insects consumed by juveniles, provides cover from

predators, (when recruited to streamscan create woodformed
pools) and limits solar radiation to streams keeping water
temperaturescool.Treerootsstabilizestreambanksandcreate
habitatstructure.Downedwoodcreatescoverandrefugiafor
thetinysalmontoresideduringhighvelocityflows.Poolsand
wetlandsprovideshelterfromhighflowsandpredators.
FreshwaterStreams,Estuaries,Ocean Smolts:Juvenilesalmonundergoaphysiologicalchangeknown
as smoltification that enables them to transition from
freshwater to saltwater in the estuaries or lagoons.

Smoltificationcan occur primarily within the freshwater areas,
or in the nearshore environment. Smolts need adequate flow
fromupstreamrearingareastoreachtheseestuaries.Estuaries
shouldprovidecoverandadequatefeedinghabitatstofacilitate
the transition into the ocean. The quality of these areas has
implications to survival of smolts as they enter the marine
environment.
Ocean SubAdults/Adults: Maturation occurs during ocean residency

overatwoyearperiod,leadinguptotheadultsalmonsreturn
tostreamsoftheirbirth.Thepatternsofmigrationintheocean
vary and shifts in ocean conditions affect food, migration
patternsandsurvival.Fishintheoceanneedadequatesupplies
offoodtofacilitaterapidgrowth.Asthesalmonreturntotheir
natal stream to reproduce, they once again undergo change
fromsaltwatertofreshwater;theydependonthenearshoreand
estuarineenvironmentsforthistransition.
Ocean,Estuaries,FreshwaterStreams Spawners: Once the adult spawners arrive at their home river
theyneedadequateflows,coolwatertemperatures,deeppools
andcovertorestandhideastheymigrateupstream.Females
seek clean, loose gravel of a certain size in highly oxygenated
water for laying their eggs. The site must remain stable
throughouteggincubationandemergence,andallowwaterto
percolate through the gravel to supply oxygen to the
developingembryo.

March 2010
Thekeytopreventingthedeclineofcohosalmonistoprotecttheirspawningandrearingstreamsandto
restore damaged habitat (Moyle 2002). While the ocean environment is where the species spends the
majority of its life (and productivity fluctuations in this environment result in changes to coho salmon
populations),lowoceanreturnsofadults(escapement)combinedwithimpairedfreshwaterhabitatshave
a greater negative impact on successful spawning, rearing and outmigration. These factors act
synergistically and make it difficult for the population to recover from adverse effects resulting from
natural or anthropogenic impacts to ocean cycles. While ocean conditions have fluctuated in the past
frompoortoexcellentforcohosalmon,thegeneraltrendoffreshwaterhabitatconditionsduringthe20th
and 21st Centuries has been of increasing degradation. Continuing degradation of freshwater habitat
impairstheabilityofcohotoreboundfrompooroceanconditionswhenoceanconditionsimprove.Itis
thereforeimportanttorestoreandprotectessentialfreshwaterhabitatfeatures.
Conditions in the freshwater environment that ensure the highest likelihood of coho salmon survival
throughspawning,rearing,andoutmigrationarevaried.Cohosalmonarefoundinabroaderdiversity
ofhabitatsthananyoftheotheranadromoussalmonids,fromsmalltributariesofcoastalstreamstolakes
to inland tributaries of major rivers (Meehan & Bjornn 1991). Based on the current status of the
population this may seem implausible. However, coho salmon were found throughout their range in
Californiaintothemid1900s.ShapovalovandTaft(1954)reportedthatcohosalmonascendpractically
all accessible streams within their range flowing into the Pacific Ocean, from the largest to the very
smallest. To emphasize the point they cited Chamberlain (1907) who reported that in southeastern
Alaska (t)he coho is probably less particular (in comparison with the other Pacific salmons) in its
requirements.Thefrywerefound,withoutexception,ineverystreamandbrookexamined;evenatiny
seepagewhichwouldbecomedrywiththefirstweekoffairsummerweathercontaineditslittleschool
ofcohofry.Historically,CCCcohosalmoninhabitedthelargestriverbasins,suchastheRussianRiver,
andverysmallcoastaltributariessuchasLagunaCreek(SantaCruzCounty).
Unfortunately, the habitat requirements for coho salmon in most streams in the CCC ESU are not at
properly functioning condition because the natural rates of critical watershed processes (e.g., sediment
delivery,hydrology,woodrecruitment,temperatureregulation,etcetera)havebeensubstantiallyaltered
by human activities. This is remarkable considering the historically ubiquitous occurrence of coho
salmon in the northern coastal streams of North America. The absence of coho salmon in these
freshwater habitats is a strong indication that the majority of the watersheds in the CCC ESU are
substantially disrupted and degraded. Until these habitats operate at their potential, and the natural
processes that form them are restored, streams are unlikely to support viable salmon populations. If
ecosystems are allowed to function in a more natural manner, habitat characteristics favorable to
salmonids will result, and fish will be able to recolonize and populate historical habitats, recover from
earlier stressors, and persist under natural disturbance regimes (Spence 1996). This plan provides
strategies to enable the ecosystems where CCC coho salmon once thrived to begin their recovery and
ultimately allow the population to reach a recovered status in the same watersheds inhabited by the
humanpopulation.
OptimalCohoFreshwaterHabitatandCurrentConditions
When in freshwater, optimal habitats for successful rearing include adequate quantities of: (1) deep
complex pools formed by large woody debris, (2) adequate quantities of water, (3) cool water

March 2010
temperatures, (4) unimpeded passage to spawninggrounds (adults)and back to the ocean (smolts),(5)
adequate quantities of clean spawning gravel, and (6) access to floodplains, side channels and low
velocityhabitatduringhighflowevents.Numerousotherrequirementsexist(i.e.,adequatequantitiesof
food, dissolved oxygen, low turbidity, etc.) but in many respects these other needs are generally met
whenthesixfreshwaterhabitatrequirementslistedaboveareataproperlyfunctioningcondition.
Deepcomplexpoolsformedbywood.Largewoodydebrisoriginatingfromripariantreesisaformof
coverinmanystreamsanditsimportanceiswidelyrecognized(Bissonetal.1987;Holtby1988).When
ripariantreesfallintowatercoursestheycreateconditionswhichscourthegravelbottomsofstreambeds
and create deep pools. These pools are the preferred habitat of coho salmon. Coho prefer the slower
movingareasofastream,providedbypools,asfeedinghabitatandcoverfrompredators.Slowmoving
water allows coho to capture food with the minimum expenditure of energy. Pools also provide an
increaseinthevolumeofrearinghabitatwhichallowsagreaterdensityofjuvenilesthananequivalent
length of stream without pool habitats. For example, in British Columbia, juvenile coho salmon
abundancewasfivetimeshigherinstreamswithlargeamountsofLWD(FauschandNorthcote1992in
BilbyandBisson1998).
PhotoCourtesy:Theserecentphotographs(andtheoneonthefollowingpage)illustratethepracticeofremoving
oneofthemostessentialstructuralcomponentsofcohosalmonhabitat,largewoodydebris.Thesetreeswerecut
upintosmallpiecesontheSanLorenzoRiverinSantaCruzCounty.Cuttingthesetreesrenderedthemuseless
infuturepoolformationduetothewidewidthoftheriver.Largetreesareneededbecausetheytendtoremain
stable duringhigh flows and help create deep scour holes that provide summer rearing habitat as well as high
flowrefugiaduringwinterfloods.PhotographscourtesyofChrisBerry,SantaCruzWaterDepartment.

March 2010

In many streams, these essential pool and complex habitats have been altered or lost due to reduced
waterflows,largewoodydebrisremovalactivities,increasedratesofsedimentation,andloss,alteration
andsimplificationofriparianforestswhichleadstoalackofsignificantlargewoodrecruitment.Lackof
recruitmentisdueinlargeparttothemuchyoungerageofcurrentriparianforestswhichgenerallylack
older trees that fall into the stream as they age and die. The absence of large wood in the stream, in
particular, has had major impacts to coho salmon because of its role in physical habitat formation, in
sedimentandorganicmatterstorage,andinmaintainingahighdegreeofspatialheterogeneity(habitat
complexity)instreamchannels{NAP,1996}.Decreases
in coho abundances following LWD removal or loss
have been documented in streams in the Pacific North
WestandAlaska(Bryant1983;Dollof1986;Reevesetal
1993).Thelossofpoolsformedbylargewoodydebris
is indicativeof past and present management practices
as well as altered natural processes. Maintaining pool
habitats,reversingthemechanismsleadingtotheirloss,
andaddingwoodwillbenecessarytoensureadequate
summer and winter rearing habitat in every stream
designatedforrecovery.

Photo Courtesy: Caspar Creek, Mendocino County, CA. Prime CCC
cohosalmonsummerrearinghabitat.PhotocourtesyofRickMacedo,
DFG.

March 2010
Water.
FishneedwaterandadequatewaterquantityandqualityareessentialforCCCcohosalmonsurvivaland
persistence.Cohosalmonpopulationsneedenoughaquaticspaceforlargenumbersofjuvenilestofind
foodandescapefrompredators.Appropriateflowsareneededformigrationtoandfromtheocean,for
habitatconnectivityduringthelowflowsummerseason,forspawning,andforeggandalevinsurvival.
LackofwaterisaseverelimitingfactorforcohosalmoninmanywatershedsintheCCCESU.Impacts
fromongoingwaterdiversionsaremostsevereinthemoreurbanizedwatershedsandwatershedswith
significant agriculture diversions. Californias Mediterranean climate results in low flow conditions
during the summer and late fall rearing periods. Water diversions during the summer rearing period
magnifytheimpactofnaturallowflowswithpronouncedimpactstojuvenilesurvival.Frostprotection
for vineyards can create instantaneous flow reductions that leave salmon stranded on a drying stream
bed.Additionally,inurbanizedareaswaterrunsoffmorequicklyduetoincreasedimpervioussurfaces
resulting in higher winterflowsand lower summerbaseflow. DFG has noted that undocumented and
illegal summer and fall water diversions are a serious concern and many previously perennial streams
arenowdryinlatesummer(Harris,S.pers.comm.2009).Strategiestoaddressthislimitingfactorare
oftendifficulttoimplementbutwillbenecessarytobegincohosalmonrecoveryinmanyofthetargeted
watershedsintheESU.
Instreamtemperature.Summerrearingcohosalmonaresensitivetowarmwatertemperatures.Optimal
growth occurs when instream temperatures average 1214 C. When maximum weekly average
temperaturesexceed18Ccohosalmonareabsentfromotherwisesuitablerearinghabitat(Welshetal.,
2001).Temperaturesexceeding2526Carelethal.Alteredthermalregimeschangemanycharacteristics
ofstreamhabitatthroughalteringthestructureofplantandinvertebratecommunities(Bisson&Davis
1976) and adverse interspecfic interactions between salmon and nonsalmon fishes through increased
competitionandpredation(Reevesetal.,1987).
Oneofthemoreimportantfactorscontributingtooptimalstreamtemperatureisintactriparianbuffers.
Retention of wide riparian buffers with adequate
riparian canopy, formed by mature native trees,
moderates water temperature. Riparian canopy
intercepts solar radiation, particularly in the smaller
tributary streams where coho juveniles rear, and
moderatestheeffectsofwarmsummertemperatures.

Passage. Coho salmon require adequate passage
conditions from the ocean to spawning areas for
adultsandfromrearingareastotheoceanforsmolts.
Reduced flows, debris jams, plugged or improperly
placed/sized culverts, excessive water velocities,
closed sandbars and other conditions impede
Photo Courtesy: Coho smolt with parr marks migrating adults. Unscreened diversions can impede
fading and fish turning silver. San Vicente Creek, smolt outmigration, particularly during low flow
Santa Cruz, CA. Chris Berry, City of Santa Cruz
Water Department.

March 2010
conditions. Typically, adult coho salmon do not migrate to the higher gradient stream reaches that
steelhead are able to access. Many of the more significant barriers to adult migration in the CCC ESU
havebeenaddressedbecausealargeproportionofpastrestorationprojectshavebeendirectedatfixing
passage problems. Barriers formed by large wood were removed at considerable effort by DFG in the
past 10.
Spawning gravel. Adult coho females typically choose a spawning site near the head of a riffle, just
belowapool,wherewaterchangesfromsmoothtoturbulentflowandwherethereisabundantmedium
tosmallgravel.Mostfemalesdigatleastthreetofournests(redds)anddepositeggsineach{Godfrey,
1965}. The eggs will incubate an average of 38 days at 10.7 C (Shapovalov & Taft 1954) or longer at
cooler water temperatures. Depth of egg burial varies substantially within and between salmon
populations(Burner,1951;vandenBergheandGross,1984;TrippandPoulin,1986).Insomecases,larger
femalesdepositeggsatgreaterdepththantheirsmallercounterparts(vandenBergheandGross,1984),
reducing the probability egg loss due to streambed scour during high flow conditions. Physical factors
suchaswatervelocity,thesizeofsubstrateandcompactionofthestreambedalsoinfluencethedepthof
egg burial (Burner, 1951). Upon hatching the sac fry (alevins) remain in the gravel from one to five
months.Toensuresurvivalfromspawningtoemergencethegravelsmustbecleanoffinesedimentin
ordertosupply,viaintragravelflow,theeggsandnewlyhatchedsacfrywithoxygenrichwaterandto
removemetabolicwaste.

Gravelswithhighconcentrationsof
fine sediment can substantially
reduce egg survival. Phillips et al.,
(1975)foundsurvivaltoemergence
was only eight percent where
gravel/sand mixtures were 70
percent (particle size < 3.3 mm).
Fine sediment originates from
many anthropogenic activities
including agriculture, livestock
grazing, urbanization, roads,
forestry, mining as well as natural
processes such as landslides,
streambank erosion, and fire.
Photo Courtesy: A coho salmon redd and spawning gravel on
the South Fork Noyo River, Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Minimizing anthropogenic sources
Mendocino County, CA. Rick Macedo, DFG. of fine sediment is readily
achievablewhenriparianbuffersof
sufficient size persist along stream channels, culverts are adequately sized and properly located,
developmentorextractivelandmanagementpracticesareavoidedonunstableareas,covercropsareleft
duringthewinter,roadsareproperlymaintained,etc.
10
Todayalackofwoodexistsinmanystreamsduetosomeofthelargewoodremovalactivitiesthatwereconducted
for the purpose of passage improvement and channel improvement. Reduced large wood frequencies in most
streamsisnowrecognizedasakeyhabitatlimitingfactorofforcohohabitatacrosstheCCCESU.

March 2010

Photocourtesy:Thisseriesofphotographsillustratestheconsequencesofamassivelandslideattheheadwaters
ofSoldierCreek,tributarytoUsalCreekinMendocinoCounty,California.Theslidemayhavedeliveredupto
one million cubic yards of sediment into the watershed. Sediment from this slide buried the coho salmon
spawning and rearing habitat in Soldier Creek rendering it unsuitable for coho salmon for many years
afterwards.PictureatbottomleftillustratesthelowerportionofSoldierCreekthatchangedfromasystemwith
abundant diversity of instream habitat to a greatly simplified stream that was essentially one long continuous
riffle,unsuitableforjuvenilerearing.PictureatbottomrightillustratesthesedimentplumefromSoldierCreek
asitentersNorthForkUsalCreek.Twelveyearsaftertheslidestreamconditionsareimproving.Photoscourtesy
ofDavidHinesandJonathanAmbrose,NMFS.
Floodplains. Survival and distribution of juvenile coho salmon are associated with available winter
habitat(Bustard&Narver1975;Peterson1982;Tschaplinski&Hartman1983;Nickelsonetal.1992;Quinn
&Peterson1996,Bell2001).Duringwinter,juvenilecohosalmonselecthabitatswithlowvelocitywater
suchasalcoves,sidechannels,backwaters,riverineponds,anddeeppoolsformedbyrootwads(Bustard
&Narver1975;Tschaplinski&Hartman1983;Nickelsonetal.1992).Thesehabitatfeaturesprovidecover
from predators and protection from high discharge, factors that cause premature emigration and/or

March 2010
mortalityofoverwinteringsalmonids(Bustard&Narver1975;McMahon&Hartman1989;Sandercock
1991;Ermanetal.,1988).Thesehabitatfeaturesoftenoccuratthegreatestfrequencyonfloodplains.
CottanevaCreek,MendocinoCounty,CA.PhotocourtesyofMattGoldsworthy,MRC
Because survival and growth are often better in
floodplain habitats, maintenance and restoration of
theseareasmaybeofexceptionalimportanceforcoho
salmon recovery. However, floodplains are
frequently locations of human development and as
thenameimplies,areareaspronetoflooding.Many
floodplainhabitatsintheCCCESUareheavyaltered
andchannelized(forfloodcontrolandasamatteror
routine maintenance practices) and no longer
maintain
alcoves,
side
channels,
backwaters, etc. Restoring floodplain habitats, wherever
feasible and beneficial, would have a significant benefit to
overwintersurvivalofjuvenilecohosalmon.
For more extensive discussion of and data supporting the
relationship between changes in habitat variables and the
status and trends of fish and wildlife populations, readers
should refer to the work of Fiedler and Jain (1992), Gentry
(1986),GilpinandSoule(1986),Nicholson(1954),Odum(1971,
1989), and Soul (1986). For detailed discussions of the
relationship between habitat variables and the status and
trendsofsalmonpopulations,readersshouldrefertothework
of FEMAT (1993), Gregory and Bisson (1997), Hicks et al.,
(1991), Murphy (1995), National Research Council (1996),
Nehlsenetal.,(1991),Spenceetal.,(1996),Thomasetal.,(1993),
andTheWildernessSociety(1993).
Photo courtesy: Branciforte Creek on the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, CA. This picture illustrates
permanent impacts to a riparian zone on a floodplain due to bank hardening and stabilization actions. This urbanized
stream bank no longer provides shade or any potential for future wood recruitment. The rip rap on the streambank will
act to increase water velocity rending the habitat much less suitable for rearing and migration. Jon Ambrose, NMFS.
MarineEnvironment
ThemarinelifestageofCCCcohosalmonisnotwellstudied.Afterinitialentrancetotheocean,smolts
concentrate in schools inshore, gradually moving north along the continental shelf (DFG 2004). As
described above, ocean residence typically lasts for two years, when adult fish return to freshwater to
spawn and begin the cycle again. Some precocious males (jacks) returnafter only six months of ocean
residence.

March 2010
Longterm trends in marine productivity associated with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific
Ocean have a major influence on coho salmon production. Natural climatic conditions may have
exacerbated or mitigated the problems associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine
habitats (69 FR 33102). Coho salmon have evolved behaviors and life history traits allowing them to
surviveavarietyofenvironmentalconditions.Whenpopulationsarefragmentedorreducedinsizeand
range,however,theyaremorevulnerabletoextinctionbynaturalevents.
Poor ocean conditions are believed to have a prominent role in the recent decline of coho salmon
populationsinCalifornia.Unusuallywarmoceansurfacetemperaturesandassociatedchangesincoastal
currentsandupwelling,knownasElNioconditionsresultinecosystemalterationssuchasreductions
in primary and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator species distributions. More
significantly, poor ocean conditions that affect the biological productivity are the result of interdecadal
climate variability in the northeast Pacific (Beamish and Boullion 1993, Hollowed and Wooster 1994).
Regimes shifts in the ocean have likely significantly adversely affected overall CCC coho salmon
production.
ElNioisoftencitedasacauseforthedeclineofWestCoastsalmonids.Nearshoreconditionsduring
the spring and summer months along the California coast may have dramatically affected yearclass
strength of salmonids (Kruzic et al., 2001). Coho salmon along the California coast may be especially
sensitive to upwelling patterns because of the lack of other coastal habitat types that normally buffer
adverse oceanographic effects (i.e. extensive bays, straits, and estuaries). The paucity of high quality
nearshore habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions, makes freshwater rearing habitat more
crucialforthesurvivalandpersistenceofmanycohosalmonpopulations.Ofgreatestimportanceisnot
how salmonids perform during periods of high marine survival, but how prolonged periods of poor
marine survival affect population viability. Salmonid populations have persisted through many such
cycles.Itislesscertainhowtheywillfareinperiodsofpooroceansurvivalwhenfreshwater,estuary,
andnearshoremarinehabitatsaredegraded(Goodetal.,2005).RecoveryofcohosalmonintheNCCC
Domainwilldependonpopulationsrobustandresilientenoughtowithstandnaturalchangesinocean
productivity.
El Nino events are interannual variations in ocean conditions that decrease the abundance of salmonid
prey items in the ocean, and while they tend to occur more frequently in particular longer term ocean
environmentalregimestheyarenotnecessaryforpoormarinesurvival.ThechangestoPacificDecadal
Oscillation(PDO)aremorelonglastingandmoreprofound.Synthesisofclimateandfisherydatafrom
theNorthPacificsectorhighlightstheexistenceofthisverylargescale,interdecadal,coherentpatternof
environmental and biotic changes. The marine ecological response to the PDOrelated environmental
changesstartswithphytoplanktonandzooplanktonatthebaseofthefoodchainandworksitswayupto
higher level predators like salmon (Venrick et al., 1992, Roemmich and McGowan 1995, Hare 1996,
Brodeuretal.,1996,Francisetal.,1997).Thisbottomupenhancementofoverallproductivityappears
to be closely related to upper ocean changes that are characteristic of the positive polarity of the PDO.
PDOreversalsoccurredin1925,1947,and1977(Mantuaetal.,1997,MantuaandHare2002).Theresults
ofthesereversalsweresignificantlychangedharvestpatternsbetweenAlaskanfisheriesandfisheriesin
Washington,Oregon,andCalifornia(WOC).Ofnotehowever,Mantuaetal.,(1997)observedaweaker
connectionbetweenharvestrecordsfortheWOCsalmonidsthantheAlaskanfisheries.Theyindicated

March 2010
that climatic influences on salmon in their southern ranges may also be masked or overwhelmed by
anthropogenic impacts: Alaskan stocks are predominantly wild spawners in pristine watersheds, while
theWOCcohoandColumbiaRiverspringChinooksalmonaremostlyofhatcheryoriginandoriginatein
watershedsthathavebeensignificantlyalteredbyhumanactivities.
FormoreinformationonmarineconditionspleaseseeAppendixA.

PhotoCourtesy:Hatcheryadult(fromtheBroodstockProgram)CCCcohosalmon,ScottCreek,Santa
CruzCounty,CA.MorganBond,SWFSC

March 2010
CHAPTER2:THEESA&
NMFSRECOVERYPLANNING
From the most narrow possible point of view, it is in the best interest of mankind to minimize
the losses of genetic variations. The reason is simple: they are potential resources. They are
the keys to puzzles which we cannot solve, and may provide answers to questions which we
have not yet learned to ask.
U.S. House of Representatives when enacting the Endangered Species Act
THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

ThefederalESA(16U.S.C.1531etseq.)wasenactedbyCongressandsignedintolawDecember28,1973,
byPresidentRichardNixon,andamendedseveraltimessubsequently(16U.S.C.1531etseq.).TheESA
was established to conserve the Nations natural heritage for the enjoyment and benefit of current and
futuregenerationsbyconservingspeciesindangerofextinction.TheintentofCongress,interpretedby
theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,inenactingtheESAwastohaltandreversethetrendtowardspecies
extinction,requireagenciestoaffordfirstprioritytothedeclarednationalpolicyofsavingendangered
species, and give endangered species priority over the primary missions of Federal agencies
(TennesseeValleyAuthorityv.Hill,437U.S.1531978).
NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibility for ESA implementation.
Generally,USFWSmanageslandandfreshwaterspecies,whileNMFSmanagesmarineandanadromous
species(e.g.,speciesthatlivetheiradultlivesintheoceanbutmoveintofreshwaterstreamstoreproduce
or spawn;such as salmon). Whena marine or anadromous species islisted as Federally threatened or
endangered, section 4 of the ESA requires NMFS to develop a plan for the species conservation and
survival(i.e.,recoveryplan).Theplanofrecoveryshouldoutlinetheprocessesneededtostoporreverse
thedecline,neutralizethreats,andbringthespeciesbackfrompossibleextinctiontoapointatwhichthe
protectionsoftheESAarenolongernecessary.
NMFS(2006a)definesrecoveryas:
theprocessbywhichlistedspeciesandtheirecosystemsarerestoredandtheirfuturesafeguardedto
thepointthatprotectionsundertheESAarenolongerneeded.

March 2010
Section4(f)(1)(B)oftheESAoutlinesthattheagencyshalltothemaximumextentpracticable:
Incorporateineachplan
i.Descriptionofsuchsitespecificmanagementactionsasmaybenecessarytoachievetheplansgoalfor
theconservationandsurvivalofthespecies;
ii.Objective,measurablecriteriawhich,whenmet,wouldresultinthedeterminationthatthespeciesbe
removedfromthelist;and
iii.Estimatesofthetimerequiredandthecosttocarryoutthosemeasuresneededtoachievetheplans
goalandtheintermediatestepstowardthatgoal.
Caselawhasunderscoredtherequirementthatactionsmustbesitespecificandthatcriteriamustlinkto
thefactorsthatledtothespeciesdecline.The1994InteragencyPolicyonInformationStandardsdirects
NMFStoverifyandassurethequalityofthescienceusedtoestablishofficialpositions,decisionsand
actions (59 FR 24271). Furthermore, the Data Quality Act of 2002 requires NMFS to use the best
available information and process all information sources and analyses through a formal system of
review(69FR49718).
Section4(f)additionallyprovidesguidanceforagenciestoprocureservicesofappropriatepublicand
privateagenciesandinstitutions,andotherqualifiedpersonsandappointrecoveryteams.Section4
(f)(3)outlinesthatagenciesshallreporteverytwoyearstotheCommitteeonEnvironmentandPublic
WorksoftheSenateandtheCommitteeonMerchantMarineandFisheriesoftheHouseof
Representativesonthestatusofeffortstodevelopandimplementrecoveryplansforallspecies
listedandonthestatusofallspeciesforwhichsuchplanshavebeendeveloped.NMFSrecovery
planningprocessisadditionallyguidedbytheInterimEndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesRecovery
PlanningGuidance(NMFS2006a).
RECOVERING SALMONIDS UNDER THE FEDERAL ESA

Thereare27populationsofsalmonandsteelheadacrossthePacificNorthwestdesignatedasthreatened
withextinctionorindangerofextinctionundertheESA.ArecentNMFSstatusreview(Goodetal.2005)
determined that, while significant efforts to improve habitats are underway and improvements in the
abundanceofseveralpopulationswereobserved,allpopulationscontinuetowarrantESAprotections.
NMFS Southwest Region recovery planning for these salmon and steelhead is organized into Recovery
Domains. Each Domain includes: (1) one or more populations of salmon and steelhead; (2) a recovery
coordinator responsible for facilitatingdevelopment of the recovery plan;and (3) a Technical Recovery
Team(TRT)ledbytheNMFSScienceCenter.WhileeachrecoveryplanwillmeetESArequirements,the
process of recovery plan development across the Pacific Northwest varies based on the unique
circumstances of the Domain such as species life history, local planning efforts, public interest and
coordination,anddataavailability.

March 2010
Californias Recovery Domains
Ofthe27salmonandsteelheadpopulationslistedundertheESA,tenareentirelywithin,orpartlyoccur
in,California.These10populationsareorganizedintofourRecoveryDomains(Figure7):(1)Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast; (2) NorthCentral California Coast; (3) California Central Valley; (4)
SouthCentral/SouthernCaliforniaCoast.ResponsibleNMFSofficesforeachDomainarelocatedin:(1)
Arcata;(2)SantaRosa;(3)Sacramento;and(4)LongBeach,respectively.

The Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in Santa Cruz, California, chairs the TRT of each
Domain. The TRTs are comprised of technical experts appointed as an official recovery team charged
with identifying the historical population structure and developing biological viability criteria for each
listed salmon ESU and steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in their respective domains. Plan
development and finalizationincluding processes for public outreach, stakeholder input, and internal
coordination are the responsibility of the Protected Resources Division (PRD) of NMFS and of the
recoverycoordinator.
Goals of This Draft Recovery Plan

While the ultimate goals of a recovery plan are to provide a basis for delisting, it is also our intent to
provide the public an opportunity to learn more about salmon and how they can contribute to salmon
recovery in California. This draft is intended to foster discussions and information/data exchange
regarding watershed conditions, status coho salmon, priority recovery actions that can be mutually
beneficialinestablishingrestorationopportunities.
Overarchinggoalsoftherecoveryplanareto:
Provide information on the life history of CCC coho salmon related to their endangerment and
recovery;
Outlineatransparentandadaptablestrategytoachieverecovery;
Identifyhighestpriorities,andrecoveryactionstargetingthosepriorities;
Establishcriteriatomeasuretheachievementofrecovery;and
Provideaframeworkforoutreach,funding,andcollaborationforrecovery.
Furthermore, it is the intent of the ESA that recovery plans guide Federal agencies in fulfilling their
obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, which calls on all Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened species In addition to outlining strictly proactive measures to
achieve the species recovery, the plans provide context and a framework for implementation of other
provisionsoftheESAwithrespecttoaparticularspecies,suchassection7(a)(2)consultationsonFederal
agencyactivitiesordevelopmentofsection10(a)(1)(B)HabitatConservationPlans(HCPs).

March 2010
Recovery: A Collaborative Effort
NMFS believes it is critically important to base ESA recovery plans for Pacific salmon on the many
Federal,State,regional,local,andprivateconservationeffortsalreadyunderwaythroughouttheregion.
Itisessentialthatthosewhoseactivitiesdirectlyaffectthelistedspecies,andwhoseactionswillbemost
affected by recovery requirements, support ESA recovery plans. NMFS will encourage locallyled
collaborative efforts to finalize this and other recovery plans, involving local communities, State and
Federalentities,andotherstakeholders.
North Central California Coast Recovery Domain

TheNCCCrecoverydomainislocatedalongapproximately250milesofCaliforniacoast,extendingfrom
theRedwoodCreekwatershedinHumboldtCountytotheAptosCreekwatershedinSantaCruzCounty.
Thisdomainencompassesapproximately8millionacresandincludestheSanFranciscoBayEstuaryand
itstributaries(exceptfortheSacramentoSanJoaquinrivers),aswellasHumboldtBayanditstributaries.
The geographic setting of the domain includes forested mountains, the adjacent Pacific Ocean, and the
highlyurbanizedareasofSanFranciscoBayandthenorthsouthU.S.Highway101corridor(Figure7).
TheNCCCDomainincludesthefollowingESUsandDPSs:CentralCaliforniaCoaststeelhead;Northern
California steelhead; California Coastal Chinook and CCC coho salmon. This recovery plan was
developed specifically for the CCC coho salmon ESU first due to its critical status, to be followed by a
multispeciesplanfortheremainingpopulationsintheDomain.

March 2010

Figure7:CaliforniasFourSalmonandSteelheadRecoveryDomains(withoverlappingDomainareas
shownwithcrosshatching).

March 2010
CHAPTER3:FACTORS
LEADINGTOFEDERALLISTING
Man in his misguidance has powerfully interfered with Nature. He has devastated the forests,
and thereby even changed the atmospheric conditions and the climate. Some species of
plants and animals have become entirely extinct through man, and the purity of the air is
affected by smoke and the like, and the rivers are defiled. These and other things are serious
encroachments upon Nature, which men nowadays entirely overlook but which are of the
greatest importance, and at once show their evil effect not only upon plants but upon animals
as well, the latter not having the endurance and power of resistance of man.
Goethe, 1832
PURPOSE
TocomplywithESA,caselawandrecoveryplanningpolicies,ananalysisofthreats(e.g.,listingfactors)
identifiedatthetimeofandsincelistingwasconductedaccordingtothefollowingguidelines:
1. DirectivesbytheU.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO2006),fromanauditofall
recoveryplans,toensureallnewrecoveryplanshavecriteriaevidencingconsiderationofall
factorsconsideredtoaffectthespeciesattimeoflisting;and
2. Caselawoutliningplansmustrecognizeidentifiedthreatsandrecommendappropriateactions
toaddressthreats.TheadministrativerecordshouldreflecttheagencyconsiderednewESA
section4(a)threatsthathavearisensincelisting,documenttheexistenceofnewthreatsorthe
eliminationofathreatsincelisting,anddevelopcriteriathataddressthesethreatsFundfor
Animalsat111;DefendersofWildlifev.Babbitt,130F.Supp.2d.121{D.D.C.2001}.TheFederal
Registernoticesanalysesshouldfacilitatethedevelopmentofcriteriathataddressthefactorsthat
affectthespeciesandprovideabenchmarktomeasurewhetherthreatshavebeenreducedor
removed.
All pertinent Federal Register notices, including both proposed and final listing determinations for the
CCC coho salmon were reviewed (Table 5). The listing factors described in this Chapter are those
specifiedatthetimeoflistingandexplicitlydescribedinthelistingdeterminationnoticesforwhichthe
noticepertained,orthoseincorporatedbyreference.Thecurrentstatusofalllistingfactorswereassessed
in context to the recovery plan threats analysis and through consultation with staff/personnel from
NMFS,DFG,andotherentities.Alldatawerecataloguedtofacilitatetrackingofthreatsatthetimeof
listing, those changed since listing and newly identified threats. Each table records the date and page
numberofpublicationintheFederalRegister,anddescribeseachasitwaspresentedintheFederalRegister
atthetimeofpublication.Newandforecastedthreatsarecomparedagainstthelistingfactorsandlinked
to associated strategies by threat category. These tables can be provided upon request, are part of the
administrative record and will be included in the final recovery plan. These analyses allow tracking

March 2010
during reclassification to a possible downlisted or delisted status, and provide the framework to
assessinghowimplementationwillensureunderlyingcausesofdeclinearebeingaddressedormitigated.
The status of listing factors and associated recovery criteria to improve conditions and abate threats is
outlined in Table 6. The analysis results indicate little to no change in threats since listing; a short
summaryisprovided.
Table9:FederalRegisterNoticesanalyzedtoassessthreatsandprotectivemeasures
Date Citation Title ContentDescription
July25,1995 60FR38011 Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Proposed rule: threatened status
Threatened Status for Three Contiguous ESUs of forCCCcohosalmon.
Coho Salmon Ranging From Oregon Through
CentralCalifornia
October31,1996 61FR56138 Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Final rule: threatened status for
StatusforCCCCohoSalmonESU CCCcoho.
June14,2004 69FR33102 Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Proposed rule: endangered
ListingDeterminationsfor27ESUsofWestCoast status for CCC coho salmon,
Salmonids threatened status update for CC
Chinook, threatened status
update for CCC steelhead,
threatened status update for NC
steelhead.
June28,2005 70FR37160 Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Final rule, endangered status for
ListingDeterminationsfor16ESUsofWestCoast CCC coho salmon, threatened
Salmon,andFinal4(d)ProtectiveRegulationsfor status update for CC Chinook
ThreatenedSalmonidESUs salmon. Extend final listing for
O.mykissDPSs.
FACTORS AFFECTING CCC COHO SALMON AT THE TIME, AND SINCE,

LISTING
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 424) direct NMFS to
determineifaspeciesisthreatenedorendangeredthroughoneoracombinationofthefollowingfactors:
FederalRegisterListingFactors:
(A)Thepresentorthreateneddestruction,modificationorcurtailmentofhabitatorrange;
(B)Overutilizationforcommercial,recreational,scientific,oreducationalpurposes;
(C)Diseaseorpredation;
(D)Inadequacyofexistingregulatorymechanisms;or
(E)Othernaturalormanmadefactorsaffectingitscontinuedexistence.
Throughtheregulatoryprocess,theSecretaryofCommercehasdeterminedthattheCCC cohosalmon
ESU is anendangered species based on the combination of the five factorsassummarizedbelow. The
factors threatening naturally reproducing coho salmon throughout its range are numerous and varied.
For the CCC coho salmon ESU the present depressed condition is the result of several longstanding

March 2010
humaninduced factors (e.g., habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial propagation)
that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural environmental variability from such factors as
droughtandpooroceanconditions(61FR56138).
Factor A (At Time of Listing): Present or Threatened Destruction,

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
Logging,agricultureandminingactivities,urbanization,streamchannelization,dams,wetlandloss,and
waterwithdrawalsandunscreeneddiversionsforirrigationcontributedtothedeclineoftheCCCcoho
salmonESU.Landuseactivitiesassociatedwithlogging,roadconstruction,urbandevelopment,mining,
agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered coho salmon habitat quantity and quality (61 FR
56138).Impactsofconcernassociatedwiththeseactivitiesincludethefollowing:alterationofstreambank
andchannelmorphology,alterationofambientstreamwatertemperatures,eliminationofspawningand
rearinghabitat,fragmentationofavailablehabitats,eliminationofdownstreamrecruitmentofspawning
gravels and LWD, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in increased stream bank erosion, and
degradationofwaterquality(61FR56138).Ofparticularconcernwastheincreasedsedimentinputinto
spawning and rearing areas resulting from the loss of channel complexity, pool habitat, suitable gravel
substrate, and LWD (61 FR 56138). Decreased large woody material in streams also reduced habitat
complexity and contributed to the loss of cover, shade, and pools which are required by juvenile coho
salmon(60FR38011).Loggingactivitiesalteredthenaturalhydrograph.
Agriculturalpractices contributed to the degradation of salmonid habitat in the ESU through irrigation
diversions,overgrazinginriparianareas,andcompactionofsoilsinuplandareasfromlivestock.Habitat
degradationresultingfromthenegativeimpactsoflivestockgrazingonriparianvegetationaredescribed
in61FR56138.Urbanizationhasdegradedcohosalmonhabitatthroughstreamchannelization,changes
to the hydrologic regime (including floodplain drainage), riparian damage, and point source and non
point pollution (including sediments with trace metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, gasoline, and
otherpetroleumproducts).
Depletion and storage of natural flows have drastically altered natural hydrological cycles in many
central California rivers and streams. Alteration of stream flows has increased juvenile salmonid
mortality for a variety of reasons described in 61 FR 56138. Reduced flows degrade or diminish fish
habitats via increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of new
spawninggravels,encroachmentofriparianandnonnativevegetationintospawningandrearingareas,
andincreasedwatertemperatures(60FR38011;61FR56138).
The destruction or modification of estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important rearing and
migrationhabitats.Californiahasexperienceda91percentlossofitswetlandhabitat.

March 2010
Factor A (Since Listing): Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
No significant changes to this factor have occurred since listing and the threats remain. Land use
activitiesassociatedwithlogging,roadconstruction,urbandevelopment,mining,agriculture,ranching,
andrecreation,andtheirassociatedimpactscontinuetoresultintheloss,degradation,simplification,and
fragmentation of CCC coho salmon habitat, and cause resulting declines in CCC coho salmon
populations.Depletionandstorageofnaturalflowshavedrasticallyalterednaturalhydrologicalcycles
in many central California rivers and streams. Many habitat blockages, including major dams such as
CoyoteandWarmSpringsDamslocatedintheRussianRiverBasin,existwithintheESU.
Factor B (At Time of Listing): Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,

Scientific, or Educational Purposes
Cohosalmonwerehistoricallyapartoftribalfisheries,andweretargetedinrecreationalandcommercial
fisheriessincetheearly1800s.OverfishingintheearlydaysofEuropeansettlementledtothedepletion
ofmanystocksofsalmonids,priortoextensivemodificationsanddegradationofnaturalhabitats(69FR
33102). Marine harvest of coho salmon occurs primarily in nearshore waters off British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon, and California. Recreational fishing for coho salmon was pursued in numerous
streamsthroughoutthecentralCaliforniacoastwhenadultsreturnonthefallspawningmigration.Coho
salmon stocks were managed by NMFS in conjunction with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council,
the States, and certain tribes. The central California coast falls within the Federal salmon fishery
management zone stretching from Horse Mountain, just north of Fort Bragg, California, to the Mexico
border. Coho salmon ocean harvests were managed by setting escapement goals for Oregon Coastal
Natural coho salmon. This stock aggregate constituted the largest portion of naturally produced coho
salmoncaughtinoceansalmonfisheriesoffCaliforniaandOregon.Usingthisindexmayhaveresulted
inpre1994exploitationrateshigherthancentralCaliforniapopulationscouldsustain.Theconfounding
effects of habitat deterioration, drought, and poor ocean conditions on coho salmon survival make it
difficulttoassessthedegreetowhichrecreationalandcommercialharvesthavecontributedtotheoverall
decline of coho salmon in West Coast rivers (61 FR 56138). However, during periods of decreased
habitat availability (e.g., drought conditions) the impacts of incidental capturefrom recreational fishing
maybeheightened.
Collection for scientific research and educational programs had little or no impact on California coho
salmonpopulations.InCalifornia,mostofthescientificcollectionpermitsareissuedtoenvironmental
consultants, Federal resource agencies, and educational institutions by DFG and NMFS. Regulation of
take is controlled by conditioning individual permits. DFG and NMFS require reporting of any coho
salmon taken incidental to other monitoring activities; however, no comprehensive total or estimate of
cohosalmonmortalitiesrelatedtoscientificsamplingarekeptforanywatershedinCalifornia.DFGdoes
not believe that indirect mortalities associated with scientific use are detrimental to coho salmon in
California(61FR56138).

March 2010
Factor B (Since Listing): Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
No significant changes to this factor have occurred since listing and the threats remain. State sport
fishing regulations no longer allow retention of CCC coho salmon in inland or nearshore waters.
Commercial harvest of coho salmon is not permitted in California. A global moratorium on high seas
driftnetfishing(viaaUnitedNationsresolutionimplementedbytheUSin1992)hasreducedtheimpact
of this threat to salmonids. Collection for scientific research and education programs is currently not
beingtracked;therefore,itisunknownhowcollectingmaybeaffectingCCCcohosalmonpopulations.
Giventheextremelylowpopulation,anycollectionmayhaveasignificantadverseeffectandshouldbe
monitored.
Factor C (At Time of Listing): Disease or Predation

Relativetotheeffectsoffishing,habitatdegradation,andhatcherypractices,diseaseandpredationwere
not believed to be major factors contributing to the decline of West Coast coho salmon populations.
However,diseaseandpredationmayhavesubstantialadverseimpactsinlocalareas.
Cohosalmonareexposedtonumerousbacterial,protozoan,viral,andparasiticorganismsinspawning
andrearingareas,hatcheries,migratoryroutes,andthemarineenvironment.Specificdiseasesknownto
bepresentinandaffectsalmonidsarelistedin69FR33102.Verylittlecurrentorhistoricalinformation
existedtoquantifychangesininfectionlevelsandmortalityratesattributabletothesediseasesforcoho
salmon. However, studies have shown native fish tend to be less susceptible to these pathogens than
hatcheryrearedfish(Buchananetal.,1983;Sandersetal.,1992).InCalifornia,manynaturalandhatchery
cohosalmonpopulationsweretestedpositiveforthebacteriumRenibacteriumsalmoninarum,thecausative
agentofbacterialkidneydisease(BKD).WithintheCCCcohosalmonESU,theoverallincidenceofBKD
infectioninfishatScottandWaddellCreekswasbelievedtobe100percent(61FR56138).Stress,caused
by migration or poor water quality or quantity, may trigger the onset of the disease. DFG initiated a
treatmentprotocoltoattempttocontrolBKDoutbreaksinhatcheryfishreleasedintotheRussianRiver
andScottCreek(61FR56138).
Introductionsofnonnativespeciesandhabitatmodificationsresultedinincreasedpredatorpopulations
innumerousriversandlakes.Predationbymarinemammals(primarilyharborsealsandCaliforniasea
lions)wasalsoofconcerninareasexperiencingdwindlingrunsizesofsalmon.Predationbyseabirdscan
decreasethesurvivalofjuvenilecohosalmon.Knownavianpredatorsincluderingbilledgulls,common
merganser, herons, cormorants, and alcids. Piscivorous predators may also affect the abundance and
survivalofsalmonids.Althoughpredationdoesoccur,itisbelievedtobeaminorfactorintheoverall
decline of coastwide salmonid populations. The increased impact of certain predators was largely the
resultofecosystemmodificationrelatedtohabitatchangesandadecreaseinwaterquantityandquality.
For example, decreases in cover habitat and adequate migration and rearing flows make fish more
vulnerabletopredation.

March 2010
Factor C (Since Listing): Disease or Predation Since Time of Listing
Thethreatsidentifiedatthetimeoflistingremain.Relativetoothereffects(i.e.,habitatdegradationand
hatcherypractices),diseaseandpredationarenotbelievedtobemajorfactorscontributingtothedecline
ofWestCoastcohosalmonpopulations(61FR56138).Predationbymarinemammals(principallyseals
andsealions)isofconcerninareasexperiencingdwindlingrunsizesofsalmon(69FR33102)andhas
been found to be watershed specific. Predation by marine mammals coincidental with salmonid
migrationsmay,insomecases,killasignificantfractionofarunandlocaldepletionmightoccur(NMFS
1997; Quinn 2005). Habitat conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate
susceptibilitytoinfectiousdiseases(69FR33102).
Factor D (At Time of Listing): Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms
Despite the Federal and nonfederal efforts, due to funding and implementation uncertainties, and the
voluntarynatureofmanyprograms,theregulatorymechanismsthatexistedatthetimeoflistingwere
determined as not providing sufficient certainty that combined Federal and nonfederal efforts are
reducingthreatstoCCCcohosalmon.TheinformationbelowoutlineswhattheFRNarticulatedoneach
topicatthetimeoflisting.
Federal Efforts
TheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)regulatesdredgingandfillinginthewatersoftheUnited
StatesthroughtheCleanWaterAct(CWA)Section404Program.TheUSACEprogramisimplemented
throughtheissuanceofavarietyofIndividual,NationWideandEmergencypermits.USACEdoesnot
permitadischargethatwouldcauseorcontributetosignificantdegradationofthewatersoftheUnited
States.Oneofthefactorsthatmustbeconsideredinthisdeterminationiscumulativeeffects.However,
COEguidelinesdonotspecifyamethodologyforassessingcumulativeimpactsorhowmuchweightto
assignthemindecisionmaking.Furthermore,COEdoesnothaveinplaceanyprocesstoaddressthe
cumulativeeffectsofthecontinueddevelopmentofwaterfront,riverine,coastal,andwetlandproperties.
Avarietyoffactors,includinginadequatestaffing,training,andinsomecasespolicydirection,resultsin
ineffectiveprotectionofaquatichabitatsimportanttomigrating,spawning,orrearingcohosalmon.The
deficienciesofthecurrentprogramareparticularlyacuteduringlargescalefloodingevents,suchas
thoseassociatedwithEINinoconditions,whichcanputadditionalstrainontheadministrationofthe
CWASection404program.

TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)administersaFloodInsuranceProgramwhich
stronglyinfluencesthedevelopmentinwaterwaysandfloodplains.Regulationsallowfordevelopment
inthemarginsofactivewaterwaysiftheyareprotectedagainst100yearfloodevents,anddonotraise
thewaterelevationswithintheactivechannel(floodway)morethanonefootduringsuchfloodevents.
Thisstandarddidnotadequatelyreflectthedynamic,mobilenatureofwatercoursesintheCCCcoho
salmonESU,andthecriticalrolethatmarginsofactivewaterways(riparianareas)playinthe
maintenanceofaquatichabitats.FEMAconductstechnicalandfinancialassistancetopublicandprivate
propertyownerswhoincurdamagesfromfloodingresultingfromnaturaldisasters.FEMAprogramsfor
repairingfloodrelateddamages(PublicAssistanceProgram,IndividualandHouseholdsProgram,and
HazardMitigationGrantProgram)promotethereplacementofdamagedfacilitiesandstructuresintheir

March 2010
originallocations,whicharepronetorepeateddamagefromfutureflooding,andthusleadtorepeated
disturbanceofriparianandaquatichabitatsimportanttomigrating,spawning,orrearingsteelhead.
TheCWAintenttoprotectbeneficialusesassociatedwithaquatichabitats,includingfisheryresources
hadnotbeenfoundfullyeffectiveinadequatelyprotectingfisheryresources,particularlywithrespectto
nonpointsourcesofpollution(includingincreasedsedimentationfromroutinemaintenanceand
emergencyfloodcontrolactivitieswithintheactivechannelandfloodplain).
Section303(d)(1)(C)and(D)oftheCWArequiresstatestoprepareTotalMaximumDailyLoads(TMDLs)
forallwaterbodiesthatdonotmeetStatewaterqualitystandards.TMDLsareamethodforquantitative
assessmentofenvironmentalproblemsinawatershedandidentifyingpollutionreductionsneededto
protectdrinkingwater,aquaticlife,recreation,andotheruseofrivers,lakes,andstreams.TMDLsmay
addressallpollutionsourcesincludingpointsourcessuchassewageorindustrialplantdischarges,and
nonpointdischargessuchasrunofffromroads,farmfields,andforests.
TheCWAgivesstategovernmentstheprimaryresponsibilityforestablishingTMDLs.However,the
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)isrequiredtodosoifastatedoesnotmeetthisresponsibility.
EPAmadeacommitmentguaranteeingthateitherEPAortheStateofCaliforniawillestablishTMDLs
thatidentifypollutionreductiontargetsfor18impairedriverbasinsinCaliforniabytheyear2007.The
StateofCaliforniamadeacommitmenttoestablishTMDLsforapproximatelyhalfthe18riverbasinsby
2007.EPAoutlinedtheywoulddevelopTMDLsfortheremainingimpairedbasinsintheStateand
agreedtocompleteallTMDLsiftheStatefailedtomeetitscommitmentby2007.Theabilityofthese
TMDLstoprotectsalmonandsteelheadshouldbesignificantinthelongterm.However,implementation
ofthisstatutewasnotdeterminedasadequatetoprotectcohosalmonhabitatatthetimeoflistingwith
theirefficacyinprotectingsalmonidhabitatuncertain.
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board was in the process of updating its north coast
basin plan, which would establish water quality standards for all of the northern California rivers and
streams (including the Ten Mile, Noyo, Navarro, Garcia, Gualala and Russian Rivers). These plans
would also incorporate TMDL standards developed for water bodies that are listed as 303(d) impaired
undersection303(d)oftheCWA.Theseplanswereanticipatedtohelpreducehumanimpactstoaquatic
environmentsandthusprotectESAlistedsalmonids.
NMFS staff conduct ESA section 7 consultations with Federal action agencies that fund, conduct or
authorizeprojectsintherangeofCCCcohosalmon.NMFSevaluatesmpactstoCCCcohosalmonfroma
widevarietyofprojectsincluding:irrigationandwaterdiversion,timberharvest,watershedrestoration,
fish passage, gravel mining, grazing, and transportation projects. One important consultation was the
Potter Valley Project (which included the Russian River). Other important consultations were ongoing
with the USACE and the Sonoma County Water Agency (for the Russian River). These consultations
were expected to improve, or minimize adverse impacts to, the CCC coho salmon ESU and associated
habitat. NMFS was engaged in an ongoing effort to assist in the development of HCPs for State and
privatelandsundersection10oftheESA.
The National Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with potential benefits for CCC coho
salmon.UndertheNFPtheUSForestService(USFS)andtheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)made

March 2010
effortstoreduceadverseeffectstoaquaticandripariandependentspeciesincludingsalmonintherange
oftheNorthernspottedowl.ThemostsignificantelementoftheNFPforanadromousfishisitsAquatic
Conservation Strategy, which includes an objective for salmon habitat conservation. However, Federal
lands comprise only about five percent of the CCC coho salmon ESU, a proportion too small to secure
recoveryevenwiththestrictestofFederalforestmanagementpractices.
The PFMC manages ocean fisheries consistent with NMFS requirements for listed salmonids. This
managementreducedtheimpactofoceanharvesttolistedsalmonsuchasthecohosalmon.Whileocean
fishing is regulated to reduce impact on coho salmon, State sport fishing regulations continue to allow
fishingforcohosalmonininlandwaters.
ThePacificCoastalSalmonRecoveryFundallowedNMFStoprovideannualgrantstotheStatetoassist
salmonrecoveryeffortsincohowatershedsfromtheOregonbordertosouthernCaliforniatheprogram
asimplementedbythestatewascompetitiveinnature,anddidnotadequatelyprioritizefundingbased
onlistingstatusandESU.
Non-Federal Efforts
Several management efforts were implemented to protect listed salmonid ESUs in California. These
includedrestrictedexploitationratesonRogueRiver/KlamathRiverhatcherystockstoprotectCCCcoho
salmon and no retention take prohibitions for coho salmon in the marine environment off the coast of
California.
Due to the lack of comprehensive abundance and trend data for coastal salmonids, the DFG funded a
development effort for a Statewide coastal salmonid monitoring plan, and monitoring program. DFG
andNMFSidentifiedtheneedforaprogrammaticcoordinatedeffortwhichwouldutilizepeerreviewed
andstandardizedmethodologiesasacriticalneedinassessingtheviabilityoflistedESUs.
Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) along the California coast allow the agricultural community to
voluntarilyaddressandcorrectmanagementpracticesimpactingESAlistedsalmonidsandtheirhabitats.
The RCDs assist landowners in developing and implementing best management practices protective of
salmonids.
The Rangeland Management Advisory Committee developed a management plan for inclusion in the
StatesNonpointSourceManagementPlan.Thepurposeoftheplanwastomaintainandimprovethe
qualityandassociatedbeneficialusesofsurfacewaterthatpassesthroughrangelandresources.
LongtermsustainedgravelminingplanswerebeingdevelopedbyMendocinoCounty,whichcomprises
asignificantportionoftherangeoftheCCCcohosalmonwithextantindependentpopulations.

March 2010
A Memorandum of Understanding between NMFS and five northern California counties (including
Mendocino)wasdevelopedtocreatestandardizedcountyroutineroadmaintenancemanualtoassistin
theprotectionofESAlistedspeciesandtheirhabitat.Thismanualincludesbestmanagementpractices
(BMPs) for reducing impacts to listed species and the aquatic environment, a fivecounty inventorying
andprioritizationofallfishpassagebarriersassociatedwithcountyroads,annualtrainingofroadcrews
andcountyplanners,andamonitoringframeworkforadaptivemanagement.
The Sotoyome RCD developed a voluntary certification program (Fish Friendly Farming) for grape
growers in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties who implemented land management practices that
decreasesoilerosionandsedimentdeliverytostreams.
FishNet4CisamulticountygroupcomprisedofrepresentativesfromMendocino,Sonoma,Marin,San
Mateo,andSantaCruzCounties.Theprogramcoordinatedcountyeffortssuchasroadmaintenance,fish
barrier assessment and removal, riparian and grading ordinances, erosion control, implementation of
bioengineeringprojectsandthedevelopmentofguidelinesforpublicworksdepartmentsthatenhanceor
protectsalmonidhabitat.
Local watershed councils and other groups throughout California successfully developed restoration
plansandworkedtoimplementhabitatrestorationprojectsexpectedtocontributetotheconservationof
listed salmonid ESUs. In the range of the CCC coho salmon ESU watershed, groups are addressing:
TomalesBay,LagunitasCreek,andtheRussianRiver.
Many other subwatershed groups, landowners, environmental groups, and nonprofit organizations
throughouttherangeofCCCcohosalmonconductedhabitatrestorationandplanningeffortsthatmay
contributetospeciesconservation.
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers a water rights permitting
systemwhichcontrolsutilizationofwatersforbeneficialusesthroughouttheState.Thissystem,whileit
contains provisions (including public trust provisions) for the protection of instream aquatic resources,
doesnotprovideanexplicitregulatorymechanismtoimplementDFGCodeSection5937requirementsto
protectfishpopulationsbelowimpoundments.Additionally,SWRCBgenerallylackstheoversightand
regulatoryauthorityovergroundwaterdevelopmentcomparabletosurfacewaterdevelopmentsforout
ofstreambeneficialuses.
LocalgovernmentshavethemostdirectresponsibilityforpermittinglandusesonnonFederalandnon
Stateownedlands.Localeffortstocontroldevelopmentwithinthefloodplainsandactivechannelsisin
manycaseslimitedtotheprotectionofpublicpropertiessuchascountyorcityroads,bridges,andother
infrastructure.Localgovernmentregulationoffloodplaindevelopmentdependstoalargeextentonthe
standards provided by FEMAs Flood Insurance Program which does not explicitly provide for the
protectionofnaturalfluvialprocessesessentialforthemaintenanceofnaturallyfunctioningriverineand
riparianhabitatsimportantforcohosalmonmigration,spawning,andrearing.

March 2010
The State of Californias forest practice rules (FPRs) contain provisions that can be protective of coho
salmoniffullyimplemented.However,theBoardofForestrydidnotadoptDFGsproposaltodesignate
coho salmon as a sensitive species, preventing adoption of special management practices for sensitive
speciesandtheirhabitat.
Factor D (Since Listing): Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Other than those listed below, no significant changes to this factor have occurred since listing and the
threats remain. A variety of State and Federal regulatory mechanisms exist to protect coho salmon
habitatandaddressthedeclineintheESU,buttheyhavenotbeenadequatelyimplemented(61FR56138
at 56143). Collectively protective efforts do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and
effectiveness to substantially ameliorate the level of assessed extinction risk for the CCC coho salmon
ESU(70FR37160at37190).
ChangesinFederalandnonfederaleffortsinclude:(1)theissuanceofCaliforniasRecoveryStrategyfor
CaliforniaCohoSalmonand(2)theissuanceofafinalbiologicalopinionfortheSonomaCountyWater
AgencysactivitiesintheRussianRiverand(3)underacourtorder,theStateofCaliforniawithassistance
from EPA have developed TMDLs for nearly all of the 18 impaired rivers. The Statewide coastal
monitoringprogram,fundedbytheDFG,CaliforniasWatershedProtectionProgramandthePACFISH
or Infish, the sister plan for nonColumbia River Basin, have not been funded, developed and/or
implementedasanticipated.WhiletheStatewideCoastalMonitoringPlanisinfinaldraft,thedelayin
funding and implementing the Statewide Coastal Monitoring Program is a concern, and remains a top
prioritywithintheCCCcohosalmonrecoveryplan.
Factor E (At Time of Listing): Other Natural and Man-made Factors

Affecting the Species Continued Existence
Longterm trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated with atmospheric conditions in the
NorthPacificOceanhadamajorinfluenceoncohosalmonproduction.Naturalclimaticconditionsmay
haveexacerbatedormitigatedtheproblemsassociatedwithdegradedandalteredriverineandestuarine
habitats(69FR331022004).Cohosalmonhaveevolvedbehaviorsandlifehistorytraitsallowingthemto
surviveavarietyofenvironmentalconditions.Whenpopulationsarefragmentedorreducedinsizeand
range,however,theyaremorevulnerabletoextinctionbynaturalevents.
The effects of extended drought on water supplies and water temperatures were a major concern for
California populations of coho salmon. Drought conditions reduced the amount of water available,
resultinginreductions(orelimination)offlowsneededforadultcohosalmonpassage,eggincubation,
and juvenile rearing and migration. The decline of many coho salmon populations began prior to
numerousyearsofdroughtconditionsinCalifornia.
Floodeventsincreasedsedimentationtostreams,particularlyinareaswithinherenterosionrisk,urban
encroachment, intensive timber management, and land disturbances resulting from logging, road
construction,mining,urbanization,livestockgrazing,agriculture,andfire.Sedimentationofstreambeds

March 2010
wasimplicatedasaprincipalcauseofdecliningsalmonidpopulationsthroughouttheirrange.Central
coastalCaliforniahassomeofthemosterodibleterrainintheworld.Inthisregion,catastrophicerosion
and subsequent stream sedimentation (such as during the 1955 and 1964 floods) resulted from areas
whichhadbeenclearcutorhadroadsconstructedonunstablesoils(61FR56138).
Pooroceanconditionswerebelievedtohaveaprominentroleinthedeclineofcohosalmonpopulations
in California. Unusually warm ocean surface temperatures and associated changes in coastal currents
and upwelling, known as El Nio conditions, resulted in ecosystem alterations such as reductions in
primary and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator species distributions. El Nio
was often cited as a cause for the decline of West Coast salmonids. Nearshore conditions during the
springandsummermonthsalongtheCaliforniacoastmayhavedramaticallyaffectedyearclassstrength
ofsalmonids(Kruzicetal.2001).CohosalmonalongtheCaliforniacoastmaybeespeciallysensitiveto
upwelling patterns because of the lack of other coastal habitat types that normally buffer adverse
oceanographiceffects(i.e.,extensivebays,straits,andestuaries).Thepaucityofhighqualitynearshore
habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions, makes freshwater rearing habitat more crucial for the
survivalandpersistenceofmanycohosalmonpopulations.
TheuseofartificialpropagationhadasignificantimpactontheproductionofWestCoastcohosalmon.
Nonnativecohosalmonstockswereintroducedasbroodstockinhatcheriesandwidelytransplantedin
many coastal rivers and streams in central California (Bryant 1994; Weitkamp et al. 1995). Potential
problems associated with hatchery programs include genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally
reproducing populations (Waples 1991), disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty in
determining wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish, depletions of wild stock to
increasebroodstock,andreplacementratherthansupplementationofwildstocksthroughcompetition
andcontinuedannualintroductionofhatcheryfish(61FR56138).
While nonnative fish were introduced in the CCC coho salmon ESU, most hatchery programs were
currently conducted without interESU import of broodstock. Hatchery fish releases were conducted
basedonadeterminationthatthehatcherystocksareconsideredsimilartothenativerun.Effortswere
madetoreturnhatcheryfishtotheirnatalstreams,andtheyareheldforanacclimationperiodtoincrease
the probability of imprinting. However, there were inadequate resources to tag enough hatchery coho
salmontomonitorreturnratesandratesofstraying(61FR56138).
Factor E (Since Listing): Other Natural and Man-made Factors Affecting

the Species Continued Existence
Nosignificantchangestothisfactorhaveoccurredsincelistingandthethreatsremain.Thebestavailable
scientific information indicates that the Earths climate is warming, driven by the accumulation of
greenhousegassesintheatmosphere(Oreskes2004;Battinetal.2007;Lindleyetal.2007).BecauseCCC
cohosalmondependuponfreshwaterstreamsandtheoceanduringdifferentstagesoftheirlifehistory
cycle,thepopulationislikelytobesignificantlyimpactedbyclimatechange.

March 2010
Table10:ListingFactors,StatusandAssociatedRecoveryCriteriaReferences
ListingFactorA: StatusofListingFactor SeeRestoration,ESUor
Habitats ThreatAbatementActions/Criteria
Agriculture Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threats(Agriculture;Logging)
Estuarinemodification Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threats(ChannelModification)
Forestry Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threats(Logging)
FreshwaterConditions Persisting;Expectedtoworsen AllRestoration
HabitatDegradation Persisting;Expectedtoworsen AllRestoration
Mining Persisting;Watershedspecific Threat(Mining)
RemovalofRiparianHabitat Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Restoration(Riparian)
RemovalofWetlandHabitat Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Restoration(Offchannel)
Urbanization Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Development)
WaterDiversions Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(WaterDiversion)
Wildfires CurrentlyLow;Expectedtoworsen Threats(Fire)(ClimateChange)
ListingFactorB: StatusofListingFactor SeeRestoration,ESUor

Overutilization ThreatAbatementActions/Criteria
Collection Persisting;Magnitudeunknown; CriteriaNeeded
Informationneeded
FreshwaterHarvest Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Fishing)
IllegalHarvest Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Fishing)
Overfishing Improved;Bycatchandfreshwater Threat(OceanHarvest&Fishing)
interceptionpersisting;Magnitude
unknown
ListingFactorC StatusofListingFactor SeeRestoration,ESUor

Disease&Predation ThreatAbatementActions/Criteria
AvianFreshwaterPredation Persisting;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
Predation Persisting;Magnitudewatershed Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
specific
DiseaseandPredation DiseaseImproved;PredationPersisting; Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
Watershedspecific
InfectiousDisease ThreatUnknown;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
MarineMammalPredation Persisting;Magnitudewatershed Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
specific
MarinePredation ThreatUnknown;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
PiscivorousPredators ThreatUnknown;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
Predation Persisting;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
Predation by nonnative Persisting;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)
species
Predationbyseabirds Persisting;Magnitudeunknown Threat(Disease,Predation,Competition)

March 2010
Table6(cont.):ListingFactors,StatusandAssociatedRecoveryActionsandCriteria
ListingFactorD StatusofListingFactor Criteria

InadequateRegulatoryMechanisms
All Federal, State, local governments, ThreatPersisting;Expectedtoworsen
municipalitiesandothers
ListingFactorE StatusofListingFactor SeeRestoration,ESUor

OtherFactors ThreatAbatement
Actions/Criteria
ArtificialPropagation Improved; Conservation practices Hatchery Criteria (Spence et al.
implemented 2008)
Drought Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Drought)
ElNinoconditions Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Marine)
Floods Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Storms&Flooding)
Floodsscour Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Storms&Flooding)
Floodssediment Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Storms&Flooding)
Floodssedimentation Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Storms&Flooding)
Floodserosion Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Storms&Flooding)
ForestFires Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Fire)
HatcheryPrograms Improved;Conservationpractices HGMP and Hatchery Criteria
implemented (Spenceetal.2008)
NaturalClimaticConditions Persisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(ClimateChange)
NaturalEvents ThreatPersisting;Expectedtoworsen Threats (Storms & Flooding;
Drought;ClimateChange)
OceanConditions ThreatPersisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Marine)
OceanConditionsElNino ThreatPersisting;Expectedtoworsen Threat(Marine)

March 2010
CHAPTER4:ASSESSMENTOF
PROTECTIVEEFFORTS
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.
Aldo Leopold
FEDERAL REGISTER ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTIVE EFFORTS

Twotypesofassessmentsareconductedtoassessprotectiveeffortsincontexttolistingandrecovery:
1. Protectiveefforts,asevaluatedpursuanttothePolicyforEvaluationofConservationEffortsWhen
MakingListingDecisions(68FR15100),and
2. ConservationAssessmentpursuanttotheInterimRecoveryPlanningGuidance(NMFS2006a).

Protective efforts assessed during listing decisions are required under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA.
Federalagenciesarerequiredtoreviewthestatusofthespeciesusingthebestscientificandcommercial
dataavailableaftertakingintoaccounteffortsbeingmadetoprotectthespecies.Theefficacyofexisting
effortsmustconsiderthefollowing:(1)substantive,protectiveandconservationelements;(2)degreeof
certainty efforts will be implemented; and (3) presence of monitoring provisions that determine
effectivenessandpermitadaptivemanagement.
All pertinent Federal Register notices, including both proposed and final listing determinations for the
CCCcohosalmonwerereviewed(Table5).Documentedprotectiveefforts(e.g.,conservationefforts)at
thetimeoflistingwereonlythosespecificallydescribedinthelistingdeterminationnoticesforwhichthe
notice pertained, or those incorporated by reference. Assessed and documented are the major
conservationefforts that were ongoingat the time of CCC coho salmon listing, including efforts which
are currently inactive or still pending implementation and a detailed discussion of efforts since listing
(see appendices). An assessment was additionally conducted to define current status of the protective
effort, or conservation action, through consultation with staff/personnel from NMFS, DFG, and other
entities. All data were catalogued to facilitate tracking of conservation actions identified at the time of
listingthosechangedsincelistingandnewlyidentifiedactions(seeappendices).Eachtablewithinthe
AppendixrecordsthedateandpagenumberofpublicationintheFederalRegister,anddescribeseachasit
was presented in the Federal Register at the time of publication. A discussion of the current status,
current benefits to CCC coho salmon, effectiveness, and duration of each conservation effort is also
includedbelow.

March 2010
Conservation Efforts at, and Since, the Listing of CCC Coho Salmon
Conservation efforts for CCC coho salmon have been ongoing for many years. These efforts are being
conductedbyindividuals,privateorganizations,stateandlocalagencies,orFederalagenciesandothers.
While much has been accomplished through the California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries
RestorationGrantProgram(FRGP)andotherprograms,acomprehensiveanalysisoftheoverallbenefit
andeffectivenesshasnotbeenconductedsincelisting.Protectiveeffortswereevaluated,pursuanttothe
PolicyforEvaluationofConservationEffortsWhenMakingListingDecisions(68FR15100),acrossthe
geographic area of the CCC coho salmon ESU when the ESU was listed as threatened in 1996 (61 FR
56138) and most recently when the ESU was relisted to endangered in 2006 (69 FR 33116; 70 FR 37160
2005).Effortsranginginscopefromregionalconservationstrategiestolocalwatershedinitiativeswere
evaluated. Such efforts include completion of the California Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon and
subsequent State listing of coho salmon, the California Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, Warm
Springs Hatchery and Scott Creek Hatchery Captive Broodstock Programs, Fish Friendly Farming
Program, county programs such as the FishNet 4C, development of Habitat Conservation Plans and
others.
Whiletheseandothereffortsareunderway,andcollectivelyenhancethepotentialthatpopulationsand
habitats of the CCC coho salmon ESU can be protected, it was determined that they did not provide
sufficientcertaintyofimplementationandeffectivenesstosubstantiallyamelioratethelevelofassessed
extinctionriskforCCCcohosalmon.ThefactthatCCCcohosalmoncontinuetodeclineisanindication
conservation efforts may need refocusing and restructuring to align with the highest priorities to, first,
preventthisspeciesextinctionand,second,provideforitslongtermsurvival.
A discussion of the current status, current benefits to CCC coho salmon, effectiveness, and duration of
eachconservationeffortisalsoincludedbelow.ConservationeffortsareorganizedasFederal,State,local
or nongovernment efforts according to the primary entity leading the effort. Although salmon and
steelheadconservationeffortshavebecomemoreeffectiveandwidespreadsincelisting,whenconsidered
cumulatively, the following described conservation efforts do not sufficiently address the threats to
warrantconsiderationofdownlistingordelistingofCCCcohosalmonatthistime.
Federal Efforts at Time of Listing

NMFSidentifiedseveralpotentialconservationeffortsforCCCcohosalmonintheproposedthreatened
listing in 1995 (60 FR 38011). These efforts included: regulations to ensure fish passage at dams,
improved water diversion monitoring and water rights enforcement, and water diversion screening.
NMFSalsodeterminedinteragencyandpublicwatershedpartnershipscouldplayanimportantrolein
cohosalmonconservationby:encouragingandinformingthepubliconbestlandmanagementpractices;
providingguidanceandtrainingtootheragencypersonnel;andinvolvingmultiplestakeholdersinthe
cohosalmonrecoveryplanningprocess.
TheFRNanalysisduringtherelistingofCCCcohosalmonfromthreatenedtoendangeredoutlinedthe
followinginregardingtofederalefforts:
WiththeESAlistingofCCCcohosalmonin1996,Federalagencieswererequiredtoreceive
technical assistance from and/or initiate section 7 consultations with NMFS, which enabled

March 2010
NMFStoevaluatetheeffectsofFederalactionsonESAlistedsalmonids.Ingeneral,section7
consultations allowed NMFS to promote practices either minimizing adverse effects to
salmon and steelhead or improving salmon and steelhead populations and/or habitat. The
NMFS section 7 consultation for the USACE and Sonoma County Water Agency Reservoir
Operationsproject(RussianRiver)wasspecificallynoted(69FR33102).
AdditionalFederalconservationeffortsatthetimeoflistingofCCCcohosalmonincluded:
theFederalCWA,oceanfishingregulations,Federallandmanagementplans,ESAsection7
consultations, ESA section 10 incidental take permits/HCPs, ESA section 4(d) protective
regulationsand critical habitat designations, Federalfunded grant programsfor restoration
activities, a procedural review process for authorizing salmon and steelhead protective
activitiesonprivatelands,andtheNMFSandDFGCoastalSalmonidMonitoringProgram.
The Federal CWA established a framework to identify and address water quality
impairmentsinstreamsthroughouttheCCCcohosalmonESU.
Theimplementationofmorestringentoceanfishingregulationswasintendedtoreducethe
harvestofsalmonandsteelheadandreducetheadverseimpactsofoceanfishingpracticeson
salmonandsteelheadpopulations.However,theclosureorseverecurtailmentofoceanand
riverfisheryharvestofcohosalmonwasnotedtohavenonoticeablebenefitstoCCCcoho
salmon(60FR38011).Later,theretentionofcohosalmoninFederalwaterswasprohibited.
NMFS, often in coordination with the USFWS, developed and implemented section 10
incidentaltakepermits/HCPswhichcontributedtotheconservationofESAlistedsalmonids
and restored aquatic habitat on private land. In particular, the development and
implementation of HCPs were expected to reduce harm and take of CCC coho salmon,
address the problems contributing to the decline of CCC coho salmon, and increase the
distribution of coho salmon throughout the ESU. The HCP for Mendocino Redwood
CompanywasspecificallynotedtoimproveCCCcohosalmonpopulationsandhabitat.
NMFSissuedprotectiveregulationsforCCCcohosalmonundersection4(d)oftheESAon
July10,2000(65FR42422)andJanuary9,2002(67FR1116),tohaltthedeclineandbeginthe
recovery ofCCC coho salmon. NMFS simplified and reissuedESA section 4(d) protective
regulations for CCC coho salmon and multiple ESUs on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), in an
effort to improve regulatory compliance and protect numerous ESAlisted salmon and
steelheadESUs.NMFSdesignatedcriticalhabitatforCCCcohosalmononMay5,1999(64
FR24049),andagainonSeptember2,2005(70FR52488).
TheNMFSPacificCoastalSalmonRecoveryFundhasprovidedgrantfundingtothestateof
Californias FRGP for salmon and steelhead habitat restoration, watershed planning,
enhancement,researchandmonitoring,andoutreachandeducationefforts.

March 2010
NMFS gravel removal guidelines evaluated the impacts of gravel mining projects to ESA
listedsalmonidsinMendocinoandSonomacounties.
TheNMFS/NaturalResourceConservationService(NRCS)MemorandumofUnderstanding
(MOU)wasajointeffortbetweenNMFS,NRCS,USFWS,USEPA,theStateofCalifornia,and
numerous local watershed resource conservation districts to provide technical guidance to
privatelandownersonlanduseactivitiesthathadalreadyundergonesection7consultation
withNMFSorUSFWS.Theprogramwouldfacilitatethevoluntaryimplementationofland
use activities that would conserve and protect CCC coho salmon and their habitat. The
program would ultimately address the problems contributing to the decline of CCC coho
salmon.
The NMFSand DFG Coastal Salmonid MonitoringProgram would monitor the abundance
anddistributionofCCCcohosalmonESUwide,andwouldimprovelongtermpopulation
viability assessments. Improved research and monitoring would aid in the response of
NMFSandotheragenciestotheconservationneedsofCCCcohosalmon.
NMFSidentifiedseveralpotentialconservationeffortsforCCCcohosalmonattheproposed
threatened listing in 1995 (60 FR 38011). These efforts included: regulations to ensure fish
passage at dams, improved water diversion monitoring and water rights enforcement, and
water diversion screening. NMFS also determined interagency and public watershed
partnershipscouldplayanimportantroleincohosalmonconservationby:encouragingand
informingthepubliconbestlandmanagementpractices;providingguidanceandtrainingto
other agency personnel; and involving multiple stakeholders in the coho salmon recovery
planningprocess.
NMFS recognized several efforts as potential future conservation efforts for CCC coho
salmon(61FR56138).NMFSplannedtoevaluatetheeffectsoffreshwaterfishingregulations
and hatchery activities on CCC coho salmon and develop new regulations to reduce the
adverse effects of the freshwater fishery and hatcheries. NMFS planned to evaluate the
effect/successoftheStatecohosalmonESAlistingandStatecohosalmonrecoveryplan.The
future development and implementation of a Federal CCC coho salmon recovery plan was
alsodetailedasapotentialfutureconservationeffort.
Federal Efforts Since Listing

Federal conservation efforts since the listing of CCC coho salmon include: the Federal CWA; ocean
fishingregulations;Federallandmanagementplans(NationalParkgeneralmanagement);ESAsection7
consultations; ESA section 10 incidental take permits/habitat conservation plans; ESA Section 4(d)
protective regulations and critical habitat designations; NMFS CCC coho salmon recovery and
conservationstrategy; Federal fundedgrant programs forrestorationactivities; fish passage guidelines;
water diversion screening and monitoring; a procedural review process for authorizing salmon and
steelhead protective activities on private lands (NMFS/NRCS MOU); and the NMFS and DFG Coastal
SalmonidMonitoringProgram.

March 2010

ThecurrentstatusofspecificeffortsmentionedintheFRNs:
The NMFS section 7 consultation for the USACE and Sonoma County Water Agency Reservoir
Operationsproject(RussianRiver)specificallynotedin69FR33102hasbeenfinalized;
TheHCPforMendocinoRedwoodsCompanywasspecificallynotedtoimproveCCCcohosalmon
populations and habitat. The HCP is currently in draft. The finalization of this HCP and the
development of either a statewide forestry HCP or other forestry landowner HCPs is a very high
priority for the recovery of the CCC coho salmon. Fifteen of the 28 key recovery watersheds are
located in areas of large tracts of forestlands owned either by private small landowners or large
timbercompanies;
ProjectswithintheCCCcohosalmonESUunderthePacificCoastalSalmonRecoveryFundcompete
againstfundingforothersalmonidprojectswithinallothercoastalESUsinthestate.Theplightof
CCCcohosalmonwithinCalifornia,andthedirectivesfromCongressregardingallocationoffunds,
would suggest consideration of prioritizing funds towards preventing the extinction of CCC coho
salmon;
NMFS gravel removal guidelines continue to be a utilized and useful tool when evaluating and
reducing the impacts of gravel miningprojects to ESAlisted salmonids in Mendocino and Sonoma
counties;
TheNMFS/NRCSMOUwasnotcompleted;
The NMFS and DFG Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program is one of the highest priorities
designatedinthisrecoveryplan.Whilethedraftplanisnearlyfinalized,theProgramitselfhasyet
to be funded or implemented on a programmatic level. Various monitoring efforts are occurring
throughoutCaliforniainmanyofthekeywatershedsidentifiedinthefinaldraftmonitoringplan,by
variouspublicandprivateentitiesandfundingsources(nondedicatedgrantsandprivatesources).
However, the effortsare not coordinated on a programmaticlevel to where statewide oreven ESU
level abundance/trends can be evaluated. The TRT outlined in their report, It is imperative that
California,whichiswellbehindotherstatesinthePacificNorthwest,beginconductingmonitoringat
spatialscalesrelevanttorecoveryplanningifwearetohaveanyhopeofaccuratelyevaluatingstatus
andprogresstowardrecovery(Spenceetal.2008);
Little has developed in regards to NMFS participation in interagency and public watershed
partnershipsduetostafflimitationsandsection7workloads.ForCCCcohosalmonrecovery,itwill
be imperative to begin developing and supporting these partnerships. With a few exceptions (e.g.,
Lagunitas Creek and Russian River), the key CCC coho salmon watersheds occur on private lands
andinareasnottriggeredbysection7consultations.Useofsection7towardsrecoveryofCCCcoho
salmon will have limited benefit except where specific to federal lands, specific actions requiring
federal consultation, providing streamlining of restoration projects, or voluntary support for high
priorityconservationactions;and
NMFS evaluations on the effects of freshwater fishing regulations and hatchery activities on CCC
cohosalmonandthedevelopmentofnewregulationstoreducetheadverseeffectsofthefreshwater
fisheryandhatcheriesareongoing.

March 2010
State Efforts at Time of Listing
State conservation efforts at the time of listing of CCC coho salmon include: freshwater fishing
regulations;theCaliforniaForestPracticesAct(CFPA);Statefundedrestorationgrantprograms;andthe
operationandmanagementofsalmonandsteelheadfishhatcheriesand/orrearingfacilities.Also,coho
salmonweresubjecttoStateconservationeffortsandadditionalinitiativesasalistedspeciesunderthe
CaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct(CESA).TheCaliforniaNaturalCommunitiesConservationPlanning
Program and the Coastal Salmon Initiative were examples of conservation efforts by the State of
CaliforniainresponsetothespecieslistingunderCESA.
California State freshwater fishing regulations were acknowledged at the time of CCC coho salmon
listing.Inparticular,theclosureorseverecurtailmentofoceanandriverfisheryharvestofcohosalmon
wasnotedtohavenonoticeablebenefitstoCCCcohosalmon(60FR38011).
TheCFPAprovidedasetofguidelinestoestablishhabitatprotectionzonesandreducethedegradation
of aquatic habitat associated with timber harvest operations on nonfederal land. In the original
threatened listing determination for CCC coho salmon (61 FR 56138), NMFS acknowledged several
cooperative efforts with CalFire and/or DFG to: further reduce take of coho salmon during logging
operations; increase protective measures for CCC coho salmon and habitat, especially south of San
Francisco;andgenerallyimproveimplementationoftheCFPA.
The California FRGP has provided funding to numerous organizations to perform salmonid habitat
restorationprojectsthroughouttherangeofCCCcohosalmon.
The operation and management of coho salmon hatcheries and rearing facilities was frequently
acknowledgedthroughoutthelistinghistoryofCCCcohosalmon.Severalhatcheries,includingprivate
andStaterunfacilities,wererecognizedasincreasingcohosalmonpopulationabundance,distribution,
spatial structure, and genetic diversity in the watersheds in which they operated. DFG implemented
improvedhatcherymanagementregulationstoensurethegeneticintegrityofhatcheryproducedfishand
minimize interaction and adverse effects to wild salmonid populations. In general, hatchery
management regulations were designed to ensure that artificial propagation was used for the
conservation and recovery of natural, native populations. Several hatchery management regulations
include:theincorporationofwildcohosalmonintohatcherybroodstock,thediscontinuationofoutof
ESU artificial propagation and stocking practices, and treatment protocols to control disease outbreaks
(i.e.,BKD).
CohosalmonwerefirstlistedundertheCESAin1995southofSanFranciscoonly,however,cohosalmon
throughouttheCCCESUwerelaterincludedintheCESAlistingin2005.Asalistedspeciesunderthe
CESA, CCC coho salmon were the target of numerous State initiated conservation efforts intended to
address the problems contributing to the decline of CCC coho salmon. CDF and DFG implemented
improved regulations to protect CCC coho salmon under the CFPA. In response to the listing of CCC
cohosalmonundertheCESA,theCaliforniaFishandGameCommissioninitiatedrecoveryplanningto
identify and address the recovery needs of coho salmon populations and habitat. The recovery plan
wouldproviderecommendationsaddressingstreamflow,waterrights,fishpassage,watertemperature,

March 2010
pool habitat structure, riparian habitat, watershed planning, and gravel mining activities. Hatchery
programsandtheCaliforniaFRGPwouldalsobeintegratedintoCCCcohosalmonrecoveryplanning.
In addition, the California coho salmon recovery implementation plan would provide additional
guidanceandprioritizationofrecoveryactions.
The California Resources Agency initiated the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Program and the Coastal Salmon Initiative. Both programs utilized input from the public to develop
voluntarycohosalmonconservationprograms/planswhichwouldaddresstheproblemscontributingto
thedeclineofCCCcohosalmonStatewide.TheCaliforniaNaturalCommunitiesConservationPlanning
ProgramwasintendedtoformthebasisofprotectiveregulationsbyNMFSundersection4(d)oftheESA.
State Efforts Since Listing

Significant State conservation efforts since the listing of CCC coho salmon include: California ESA
listingsandrecoveryplanning;freshwaterfishingregulations;theCFPA;wateruseregulations;various
State funded management and conservation programs which conserve or rehabilitate salmonid habitat
throughwatershedplanning,improvedregulatoryoversight,landacquisition,andhabitatrestorationor
enhancementactivities;numerousStatefundedrestorationgrantprograms;Statelandusemanagement
plans; the operation and management of salmon and steelhead fish hatcheries or rearing facilities;
California Rangeland Water Quality Management Program; California Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Program; and the California Department of Transportations (CalTrans)
EnvironmentalEnhancementandMitigationProgram.
California Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon: The State recovery strategy does provide
recommendationstoaddressstreamflow,waterrights,fishpassage,watertemperature,poolhabitat
structure, riparian habitat, watershed planning, and gravel mining activities. Recovery priorities
havebeenincludedintotheoperationsofbothconservationhatcheryprograms(WarmSpringsand
KingfisherFlatinScottCreek)andtheDFGFRGP,thoughcurrentlytheplanhasnotbeenevaluated
foritseffectivenessduetolackoffundingforStatemonitoringprograms.
CaliforniaStatefreshwaterfishingregulations:Considerationsshouldbemadetorevisethecurrent
fishing regulations to minimize the interception of CCC coho salmon during sport fishing for
steelheadandtoprovideclarityregardingwhichstreamsdonothavehatcherysteelheadorhatchery
trout.
Forestry:NMFShasparticipatedinBoardofForestrymeetingssince1998andhasencouragedthe
State of California to adopt State Forest Practice Rules protective of salmonids and pursue
development of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit (e.g., HPC) that authorizes incidental take of listed
salmonidsundertheESAmodeledfromtheWashingtonStateForestPracticeHCP(includingtheir
monitoring and adaptive management process). Currently the Rules allow operations to occur in
salmonid watersheds that are less protective than standards under west coast forestry HCPs that
authorizeincidentaltake.NMFSisconsideringreinitiatingreviewsoftimberharvestplansandwill
continue encouragement of either notake guidelines (similar for the Northern Spotted Owl) or a
Statewide HCP. Nearly 85 percent of remaining CCC coho salmon populations cooccur on
forestlands and the Board of Forestry has an opportunity to make a significant difference in the
futureofCaliforniassalmonandsteelhead,especiallyCCCcohosalmon.
ManyprojectshavebeenimplementedwithintheCCCcohosalmonESUundertheDFGFRGP,and
DFGconductsimplementationandeffectivenessmonitoringtotrackthesuccessandbenefitsofthese

March 2010
efforts.However,theseprojectscompeteagainstfundingforothersalmonidprojectswithinallother
coastal ESUs in the state. The plight of CCC coho salmon within the CCC coho ESU, and the
directives from Congress regarding allocation of funds, would suggest that DFG consider the
prioritizationoffundstowardspreventingtheextinctionofCCCcohosalmon.
HatcheryPractices:Conservationhatcherypracticesthathavebeenputinplaceareanticipatedtobe
beneficial tothe species.Monitoring is currently being conducted on these populations, though the
numbers of fish released are only recently approaching the level at which significant adult returns
could be expected. Utilization of excess broodstock within the Warm Springs Captive Broodstock
Programhasresultedinadditionalrecoveryeffortsinwatershedswherecohowereextirpatedwithin
the ESU. Specifically adult releases to Walker and Salmon Creeks have been somewhat successful
and will continue. These activities should continue, with appropriate monitoring. Additional
fundingisnecessarytoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftheKingfisherFlatBroodstockprogram.
TheCaliforniaNaturalCommunitiesConservationPlanningProgramwasintendedtoformthebasis
ofprotectiveregulationsbyNMFSundersection4(d)oftheESA,whichisnolongeravailabledueto
theCCCcohosalmonlistingofendangered.Thisprogramwasneverrealized.
Local Government Efforts At Listing

LocalGovernmenteffortsatthetimeoflistingofCCCcohosalmoninclude:MendocinoCountysefforts
to evaluate the impacts to ESAlisted salmonids from gravel mining projects, Fishnet4Cs efforts to
provide guidance to public works departments to enhance or protect salmonid habitat and Sonoma
CountyWaterAgencyeffortstoassistlocalagricultureandconservationgroupstouseFederalGrantsfor
restorationplanning.
Local Government Efforts Since Listing

Localgovernmentagencies,particularlyatthecountylevel,haveimplementedconservationeffortssince
thelistingofCCCcohosalmon.TheprimarylocalgovernmentconservationeffortstargetingCCCcoho
salmon since the species listing are the Five County Salmonid Conservation Program, the FishNet 4C
program,andcooperativeeffortsbySantaCruzCountytoaddressforestrypractices.
FishNet 4C: The FishNet 4C continues to provide coordination and technical guidance for public
works departments in Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties. A Road
Maintenance Manual was developed, and associated training provided for county roads and
maintenance staff (and others). The group meets regularly with County and State/Federal fisheries
agencystafftodiscussprogresstowardschangingCountypolicytobeinlinewithESAandRecovery
guidelines, and the implementation of fishfriendly projects. More recently the American Fisheries
Society distributed a letter to Marin County that outlined recommended improvements to county
practicesduetothestatusofCCCcohosalmonandtheirimportanceinMarin.FishNet4Cprovides
theforumneededforNMFSandDFGtoengagethecountiesregardingrecoverypriorities.Whilea
4(d) Exemption is no longer available, the opportunity to explore other mechanisms for notake or
takeauthorizationforsomeCountyactivities(throughprogrammaticpermits)shouldbeexplored.
Non-Governmental Efforts At Listing

NonGovernmental Efforts at the time of listing of CCC coho included activities from the following
groups: Coastal Watershed Council, Committee for Green Foothills in San Mateo County, Friends of

March 2010
Corte Madera creek, Garcia River Watershed Advisory Group, Hawthorne Campbell Timberlands,
Mendocino Redwood Company, Mill Valley Streamkeepers, Monterey Salmon and Trout, Noyo
Watershed Alliance, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Peninsula Open Space District, Pescadero
Conservation Alliance, Rangeland Management Advisory Committee, Redwood Creek Landowners
Association, Santa Cruz County unspecified watershed groups, Sonoma Ecology Center, Sotoyome
Resource Conservation District, Ten Mile Forest Landowners Association, Trout Unlimited and various
unspecified local watershed councils and groups. Efforts by these various groups were identified as
contributingtotheimprovementinCCCcohosalmonhabitatsandpopulationabundance.
Non-Governmental Efforts Since Listing

Inadditiontogovernmentagencies,theconservationeffortsofnumerouslocalnongovernmentalgroups
includingRCDs,privateconservationentities/watershedcouncils,timbercompanies,andwateragencies
have persisted since the listing of CCC coho salmon. Nongovernmental organizations have also been
highly effective at utilizing various Federal, State, local, and private funding sources to perform
voluntaryandproactivefisherieshabitatrestorationprojectsandotherefforts.
The effectiveness of conservation efforts of numerous local nongovernmental organizations, while
likelybenefitingCCCcohosalmon,isunknownintermsofincreasingcohopopulations.WhileDFG
conductsprojectmonitoringassociatedwithallPCSRFfundedprojects,thereisnolargeroversight
body that conducts implementation and effectiveness monitoring for all local, state and federal
fundingsourcestodeterminewhethertheseactionsaresuccessful,orarebenefitingthepopulations
ofCCCcohosalmonasawholethisispartiallyrelatedtothelackofastatewidecoordinatedtrend
andabundancemonitoringprogram.
TheFishFriendlyFarmingProgramprovidesguidancetograpegrowerstomanageagriculturalland
to decrease soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams and improve riparian conditions. This
efforthasresultedinneedededucation,outreachandimprovementsinagriculturalpractices.While
theprogramaddresseswaterinfrastructureconcerns(passagebarriers,screeningcriteria,etc.)ithas
notaddressedstreamflowimpactstosalmonfromdiversionsonparticipatingownershipsanddoes
notnecessarilyprovidestandardsthatachieveanotakestandard.
TheCaliforniaRangelandManagementPlanhasnotbeenevaluated.
NumerousFederal,Stateandlocalconservationprogramsthathavebeenongoinginclude:
DevelopmentandimplementationofEPATotalMaximumDailyLoadPrograms;
CalFishandCaliforniaFishPassageForum;and
SalmonidCoalitionoftheRussianRiver.
Priority Conservation Efforts

WhiletheFederal,State,Countyandnongovernmentaleffortsareunderway,andcollectivelyenhance
the potentialthat populations and habitats of the CCC coho salmon ESU can be protected, they do not
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to substantially ameliorate the level of
assessedextinctionriskforCCCcohosalmon.ThefactthatCCCcohosalmoncontinuetodeclineisan
indication that conservation efforts may need refocusing and restructuring to align with the highest
prioritiesto,first,preventthisspeciesextinctionand,second,provideforitslongtermsurvival.

March 2010
Givenalloftheongoingconservationefforts,thefollowingeffortsareconsideredthehighestpriorityfor
futurecontinuation:
Russian River and Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Programs: a permanent source of funding is
neededfortheScottCreekProgram;monitoringforbothprogramsshouldcontinue.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund provides funds to the State for use in their Fisheries
Restoration Grant Program: Geographically, funding for projects has had a larger than anticipated
focusonrestorationactionsforcohosalmonintheSouthOregonNorthernCalifornia(SONCC)ESU
(e.g.effortsontheScottandShastarivers).Fundingforprojectsspecificallydirectedforthebenefitof
CCC ESU coho recovery has been diluted by the SONCC focus and competing priorities for other
salmonid species. Where funding for restoration projects does occur within the CCC ESU, many
projects, particularly those south of San Francisco Bay are directed at steelhead restoration with
secondaryconsiderationtocohosalmon.Fundingshouldbeappropriatelyallocatedtopreventthe
extinctionofCCCcohosalmon;and
CaliforniaCoastalSalmonidMonitoringProgram:ThecombinedDFGandNMFSeffortstowardsa
completionofafinalplanshouldcontinue.FundingandimplementationofacoordinatedProgram
are the required next steps to enable ESU and statewide tracking of population trends for listed
speciesandtrackingofeffortstowardsrecovery.
Conservationeffortsofveryhighprioritythatwereanticipatedatthetimeoflistingforimplementation
butcurrentlyremainunrealized,ornotfullyrealized,include:
Mendocino Redwood Company HCP: The company owns portions of six high priority recovery
watersheds in Mendocino and Sonoma counties; watersheds currently supporting extant Coho
populations. Finalization of the HCP is strongly recommended and is expected to have significant
benefitstopreventingtheextinctionandfacilitatingrecoveryofCCCcohosalmon.
Other HCPs: HCPs in development at time of listing (i.e., Jackson Demonstration State Forest and
GeorgiaPacific Corporation now Hawthorne Timberlands Inc. managed by Campbell Timberland
Management) have been discontinued and are not anticipated to recommence in the foreseeable
future. These should be investigated for possible continuation and to focus on securing these
forestlands for the long term due to the high number of watersheds where current populations of
CCCcohosalmonpersist.
TheCaliforniaRecoveryStrategyforCohoSalmonhasbeenfinalizedandwaslargelyrelieduponin
thedevelopmentofthisrecoveryplan.TheprioritiesdescribedintheStrategy,andthisrecoveryplan
shouldguideimplementationofthePCSRF/FRGPfundsasdiscussedabove.

March 2010
CHAPTER5:POPULATION
STRUCTURE&VIABILITY
In summary, the lack of demonstrably viable populationsand substantial gaps in the
distribution of coho salmon throughout the CCC ESU strongly indicate that this ESU is currently in
danger of extinction.
Spence et al., 2008
HISTORICAL POPULATION STRUCTURE & BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY CRITERIA

Salmonandhaveahighfidelitytoreturntotheriverswheretheyrearedasyoungtospawn,withsome
occasional straying between neighboring rivers. Thus, multiple populations across river systems are
connected by a small degree of genetic exchange which ensures genetic diversity and distribution that
provides resilience for the species to persist overtime. Populations within and between neighboring
streamswillsharemoregeneticcharacteristicsthanthoseseparatedbyhundredsofmiles.Thebiological
framework for recovery builds from this hierarchical structure Figure 8 (e.g., an individual, a group of
individualscalledapopulationandagroupofpopulationsdesignatedintoanESU).
Figure8:HierarchicalStructureofPopulations
FortheCCCcohosalmonESUtoberemovedfromtheFederalEndangeredSpecieslist,criteriarelatedto
the number, size, trends, structure, etc. and the timeframes (e.g., 100 years) to sustain these biological
conditions must be met. To inform the recovery or delisting criteria, the TRT prepared two NOAA
Technical Memoranda characterizing the historical population structure and biological viability criteria

March 2010
fortheNCCCDomainsalmonandsteelheadESUs/DPSs(Bjorkstedtetal.,2005,Spenceetal.,2008).These
memorandadescribethishierarchyandprovidecriteriatoassessthebiologicalstatusofpopulationsand
theirriskofextinction.
This Chapter provides a summary of these memoranda including theoretical basis, methods, recovery
teamapplicationoftheTRTmaterialsandfinalrecommendedcriteria.
Viable Salmonid Populations

Recoveryandlongtermsustainabilityofthesepopulationsdependon:
Ensuringadequatereproductionforreplacementoflossesduetonaturalmortalityfactors(including
diseaseandstochasticevents);
Maintainingsufficientgeneticdiversitytoavoidinbreedingdepressionandtoallowadaptation;
Providingsufficienthabitat(type,amountandquality)forlongtermpopulationmaintenance;and
Eliminationorcontrolofthreatsthatareaffectingtheirconservation,survivalandrecovery.
The TRT approach to defining population viability and determining risk of extinction builds from the
document Viable Salmonid Populations andthe Recovery of Evolutionarily SignificantUnitsand the viable
salmonidpopulation(VSP)conceptdevelopedbyMcElhanyetal.(2000).McElhanyetal.(2000)formally
outlinesevaluationofabundance,productivity,spatialstructure,anddiversitythroughtwoVSPlevels:
theESUandtheindependentpopulation.
An ESU is a Pacific salmon population or group of populations that is substantially reproductively

isolated from other conspecific populations and that represents an important component of the
evolutionarylegacyofthespecies.
AnIndependentPopulationisdefinedbyMcElhanyetal.(2000)as:
agroupoffishofthesamespeciesthatspawnsinaparticularlakeorstream(orportionthereof)ataparticular
season and which, to a substantial degree, does not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a
different place or in the same place at a different season. For our purposes, not interbreeding to a substantial
degreemeansthattwogroupsareconsideredtobeindependentpopulationsiftheyareisolatedtosuchanextent
that exchanges of individuals among the populations do not substantially affect the population dynamics or
extinctionriskoftheindependentpopulationsovera100yeartimeframe.
The TRT extended the VSP concept by considering two population characteristics independently:
viability, defined in terms of probability of extinction over a specified time frame and independence, defined in
termsoftheinfluenceofimmigrationonapopulationsextinctionprobability{Bjorkstedt,2005}.ThefinalTRT
criteriaareintendedtoprovideaframeworkforplannersbothtosetgeneralbiologicalbasedtargetsforrecovery
andtoguidefutureevaluationsofthestatusoftheESAlistedsalmonids{Spence,2008}.

March 2010
Historical Population Structure
Development of viability criteria and recovery goals requires some knowledge of and accounting for
characteristicsthatcontributetoapopulationsviabilityandthustheircontributiontothepersistenceoftheESU
{Bjorkstedt, 2005}. Essentially, how the overall hierarchical structure of individuals, populations and
aggregatepopulationscontributetooverallESUdynamics,viabilityandextinctionrisk.Thisanalysisof
historicalstructurebytheTRTwasframedbythepremise:historicalpatternsofpopulationabundance,
productivity,spatialstructureanddiversityformthereferenceconditionsaboutwhichwehaveahighconfidence
thattheESUsandtheirconstituentindependentpopulationshadahighprobabilityofpersistingoverlongperiods
of time. As populations depart from thesehistorical conditions,theirprobability of persistence declines andtheir
functionalrolewithrespecttoESUviabilitymaybediminished{Spence,2008}.
Thedevelopmentofthehistoricalstructureincluded:
Modeling of the historical intrinsic potential of streams to support spawning and rearing coho
salmon;
Compilationandreviewofhistoricalrecordsonpopulationsizeanddistribution;
DefiningpopulationsandtheirviabilityincontexttotheESU;
GroupingpopulationsintogeographicalunitswithinanESUand
Analyses to inform historical structure that included genetic structure and an assessment of the
historicalartificialpropagation(SeeBjorkstedtetal.2005formoreinformation).
Intrinsic Habitat Potential

Spawningandrearinghabitatsforjuvenilecohosalmonarelargelydeterminedbylandform,lithology,
and hydrology that interact to govern movement and deposition of sediment, large wood and other
structural elements along a river network (Agrawal et al. 2005). Three primary indicators of landform
and hydrology, channel gradient, and index of valley width and mean annual discharge serve as a
reasonable predictor of channel morphologyand this determined the potential fora particularreach to
providesuitablehabitatunderhistoricalconditions.Toaccountfordifferencesinhabitatsuitability(and
thuspopulationsize),theTRTusedaGIShabitatmodeldevelopedbyBurnett(2003).ThisGISmodel
characterized channel gradient, valley width and mean annual discharge to predict the intrinsic
(historical) potential (IPkm) for a particular reach of stream to exhibit habitat for coho salmon.
SuitabilitycurvesforeachofthethreeIPkmcomponentswereusedtodevelopareachspecificvaluefor
a particular lifestage and species. These reach specific values, or suitability scores were based on a
scale of 01 (Agrawal et al. 2005). IPkm for each reach is calculated as the geometric mean of the
suitabilityscoresanddescribesthelikelihoodastreamreachwillprovidehabitatwithrespecttothethree
variablesused.AsaproxyforpopulationcarryingcapacitytheTRTusedtheIPscoreforeachreachin
the watershed multiplied by its respective reach length, and summed these values which resulted in a
weighted IP value. The weighted IP kilometers (IPkm) value estimated the intrinsic potential, or
carryingcapacity,ofthewatershedforcohosalmon.TheIPmodelseekstoaccountforthefactthatnot
all stream miles were created equal when it comes to producing salmon. These IP layers are output
spatially for each population and all streams reaches. Depending on watershed size between 20 to 40
spawnersperIPkmwerecalculatedtodeterminethelowextinctionriskcriteriaforeachpopulation

March 2010
Discrepancies were observed between the predicted IP for CCC coho salmon and historical record
accounts.Asummerwatertemperaturecomponentwasincludedtoaddressdiscrepanciesinthemodel
forcohosalmonbecausewatertemperatureisastrongindicatorofpresenceandhighsurvivalofsummer
rearingjuveniles.HistoricalrecordsfordistributionofCCCcohosalmonwerereviewed{Spence,2005}
and a mean August air temperature that exceeds 21.5 C (following isolines) was applied to the model
(i.e., temperature mask) to exclude areas where streams were likely too consistently warm for coho
salmon(Figure9).Theresultingoutputsweremoreconsistentwithhistoricalrecords.
Figure9:TemperatureMaskExample

March 2010
The TRT acknowledged the uncertainty and potential model bias to over or underestimate IP and
historicalhabitatpotential.Nonetheless,abenefitoftheIPmodelisthatittakesintoaccountdifferences
inintrinsichabitatpotentialinanobjectiveandtransparentmanner.Thisobjectivityprecludedsubjective
judgmentsregardingwhetherornothabitathistoricallysupportedspawningandrearingsalmon,which
is often very difficult to determine in light of currently degraded habitat conditions. Comparisons of
modeled IPbased results of spawner abundance to the few historical records of abundance was
conducted by Spence (pers. comm. 2008) which indicated, in the majority of cases, adult abundances
projectedbytheTRTarelowerthanthoseobservedduringthe1930sintothe1950s.Therefore,theTRT
concluded projected spawner abundance targets did not overestimate natural carrying capacity of the
majorityofpopulationswithintheESU.
Defining Populations for the CCC coho salmon ESU

Spawner abundance across potential IP is the underlying factor determining a populations extinction
risk.TheTRTdefinedapopulationasagroupoffishofthesamespeciesthatspawnsinaparticularlocalityat
aparticularseasonanddoesnotinterbreedsubstantiallywithfishfromanyothergroup.(Bjorkstedt2005).A
viablepopulationisapopulationhavingalow(<5%)probabilityofgoingextinctovera100yeartimeframe
andanIndependentpopulationasoneforwhichexchangeswithotherpopulationshavenegligibleinfluence
onitsextinctionrisk(Bjorkstedt2005)orotherwisetermedviableinisolation.Todistinguishbetween
viable and nonviable populations the TRT evaluated each populations potential to be viablein
isolation and their measure of selfrecruitment (Figure 10). Selfrecruitment is the proportion of a
populationsspawningrunthatisofnativeorigin(Bjorkstedt,2005).
Population size directly affects an ESU viability and extinction risk; thus, the TRT used the likely
historicalpopulationcarryingcapacityasaproxyforassessingviabilityinisolation.Theselfrecruitment
analysis was framed by (1) the understanding that an individual will attempt to return to its natal
watershedand(2)whetherpopulationdynamicsaredominatedbyinternalprocessesfromthosestrongly
influenced by external dynamics (e.g., straying). This analysis assisted the TRT in identifying the
functionalroledifferentpopulationshistoricallyplayedinESUpersistence(Bjorkstedt2005inSpence2008).
TheTRTdeterminedthatatleast32IPkmwererequiredforapopulationofcohosalmontobeviablein
isolation. This value was selected for consistency with other TRTs in California and Oregon and was
basedonasimulationanalysisofNickelsonandLawson(1998).
Threetypesofpopulationshavebeendefined:
FunctionallyIndependentPopulations(FIPs):Populationswithahighlikelihoodofpersistingover
100yeartimescalesduetotheirpopulationsizeandrelativelyindependentdynamics(i.e.,negligible
influenceofmigrantsfromneighboringpopulationsonextinctionrisk);
Potentially Independent Populations (PIPs): Populations with a high likelihood of persisting in
isolation over 100year time scales due to large population size, but were likely too strongly
influencedbyimmigrationfromotherpopulationstoexhibitindependentdynamics;and
DependentPopulations(DPs):Populationswithasubstantiallikelihoodofgoingextinctwithina
100yeartimeperiodinisolationduetosmallerpopulationsize,butreceivesufficientimmigrationto
altertheirdynamicsandreduceextinctionrisk.

March 2010
Figure10:ViabilityandSelfRecruitment
Classificationofpopulationsprovidedthenecessaryrationaletoprioritizeeachpopulationsimportance
to viability and recovery based on their relative function and role in the ESU. For example, a large
population (e.g., Independent Population) likely functioned as a regular source of surplus individuals
(throughstraying)tosmallerpopulations(e.g.,DependentPopulations).Strayingaddedresiliencetothe
ESUwhensmallerpopulationsmayhavesufferedfromtheimpactsofadverseenvironmentalconditions
(e.g.,catastrophicwildfire,etc.).Surplusindividualsfromlargepopulationscouldrecolonizewatersheds
after those events leading to the extirpation of small populations. This resilience confers more
importanceontolargepopulationsfortheirroleintheviabilityandrecoveryoftheESU.
Grouping Populations: ESU Diversity Strata

Diversity strata, or boundaries that group populations, were delineated for the ESU and are
geographicallyproximatepopulationsthatreflectthediversityofselectiveenvironments,phenotypesandgenetic
variationacrosstheESUandaredescribedintermsofgeographyandagenerallysimilarsetofenvironmental
andecologicalconditions{Bjorkstedt,2005}.
CCC Coho ESU ESU
Diversity Strata DS DS DS
Independent
Populations
Population
Attributes
Figure11:Populations,DiversityStrataandESULevels
March 2010
Results from Historical Structure Analysis
The TRT identified 11 functionally independent, one potentially independent (Figure 12) and 64
dependent populations in the CCC coho salmon ESU (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005 with modifications
described in Spence et al. 2008). The 75 populations were grouped into five Diversity Strata. Five
thousand one hundred and ninety four (5,194) IPkm were identified across the historical CCC coho
salmonESU 11.WatershedboundariesdelineateeachpopulationforCCCcohosalmon.
TheadvisedapplicationoftheTRThistoricalstructureisoutlinedinBjorkstedtetal.,(2005):
IncreasingdivergencefromthisbaselinealmostcertainlydecreasestheabilityoftheESUtopersist.Thefunctional
relationship between departure from historical conditions and extinction risk for the ESU is probably nonlinear,
such that the loss of a few populationsparticularly small populationsfrom an otherwise intact ESU may not
greatly reduce ESU viability, whereas the loss of key populations or the loss of populations from an already
diminishedESUwillhavemoreprofoundimplicationsforthepersistenceoftheESU.Uncertaintyassociatedwith
theformofthisrelationshipmustbeaccountedforinassessingtheviabilityofanyproposedESUconfigurations
thatdepartsfromhistoricalconditions.UnderstandingthehistoricalpopulationstructureofanESUisessentialto
reducing the consequences of this uncertainty, as information on the historical role of specific populations in the
ESU supports a biologically relevant context for recovery planning. Simply put, populations that were
important to ESU persistence in the past, if restored or preserved, are likely to be important to ESU
persistenceinthefuture(emphasisadded).
Amoredetaileddescriptionofthemethodsandrationaleunderlyingthehistoricalpopulationstructure
analysisandresultsareprovidedinBjorkstedtetal.(2005).
11
The recovery scenario for CCC coho designated 28 focus watersheds. The total historical IP km of these 28 watersheds is
1736 km or 33 percent of the historical total.

March 2010
PageLeftIntentionallyBlank

March 2010
Figure12:HistoricalpopulationstructureoftheCCCcohosalmonESU,arrangedbyDiversityStrata. Functionally Independent populations are
listed in bold font. Potentially Independent populations are listed in bold italic font. Dependent populations are listed in regular font. All dependent
populations are not displayed. From Spence et al., 2008.

March 2010
Biological Viability Criteria
Spence et al. (2008) developed biological viability criteria at the three levels of biological organization
outlined by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) important for the long term persistence of CCC coho salmon (i.e.,
populations,DiversityStrataandESU).Thesecriteriaaredescribedinthetwocategoriesof:Population
ViabilityCriteriaandESUViabilityCriteria.Thebiologicalviabilitycriteriadefinessetsofconditions
or rules that, if satisfied, would suggest that the ESU is at low risk of extinction (Spence et al. 2008). These
generalconditionsrequire:(1)achievingpopulationviabilityacrossselectedpopulationsand(2)attaining
thenecessarynumberandconfigurationoftheseviablepopulationsacrossthelandscape.Thesecriteria
do not include abundance of dependent populations nor do they provide context on recovering
populationsundertheinfluenceofclimatechangeoroceanconditions.
ThebiologicalcriteriadonotexplicitlyspecifywhichpopulationsmustbeviablefortheESUtobeviablebut
rathertheyestablishaframeworkwithinwhichtheremaybeseveralwaysbywhichESUviabilitycanbeachieved
andareintendedtoprovideaframeworkforplannersbothtosetgeneralbiologicalbasedtargetsforrecovery
and to guide future evaluations of the status of the ESAlisted salmonids {Spence, 2008}. While criteria
should be tailored to populations, their biological characteristics and the ability of habitats to support
thesepopulations,thesedataarenotavailableandwilllikelynotbeavailableintheforeseeablefuture.
Thus, in the absence of quantitative data, general objective criteria were recommended by a Recovery
Science Review Panel and Shaffer et al. (2002) such as those used by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2001). These were applied for these criteria. These criteria inform the
final delisting criteria (but are not synonymous with recovery criteria), for CCC coho salmon. They
provide the bases to select populations for the recovery scenario relative to the number, size, trends,
structure,recruitmentanddistributionofspawningadultsovera1012yearmovingaverage.
ESU and population viability was considered by {Spence, 2008} using two distinct but equally important
perspectives: (1) population viability in relation to its historical function and (2) minimum population
size.
Population Viability Criteria

Criteria were developed that, combined, constitute a viable population (Tables 8 and 9). To define the
key characteristics of what makes a population viable, the TRT classified populations into various
extinctionriskcategoriesbasedonasetofquantitativeandqualitativecriteriarelatedtotheVSPparametersof
abundance,populationgrowthrate,populationspatialstructureandpopulationdiversity(McElhanyet
al. 2000). Abundance typically refers to the number of adult spawners measured over a time series
relevanttolifehistory.Populationgrowthrate(i.e.,productivity)isameasureofapopulationsabilityto
sustainitselfovertime(e.g.,returnsperspawner).Populationspatialstructuredescribeshowpopulations
arearrangedgeographicallybasedondispersalfactorsandqualityofhabitats.Populationdiversityisthe
underlying genetic and life history characteristics that provide for population resilience and, thus,
persistenceacrossspaceandtime.Forapopulationtobeviableitmustbelargeenoughto:(1)havea
high probability of surviving environmental variation, (2) compensate for disturbances, (3) maintain
geneticdiversity,and(4)functionallycontributetoassociatedecosystems.
Thepopulationviabilitycriteria(alsotermedextinctionriskcriteria),whenmet,areexpectedtoresultin
populationswithalowriskofextinction(i.e.,viable).Thesecriteriaare:(1)likelihoodofextinction;(2)
effective population size or total population size; (3) population decline; (4) catastrophic decline; (5)
spawner density, and; (6) hatchery influence (Table 7). To inform these criteria it is necessary that

March 2010
monitoring include a lengthy time series of adult abundance at appropriate spatial scales. Life cycle
monitoring will be necessary to inform these criteria. Few datasets exist and there is an urgent need to
initiate monitoring programs that will generate data of sufficient quality to rigorously assess progress toward
population and ESU recovery. Development of a comprehensive coastal monitoring plan for salmonids has been
underway for several years by the California Department of Fish and Game, with input from NMFS; however,
datasetthatwillallowassessmentofstatususingthecriteriadescribedhereinarelikelymorethanadecadeaway.
Consequently,thepresentvaluesofthesecriteriaaretoinformthedevelopmentofsuchamonitoringplanandto
provide preliminary targets for recovery planners (Spence et al. 2008). Refer to Spence et al. (2008) for
additional information regarding methods and criteria that provides an outline of monitoring
recommendations.
Table 11: Population Extinction Risk Criteria

March 2010
ESU Viability Criteria
Fourcriteriaweredevelopedthat,collectively,constituteaconfigurationinthenumberanddistribution
of viable and nonviable populations that would likely provide for ESU persistence over 100 year time
frame (i.e., viable). Thus, there may be several plausible scenarios of population viability that could
satisfyESUlevelcriteria{Spence,2008}.ThegoalsoftheESUcriteriaaretoreducetheriskofextinction
by ensuring (1) connectivity between populations, (2) representation of ecological, morphological, and
genetic diversity, and (3) redundancy in populations to minimize risks associated with catastrophic
events.
In characterizing a viable ESU the TRT applied the hypothesis that populations, as they functioned in
their historical context, were highly likely of persisting and that increasing departure from historical
characteristicslogicallyrequiresagreaterdegreeofproofthatapopulationisindeedviable(Spenceetal.2008).
Due to the likely historical roles of functionally independent or potentially independent populations
these form the foundation of the ESU viability criteria. The nonviable or dependent population
criteriaweredesignedtoensurereservoirsofgeneticdiversity,contributetoconnectivity,reduceriskof
ESUextinction,andprovideasourceofcolonizerstoextirpatedwatershedsandbufferoceanconditions
anddisturbancestoindependentpopulations.
ThefourESUviabilitycriteriaare:
(1)RepresentationCriteria;
1.a. All indentified diversity strata that include historical FIPs or PIPs within an ESU
shouldberepresentedbyviablepopulationfortheESUtobeconsideredviable.
AND
1.b.Withineachdiversitystratum,allextantphenotypicdiversity(i.e.,majorlifehistory
types)shouldberepresentedbyviablepopulations.

(2)RedundancyandConnectivity;
2.a.Atleastfiftypercentofhistoricallyindependentpopulations(FIPsorPIPs)ineach
diversitystratummustbedemonstratedtobeatlowriskofextinctionaccordingtothe
populationviabilitycriteria.Forstratawiththreeorfewerindependentpopulations,at
leasttwopopulationsmustbeviable.
AND
2.b. Within each diversity stratum, the total aggregate abundance of independent
populations selected to satisfy this criterion must meet or exceed 50% of the aggregate
viablepopulationabundance(i.e.,meetingdensitybasedcriteriaforlowrisk)forallFIPs
andPIPs.
(3)Remainingpopulations,includinghistoricallydependentpopulationsoranyhistoricalFIPsor
PIPs that are not expected to attain a viable status, must exhibit occupancy patterns consistent
with those expected under sufficient immigration subsidy arising from the focus Independent
populationsselectedtosatisfytheprecedingcriterion.

March 2010
(4) The distribution of extant populations, regardless of historical status, must maintain
connectivitywithinthediversitystratum,aswellasconnectivitytoneighboringdiversitystrata.
APPLYING TRT FRAMEWORK TO COHO SALMON ESU RECOVERY CRITERIA

Atotalof75watersheds,betweenMendocinoCountyandSantaCruzCounty(includingSanFrancisco
Bay tributaries) were identified by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) as historically supporting CCC coho salmon
populations. All 12 independent populations and 16 dependent populations (DPs) were chosen across
fourdiversitystratafortheCCCcohosalmonESUrecoveryscenario;nopopulationswerechosenforthe
SanFranciscoBayDiversityStratum.RecoverytargetsforspawnerabundanceforeachFIPorPIPwithin
the ESU coincide with the low extinction risk targets identified in Spence et al. 2008, except for the
RussianRiver.OccupancytargetsforDPswerederivedfromabundanceestimatesfromWaddellCreek
datafromthe1930s(ShapavolovandTaft1954).
The combined abundance targets and recovery criteria for the CCC coho salmon ESU we believe
represent the recovery of the species. The reasons for this are threefold: 1) The approach provides
redundancy, resiliency and representation in the ESU; 2) We recognize that the salmon provide
additional ecological benefits such as maintenance of ecosystem productivity; and 3) Salmon may
ultimatelybeharvested,astheynearrecovery,forrecreational,commercialandtribaluses.Itwouldbe
unwisenottoconsiderthisaspartofthebroaderecologicalpicturewhendevelopingrecoverycriteria.
Thecurrentrecoveryscenarioexpects37percentofhistoricalpopulations(28individualwatersheds)to
achieve and maintain viability across all potential habitats for CCC coho salmon to meet ESUlevel
criteria. These 28 watersheds occupy 43 percent of the total land area in the ESU, and represent 33
percentofallthestreamkilometerswiththepotentialtohaveprovidedhabitathistorically(i.e.IPkm).
Though these 28 populations are the focus of this analysis and subsequent strategy development,
recovery and threat abatement actions should not be limited exclusively to these watersheds. In
particular, efforts to prevent coho salmon extirpation and facilitate their recovery should be initiated
where this species is present. In addition, all coho salmon populations and individuals and their
designatedcriticalhabitatremainfullyprotectedundertheESAwherevertheyoccurandaretherefore
stillsubjecttoalltheprotectionstherein;includingprohibitionsontakeandhabitatmodifications(unless
legallyexemptedbypermit).
IPhabitatsforcohosalmonwereoutputforeachpopulationandaredisplayedonmapsthatincludea
rangeofIPvaluesacrossthreescales:0.0to0.35;0.35to0.7and>0.7.Thesescalesrepresent:(1)relative
likelihood for historic channel and flow conditions to provide higher quality rearing habitats for coho
salmon;and(2)likelihoodofareaswithinawatershedtohistoricallyprovidehigherorlowerabundance
per length of stream reach to meet overall abundance target for the population. The IP values across
these scales represent the historical potential of channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient to
provide suitable habitats and support higher abundances of coho salmon with > 0.7 having a high
likelihood,0.35to0.7havingamoderatelikelihoodand0.0to0.35havingalowerlikelihood.
For recovery planning purposes, NMFS is evaluating those areas identified as > 0.7 as having a higher
potential for responding to instream restoration actions (e.g., input of large wood and pool formation).

March 2010
With the current goal to prevent extinction, these areas will be evaluated for their potential to respond
quicklytorestorationactivitiesandprovideimmediateorveryneartermbenefitstoimproveCCCcoho
salmon survival. These areas are also those most likely to respond negatively as well as upstream
conditions degrade. Nevertheless, the overall persistence of this species relies on restoration and
maintenanceofwatershedprocessesacrossIPandnonIPareas.
Recovery Goals for Independent Populations

Table8summarizestheIndependentPopulationrecoverycriteriaforCCCcohosalmon,includingboth
biologicalcriteriaforpopulationviabilityandrecoveryandthetotalIPkmexpectedtofunctiontowards
meeting these recovery goals. Viable population abundance is calculated as the product of all stream
reacheswithintrinsicpotential(IPkm)inawatershedandrecoverytargetdensitiesforspawningadults
basedonSpenceet.al.(2008).

Table12:IndependentPopulationAdultSpawnerAbundanceTargetsforRecovery
DiversityStrata Population IPkm DensityTargets SpawningAdultTarget

LostCoast TenMile 105.1 34.93 3700
LostCoast Noyo 118 34.03 4000
LostCoast Big 191.8 28.91 5500
LostCoast Albion 59.2 38.11 2300
Total: 15,500
NavarroPt. Navarro 201 28.27 5700
NavarroPt. Garcia 76 36.95 2800
NavarroPt. Gualala 251.6 24.76 6200
Total: 14,700
Coastal Russian 506 20.00 10,100
Coastal Walker* 76.2 36.93 2800
Coastal Lagunitas 70.4 37.34 2600
Total: 15,500
SantaCruz Pescadero 60.6 38.02 2300
SantaCruz SanLorenzo 126.42 33.45 4200
Total: 6500
ESUTotal: 52,200
*PotentiallyIndependentPopulation
Unfortunately,dataareinsufficienttoassesscurrentviabilityforthe12independentpopulationsbased
onthedefinedcriteria.AncillarydatacompiledandassessedbytheTRTindicatethatoverhalfofthe
independent populations (and many dependent populations) are extirpated, or nearly so (Spence et al.

March 2010
2008).Despitethedatalimitations,allevidencesuggeststhattheCCCcohosalmonESUisatahighrisk
ofextinction(Spenceetal.2008).
Recovery Goals for Dependent Populations

Inordertomeetviabilitycriteriaandaddresstheextremedeclineinthecohosalmonpopulation,specific
Dependent Populations were included to minimize extinction risk. The inclusion of these Dependent
Populations are anticipated to (1)
maintain connectivity within and Table 13: Dependent Population
across diversity strata; (2) provide Adult Spawner Abundance for Recovery
potential sources of colonizers if Dependent Populations
adjacentpopulationsareeliminated Current Target
or experience severe declines; and, IP-km Spawer/km Na
Usal Creek 10.6 34 360
(3) ensure continued genetic Cottaneva Creek 13.8 34 469
reservoirs in strata where Wages Creek 10 34 340
Independent Populations are Pudding Creek 28.9 34 983
extirpated. The 16 selected Casper Creek 12.8 34 435
Dependent Populations must Big Salmon Creek 17 34 578
Salmon Creek 47.6 34 1618
exhibit occupancy patterns within
Pine Gulch 7.4 34 252
targeted ranges (Table 9) consistent Redwood Creek 8 34 272
withthoseexpectedundersufficient San Gregorio 40.1 34 1363
immigration subsidy arising from Gazos Creek 8.2 34 279
the Independent Populations; and Waddel Creek 9.2 34 313
Scott Creek 15 34 510
the distribution of extant
San Vicente Creek 3.1 34 105
populations,regardlessofhistorical Soquel Creek 33 34 1122
status, must maintain connectivity Aptos Creek 27.4 34 932
withinthediversitystratum,aswell
as connectivity to neighboring
DiversityStrata. Lost Coast-Navarro Point 6 populations 3165
Navarro Point-Gualala Point no populations 0

Available data were used to
develop a target range for spawner
Coastal 3 populations 2142
densities in dependent watersheds.
Data from 19331942 in Waddell
Santa Cruz Mountains 7 populations 4624
Creek, Santa Cruz County,
(Shapovalov and Taft 1954) were ESU
usedasareferenceforthespawner Total 9931
targetdensitytarget 12.Theaverage
ItisimportanttonotethatvirtuallyallportionsoftheWaddellCreekwatershed,atthetimeoftheShapovalovand
12
Taftstudyinthe1930s,hadbeenwerenotatapristineorcondition.ShapovalovandTaft(1954)describeWaddell
Creekinthefollowingterms:Somechangesfromtheprimitiveconditionoftheareahavetakenplaceasaresultofhuman
usage.TheredwoodforestofthewatershedbelowBigBasinwasloggedoffby1870andisnowcoveredbyasecondgrowth.The
earlylumberingoperationshaveresultedinthecreationofseveralsemipermanentlogjamsandtemporaryaccumulationsoflogs,
whichhavehastenederosionofstreambanks,withconsequentincreaseinsiltingduringfloodstage.

March 2010
spawnerpopulationwas312fish(whichrangedfrom111748)resultinginaspawnerdensitytargetof34
perIPkm(312/9.2IPkm).
ThestatementsofShapovalovandTaft(1954)likelyunderstatethedegreeWaddellCreekhadbeen
affectedbytheremovaloftheredwoodforest.Virtuallyallportionsofthewatershedaccessibletocoho
salmonwereextensivelydisturbedpriortotheonsetoftheShapovalovandTaft(1954)study.Early
loggingpracticeswereparticularlydestructiveandthislevelofdisturbancelikelyresultedinasignificant
reductionintheproductivecapacityforcohosalmoninthewatershed.
Considering the SF Bay Stratum

All CCC coho salmon populations that historically existed in the San Francisco Bay region have been
extirpated.Themostplausibleexplanationfortheextirpationistheintenseurbanizationandassociated
developmentsintheregion.HistoricalevidenceconfirmsthatwatershedsthataretributariestotheSan
Francisco Bay, which collectively comprise the San Francisco Bay Diversity Stratum, supported
populations of coho salmon (Spence et al. 2005). The first known scientific specimen of a coho salmon
fromCaliforniawascollectedinthe1860sfromSanMateoCreekinSanMateoCounty.Aninvestigation
oftheIndianmiddensintheEmeryvilleshellmoundsrevealedremainsofcohosalmonpriortoEuropean
contact(Gobaletetal.2004),andadultcohosalmonwerealsoobservedinAlamedaCreekasrecentlyas
the1960s(Leidyetal.2005).
WhilethehistoricalpresenceofcohosalmonintheSanFranciscoBaystratumisestablished,thedegree
towhichthesetributarieswerehistoricallycapableofsupportingcohosalmonpopulationsisuncertain.
Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) identified many watersheds exceeding the minimum 32 IPkm for Independent
Populationstatus.Accordingtothemodelpredictions,SanFranciscoBaypopulationsrepresented16of
75watershedsintheESUwithhistoricpotentialtosupportcohosalmon.SanFranciscoBaywatersheds
contain38percentofallthehistoricIPmileageintheESU.Bjorkstedtetal.(2005),however,described
considerable uncertainty in the IP model prediction results due to the highly altered current condition
andthelackofhistoricalevidenceofviablepopulations.ThegeneralconclusionreachedbyBjorkstedtet
al. (2005) is the San Francisco Bay watersheds supported only small and/or ephemeral populations,
particularlyinthedrierandwarmerinteriorwatersheds.TheTRTconcluded(Bjorkstedtetal.2005)that
no independent populations historically existed and, thus, no viability abundance criteria were
developedforpopulationsoftheSanFranciscoBayDiversityStratum.
ReasonsfortheextirpationofCCCcohosalmonintheSanFranciscoBayregionarelikelyduetomultiple
factors such as inherently marginal habitats, currently highly degraded watersheds and occupancy by
populations that were ephemeral or occasional in nature. The extirpation of CCC coho salmon in this
Stratumandthehighcostsofrestorationand/orinfeasibilityofrestorationsuggestedmaybelittlevalue
inincludingthisStratumintotherecoveryscenario.Nonetheless,whiletheSanFranciscoBayDiversity
Stratum was not included in the recovery scenario it is recommended that evaluation be done on the
feasibilityandlikelihoodofrestoringCCCcohosalmonpopulationssomeSanFranciscoBaytributaries
(such as Corte Madera Creek) due to some uncertainty regarding the role these populations may have
hadintheESU.

March 2010
CHAPTER6:ASSESSMENTOF
HABITATS&THREATS
There is one thing more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is,
the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be.
Charles Sanders Pierce
METHODS TO ASSESS HABITAT CONDITIONS AND THREATS

Statute,caselaw,andagencypolicyguidetheprocessNMFSusestoassesshabitatconditionsandthreats
to Federally listed species. The ESA mandates each recovery plan shall incorporate, to the maximum
extentpracticable,objective,measurablecriteriawhich,whenmet,wouldresultinadeterminationthat
the species has reached long term viability to the point that the protections of the ESA are no longer
necessary(NMFS2006a).LegalchallengesunderscorethisstatuteandtheintentofCongress.Thelaw
requires that objective, measurable criteria must link to threats identified at listing, as well as those
identified since listing, and must measure whether threats have been abated. The U.S. Government
Accountability Office in 2006, in an audit of Federal recovery plans, directed Federal agencies to
incorporate,inallneworrevisedrecoveryplans,appropriatecriteriaevidencingconsiderationoflisting
factors. Thus, NMFS Interim Guidance (NMFS 2007) recommends a structured approach to assessing
threats,sourcesofthreats,andtheirrelativeimportancetothespeciesstatus.TheInterimGuidance
(2007)additionallyrecommendsrecoveryplansconductanassessmentexplicitlyidentifyingallthreatsto
a species and track, through objective and measurable criteria, how each threat will be reduced or
eliminatedthroughsitespecificmanagementactions.Thisprocessincludes:(1)identifyingthreatstothe
speciesat time of listing(Chapter 3); (2) identify changes in those threats; (3)identify any new threats;
and(4)crossreferencingthreatsattimeoflistingandnewthreats.
Achieving population abundance necessary for viability and recovery will not be possible unless
degradedhabitatsarerestoredtofunctioningconditions,andthethreatsthatcompromisethesehabitats
areadequatelycontrolled.Thepurposeofathreatsassessmentinrecoveryplanningistodeterminewhy,
totheextentpossible,thespeciesisdeclining(NMFS2007).Thecausesforthisdeclinemayberelatedto
past,ongoing,and/orfuturestressorsinthespeciesenvironment,orfromdirectmortalitytoindividuals.
Understandingcurrenthabitatconditions,stresses,andthesourcesofstress(e.g.,threats)tothespeciesis
essentialindevelopingeffectiverecoveryactions.Cohosalmonutilizeawiderangeofhabitatsandthe
conditionofthesehabitatshasdifferenteffectsaccordingtolifestage.Thischapterdescribesthemethods
usedto:(1)assesscurrenthabitatconditionsandfuturethreatsforthe28focuspopulationsintheCCC
cohosalmonESU,and(2)developrecoveryactionsdesignedtorestorefunctionalhabitatconditions,and
controlidentifiedthreats.

March 2010
Conservation Action Planning
TheInterimRecoveryPlanningGuidanceforThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies(NMFS2007)
recommendstheConservationActionPlanning(CAP)processasamethodtoassesscurrent
habitatconditionsandfuturethreatsthataffectspeciesviabilityandtodeveloprecovery
strategiesthataddressthoseconditionsandthreats.TheCAPprocesswasthusappliedtoCCC
cohosalmonrecoveryplanning.ItwasdevelopedbyTheNatureConservancy(TNC)in
collaborationwiththeWorldWildlifeFund,ConservationInternational,WildlifeConservation
Societyandothers.StandardsweredevelopedbytheConservationMeasuresPartnership;a
partnershipoftendifferentbiodiversitynongovernmentalorganizations
(www.conservationmeasures.org).CAPhasbeenappliedtomorethan400landscapesand25
countries;TNChasofficiallyadoptedCAPasitsstandardconservationplanningtool.CAP
workbookinformationisavailableat:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/index_html.
TheCAPprotocolwasfollowedexplicitlyforCCCcohosalmonrecoveryplanning.Theprocess
involvedassemblingbothqualitativeandquantitativedataonfreshwaterandmarineconditions.
Alldecisions,data,andreferencesarecataloguedincustomizedExceltables,theCAPWorkbook.
ThisspecializedCAPWorkbookwasdesignedtoorganize,track,andsummarizelargeamounts
of information in an easily updatable and userfriendly manner. The comprehensive
documentation,transparency,andadaptabilityservesasthefoundationforsuccessiveiterations
asadditionaldataarelearnedandgathered.TherecoveryplanonlyoutputstheCAPworkbook
results for each watershed and summarized across watersheds. The metadata is extensive and
wasnotincludedintheplanatthistime,butcanberequested.
TheNMFSapplicationoftheCAPprotocolincluded:(1)definingcurrentconditionsforhabitat
attributes essential for the long term survival of CCC coho salmon; (2) identifying activities
reasonably expected to continue, or occur, into the future that will have a direct, or indirect,
negative effect on the species; and (3) strategy development to improve current conditions
(restorationstrategies)andabatefuturethreats(threatsstrategies).Eachstepculminatesintoa
testable hypothesis of species viability across the dimensions of life stage/population viability,
habitatconditionsandcontinuing/futurethreats.Fromthehypothesis,successismeasuredfrom
clearly defined objectives and strategies actions secured in CAPs adaptive and iterative
framework.
In2006,NMFSpartneredwithTNCfortheirassistanceandsupportinapplyingtheCAPprocess
fortheCCCcohosalmonrecoveryplan.ThehandsontrainingandinteractionswithTNCstaff
facilitated the custom application of the CAP workbook to CCC coho salmon. Several other
NMFS recovery domains in California are also using the TNC CAP protocol, or a modified
versionoftheprocess,todeveloptheirrecoveryplans.

March 2010
CAP Workbook Structure
Twentyeight CAP workbooks were developed representing each of the focus freshwater
populations (populations coincide with watersheds for the CCC coho salmon ESU). Each
workbook was organized to assess sitespecific and watershed conditions and threats, across
freshwater lifestages (e.g., adult spawning, egg survival, juvenile/winter survival, and smolt
outmigration). This directed attention to a limiting lifestage, and the possible causes of the
limitations.Theconditionsofalllifestagescollectivelyprovidethelandscapeviewofwhatmay
be limiting the overall population. Each CAP workbook has three structural components: the
ViabilityTable,theThreatsTables,andasectiononStrategicActions.
The Viability Table

The Viability Table was developed to assess sitespecific and watershed conditions. It was
organized by a defined set of values supported by the best available scientific literature and
provided a reference to assess current aquatic and upland conditions relevant to specific CCC
coho salmon life stages. The Viability Table defines specific life stages as conservation targets,
and assesses key habitat or population elements required for each life stage. The assessment
dependsonspecificparametersorindicators,andreferencevaluesforeachindicator.
ConservationTargets
TheConservationTargetshavebeendefinedasthefollowingfreshwaterlifestages(Table10):
SpawningAdultsIncludesadultfishfromthetimetheyenterfreshwater,holdormigrate
tospawningareas,andcompletespawning(November1toMarch1) 13;
EggIncludesfertilizedeggsdepositedintoreddsandtheincubationoftheseeggsthrough
thetimeofemergencefromthegravel(December1toApril1);
SummerRearingIncludesjuvenilerearinginstreamsandestuaries(whenapplicable)
duringsummerandfall(JuneOctober)priortotheonsetofwinterrains;
WinterRearingIncludesrearingofjuvenilesfromtheonsetofwinterrainsthroughthe
wintermonthsuptotheinitiationofsmoltoutmigration(November1toMarch1);
SmoltIncludesjuvenilemigrationfromnatalrearingareasuntiltheyentertheocean
(March1toJune1);and
MultipleLifeStagesIncludesoneormorefreshwaterlifestagespotentiallyaffectedby
upslopeorlandscapeprocesses.Theseprocesseshavewiderangingeffectsandoccuratthe
watershedscale.
13Thepurposeindefiningdiscretelifestageperiodsistoassesshabitatattributesduringarepresentative
timeframe,nottoencapsulatethefullrangeoftimingpossibilities.

March 2010

Table14:CAPExampleWorkbookPageandLifeStageTargets
ConserveOnline Help
Conservation Action Planning Workbook
A tool for developing strategies, taking action, and measuring success Online Tutorial
2008 The Nature Conservancy Version: CAP_v5a March 7, 2008
Full Version
To enter, edit or delete data in protected cells (which are shaded or contain entries in black font), double-click on the cell. An entry form will appear.
To change the table format, double-click on the table header. A table format form will appear.
Project and Conservation Targets
Project Central California Coast Coho Salmon ~ Lagunitas Creek Population
1 Target #1 Spawning Adults
2 Target #2 Eggs
3 Target #3 Summer Rearing Juveniles
4 Target #4 Winter Rearing Juveniles
5 Target #5 Smolts
6 Target #6 Multiple Life Stages
7 Target #7
8 Target #8

KeyAttributes
Key Habitat Attributes are the freshwater elements required for the species survival and
recovery.Theseattributesareessentialtotheimmediateandlongtermsuccessofthespeciesat
eachlifestageandarepresumedtolimitthepopulationifmissingordegraded.
IndicatorsandIndicatorRatings
IndicatorsarethespecifichabitatorpopulationparametersthatdefineaKeyAttribute.Indicator
Ratings are the reference values for each Indicator. Depending on the complexity of the key
attributeorthenatureofavailabledata,oneormoreIndicatorshavebeenidentifiedforeachKey
Attribute. For example, because two types of data were available for the Egg life stage, Key
Attribute of Sediment for Incubation and Emergence, two indicators were identified: bulk
samplesandembeddedness(Table11).

PhotoCourtesy:InmanCreek,MendocinoCounty,CA,SamanthaKannryandRobCimitile,TNC

March 2010
Table15:ExampleCAPWorkbookTableofKeyAttributes,IndicatorsandRatings
AssessmentofTargetViability
CentralCaliforniaCoastCohoSalmon~LagunitasCreekPopulation IndicatorRatings
Double
click
opens Bold=Current Italics=Desired
entry
form
Conservation
Category KeyAttribute Indicator Poor Fair Good VeryGood
Target
2 Eggs Condition Sediment: GravelQuality:Percentoffinesinbulk >14%0.85mm BetweenPoor <14%0.85mm

Incubation& samplesofpotentialspawningsites and/or>30% andGood and/or<30%
Emergence 6.4mm 6.4mm
2 Eggs Condition Sediment: GravelQuality:Percentofpooltailouts <25%1&2 2550%1&2 >50%1&2 NotDefined
Incubation& sampledwithembeddednessvaluesof
Emergence 1and2
IndicatorsalloweachKeyAttributetobeobjectivelyassessedbyprovidingameanstomeasurea
specifichabitatconditionwithexistingdata.Ratingsareclassesboundbygenerallyquantitative
thresholdsthatdefinewhethertheconditionofagivenindicatorisVeryGood,Good,Fair,
or Poor. To the extent possible, these thresholds were defined using values in published
scientific literature. Measurable indicators were used for as many of the analyses as possible;
however, data limitations demanded the formulation of other decisionmaking structures for
qualitativeinformationwhenquantificationwasnotpossible.Atotalof12indicatorsreliedon
this approach to include instream flow conditions, estuary condition (to some degree), and
toxicity.AcompletelistisprovidedinTable12andadescriptionoftheattributesisavailablein
AppendixD(ViabilityTableReport).

GeographicLimitsofAnalysis
To adequately rate Indicators, an analysis of data at the watershed scale was necessary. The
NCCC Domain Recovery Team considered all stream reaches that historically supported the
targetlifestages.Forexample,tocharacterizewatertemperatureforsummerrearingjuveniles,
all stream reaches that likely supported summer rearing were evaluated across the extent and
distributionofhistorichabitatasdefinedbytheTRT(IP).TheIPmodelprovidedanestimateof
the linear extent of potential habitat in each watershed in kilometers (km), thus providing a
spatiallydiscreteestimateofpotentialspawningandrearinghabitatatthereachscale(Agrawal
etal.2005).Usingthismodelfacilitatedthedefinitionofallstreamreacheswithinawatershed
potentiallysuitablehabitatforeachlifestagetargetandavoidedbiasesintheassessments.


March 2010
Table16:TargetedLifeStage,HabitatAttributesandIndicators
TargetLifeStage HabitatAttribute Indicator
SpawningAdults Viability(IncidentalMortality) FreshwaterHarvest
SpawningAdults Hydrology,Adultpassageto PassageFlows
spawninggrounds
SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers
SpawningAdults PassageatStreamMouth EntryPeriod
SpawningAdults Sediment,SpawningSubstrate Spawninggravel
quantity/distribution
SpawningAdults Viability,Pop.Density DensityTarget
Egg Hydrology ReddScour
Egg Hydrology InstantaneousCondition
Egg Sediment GravelQuality(Bulk)
Egg Sediment GravelQuality(Embed.)
SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow
SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature(MWATorMWMT)
SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating
SummerRearing PoolHabitat FrequencyofPrimaryPools
SummerRearing Viability Density(Juveniles)
SummerRearing Viability Distribution
WinterRearing VelocityRefuge ComplexHabitatTypes
Smolt Estuary Estuary
Smolt Passage #ofDiversions
Smolt Hydrology FlowConditions
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating
MultipleLifeStages Hydrology ImperviousSurfaces
MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge
MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture
MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg.,StreamShading CanopyCover
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. DBH(North)
DBH(South)
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition
MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity
MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity(Riparian)
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010)
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100)
MultipleLifeStages VelocityRefuge FloodplainConnectivity
MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality,Toxins Toxicity

March 2010
ViabilityTableDataSources
The data that informed the viability tables came from a wide variety of sources. Sources included the
DFG,SWRCB,U.S.EPA,RCDs,privatetimbercompanies,conservationorganizations,consultants,local
watershed groups and other contributors. Each of the 34 indicators required its own method of
integratingdata.AdetaileddescriptionofthesemethodsisprovidedinAppendixC.Themethodsare
brieflysummarizedintothefollowingsevencategories:
1. Hab8 Data: Eight indicators were informed by the DFG stream habitattyping dataset. These
data provided wide coverage across 14 of 28 focus watersheds using a standardized data
collectionprotocol(FlosiandReynolds1998).
2. Instream Flow: Lack of sufficient gage data in rearing and migration habitats led us to derive
ratings for instream flow indicators from a structured decisionmaking model informed by a
paneloflocalexperts(appendices).Fiveindicatorsweredevelopedwiththismethod.
3. InstreamTemperatureData:Asingleindicatorwasusedtoinformthishabitatattribute,butit
required extensive compilation of disparate datasets. In order to extrapolate temperature data
taken at a specific point to inform a watershedwide rating, point data were grouped into
condition classes. Final ratings were made by estimating the proportion of a watersheds IP
networkthatfellwithineachtemperatureclass.
4. EstuaryConditionsandToxicity:Theindicatorsfortheseattributesweredifficulttoquantify,so
structureddecisionmakingmodelsweredevelopedandwereinformedbyliteraturereviewand
expertopinion(appendices).
5. Land Use Assessments: Nine indicators were informed by GIS queries of available spatial
datasets.
6. Population Viability: Three viability indicators were informed by review and synthesis of all
availablefisheriesmonitoringdataintheESU.
7. OtherIndicators:Thesixremainingindicatorswereinformedbyvariousmethodsrangingfrom
queriesofexistingdatabases(e.g.physicalbarriers)tobestprofessionaljudgment.
ContributionsfromtheSonomaEcologyCenter
To provide focused support for data acquisition, NMFS contracted with the Sonoma Ecology Center
(SEC) to search for, compile, manage, and apply the disparate data necessary to inform many of the
indicatorsandratingspreviouslydiscussed.Thefollowingisasummaryoftheirefforts.Afinalreport
detailingtheseeffortsisavailableintheappendices.
Much of SECs effort involved the application of DFGs Hab8 data to the 14 of 28focus watersheds to
which these data were available. SEC managed data acquisition (from DFG), spatially referenced the
data, conducted biasanalyses and quality control, as well as developed the necessary queries to match
thedatato8ofthe34indicators.
SEC supported assessments of passage issuesusing the Pacific States MarineFisheries Council Passage
AssessmentDatabase(PSMFC2006).TheyalsousedtheNationalLandcoverDatabase(2001)tocalculate
thepercentofimpervioussurfaceandpercentoflandinagriculturefor28watersheds.

March 2010

Finally, SEC conducted exploratory data searches for several indicators to investigate the feasibility of
usingdatadrivenratingsforanumberofindicatorsrelatedtoinstreamflows,estuaries,andtoxicity.In
mostofthesecaseswerevertedtousingstructureddecisionmakingmodelsduetolackofappropriate
data.However,SECsupportedthesemodelswiththebestavailabledata.
SpatialAnalysis
NMFSHabitatConservationDivisionGISunitprovidedextensiveinformationandanalysis,particularly
for land use attributes. For each focus watershed, an individual report was developed with detailed
informationonavarietyofindicators.WatershedCharacterizationsdetailedacreageandpercentageof
urbanization, land ownership, land cover, current and projected development, road densities, erosion
potential,amountoffarmland,timberharvestinghistory,locationandtypesofbarriers,diversions,and
industrialinfluences(mines,dischargesites,toxicreleasesites)andstreamtemperature.Thesedatawere
utilized either to directly inform the CAP workbooks viability indicator rankings or to inform the
RecoveryTeamsgeneralwatershedknowledge(SeeAppendixF).
CDFGHabitatTypingSurveyDataandUCHoplandResearch
The NMFS Santa Rosa office has secured all CDFG habitat typing data for the NCCC Domain. These
datasets are currently being standardized into an Access database under funds provided by Sonoma
County Water Agency. This Stream Summary Application is in development by UC Davis Hopland
ResearchandDFG.UCHoplandisconductingthefollowing:(1)enteringfielddatafromdatasheetsand
importingdatabasesfromindividualsurveysintothestreamhabitatapplication;(2)performingquality
controlandassuranceonspatialdatasets;and(3)creatingspatialrepresentationsofstreamsurveys;and
(4) using the stream habitat application to summarize the data for use by NMFS, DFG, SCWA,
stakeholdersandthegeneralpublic.ThisdatabasewillprovidesummarizedreachleveldataofallDFG
surveysacrossallhabitatparameters.Thespatialapplicationrepresentstheupstreamareasaboveand
aroundeachreach(e.g.,reachsheds).ThefinalproductisscheduledforlateOctoberandwillbeusedfor
theDomainMultispeciesPlananalysisaswellasfinalizationoftheCCCcohosalmonplan.
NMFS, NMFS contractors, UC Hopland and DFG will work together to develop queries for the final
recovery plans, output tables and provide instructions on use of the database and its spatial output
capabilities. In addition, as part of this contract these datasets will be uploaded into a Water Cyber
infrastructure prototype (detailed below) for higher resolution analysis across dimensions of habitats
(e.g.,flow,temperature,shelterratings,pools,etc.)andpopulations.TheStreamSurveyApplicationis
forthcominginOctoberandwillbeusedforouranalysesinthefinalrecoveryplan.Belowaretwodraft
examplespatialoutputsofqueriesfortheRussianRiverbasedonourhabitatcriteriaforPercentCanopy
andPoolDepth.Thescalesarebasedonpoor,fair,goodandverygoodratings.

March 2010
Figure 13: Example DFG data outputs by subwatershed for percent canopy and pool depth (working draft
maps)
UCBerkeley,LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratoryandMicrosoftResearch
AcentralizeddatabaseofhabitatandbiologicalinformationhasbeenanexistingneedinCaliforniafor
manyyears.Whileanumberofworthwhileandimportanteffortsandproductsexistthatadvancethe
goalofacentralizeddatabase(e.g.,CalFish,KRIS,NCWAP,etc.),theinformationremainsinarelatively
unusableandunqueriableform.WhenrecoveryplanningwasfullyinitiatedfortheSantaRosaoffice,the
awkward nature of compiling data and conducting analyses from these various datasets became
apparent. Thus, through funding provided to NMFS for recovery planning and data analysis a
collaborativeeffortisunderwaytodevelopacentralizeddatabaseofhabitatandpopulationdataforthe
CCCcohosalmon.IncollaborationwithCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,UCDavisHopland
Research Center, University of California Berkeley Water Center (BWC), Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory(LBNL)andMicrosoftResearcheScienceGroupanewdatabaseprototypeisbeingdeveloped
forCCCcohosalmonthatincorporateshydrological,meteorological,biologicalandotherrelevantdata.
This Water Cyber infrastructure prototype is being developed to provide dimensional evaluations of
habitat relationships within and across watersheds to more accurately characterize the functionality of
streams for salmon. The ability to perform high level analysis in California as described has not
previouslybeenfeasible;thisprototypewillbeexpandedtoincludeadditionaldatasetsforothersalmon
andsteelheadpopulationsintheRecoveryDomain.Thisdatabaseistermedthedatacube.Currentlya
datacubeprototypeisbeingdevelopedunderacoordinationagreementandpendingcontractbetween
NMFS Santa Rosa, BWC, LBNL and Microsoft that includes hydrologic and meteorologic data. This
datacuberequiresexpansiontoincludewatertemperature,spatialdataonstreamhabitatandpopulation
parameterstobeofgreaterutilitytoNMFS.Followingexpansion,NMFSstaffwillhaveabroaderrange

March 2010
ofanalysisopportunitiesofsalmonhabitats.UsingdemonstrationsofdatacubeapplicationtotheCCC
cohosalmonESUandwithtraining,NMFSwillbepositionedtouseandupdatethedatacubeforbroader
application to other salmon and steelhead recovery planning efforts. NMFS will produce the final
datasetspriortothefinalreleaseoftherecoveryplanandworktomakethedataavailableandusableto
thepublic.
The Threats Table

Threats are distinct from the key attributes developed to define current conditions in each watershed.
Insteadofconditionsthatcurrentlyexist,theyattempttodefinefutureconditionslikelytolimitrecovery
resultingfromcurrentlyactiveissuessuchasongoingloggingpractices,orfromissueslikelytooccurin
thefuture(usuallywithin10years),suchasresidentialdevelopment.Eachthreatiscomparedagainsta
seriesofalteredorimpairedkeyattributesforeachpopulation,andrankedusingthefollowingmetrics:
TheThreatsTableisorganizedintoStressesandSourceofStresses,which,whencombined,constitutea
threattothespecies.
Stresses
Stresses represent altered or impaired Key Attributes for each population. They are essentially the
inverse of the Key Attributes, so the attribute for passage would be impaired passage as a stress.
Stresseswererankedusingtwometrics:
1. Stresses(SeverityofDamage):Thelevelofdamagetotheconservationtargetthatcanreasonably
beexpectedtooccurintothefutureundercurrentcircumstances(i.e.,giventhecontinuationof
theexistingsituation).
2. Stresses(ScopeofDamage):Thegeographicscopeofimpactontheconservationtargetatthesite
that can reasonably be expected into the future under current circumstances (i.e., given the
continuationoftheexistingsituation).

SourcesofStresses
Source of Stresses are defined as the proximate cause of the stress and are ranked using the following
metrics:
1. SourceofStress(Irreversibility):Reversibilityofthestress;and
2. Source of Stress (Contribution): Expected contribution of the source, acting along, to the full
expression of a stress under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing
management/conservationsituation).
Manysourcesofstressaredrivenbysocial,economic,orpoliticalcausesthatthenbecomethefocusof
conservationstrategies.NMFSevaluatedstressesandthreatsaccordingtotheCAPworkbookprotocols.
Sixteen threats were identified and evaluated in the freshwater workbooks, and nine in the marine
workbook.Thislist,orThreatTaxonomy,(AppendixD),providedausefulcategorizationofallthemajor
threatstoCCCcohosalmonNMFSusedforthisevaluation.

March 2010
ThreatsDataSources
NMFSHabitatConservationDivisionGISunitprovidedextensiveinformationandanalysis,particularly
for land use attributes. For each focus watershed, an individual report was developed with detailed
informationonavarietyofindicators.WatershedCharacterizationsdetailedacreageandpercentageof
urbanization, land ownership, land cover, current and projected development, road densities, erosion
potential,amountoffarmland,timberharvestinghistory,locationandtypesofbarriers,diversions,and
industrialinfluences(mines,dischargesites,toxicreleasesites)andstreamtemperature.Thesedatawere
utilized to directly inform the CAP threats rankings (See Appendix F). Additional information was
gathered by reviewing watershed assessment documents and strategic planning materials for
local/state/federal agencies, contacting knowledgeable individuals, utilizing staff expertise, and
consultinganumberofotherreferences.
Recovery Actions
TheESAmandatesrecoveryactionsmustbesitespecificandincludeobjectiveandmeasurable(though
notexclusivelynumeric)criteria.RecoveryactionsandcriteriaareanalogoustotheCAPterminologyof
strategies and measures. The strategies and measures application included in the CAP workbook
identifies specific desirable outcomes or objectives and links them to improving current viability (e.g.
currentconditions),andabatingidentifiedthreats.Theworkbookfacilitatesidentifyingandtrackingthe
suiteofstrategicrecoveryactionstoaccomplishthoseobjectives.Strategiesandactionsaddressspecific
key attributes and abate or reduce anticipated future threats found to be limiting population viability.
Thecombinedsetofrecoveryactionsandcriteriacomprisethestandardsonwhichdecisionstoreclassify
ordelistthesespecieswillbebased.
TheoverallobjectivewastoshiftthepoorcurrentconditionsratingstoGoodorVeryGood,theHighor
VeryHighrankedthreatstoMediumorLow,andtomaintaingenerallygoodhabitatswheretheyexist.
Recoveryactionsarepresentedonthreehierarchicallevels:Objectives,ActionsandActionSteps.
Recoveryactionsweredesignedtoachievespecificobjectivestorestorefunctionalhabitatconditions,or
to abate future threats to the species. Strategic actions and action steps were developed to address all
habitatattributesrankedasPoor.Forattributesdeterminedtobelimitinginsomewatersheds,strategies
were also developed for those ranked as Fair. In some cases, specific strategies were developed to
address attributes which ranked as good or very good over an entire watershed, but were limiting in
specific subwatersheds. However, strategies were not developed for most attributes ranked as Fair,
GoodorVeryGood.Sincemultipleattributesaresometimesinvolved,strategiesweredevelopedifany
one of the related attributes were rated as poor. Similarly, strategic actions and actions steps were
developedtoaddressfuturethreatsrankedasHighorVeryHigh,butexceptincertaincases,werenot
developedforthreatsrankedasMediumorLow.
Aprioritystructureforstrategyimplementationhasbeendeveloped.Priority1actionsareactionsthat
mustbetakeninthenearfuturetohelppreventextinctionorextirpation.Theseactionsarefocusedon
CoreareaswhereCCCcohocurrentlypersist,andareaswherefunctionalhabitatconditionsarepresent
forcohosalmon.Theapproachofprotectingexistinghighqualityhabitatoverrestorationofdegradedor
compromisedhabitatfollowsNMFSguidanceinEcosystemRecoveryPlanningforListedSalmon(NMFS
2003). However, CCC coho populations will not persist simply by protecting extant populations and

March 2010
habitat within Core areas. Priority 2 actions must be taken as well to stop further decline and prevent
furtherimpairmenttohabitats.Priority2actionsarefocusedprimarilyatCoreorPhaseIareaswhere
effortsaredirectedtoexpandthecurrentrangetomorecloselyresemblethehistoricrangeofCCCCoho.
Priority 3 actions are directed primarily at Phase I and II areas, and are expected to improve habitat
conditions for expanding populations. Priority 3 actions focus on preventing further degradation and
reestablishing longterm recovery for expanding populations in all identified IP km. Priority 3 actions
alsoincludeallotheractionsnecessarytoachievefullrecoveryofthespecies.PriorityactionsinPhaseI
andIIareasarebasedonfindingareaswheretherearefeasibleopportunitiestosignificantlyexpandthe
currentrangeofCCC Cohosothesewatershedscanreachtheirviabilityandrecoverytargets.PhaseI
and II areas are considered high priorities if the current populations in Core areas are secured, and
opportunitiestoexpandtheoverallpopulationinthewatershedareavailable.
NMFSdidnotusetheTNCCAPworkbookforstrategydevelopment.NMFSGISdepartmentdeveloped
a recovery action database due to the magnitude of recovery actions and the need to include specific
details associated with the required recovery action implementation schedule (e.g. costs, recovery
partners,duration,prioritynumber,etc.).Theseimplementationscheduleshavebeendevelopedforeach
focuswatershed(Chapter10).
Strategies(a.k.a.RecoveryAction)DataSources
The NCCC Domain Recovery Team capitalized on a full range of resources to develop and prioritize
recoveryactions.TheCaliforniaRecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmonwasusedextensivelyfor
ESUandwatershedspecificstrategiesandisoftenidentifiedas(DFG2004)attheendofeachstrategic
actionoractionstep.Relevantactionswerealsodevelopedfromwatershedassessmentreports,TMDLs,
EIRdocuments,strategicplansfromcities/counties,coordinationwithotherdivisionsofNOAA,outreach
to knowledgeable individuals, staff expertise, and many other sources. A strategy database was
developedforeachwatershedandindividualactionsfromthesesourcesinputintoeachdatabase.These
databaseswerequeriedforspecificstrategies(e.g.,largewoodinputorbarrierremoval).Ifanactionwas
foundpertinentitwasincorporatedintotherecoveryactionimplementationscheduleforthewatershed.
A partial list of the resources used to inform the recovery actions is provided inAppendix E. It is our
intent to utilize as much currently existing information as possible to inform recovery actions. To that
end, NMFS extends an invitation to the public, during the public comment period, to provide us with
yourinformationtomorefullyinformandrefinetheserecoveryactions.
Revisions to the CAP Workbook

NMFS Interim Guidance describes a threats assessment as an iterative process that should provide
feedbacktomanagementactions(NMFS2007).Toensuretheeffectivenessofourstrategicactions,we
will, in the public draft and implementation phase,work with the public to refineand update datasets
and data informing our CAP workbook analysis. Furthermore, it is the intent of NMFS to make these
CAP workbooks available to the public, conduct trainings in collaboration with TNC staff and provide
thepublicanopportunitytoworkwithandusetheseCAPworkbooksmovingforward.

March 2010
CHAPTER7:POPULATION,
HABITAT&THREATSRESULTS
There is presently no other way for humans to educate themselves for survival and
fulfillment than through the instruction available from the natural world.
Freeman House
INTRODUCTION
Appropriate actions to recover CCC coho salmon will not be possible until there is (1) a clear
understanding of coho salmon environmental requirements, (2) which requirements may be lacking or
degraded, and (3) what threatens to further degrade habitats and limit the recovery. Results from the
assessmentsofpopulationviability,habitatconditions,andongoingandfuturethreatsarethereforean
essential foundation to the recovery plan. This chapter provides an overview of those results.
DescriptionsofthemethodsusedtoarriveattheseconclusionsareprovidedinChapter6.
Results include patterns and trends of watershed conditions currently impairing CCC coho salmon
habitats and are presented by life stage and watershed to help prioritize recovery actions based on
attributes most limiting to existing populations. This summary is based on assessments of current
conditions and future threats conducted using the CAP protocol and workbook. Twenty eight focus
watersheds were assessed across the ESU using data collected and generously provided by local and
Stateagencies,publicentities,landownersandothers.
POPULATIONS SELECTED FOR RECOVERY

Atotalof75watersheds,betweenMendocinoCountyandSantaCruzCounty(includingSanFrancisco
Bay tributaries) were identified by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) as historically supporting CCC coho salmon
populations. All 12 independent populations and 16 dependent populations (DPs) were chosen across
fourdiversitystratafortheCCCcohosalmonESUrecoveryscenario;nopopulationswerechosenforthe
SanFranciscoBayDiversityStratum.RecoverytargetsforspawnerabundanceforeachFIPorPIPwithin
the ESU coincide with the low extinction risk targets identified in Spence et al. 2008, except for the
RussianRiver.OccupancytargetsforDPswerederivedfromabundanceestimatesfromWaddellCreek
data from the 1930s (Shapavolov and Taft 1954). The combined abundance targets for the CCC coho
salmon ESU recovery scenario we believe represent broad sense recovery goals which are designed to
provide for commercial, recreational, or tribal harvest as well as providing for additional ecological
benefits (such as maintenance of ecosystem productivity). These targets have the added benefit of
improvingtheredundancy,resiliencyandrepresentationofcohosalmonintheESU.

March 2010
Thecurrentrecoveryscenarioexpects37percentofhistoricalpopulations(28individualwatersheds)to
achieve and maintain viability across all potential habitats for CCC coho salmon to meet ESUlevel
criteria. These 28 watersheds occupy 43 percent of the total land area in the ESU, and represent 33
percentofallthestreamkilometerswiththepotentialtohaveprovidedhabitathistorically(i.e.IPkm).
Though these 28 populations are the focus of this analysis and subsequent strategy development,
recovery and threat abatement actions should not be limited exclusively to these watersheds. In
particular, efforts to prevent coho salmon extirpation and facilitate their recovery should be initiated
where this species is present. In addition, all coho salmon populations and individuals and their
designatedcriticalhabitatremainfullyprotectedundertheESAwherevertheyoccurandaretherefore
stillsubjecttoalltheprotectionstherein;includingprohibitionsontakeandhabitatmodifications(unless
legallyexemptedbypermit).
IP habitat for coho salmon were output for each population and are displayed on maps that include a
rangeofIPvaluesacrossthreescales:0.0to0.35;0.35to0.7and>0.7.Thesescalesrepresent:(1)relative
likelihood for historic channel and flow conditions to provide higher quality rearing habitats for coho
salmon;and(2)likelihoodofareaswithinawatershedtohistoricallyprovidehigherorlowerabundance
per length of stream reach to meet overall abundance target for the population. The IP values across
these scales represent the historical potential of channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient to
provide suitable habitats and support higher abundances of coho salmon with > 0.7 having a high
likelihood,0.35to0.7havingamoderatelikelihoodand0.0to0.35havingalowerlikelihood.
For recovery planning purposes, NMFS is evaluating those areas identified as > 0.7 as having a higher
potential for responding to instream restoration actions (e.g., input of large wood and pool formation).
With the current goal to prevent extinction, these areas will be evaluated for their potential to respond
quicklytorestorationactivitiesandprovideimmediateorveryneartermbenefitstoimproveCCCcoho
salmon survival. These areas are also those most likely to respond negatively as upstream conditions
degrade. Nevertheless, the overall persistence of this species relies on restoration and maintenance of
watershedprocessesacrossIPandnonIPareas.
Revisiting IP in the Coastal Diversity Stratum

TheCoastalDiversityStratumcontainsthreehistoricallyindependentpopulationsofCCCcohosalmon.
TheTRTconcludedtheRussianRiver,thelargestwatershedintheESU,historicallysupportedtwocoho
salmonpopulations:amajorfunctionallyindependentpopulationthatspawnedintributarywatersheds
in the lower basin where coastal climates moderated summer temperatures and a dependent, possibly
ephemeral population that occupied tributaries in the northwest corner of the basin (Bjorkstedt et al.
2005).LagunitasCreekisbelievedtohavealsosupportedafunctionallyindependentpopulation,while
WalkerCreekhistoricallysupportedapotentiallyindependentpopulation(Spenceetal.2008).
TheestimateofhistoricalIPkmintheRussianRiverbasinwasestimatedat779IPkm.Adensityof20
spawners/IPkm results in a population target of 15,600 adult fish in the Russian River. However,
approximately22IPkmlieupstreamofWarmSpringsandCoyoteValleydams,andapproximately251
IPkmhaslimitedpotentialforcohoproductioninthebasinduetoacombinationofurbandevelopment
and extensive channelization for flood control. The degraded, channelized condition of heavily
urbanized portions of the Russian River watershed makes attainment of the TRTs population viability

March 2010
target, (is based on historical habitat availability), highly unlikely. Thus, numeric spawner targets for
recoverycriteriawerecalculatedfromarevisedestimateofIPkm,toaccountforhabitatlossassociated
withurbandevelopmentandcoldwaterhabitatgainsintheRussianRiverbasinasdiscussedbelow.
TheRussianRiverisboththelargestwatershedandamajorcenterofhumanpopulationwithintheCCC
coho salmon ESU, where large portions of this watershed are urbanized and a large proportion of
historicalcohosalmonhabitathasbeenlost.TheSantaRosaCreekwatershedandtheLagunadeSanta
Rosa watershed (upstream from the confluence with Santa Rosa Creek) collectively have 98 km of
trapezoidal flood control channels 14. These straightened channels run through urban and other highly
developed areas that may preclude channel restoration capable of supporting rearing habitats for coho
salmon.Thehydrologyofurbanfloodcontrolchannelsarehighlyalteredandmaynotbeconduciveto
providing quality coho salmon habitat. Much of the remaining habitat in the Laguna de Santa Rosa
(upstreamofSantaRosaCreek)islowgradientsloughswithoutsignificantspawninghabitat.However,
theLagunadeSantaRosadoescontinuetoprovideabundantpotentialwinterrefugiaforcohosalmon.
Appreciable amounts of the Laguna channel remains well connected to its flood plain, so that during
winter the Laguna forms a network of large shallow ponds. Unfortunately, potential production of
juvenilesinthesesloughsislikelypreventedbythepaucityofspawninghabitatduetothenetworkof
numerousfloodcontrolchannelsandextensivelowgradient,siltbottomedsloughsthatmakeupmostof
thehabitatinthesetwosubwatersheds.
Attemptstorestorenaturalstreammeanderswithbackwaterorscourpoolhabitatsinthesereaches,orto
reconnect the channels with floodplains for the development of offchannel pools, is precluded by the
adjacent extensive urban development. Similarly, placement (and retention) of large woody debris in
heavily maintained flood control channels, may impair conveyance or provide marginal habitat
improvements(whenconsideringtheacceleratedrunofffromimpervioussurfacesintheadjacenthighly
residentialfloodplain).
ThisevaluationissupportedbyDFGwhichhasregardedtheLagunadeSantaRosaasasubwatershed
with inconsequential potential coho salmon rearing and spawning habitat as the result of both habitat
loss and extreme habitat degradation (R. Coey, former DFG Supervisory Fishery Biologist, personnel
communication).Nevertheless,giventhevalueoftheLagunaaspotentialwinterhabitatforcohosalmon,
wehaveretainedthelowermostportionoftheLaguna(downstreamofthemouthofSantaRosaCreek)
ascurrentIPkmwhichcouldpotentiallyserveaswinterhabitatforcohosalmonspawnedinMarkWest
Creek.
AnotherrevisiontotheTRTestimateofIPkmintheRussianRiverwatershedincludesthesubtractionof
IP km for a small number of streams in the Northwest corner of the Russian River watershed (e.g.,
ForsytheCreekandothers).ThesefewsmallstreamswereconsideredasmallDependentPopulationthat
relied on immigration from the much larger independent population in the southern end of the
watershed. However, based on flow, temperature conditions, and natural barriers to migration in this
northern area, it was unlikely that coho salmon consistently occupied these streams. Considering the
distance from the Core Areas in the lower basin, and the conditions for migration to the upper basin
14 Tables28and29inNMFS(2008)fromRussianRiverBiologicalOpinion
March 2010
tributariesthroughthemainstem,muchofwhatiseffectivelychannelized,theIPkmforthisephemeral
populationwasremovedfromanalysisofcurrentconditions.Itisunlikelythatthesefewstreamsinthe
upper northwest corner of the Russian River watershed could be restored to a state where they would
contribute significantly to the recovery of the independent coho population (R. Coey, former DFG
SupervisoryFisheryBiologist,personnelcommunication).
Finally, while subtracting Santa Rosa Creek, the Laguna de Santa Rosa (upstream from the mouth of
SantaRosaCreek),andthefewstreamsinthenorthwestcornerofthewatershedfromtheestimateof
currentIPkm,weadded14milesofDryCreekascurrentIPkm.DryCreekhadbeenexcludedfromthe
TRTestimateofIPkmduetohighsummerairtemperaturespredictedbythemodelitispossiblethat,
priortotheconstructionandoperationsofWarmSpringsDam,thehighairtemperatureselevatedwater
temperatures in lower Dry Creek above the tolerance levels for rearing coho salmon. However, with
current high summer flow releases of cold water from Warm Springs Dam, water temperatures in Dry
Creek are now highly favorable for rearing juvenile coho salmon and coho presences has been
documentedroutinelyinrecenthistoryinDryCreekanditsvarioustributaries.
WalkerCreekisheavilyimpactedbylivestockranchingpracticesandwildCCCcohosalmonhavenot
been observed in several decades (the stream was planted with Russian River captive broodstock in
2004).TheWalkerCreekcohosalmonpopulationwascategorizedbytheTRTasextinct.Similarto
the Russian River, Walker Creek does not currently maintain conditions to support the number of
spawnersneededtoachievetheTRT(lowextinction)viabilitytargetof2,800.However,WalkerCreekis
impacted by land uses practices that are potentially easier to reverse than landuse practices in the
RussianRiver.
Unlike the Russian River and Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek maintains a consistent run of CCC coho
salmon. Data from this watershed is the most reliable set for any Independent Population in the CCC
coho salmon ESU. Thought the TRT categorized this population at moderate risk of extinction,
Lagunitas Creek currently does not have suitable habitat conditions, to achieve the viability target of
2,600.Trendsdoindicate,though,thatthismaybetheonlywatershedthatcouldpotentiallysatisfylow
riskextinctioncriteriainthenearfuture,ifsignificantrestorationweretooccur.
Toidentifyrecoverytargetsforthesethreepopulationswhichwouldreflectarealisticrecoveryscenario
for a viable Russian, Walker and Lagunitas Creek salmon populations, while still achieving Diversity
Strata targets and ESU level viability criteria, we revised the current IPkm for the Russian River
watershed, excluding areas that because of substantial and irreversible degradation are unlikely to
contributetoaviableRussianRiverpopulation.Wethencalculatedarecoverytargetabundancebased
on currently accessible habitat using density criteria proposed by the TRT also calculating lowrisk
targets based on currently accessible habitat (i.e., excluding area upstream of impassible dams) for
LagunitasandWalkercreeks.
To ensure that ESUlevel criteria were met, the total projected cumulative abundance for the three
independent populations in the Coastal diversity strata (Russian, Lagunitas, Walker) was determined a
prioritobenotlessthan50%ofthetotalhistoricalaggregateabundanceofthesepopulations.
March 2010
Results indicate the recovery target for the Coastal Diversity Stratum is adequate to achieve the
conditionsnecessaryforviability(Table13),andthatthoseconditionscanbemetfromtheRussianRiver
and Lagunitas Creek populations alone, or with contribution from Walker Creek (which could also be
restored to a viable population of at least 2,800 individuals). Given the uncertainty regarding the large
recoverytargetfortheRussianRiver,andthesignificantextentofurbanizationofthiswatershed,pursing
restoration actions in Walker Creek to approach a level of several thousand spawners (which could
contributetoreachingthestratumtotalof11,850)wouldseemareasonableandprudenttargettopursue.
Table17:ProposedAbundanceTargetsfortheRussianRiverandCoastalDiversityStratum
Population Historic Historical Current Stratum

viability target
IPKm IPkm
RussianRiver 779 15,600 506 10,100
WalkerCreek 103 3,600 76 2,800
Lagunitas 137 4,500 70 2,600

Creek
Aggregate 50%of23,700= __ 15,500

Target 11,850
CAP WORKBOOK: ESU POPULATION RESULTS

Cohosalmonviability,ascharacterizedbythefourpopulationviabilityindicators(adultdensity,juvenile
density, juvenile distribution, and smolt productivity) rated in the CAP workbooks, is generally poor
throughout the ESU (Table 15). This conditionis especially apparent south of the Lost Coast Diversity
Stratum, where few ratings for viability rise above poor condition. With the exception of Lagunitas
Creek, every population from the Navarro River (inclusive) south appear at a critically high risk of
extinction.WhiletheLostCoastDiversityStratumislessso,theabundanceofpoorandfairratingsstill
suggestendangeredpopulations.
ThenumberofwatershedsintheESUwithPoorratingsforpopulationviabilityindicatorsillustrates
theextentofdepressedpopulations:
24of28watershedshadpoorjuveniledensities(definedashavingawatershedaverageof<0.2
fishpersquaremeter);
24of28watershedshadpooradultspawningdensities(definedashavingawatershedaverage
of<1spawningperIPkm);and
14of28watershedshadpoorjuveniledistributions(definedashavingawatershedaverageof
<20percentofitshistoricdistribution).
March 2010
These results are consistent with the legal designation of Endangered for this species, the latest status
reviews, and other sources (Good et al. 2005, Spence et al., 2008). The collapse of the 2006/2007 adult
cohort in response to poor ocean conditions (Hayes and McFarlane 2008) is a testament to the
vulnerabilityofaspeciesonthebrinkofextinction.

PhotoCourtesy:NoyoRiver,MendocinoCounty,CA.RickMacedo,DFG
March 2010
CAP WORKBOOK: CURRENT HABITAT CONDITION RESULTS
Using results generated from the TNC CAP workbooks, NMFS calculated the current percent poor
valuesacrosshabitatandpopulationattributesforallESUpopulations(Figure13).Percentpoorvalues
representhabitatconditionsthatarecurrentlyoutsidetherangeofnaturalvariabilityandthereforelimit
populations.Percentagesintheproceedingfiguresshouldbeviewedasprovisional,astheywerebased
on assessments that were in some instances uncertain, however they provide a picture of the relative
statusofdifferenthabitatandpopulationattributesforCCCcohosalmon.
CCC Coho Salmon

Percent at Poor for Attributes Across All Populations
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Baseflow
DBH
Road density 100

Physical Barriers
Toxicity
Stand Age
Estuary
Gravel Quality
Gravel Quality
Juvenile Density
Road Density
Adult Density
Productivity
Turbidity
Floodplain
Canopy Cover
Juvenile
Primary Pools
Temperature
Instantaneous
Passage Flows
Passage Flows
# of Diversions
Species
Redd Scour
LWD <10m
LWD >10m
Impervious
Shelter Rating*
Freshwater
Shelter Rating**
Passage at
Complex Habitat
Timber Harvest
Amount of Gravel
Agriculture
Flood- Hydrology Land Passage Pool Habitat Riparian Sediment Sed. Viability Water
plain disturbance Vegetation Transport Quality
Figure14:CurrentPercentPoorvaluesforhabitatandpopulationattributesacrossallpopulations
* Pool habitat shelter rating for summer rearing life stage **Pool habitat shelter rating for multiple life stage
NMFSmadethefollowinggeneralizationsfromtheinformationprovided:
Attributesareconsiderablyvariableacrosspopulations.Habitatandpopulationattributestendto
occuratdiscretespatialandtemporalscales.Inparticular,thedistributionofbothspawningand
rearinghabitat,undernaturalconditionsislargelydeterminedbyphysicalprocessescontrolled
bywatershedcharacteristics(e.g.,topography,hydrology,vegetation,etc)thatareeffectively
constantovermillennialtimescales(Frisselletal.1986;MontgomeryandBuffington,1998);
Poolhabitatsrepresentthehighestpercentpoorratingsacrossallpopulations.Forexample,poor
shelterratingsforsummerandmultiplelifestagesoccurin8095%ofthepopulation,
respectively.AlargernumberofESUpopulationsarelackinginprimarypoolsandadequate
LWD.NMFSassumesthattheincreasedlandusepractices,whichincreaseratesofsedimentation
andreducewoodrecruitmenttostreamsisthelikelycauseofsuchhighpercentagevalues;and
Asawhole,hydrologyattributesrepresentthelowestpercentpoorvaluesacrossallESUpopulations,
rangingfrom025%.Amongtheseattributesreddscourrepresents20%thehighestpercentpoor
valuesforthiscategory.

March 2010
UsingreportsgeneratedbytheTNCCAPworkbooks,NMFSalsocalculatedthecurrentpercentpoor
valueacrossallpopulationsandattributesforeachlifestageoftheCCCcoho.Thesevaluesrepresentthe
percentage of populations with poor conditions for eggs, multiple life stage, smolts, spawning adults,
summerrearing,andwinterrearingpertotalIPkm.NMFSmadethefollowinggeneralizationfromthe
information:
Eggsandspawningadultshavethelowestpercentpoorvaluesacrossallpopulationsperwatershed.
Approximately20%ofthestreamsratedpoorforspawningadults.AsshownaboveinFigure13,
approximately2535%ofthepopulationswereratedaspoorforsedimentattributesthataffect
spawningadults(amountofgravel,gravelqualitybulkandembeddedness).Ingeneral,streams
intheESUforspawningadultsarenotgravellimited;
Summerrearingandmultiplelifestageswereestimatedtohavepercentpoorvaluesof57and46%
respectively;and
WinterrearingandsmoltCCCcohohavethehighestpercentpoorvaluesacrossallpopulationsand
attributeindicators,95and73%respectively.Theseestimatesareconsistentwithestimatesofhigh
percentpoorratingsforpoolhabitatsattributes:shelter,primarypools,andLWD(Figure14)and
highpercentpoorvaluesforcomplexhabitatandshelterratingknowntoaffectsummerand
winterrearingcoho(Figure14).
CCC Coho Salmon

Percent at Poor for Multiple Life-Stages Across ESU Populations
100%
95%
90%
80%
73%
70%
60% 57%
50% 46%
40%
30% 26%
20% 16%
10%
0%
Eggs Summer Rearing Winter Rearing Smolts Spawning Adults Multiple Life Stages
Figure 15: Current Percent Poor values across all populations and attributes for each life
stage
(Note: Winter Rearing has 1 indicator)
March 2010
Using the results from the TNC CAP workbooks, NMFS rated the current key habitat attributes for
summer and winter rearing CCC coho for each focus population. NMFS made the following
generalizationsfromtheinformationprovided:
AcrossallCCCcohopopulationsforsummerrearing,baseflowwasindicatedastheattributewiththe
lowestpercentpoorvalue.Thisindicatesthat20%ofthepopulationsdonotmeetflowrequirements
forsummerrearingcoho;
Poolhabitatindicators,primarypoolsandshelterrating,showsimilarhighpercentpoorvaluesfor
summerrearinghabitat.Resultsshowthat70%ofthewatershedslackprimarypoolsandadequate
streamshelterwithintheESU.Inaddition,complexhabitatforwinterrearingisalsolacking
acrosstheESUwithahighpercentpoorvalueof95%;
Waterqualityattributesfortemperatureshowthat40%ofthepopulationsdonotmeettemperature
requirementsforsummerrearing;and
NMFS,populationviabilityattributesshowthat95%ofthepopulationshaveextremelylowjuvenile
densitiesduringthesummer.Lessthanhalf,45%ofthepopulation,haveadequatejuveniledistributed
throughoutthepotentialrearinghabitat.
CCC Coho: Summer and Winter Rearing

Percent at Poor Across ESU Populations
100% 95% 95%
90%
80%
70% 70%
70%
60%
50% 45%
40%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
Baseflow Primary Pools Shelter Rating Juvenile Density Juvenile Temperature Complex Habitat
Distribution
Hydrology Pool Habitat Viability Water Quality Floodplain
Summer Rearing Winter Rearing
Figure 16: Current Percent Poor habitat and population attributes for CCC coho salmon summer
andwinterrearingacrossallpopulations
Habitat Results by Freshwater Attribute

TheoverallpatternofresultsforhabitatindicatorssuggestswatershedprocessesthroughouttheESUare
substantially degraded. This condition is illustrated most prominently in the degradation of summer
rearinghabitat.Interestingly,thepatternforsummerrearingconditionislargelymirroredbythepattern
March 2010
of poor population indicators, and suggests summer rearing life stage is limiting population viability.
Winter rearing also appears to be a limiting life stage, but the lack of multiple indicators makes this
discernmentlessobviousthanthesummerrearingindicator.Whatfollowsisabroaddiscussionofsome
of the critical habitat limitations affecting the ESU. Note that data was limited for certain habitat
attributeswithinseveralwatersheds,andnotallattributesummariesencompasseachfocuswatershed.
Roaddensity(i.e.,indicatorRoaddensity100,ormilesofroadwithin100metersofthestreamchannel)
was rated as poor in 27 of 28 watersheds. This suggests high road density is the most widespread
indicator of poor habitat condition within the ESU. Riparian roads are often associated with problems
such as sedimentation, migration barriers, lack of large wood recruitment, and channel encroachment.
The San Lorenzo River had the most habitat attributes rated in poor condition (21 of 35 attributes),
followedbytheRussianRiver(19of36),andWalkerCreek,(19of35).Cottaneva,Pudding,Caspar,Pine
Gulch, and Gazos creeks all had ten or fewer poor indicators (Usal, Wages, San Gregorio, and Soquel
creeksalsohadtenorfewerpoorindicatorsbuttherewereseveralindicators).Whiletheseresultsare
important in determining priorities for restoration, recovery actions are also contingent upon the
interactionofcurrentconditionswithfuturethreatsandpopulationbasedviabilitycriteria.
Table 14 demonstrates the pervasiveness of poor conditions across the ESU and highlights watersheds
with the poorest conditions. The San Lorenzo River, Russian River, and Walker Creek are, by this
measure, in the worst condition. While this may imply that they become top priorities for recovery
actions, there are additional considerations, such as the potential role of each population in the ESU,
whichmustbeconsidered.OtherpertinentdetailsgeneratedthroughtheCAPprocessinclude:
1. PoolhabitatshelterratingwasratedasbeinginPoorconditionin26of28focuswatershedsfor
smoltsand22of24watershedsforsummerrearingjuveniles.Habitatcomplexityislackinginall
watershedsacrosstheESU;
2. Primary pool abundance was rated as Poor in 21 of 24 focus watersheds. Primary pools are
formedbyhabitatcomplexityelements,whicharelackingacrosstheESU;
3. LWDvolumeforbothlarge(width>10meters)andsmall(width<10meters)streamswasrated
aspoorin18of28and20of28focuswatersheds,respectively.LWDisanimportantconstituent
ofhabitatcomplexityandislackingacrossmuchoftheESU;
4. The complexity of flood plain habitat was rated as Poor in 26 of 28 focus watersheds. Many
streamsacrosstheESUareincisedormodifiedanddisconnectedfromhistoricfloodplainhabitat;
5. Road density was rated as Poor in 19 of 28 focus watersheds, suggesting roads represent a
significantdisturbanceacrosstheESU;
6. Temperature(i.e.,watertemperatureduringsummerrearing)wasratedasPoorin11of28focus
watersheds;
7. Gravelquality,asrepresentedbybothfinesedimentpercentage(i.e.,GravelQuality(bulk))and
substrateembeddedness,wasratedasPoorin10of27and7of15focuswatersheds,respectively.
These results reflect the unnaturally high sediment loads common to many watersheds within
theESU;
8. Riparian DBH was rated as Poor in 9 of 28 focus watersheds. A high proportion of small
diameter trees within a riparian corridor suggests future LWD quality will be lacking, since
March 2010
smallertreesarelimitedintheirabilitytoinfluencechannelmorphology.Also,largerdiameter
trees typically last longer within the stream environment (i.e., are slower to rot and flush
downstream);
9. EstuaryconditionswereratedasPoorin8of28focuswatersheds.Thiswasmostsevereinthe
SantaCruzMountainsdiversitystrata,wheresixofthenineestuarieshavebeenhighlymodified
byencroachingtransportationcorridorsorotherdevelopments;
10. Floodplainconnectivitywasratedaspoorin7of24focuswatersheds.Manystreamsacrossthe
ESUareincisedormodifiedanddisconnectedfromhistoricfloodplainhabitat;
11. Freshwater harvest was rated as Poor in only 4 of 28 focus watersheds. Typically, freshwater
harvestoccurswherecohopresenceoverlapswithasteelheadsportfishery,orwherepoachingis
knowntobeaproblem.
12. ReddscourwasnotalimitingfactorwithinmanyoftheCCCcohosalmonwatersheds,having
been ratedas Poor in only 4 of28 focus watersheds. Reddscour occursin simplifiedinstream
habitatswithfriableparentgeology;
13. Passage flows for smolts were rated as Poor in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers, where
agriculturaldiversions(RussianRiver)andamajormunicipaldiversionbytheCityofSantaCruz
(SanLorenzo)arelikelyimpairingsmoltmigrationthroughcriticalreaches.
14. LanddisturbanceduetotimberharvestwasratedasPoorintheTenMileandAlbionRiversand
BigSalmonCreek.Allthreewatershedshavehadextensiveloggingoperationsintherecentpast;
15. PassageflowsforspawningadultswasratedasPoorintheSanLorenzoRiver.Majordiversions
operatedbytheCityofSantaCruzandSanLorenzoValleyWaterDistrictandotherprivateand
publicdiversionsintheSanLorenzowatershedlikelyimpairmigrationthroughcriticalreaches
inthelowerwatershedundersomeflowregimes.
16. Physical barriers were rated as poor in Lagunitas Creek. Much of the historical coho salmon
habitat within the Lagunitas Creek watershed lies upstream of impassable dams forming Kent
andNicasioLakes.
17. Amount of gravel was rated as Poor in Pescadero Creek. The native bedrock geology in that
watershed is highly friable sandstone and does not currently provide high quality spawning
substrate.
18. InstantaneousflowconditionswereratedasPoorintheRussianRiverwherewaterwithdrawals
forfrostprotectioncanlowerthewatersurfaceanddesiccatereddsorstrandjuvenilefishduring
lateWinter/earlySpring.
19. Passage conditions into and through estuaries for spawning adults was rated as Fair, Good, or
VeryGoodacrossallfocuswatersheds,indicatingthefactorisnotlikelylimitingthepopulations.
However, during drought conditions it could potentially result in severe adverse effects to the
population(e.g.,the2007/2008cohortinScottCreek).
March 2010
Habitat Results by Freshwater Life Stage
Spawning Adults: Instream habitat and watershed conditions appear to be generally supporting the
adultlifestage,asfewhabitatindicatorsweredeterminedasPoor.Incidentalcapturefromfreshwater
harvest, however, may be a limiting factor for
adultsinfivewatersheds(RussianRiver,Garcia
River, Gualala River, Pescadero Creek, and San
LorenzoRiver).

Eggs within redds: Gravel quality for egg
incubation and fry emergence was commonly
rated Poor to Fair across the ESU, with some
exceptions. Poor conditions south of San
Francisco Bay reflect anincreased susceptibility
to fine sediment intrusion and lower egg
survival due, in part, to an abundance of
unconsolidatedgeologiclandformsinthisarea.
Photo Courtesy: Adult CCC coho salmon, Albion Thoughotherlifestagesmaybeinmoreimmediate
River, Mendocino Co.,CA Tom Daugherty, NMFS
need of attention, reducing fine sediment
concentrations should be considered a high priority for restoration throughout the ESU because of the
pervasive nature by which sediment affects multiple lifestages and habitat types (e.g., infilling of
summerpoolhabitat,degradingwinterwaterqualityviaelevatedturbidity,etc.).
SummerRearing:SummerrearinghabitatisconsistentlyinpoorconditionacrosstheESU,withafew
notableexceptions.AllsixsummerrearinghabitatindicatorswerepoorintheRussianandSanLorenzo
RiversandWalkerCreek,suggestingthislifestageislimitingsalmonproductivityforthosepopulations.
Several watersheds have Poor ratings for at least four of the six indicators. High summer water
temperatures limit juvenile survival in 11 of 28
populations;onlyfourwatershedsareratedasgood.
Pool habitat (frequency and complexity) was
deficient in most watersheds. Given the
preponderance of indicators in poor condition,
restorationactionsaimedatsupportingthesummer
rearinglifestageshouldbeconsideredatoppriority
duringrecoveryplanningandimplementation.
Winter Rearing: Habitat conditions influencing

winter rearing success (i.e., complex habitat types,
suchasoffchannelandfloodplainrefugiaforsmolts
from high flows) were consistently rated as Poor
acrossmuchoftheESU,withthenotableexception Photo Courtesy: Juvenile CCC coho salmon, Scott Creek,
of Caspar Creek and Pine Gulch 15. Given the Santa Cruz Co., Morgan Bond, SWFSC
preponderance of Poor ratings, habitats supporting
Ourconfidenceintheoffchannelhabitatassessmentwaslowduetoproblemswithassessmentmethodsandlack
15
ofquantifiabledata.
March 2010
thislifestageshouldbeconsideredatoppriorityforrecoveryactions.
Smolts:Forthesmoltlifestage,estuaryconditionislikelylimitingcohosalmonproductionwithinmany
watersheds south of Lagunitas Creek, due primarily to habitat degradation and impeded migration
within the estuary environment. Pool habitat complexity, as represented by shelter rating, was also
consistently poor for smolts, the lone exception being Pine Gulch Creek. Issues of channel complexity
havealreadybeenidentifiedasapriorityforwinterrearing.Thefrequencyofwaterdiversionstructures
was rated as poor in 5 of the 28 watersheds, suggesting smolt entrainment is not currently a major
limitingfactorintheESU.
Multiple Life Stages: Analyses of instream habitat conditions can provide insight regarding how a
particularstreamreachmayfunctionataspecificsiteforaspecificlifestage.Whilethesesitebasedand
lifestagespecificanalysesareinformative,conductingahigherlevelrevieworientedtomajorwatershed
processes (e.g. dynamic interactions of wood, water and sediment through the stream system) that
supportalllifestagesprovidesamorecomprehensiveoverviewofwatershedscaleprocesses.
Resultsindicatecurrentwatershedprocessconditions(e.g.,multiplelifestagecategories)arevariable,but
tendedtowardaPoorconditionrating.Impervioussurfaceshadnopoorratings,suggestingitisnota
factorimpairingtherecoveryoftheESUasrepresentedbythe28focuswatersheds.TheRussianRiver
was the only watershed where agriculture rated as poor. Attributes for large woody debris and road
densityweremoreconsistentlyratedaspoor.Thesefindingswereconsistentwiththelifestagespecific
findingsoflowpoolcomplexityanddegradedspawninggravelcondition.BecauseLWDandsediment
condition tend to affect multiple coho salmon life stages, projects addressing these factors should be
consideredahighpriorityforrestorationactions.
CAP WORKBOOK: THREATS AND DIVERSITY STRATA RESULTS

ESU Threat Results
ResultsfromtheCAPthreatsanalysisforthe28populationsareprovidedinTable15.Generally,the
greatestthreatsforCCCcohosalmonacrosstheESUcomefromthethreethreatcategoriesof(1)Roads
andRailroads,(2)Droughts,and(3)ResidentialandCommercialDevelopment.Threatsarepresented
belowbasedontheirrankandprevalenceacrosstheESU:
1. RoadsandRailroadswererankedasaHighorVeryHighthreatin24of28focuswatersheds.
TheamountofVeryHighorHighrankssuggeststhatthethreatofroadshasasignificanteffect
tocohosalmon,andahighpriorityshouldbeplacedonactionstoreducethisthreat.Roadsare
clearlyasignificantfactorcontributingtohabitatdegradationacrossallESUwatershedsand
populations;
2. DroughtswerealsorankedasaHighorVeryHighthreatin19of28focuswatersheds.This
threatwasrankedVeryHighinfivewatershedssuggestingthatahighpriorityshouldbeplaced
onactionstoreducethisthreat.WhileNMFScannotaddressnaturallyoccurringdroughts
directly,wecanfacilitateplanning,waterstorage,andotheractionsthatwillreducetheadverse
effectsofdroughtoncohosalmonpopulations.Thisthreatwasmostsevereinwatershedsfrom
theRussianRiversouth;
March 2010
3. LoggingandWoodHarvestingrankedasaHighorVeryHighthreatin16of28focus
watersheds.ElevenofthesewatershedsarelocatedinMendocinoCounty.Because
approximately7580percentofwatershedswherecohosalmonarecurrentlypersistingarein
privatelyheldtimberlands,abatingthisthreatisahighprioritythatwillrequireextensive
partneringwithprivatelandowners,CalFireandtheStateBoardofForestry;
4. ChannelModificationrankedasaHighorVeryHighthreatin8of28focuswatersheds.Channel
modificationoccursinallwatershedswherecohosalmonarecurrentlyextirpatedandisa
significantthreatfortheRussianRiverandwatershedssouthoftheRussianRiver.Achieving
properlyfunctioningriparianconditionsisdifficultinmodifiedchannels,duetothepermanent
natureofbankstabilization,maintenance,andchannelizationactivities;
5. ClimateChangewasrankedasaHighorVeryHighthreatinninewatersheds,fromSalmon
Creeksouth.ClimatechangeislikelytohaveeffectsacrosstheESU;however,expectedvariation
inwatershedconditionswillaffectspeciesresponsetoclimatechangeandthustheirresiliencyto
suchchange.Watershedsatthesouthernmostextentoftherangearelikelytosufferthemost
severeeffects;
6. WaterDiversionandImpoundmentrankedasaHighthreatintheRussianRiverandforsix
watershedssouthoftheRussianRiver.ThisthreatoccursacrossnearlyallCCCcohosalmon
watershedsand,duetopotentiallycomplexpoliticalandsocietalramifications,isexpectedtobe
oneofthemostdifficultthreatstoabateintheCCCESU;
7. AgriculturalPracticesrankedasaVeryHighthreatintheRussianRiver,andasHighthreatsin
fourotherfocuswatersheds.Theconversionofforestlandstoagriculture(particularlygrape
vineyards)isofparticularconcern;
8. StormsandFloodingrankedasaHighthreatin11watersheds.Reducedinstreamhabitat
complexity,acommonissueacrosstheESU,reducestheresiliencyofcohosalmontolargestorm
events;
9. ResidentialandCommercialDevelopmentrankedasaveryhighthreatinSanGregorio,San
Vicente,andAptosCreeks,andintheSanLorenzoRiver.ItwasrankedasaHighthreatinthe
RussianRiver,LagunitasandPescaderoCreeks;
10. Disease,PredationandCompetitionrankedasaHighthreatinfourwatershedssouthoftheSan
FranciscoBay;
11. FishingandCollectingrankedaLoworMediumthreattocohopopulationsacrosstheESU,
indicatingthatthisactivityisnotlikelytoimpederecovery;
12. LivestockFarmingandRanchingrankedasaHighthreatinSalmonCreek,andasaVeryHigh
threatinWalkerCreek;
13. FireandFuelsManagementrankedasaHighthreatineightfocuswatersheds;allwatersheds
fromRedwoodCreeksouthexcludingGazosandWaddellCreeks;
14. RecreationalAreasandActivitiesrankedasaHighthreatintheSanLorenzoRiverandinAptos
Creek;
15. MiningrankedasaVeryHighthreatinSanVicenteCreek.Allotherfocuswatershedswere
rankedasMediumorLowforthisthreat,indicatingthatthisactivityisnotlikelytoimpede
recovery;and
16. HatcheriesandAquaculturerankedasaMediumorLowrankedthreat,indicatingthatthese
activitiesarenotlikelytoimpederecovery.
March 2010
Diversity Strata Threat Results
AcrossDiversityStrata,threatsincreaseineachcategory,withtheexceptionofloggingandwood
harvesting,fromnorthtosouthwiththeSantaCruzMountainDiversityStratahavingthegreatest
numberofthreatsrankedasHighorVeryHigh.Themostsignificantthreatsarelistedbelow.
Lost Coast
RoadsandloggingwererankedashighorveryhighineverywatershedintheLostCoaststratum,with
theexclusionoflogginginUsalCreek,whichisamedium.ThreewatershedseachreceivedaHighrank
inChannelModification,Disease,andResidentialandCommercialDevelopment;StormsandFlooding
received two High ranks; and Droughts received four. All other threats in the individual watershed
comprisingthestratumwererankedasMediumorLow.Thisstratumsupportssomeofthemostrobust
coho salmon populations in the ESU, and will be a critical component for preventing extinction and
promotingrecovery.
Navarro Point-Gualala Point
Roads,LoggingandWoodHarvesting,StormsandFlooding,andDroughtsarethegreatestthreatsto
cohosalmonwithintheNavarroPointGualalaPointstratum.AgriculturalPracticesrankedasaHigh
threatintheGualalaRiver.
Coastal-Gualala Point
ChannelModification,Droughts,andWaterDiversionandImpoundmentarethegreatestthreatsacross
thestratum.ClimateChangerankedasahighthreatinSalmon,LagunitasandRedwoodCreeks.Roads
wererankedasHighintheRussianRiver,andSalmonandRedwoodCreeks.Residentialand
CommercialDevelopmentrankedaHighthreatintheRussianRiverandLagunitasCreek.And
LivestockFarmingandRanchingwasrankedasVeryHighinWalkerCreekandHighinSalmonCreek.
San Francisco Bay
ThisdiversitystratumwasnotassessedsinceIndependentPopulationswerenotidentifiedwithinthe
stratumandarebelievedextirpatedfromallwatershedsinthisstratum.
Santa Cruz Mountains
ThehighnumbersandrankingsofsomanythreatsintheSantaCruzMountainstratumsuggestfocused
andimmediatethreatabatementactionsarenecessarytopreventextinctionofcohointhisarea.Roads
andDroughtsarethegreatestthreatsacrossthisstratum,rankingasHighorVeryHighthreatsinevery
watershed.ClimateChangewasalsoaseriousthreat,rankingasHighineverywatershedexcept
Pescadero,Gazos,andWaddellCreeks.FireandFuelManagementrankedasHighineverywatershed
exceptGazosandWaddellCreeks.TheStormsandFloodingthreatrankedasHighorVeryHighin
everywatershedexceptGazos,Waddell,andSanVicenteCreeks.LoggingandWoodHarvestingranked
asahighthreatinfiveoftheninewatersheds.ResidentialandCommercialDevelopmentwereVery
March 2010
HighinSanGregorio,Soquel,andAptoscreeksandtheSanLorenzoRiver.WaterDiversionsand
ImpoundmentsrankedashighinPescaderoandSanVicenteCreeks,andintheSanLorenzoRiver.
March 2010
Table18:CAPdataanalysisresultsforcurrentconditionsacrosslifestagesandpopulations. VG=Very Good; G=Good; F=Fair; P=Poor; Blank=N/A
or data forthcoming
San Gregorio
San Lorenzo
San Vicente
Big Salmon
Pine Gulch
Pescadero
Cottaneva
Lagunitas
Redwood
Pudding
Ten Mile
Russian
Waddell
Navarro
Gualala
Salmon
Caspar
Soquel
Walker
Wages
Albion
Garcia
Gazos
Aptos
Noyo
Scott
Usal
Big
Target HabitatAttribute Indicator
SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows VG G G G VG G G VG F G F F G G VG G F G VG G G P VG
SpawningAdults Passage PassageatMouth G G G F G VG G VG VG VG G G G G G VG VG VG G G G G F F G G G G
SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG F P VG G G VG VG VG VG G G P
SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* VG G G VG VG VG VG F VG F F F F G F P G P F VG VG P VG G
SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity P P P P P P P P P P P P P F G P VG P P G P G P F F F P VG
SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest G F G F G G G G G G F P P F G G G G G G P G G F G P G G
Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition VG G G G VG G F VG F G F P G F G G G VG VG VG G F G
Eggs Hydrology ReddScour VG G G F VG F F G P F F P VG F G G F F F P F P F
Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Bulk) F F P P G P F P P F F F G F G P G VG F P F G P F P F P
Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) G G P P P P F P G G G P G F P
SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow G G F F G F F G P F F P F P G F F G G F F P G
SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P G P P F P P P P P
SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P F P P P P P
SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDensity P F P P F P F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P
SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution P F P F G F VG F G G F P P P P P P G F P P F P G G P P P
SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature F F P F P G P F F P P P P F G P P G F P F F F G P F F
WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** P P P P P P F P P P P P P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P
Smolts Estuary Estuary F G F G VG F G F F G F F G F F P F F P G P P F P P P F P
Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows VG G G G VG G G VG F G F P F G G VG G F F G G G P G
Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** VG VG F G G G VG G F G F F G F F F G F P P P P F F VG P F G
MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity G G F F G F F F F P F F F P P P P P F G G F P G
MultipleLifeStages Hydrology ImperviousSurfaces*** VG VG VG G VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG G VG VG
MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge G F G G F G P P F G P G G G G G G G G G G G
MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture*** VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG G VG G G G F P F G G G G G G G G G G
MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest*** G F F P F G VG G P P G G G VG VG VG G G G VG G VG VG VG G VG VG
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWD<10m P P P F P P VG P P F P F P P P F P P VG P P G P P P P VG P
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWD>10m P P P F P P F P P P F P P P F F P P P P P P P
MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P P P P P P P
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover F G F F G G F G P F P F P F P P F P F P G G G F G G G
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. DBH G G F P P F G P F P P F P P F P P F F G G G G G G G G F
MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition P G G G G G F F G G F F F F F G P G F G F G VG G G G G G
MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity*** P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F VG VG G P F F G G F P P P P
MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100*** P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F P P P P P P P P P P P P
MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality Toxicity G G G G G F G F G G F G F F G F P G F F G F F F F P F G
March 2010
Table19:CAPthreatrankresultsacrosspopulations. VH=Very High; H=High; M=Moderate; L=Low; /= N/A
San Gregorio
San Lorenzo
San Vicente
Big Salmon
Pine Gulch
Pescadero
Cottaneva
Lagunitas
Redwood
Pudding
Ten Mile
Russian
Waddell
Navarro
Gualala
Salmon
Caspar
Soquel
Walker
Wages
Albion
Garcia
Gazos
Aptos
Noyo
Scott
Usal
Big
Threat
Agricultural Practices L M M M M L L L M M M M H H M M M M M H H M M H M M M M
Channel Modification M M M M H M M M M M M M M M H H M H VH M M M H H M H M M
Climate Change M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M M H H H M M M H H H H H
Disease, Predation, and Competition M M M M M L L L L M L L L M L L M L L L H H M L M H M H
Droughts H M M H H M M M M H H M H H VH VH M H VH VH VH M H H H H H H
Fire and Fuel Management M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H H H M M H H H H H
Fishing and Collecting M L M L L L L L L L L M M M L L L L L M M L L L L M M M
Hatcheries and Aquaculture L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L M L L L L L L L
Livestock Farming and Ranching L M M M M L L L M L M M M M H M VH M M M M M L M M M M M
Logging and Wood Harvesting M H H H H VH H H H H M H H M M M L M M M H M M H M H H H
Mining M M L M M L L L M M L M M M M M M L L L M L M M VH M M L
Recreational Areas and Activities M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M H
Residential and Commercial
M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M M M H M VH H M M M M VH VH VH
Development
Roads and Railroads H H H VH H H H H H H H M H H M M M H H H H H H H H VH H VH
Storms and Flooding M M H M M M M H M M H H M M VH M M M M H H M M H M VH H H
Water Diversion and Impoundment M M M M M M M M M M M M M H H H M H M VH M M M M M H H M
March 2010
Table20:CCCCohoSalmonESUFocusPopulations,SpawnerTargetsandThreats
StreamName County DiversityStratum #Spawners Threats
AlbionRiver Mendocino LostCoast 2,300 Roads;Logging
AptosCreek SantaCruz SantaCruzMnts 932 Roads;Urbanization
BigRiver Mendocino LostCoast 5,500 Roads;Logging
BigSalmonCreek Mendocino LostCoast 578 Roads;Logging
CasparCreek Mendocino LostCoast 435 Roads;Logging
CottanevaCreek Mendocino LostCoast 469 Roads;Logging
GarciaRiver Mendocino NavarroPoint 2,800 Logging;Flooding
GazosCreek SanMateo SantaCruzMnts 279 Roads;Droughts
GualalaRiver Mendocino/Sonoma NavarroPoint 6,200 Roads;Logging
Lagunitas Marin Coastal 2,600 Urbanization;Droughts
NavarroRiver Mendocino NavarroPoint 5,700 Roads;Droughts
NoyoRiver Mendocino LostCoast 4,000 Logging;Roads
PescaderoCreek SanMateo SantaCruzMnts 2,300 Droughts;Agriculture
PineGulchCreek Marin Coastal 252 Droughts;WaterDiversion
PuddingCreek Mendocino LostCoast 983 Roads;Logging
RedwoodCreek Marin Coastal 272 Droughts;ChannelMod.
RussianRiver Sonoma Coastal 10,100 Agriculture;Urbanization
SalmonCreek Sonoma Coastal 1618 Droughts,Flooding
SanGregorio SantaCruz SantaCruzMnts 1,363 WaterDiversion;Urbanization
SanLorenzoRiver SantaCruz SantaCruzMnts 4,200 Urbanization;Roads
SanVicente SantaCruz SantaCruzMnts 105 Mining;Roads
ScottCreek SantaCruz SantaCruzMtns 510 Roads;Logging
Soquel SantaCruz SantaCruzMtns 1,122 Urbanization,;Logging
TenMileRiver Mendocino LostCoast 3,700 Roads;Logging
UsalCreek Mendocino LostCoast 360 Droughts,Roads
WaddellCreek SantaCruz SantaCruzMnts 313 Climate;Roads
WagesCreek Mendocino LostCoast 340 Logging;Roads
WalkerCreek Marin Coastal 2,800 Grazing;Droughts
March 2010
CHAPTER8:STRATEGYFOR
RECOVERY
In the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we
understand. We will understand only what we are taught.
Baba Dioum, Senegal
PREVENTING THE EXTINCTION OF CCC COHO SALMON

Californiamaysoonlosetheircohosalmon.Thesalmondeclineisintimatelytiedtothehumanstoryof
the region. For millennia CCC coho salmon thrived in abundance despite challenging and shifting
natural marine and freshwater environmental conditions including predation. The human configured
landscapes are leaving salmon without a home. Without cool clean water that flows relatively
unimpairedfromtheheadwaterstotheocean,CCCcohosalmonarenotexpectedtopersist.
Theunderlyingstrategyforrecoveryistorebuildwhatwasonceasocialfabricandsafetynetforsalmon:
awareness. The stories of extinctions are not new, many have been told by our worlds historians.
Worldwide biologists have long monitored and chronicled a species decline and extinction. Biologists
andhistorianscannotsavesalmonalone;onlycommunitiescan.Thestrategyforrecoveryistoengage
ourcommunitiesontheissuesanddiscusssolutionstothecomplexproblemsthatfaceoursalmon,our
waterandourwatershedprocesses(e.g.,landscapes).Thecollapseofoursalmonpopulationsandtheir
wellbeing has bearing on our own. Salmon are not only an integral member in the processes of our
naturalworldbutsalmonareourjobs,food,culturalheritageandrecreation.
OthershavefoughtandwonsimilarsituationsofextinctionandsendamessageofhopethatCalifornia
can bring back salmon asa resource for this State. In Washington State, whole communities including
interest groups, businesses, local/State governments, scientists, etc. have formed alliances for the single
purposeofensuringafuturefortheiriconicspecies:salmon.IfWashingtoncandoit;socanCalifornia.
Thus,thestrategyforrecoveryisthreefold:
1. Increaseawarenessandbuildsolutionorientedcollaborationsandpartnerships;
2. Provideanoutlineofimmediateactionsneededtopreventextinctionandshiftthetrajectoryof
thesepopulationsbacktowardsrecovery;
3. Instituteaprocessthatprovidesarapidfeedbackandresponsetosuccessesandnecessaryshifts
inpriorities.
March 2010
ToaccomplishthesethreestrategicgoalsNMFShasincludedintherecoveryplan:
(A)ImplementationbyNMFSChapterthatoutlineshowNMFSwillproactivelyengagewiththepublic;
(B)RestorationChapterdesignedtoprovidemoreinformationonfundingsourcesandprocessesshould
thepublicwishtoengageinrestorationactions;
(C)Institutedaprocessinthisrecoveryplanwherebypopulationsareprioritized,priorityareaswithin
populationsareidentifiedforimmediaterestorationandexpectationsofresponsetimeofpopulationsfor
recoveryactionsareoutlined(ProvidedinthisChapter).
(D)MonitoringChapteroutliningrecommendationstoestablishamechanismforunderstandingsalmon
andsalmonhabitatsandtheirresponsestorestorationactions.
ThedirestatusofCCCcohosalmonisacallforimmediateactionto:
1. PreventCCCcohosalmonextinctionbyprotecting,andconductingactionstoincreasesurvivalof,all
currentindividualsandpopulations;
2. Facilitateexpandeddistributionthroughfocusedandprioritizedrestorationactionsincriticalareas;
3. Preventdegradationofexistinghighqualityhabitatsacrossthehistoricalrange(especiallyareasthat
havesupportedpopulationswithinthelastfourgenerations);
4. RestorehabitatconditionsandwatershedprocessesacrosstheCCCcohosalmonhistoricalrange;and
5. Controlandabatefuturethreatstothespecies,andprovidefortheirlongtermsurvivalandrecovery.
Prioritizing Populations
Currently 28 CCC coho salmon populations are identified as the focus of this recovery plan (the
geographicrangeofeachCCCcohosalmonpopulationcoincideswithwatershedboundaries).However,
duetotheirstatus,andthegreatuncertaintyofthevariouspopulationsresponsetorecoveryefforts,itis
highlyunwisetoallowanyCCCcohopopulation(watershed)tofurtherdegradeandbeprecludedfrom
the recovery scenario. NMFS encourages all watershed groups, agencies, NGOs, and planners to
continue protection, enhancement and restoration activities and monitoring in all historical CCC coho
salmon watersheds, particularly those with persisting populations. NMFS will review new data
regardingpopulations,threatsandimplementationsuccessofrecoveryactionstoadapttherecoveryplan
(asappropriate)duringthenextiterationoftherecoveryplan.
Priority Areas within Populations

Within the focus watershed Core Areas, Phase I Expansion Areas and Phase II Expansion Areas
wereidentifiedtofurtherprioritizerecoveryactions.
CoreAreasare:
1. Areaswithineachwatershedidentifiedforimmediatefocusofrestorationandthreatabatement
actions.NotallfocuswatershedshaveidentifiedCoreAreas.
2. LocationsknowntohavecurrentorrecentoccupancyofCCCcohosalmonaccordingto(a)status
reviews conducted prior to the initial listing on October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56138) and (b) data
March 2010
providedbynumerousagencies,individuals,andothersincludingthepresence/absencedatabase
developedbyDFG.
Core areas should be prioritized, without delay, for restoration and threat abatement actions with the
goal of increasing the likelihood of freshwater survival. Highest priorities are to: (1) prevent harm or
death of anyindividualat any life stage; (2) halt allfurther habitat degradation; (3) implement specific
restorationandenhancementactivitiesimmediatelybenefitingfreshwatersurvival;and(4)abatefuture
threatstosecureexistingpopulations.Thisapproachfrontloadsrecoveryactionsintoareascriticalfor
speciessurvival,andfurtheremphasizesprotectionofremaininghabitatsandtheirpopulations.These
existing habitats and populations function as the foundation for expanding and recovering wild
populations.Restorationintheseareasmustevaluatepossibleshorttermnegativeimpactsagainstlong
termbenefits.Largescalerestorationprojects,forexample,mayhavesignificantinputsofsedimentand
shorttermhabitatdegradation,butwillresultinlargelongtermbenefits.Insomespecialcases,short
termimpactscannotbetoleratedifthespeciesistopersistinaparticularwatershed.Allpossibleimpacts
toremainingCCCcohosalmonpopulationsshouldbecarefullyconsidered.RecoveryactionsinCore
Areasareextremelyhighprioritiesforthenextsixyears.
PhaseIAreasare:
1. AreaswithineachwatershedidentifiedforneartermexpansionofCCCcohosalmonpopulations
andforneartermfocusofrestorationandthreatabatementactions;and
2. Locations adjacent or near to currently identified Core Areas with a reasonable chance of re
colonizationbystrayingfishfromCoreAreasand,wherehabitatrestorationisfeasible.
RecoveryactionsinPhaseIareasaredesignedtoimprovehabitatconditionsforexpandingpopulations
to allow distribution and abundance to shift towards patterns resembling historical patterns. Further
workisnecessarytoassesstherelevanceofupstreamandupslopeprocessesthatcontributesignificantly
totheoverallhealthofthewatershed.Ingeneral,recoveryactionsinPhaseIareasarehighprioritiesfor
thenextnineyears(threecohosalmongenerations).
PhaseIIAreasare:
1. AllremainingpotentialhabitatsneededbyCCCcohosalmontoachievefullrecovery;and
2. Whilenotthefocusofimmediaterestoration,theseareasarecriticalupstreamsourcesofwood
water and sediment. Further work is needed to provide priorities on these highly relevant
upstreamandupslopeareasthatcontributesignificantlytotheoverallhealthofthewatershed.
Consideration for Phase II areas should focus primarily on preventing further degradation and
reestablishingormaintainingwatershedprocessesfunctions.
Recovery actions in Phase II areas should enhance, and prevent degradation of, habitat conditions for
expandingpopulationssuchthatdistributionandabundancebegintoshifttowardspatternsresembling
historical patterns; the longterm survival of the species depends on this shift. In general, recovery
actionsinPhaseIIareasarehighprioritiesforthenext9to12years.
March 2010
Timing for Recovery
CCCcohosalmonpopulationshavebeeninsteepdeclineforatleast40years.Operatingonthepremise
recovery actions will shift the ESU population trajectory from extinction to recovery; NMFS predicts
recovery will take as much time as it did for the species to become imperiled. Existing populations of
CCCcohosalmonareverylow,andrecoverywillrequireappropriaterecoveryactionsoveranextended
periodoftime.Recoveryislikelytobeachallengingandslowprocess(Lindleyetal.,2007).Recovery
actions, even those implemented now, will take time to result in improved habitat conditions and/or
increasedpopulationabundance.Inaddition,becausethespecieshasathreeyearlifecyclewithdistinct
lineageswithrelativelylittleinterbreeding(comparedtosomeothersalmonids),theresponseofagiven
population(andcohort)maynotbeobservableformanyyears.
NMFS estimates that in general, habitats will respond to restoration actions (depending on physical
processes) between one to five years. Some recovery actions, such as inputting large woody material
whereCCCcohosalmonarepresent,mayhavemoreimmediateresults.Otherrecoveryactionssuchas
growing large diameter trees in the riparian corridor, or reducing stream temperatures may take
considerably longer. NMFS estimates measurable increases in population abundance as a result of
recoveryactionscanbeexpectedbetweenthreetofourgenerations.Eachthreeyearcyclerepresentsa
single generation; therefore a sustained generational response is not like to be observable for 12 to 15
years.Populationsareexpectedtorespondpositivelytoincrementalimprovementsinhabitatconditions,
eventhoughincreasedabundancesmaynotbereadilyobservable.Populationresponsewillbemeasured
astheannualaveragenumberofwildspawningadultsinawatershedoverthemostrecent12yearsof
record.
ThedirestatusofCCCcohosalmonisacallforimmediateaction.However,theconditionsrequiredand
the long timeframe (100 years) required achieving a fully recovered CCC coho salmon ESU may seem
unreachable.Theseinterimtimelinesweredevelopedtoprovidemoreachievableandrealisticstepson
thelongroadtorecovery.

Photo Courtesy: Steelhead (right) and coho (left) from Bean Creek (2005), San Lorenzo River tributary, Santa
Cruz County, CA. First juvenile coho documented in the San Lorenzo watershed in 23 years and represents
significanthopeforrecoveringthisspecies.DonAlleyAlleyandAssociates.
March 2010
CHAPTER9:RECOVERY
CRITERIA
Recovery is the process by which listed species and their ecosystems are restored and
their future safeguarded to the point that protections under the ESA are no longer needed
Interim Recovery Planning Guidelines July, 2006
FRAMEWORK FOR DOWNLISTING & DELISTING

TheESArequiresrecoveryplanstoincorporate(tothemaximumextentpracticable)objective,
measurablecriteriawhich,whenmet,wouldresultinadeterminationinaccordancewiththe
provisionsoftheESAthatthespeciesberemovedfromtheFederalListofEndangeredand
ThreatenedWildlifeandPlants(50CFR17.11and17.12).Therecoverycriteriaherein,orformal
downlistinganddelistingcriteria,fortheCCCcohosalmonESUinclude:(1)populationbased
biologicalcriteriathatconsidersfuturecommercial,recreationalandtribalharvest;(2)criteriato
measurewatershedhealthand(3)criteriafortheabatementandameliorationofthreats.These
criteriarequireclearevidencethatthepopulationsstatushasimprovedinresponsetothe
reductionofthreatsandthattheyaretrackingthereductionorabatementofthreats(newand
thoseidentifiedatthetimeoflisting).Theanalysisincludesanassessmentthatthreats,leading
tothespeciesdeclineandlisting,havebeenreasonablycontrolled.
RECOVERY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

TheoverarchinggoalsofthisrecoveryplanaretopreventtheextinctionofwildCCCcoho
salmonandensuretheirlongtermpersistenceinaviable,selfsustaining,andeventually
harvestablestatusacrosstheESU.BeforeNMFSconsidersdownlistingordelistingCCCcoho
salmon,substantiallyhighernumbersofreturningadultsand,successfulspawningandrearing
conditionsinfreshwaterenvironments,areneeded.Tothatenditiscriticallyimportantto
preserve,enhance,andrestorethespeciesexistinghabitats.Individualwatershedsmusthave
thecapacitytosupportselfsustainingpopulationsinthefaceofnaturalvariationandconditions
suchaspredation,droughts,floods,variableoceanconditions,wildfires,andlongtermclimate
change.ViablepopulationsacrossensuresaviableESU.NMFShasidentifiedthreeobjectives
fortheultimaterecoveryofCCCcohosalmon:
Objective1:PreventextinctionbyprotectinghabitatsinCoreAreaswithinidentified
focuspopulations.Thiswillbeaccomplishedbyimprovingcurrentconditions,and
amelioratingexistingandfuturethreats;
Objective2:Reestablishviablepopulationsinthe28prioritizedwatersheds(ata
minimum)andwithinfourofthefiveDiversityStratabyprotecting,enhancing,and
March 2010
restoringhabitatstoproperlyfunctioningconditions,andbycontrollingandabating
existingandfuturethreatsinallCore,PhaseIandPhaseIIareas;
Objective3:Implementstandardizedmonitoringofcohosalmonpopulationsandtheir
habitatacrosstheCCCESU.Standardizationreducesuncertaintyassociatedwithhabitat
assessmentmethodsandincreasesconfidenceinpopulationestimateswhenevaluating
effectivenessofrecoveryactions.Standardizationwillalsoimproveaccuracywhen
measuringprogresstowardsdownlistinganddelistingcriteria.
RECOVERY CRITERIA
Recoverycriteriameasureprogresstowardachievingrecoveryobjectives.Criteriamustbe
SMART:specific,measureable,achievable,realisticandtimereferenced.NMFSisproposing
downlistingcriteriaforthetransitionbetweentheendangeredandthreatenedstatus,aswellas
delistingcriteria,fortheESU.Thespecificcriteriarelatedtothestatusofpopulations,
improvementsinwatershedconditionsandtheabatementofthreatsacrosstheESUmustbemet
priortodownlistingordelisting.Inaddition,ananalysisofthreatspursuanttothefivestatutory
listingfactorsinsection4oftheESAwillbenecessary.Anoutlineofthepopulation,watershed
andthreatabatementcriteriaisprovidedinTable17followedbyTable18whichprovidesa
summaryofallrecoverycriteria.
Table 21: Outline and Hierarchy of Recovery Criteria for CCC coho salmon ESU
DownlistingandDelistingRecoveryCriteriaforPopulationsandESU
PopulationLevelCriteriaforIndependentandDependentPopulations
ESURecoveryCriteriaforDelisting
DownlistingandDelistingCriteriaforWatershedHealth
DownlistingandDelistingCriteriaforThreats(includingananalysisofthefivelistingfactors)
FiveListingFactors
Presentorthreateneddestruction,modification,orcurtailmentofhabitatorrange
Overutilizationforcommercial,recreational,scientific,oreducationalpurposes
Diseaseorpredation
Inadequacyofexistingregulatorymechanisms
Othernaturalandmanmadefactorsaffectingthespeciescontinuedexistence
March 2010
Table 22: Population, Watershed Condition and Threat Criteria
Population ESU ImprovingWatershedCondition AbatingThreats
Downlist AllfocusIndependent Allfocus ForeachfocusDiversityStratum(LostCoast,Navarro ForeachfocusDiversityStratum(Lost

Populationsmeetmoderate Independent GualalaPoint,Coastal,andSantaCruz)threecriteria Coast,NavarroGualalaPoint,
extinctionriskcriteriaof and mustbeachievedforfocusIndependentandDependent Coastal,andSantaCruz)twocriteria

annualabundance>15 Dependent populations:(1)Keyhabitatattributesratedaspooror mustbeachievedforfocus
spawners/IPkm,overa12 populations fairshiftonelevelhighertoanimprovedindicatorrating IndependentandDependent
yearperiod(four meet in50%ofCoreand50%ofPhaseIareas;(2)Keyhabitat populations:(1)AllCoreand75%of
generations) 16. Population, attributesratedaspoororfairshiftonelevelhighertoan PhaseIareasimproveonelevelin
Habitat,and improvedratingin25%ofPhaseIIareas;and(3)>32IP threatrankand/orallCoreand75%of
Thesumofannual
Threats kmofgoodqualityhabitat(basedongoodratingsofkey PhaseIareasrankasLoworMedium;
spawnerabundancefor
criteriafor habitatattributes)existsineachfocusIndependentbasin. and(2)25%ofPhaseIIareasimprove
Dependentpopulationsin
downlisting. onelevelinthreatrankand/or25%of
eachfocusDiversity
PhaseIIareasrankasLoworMedium.
Stratumis50%ofthetotal
stratumabundancetarget
overa12yearperiod.
Delist AllIndependent Allfocus ForeachfocusDiversityStratum(LostCoast,Navarro ForeachfocusDiversityStratum(Lost

Populationsmeetlow Independent GualalaPoint,Coastal,andSantaCruz)threecriteria Coast,NavarroGualalaPoint,
extinctionriskcriteria(e.g.
and mustbeachievedforallIndependentandDependent Coastal,andSantaCruz)twocriteria
spawnerdensityrecovery Dependent Populations:(1)Keyhabitatattributesratedaspooror mustbeachievedforallfocus
targets)overa12year populations fairshiftonelevelhighertoanimprovedratingin75%of populations:(1)AllCoreand75%of
period(fourgenerations). meet Coreand75%ofPhaseIareasand/or75%ofCoreand PhaseIareasimproveonelevelin
population, 75%ofPhaseIareasrankGoodorVeryGoodforthese threatrankand/orallCoreand75%of
AllDependentpopulations
Habitatand conditions;and(2)Keyhabitatattributesratedaspooror PhaseIareasrankasLoworMedium
meetrecoveryabundance
Threats fairshiftonelevelhighertoanimprovedratingin50%of and(2)50%ofPhaseIIareasimprove
targets.
criteriafor PhaseIIareasand/or50%ofPhaseIIareasrankasGood onelevelinthreatrankand/or50%of
delisting. orVeryGood;and(3)>75%ofIPkmhabitat PhaseIIareasrankasLoworMedium.
contributingtospawningtargetsisratedashighquality.
16
At>15adultcohosalmonspawnersperIPkmwillallowallIndependentpopulationstomeetthethresholdforlowextinctionriskforthepopulationcharacteristicNg,ortotal
populationsizepergeneration(Ng2500).
March 2010
Biological Viability Criteria versus Delisting Recovery Criteria
ThebiologicalviabilitycriteriadevelopedbySpenceetal.(2008)(AppendixB)setthefoundation
forunderstandingthelongtermbiologicalviabilityofCCCcohosalmonpopulationsandESU.
These viability criteria, however, are not synonymous with recovery criteria. The viability
criteriadefinesetsofconditionsorrulesforviablepopulationsthat,ifsatisfied,wouldsuggest
thattheESUisatlowriskofextinction(Spenceetal.2008).Thesegeneralconditionsinclude:(1)
achieving population viability across selected populations; and (2) attaining a number and
configurationofviablepopulationsacrossthelandscapetoensurelongtermviabilityoftheESU
asawhole.Thecriteria,however,donotexplicitlyspecifywhichpopulationsmustbeviable
for the ESU to be viable but rather they establish a framework within which there may be
several ways by which ESU viability can be achieved (Spence et al. 2008). Furthermore, the
biological viability criteria do not include specific numeric targets for the abundances of
populationsidentifiedasdependent.
Theviabilitycriteriaprovideatheoreticalfoundationandpracticalbasisforrecoveryplannersto
select populations for the inclusion into the recovery scenario, and to develop criteria for
measuring population response to recovery actions. The viability criteria include metrics for
population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. Populations that are
abundantateachlifestage,highlyproductive,widelydistributed,andexhibitthefullvarietyof
lifehistorytraitsavailableareconsideredatlowriskofextinction.
Downlisting and delisting recovery criteria includes: (1) biological viability criteria for
Independent populations; (2) numeric criteria for Dependent populations; (3) criteria to track
improvementofwatershedconditions(e.g.,health);and(4)criteriatrackingtheameliorationof
threats including a specific analysis of threats outlined under the five listing factors. These
criteriatakeintoconsiderationthelandscapecontextinfluencingourwatershedsandsalmonand
the expectation that as these ecological processes are rebuilt to support ecosystem health and
productivity, a surplus of salmon can develop for tribal, recreational or commercial harvests
(numericcriterianotincludedinSpenceetal.2008).
Downlisting and Delisting Recovery Criteria for Populations and ESU

Downlisting and delisting recovery criteria have been developed for Independent and
DependentpopulationsaswellastargetsfortheirassociatedDiversityStrata.Sincetheviability
criteria developed by Spence et. al. 2008 focused on Independent populations, and did not
include explicit numeric targets for abundances of Dependent populations. Criteria were thus
developed for Dependent Populations to: (1) maintain connectivity within and across diversity
strata; (2) provide potential sources of colonizers if adjacent populations are extirpated or
experience severe declines; and, (3) ensure continued genetic reservoirs in strata where
Independent populations are extirpated. The 16 selected Dependent populations must exhibit
occupancypatternsconsistentwithpatternsexpectedundersufficientimmigrationarisingfrom
the Independent populations. Thus, different metrics are involved in the development and
evaluationofcriteriabetweenIndependentandDependentpopulations.
March 2010

Population Level Recovery Criteria for Independent Populations
Thepopulationviabilitycriteria(alsotermedextinctionriskcriteria),whenmet,areexpectedto
resultinIndependentpopulationswithalowriskofextinction(i.e.,viable).Thesecriteriaare:(1)
likelihood of extinction; (2) effective population size or total population size; (3) population
decline; (4) catastrophic decline; (5) spawner density, and; (6) hatchery influence (Table 19). In
addition,spawnerabundancecriteriahavebeenassignedtoeachIndependentpopulation.The
populationcriteriahavebeenaggregatedattheDiversityStrataleveltoensurethecriteriameets
ESUviabilitycriteriaoutlinedinSpenceetal.2008(Table20)whichincludesallcriteriaassociated
withIndependentpopulationsmustbemettobeconsideredfordownlistinganddelisting.
Table 23: Population Extinction Risk Criteria
March 2010
Table 24: Delisting and Downlisting Spawner Abundance Criteria for Independent Populations
DiversityStrataPopulationIPkmDensityTargetDelistingTargetDownlistingTarget
LostCoast TenMile 105 34.93700 1575
LostCoast Noyo 118 34.04000 1770
LostCoast Big 192 28.95500 2880
LostCoast Albion 59 38.12300 885
Total:15,500 7110
NavarroPt. Navarro 201 28.35700 3015
NavarroPt. Garcia 76 36.92800 1140
NavarroPt. Gualala 252 24.86200 3780
Total:14,700 7935
Coastal Russian 506 20.010,100 7590
Coastal Walker 76 36.92800 1140
Coastal Lagunitas 70 37.32600 1050
Total:15,500 9780
SantaCruz Pescadero 61 38.02300 915
SantaCruz SanLorenzo 126 33.44200 1890
Total:6500 2805

ESUTotal:52,20027,630

DownlistingtargetsinTable20arebasedonmeetingthethresholdforthelowextinctionrisk
populationcharacteristicNg,ortotalpopulationsizepergeneration(Ng2500)forthesmallest
independentpopulation(AlbionRiver59IPkm).Attheadultspawnerdensityof15fishper
IPkmallindependentpopulationsexceedthepergenerationtargetof2500adultfish.

Fordelisting,Table20displaysspawnerabundancesarescaledbetween20and40spawnersper
IPkmdependingonwatershedsize;abundancecriteriaistheproductofthedensitytimesthe
totalnumberofIPkminthatwatershed.Criteriaareevaluatedpergeneration(e.g.3years)
across4consecutivegenerations(e.g.,12years).SeeSpenceetal.2008fordetailedequations.

Population Level Recovery Criteria for Dependent Populations
Adult spawner numeric criteria were developed for each Dependent population and their
associatedDiversityStrata.Thesenumerictargetsweredevelopedusingbestavailablehistorical
March 2010
data and information associated with adult spawner densities within Dependent population
watersheds. Data from 19331942 in Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz County (Shapovalov and Taft
1954), were used as a reference for the spawner target density target 17. The average spawner
populationduringtheperiodbetween1932and1954was312fish(range111748)resultingina
spawnerdensitytargetof34perIPkm(312/9.2IPkm).ThestatementsofShapovalovandTaft
likely understate the degree Waddell Creek had been affected by the removal of the redwood
forest. Virtually all portions of the watershed accessible to coho salmon were extensively
disturbed prior to the onset of the Shapovalov and Taft study. Early logging practices were
particularlydestructiveandthislevelofdisturbancelikelyresultedinasignificantreductionin
the productive capacity for coho salmon in the watershed. Nonetheless, we believe these
numericcriteriarepresentbestavailableinformationregardingaveragespawnerpopulationsto
beexpectedinDependentwatersheds.The34spawneradultsperIPkmwerecalculatedagainst
the current IPkm in each population to yield the recovery delisting targets in the table.
Downlisting criteria for Dependent populations is to meet a 50% stratum target evaluated per
generation (e.g., 3 years) across 4 consecutive generations (e.g., 12 years) with at least two
populations in that stratum contributing to the 50% stratum target. Downlisting and delisting
criteriaareoutlinedinTable21.
17 It is important to note that virtually all portions of the Waddell Creek watershed, at the time of the
ShapovalovandTaftstudyinthe1930s,werefarfrompristineconditions.ShapovalovandTaftdescribe
WaddellCreekinthefollowingterms:Somechangesfromtheprimitiveconditionoftheareahavetakenplaceas
a result of human usage. The redwood forest of the watershed below Big Basin was logged off by 1870 and is now
coveredbyasecondgrowth.Theearlylumberingoperationshaveresultedinthecreationofseveralsemipermanent
logjamsandtemporaryaccumulationsoflogs,whichhavehastenederosionofstreambanks,withconsequentincrease
insiltingduringfloodstage.
March 2010
Table 25: Delisting and Downlisting Spawner Abundance Criteria for Dependent Populations
Dependent
Population Current Delisting Target
IP-km Spawner/km Na
Usal Creek 10.6 34 360
Cottaneva Creek 13.8 34 469
Wages Creek 10 34 340
Pudding Creek 28.9 34 983
Casper Creek 12.8 34 435
Big Salmon Creek 17 34 578
Salmon Creek 47.6 34 1618
Pine Gulch 7.4 34 252
Redwood Creek 8 34 272
San Gregorio 40.1 34 1363
Gazos Creek 8.2 34 279
Waddel Creek 9.2 34 313
Scott Creek 15 34 510
San Vicente Creek 3.1 34 105
Soquel Creek 33 34 1122
Aptos Creek 27.4 34 932
Lost Coast-Navarro 6
Point Populations Stratum Total (Delisting) 3165
50% Aggregate
(Downlisting) 1583
Navarro Point-Gualala Point No Populations Selected 0
3
Coastal Populations Stratum Total (Delisting) 2142
50% Aggregate
(Downlisting) 1071
7
Santa Cruz Mountains Populations Stratum Total (Delisting) 4624
50% Aggregate
(Downlisting) 2312
ESU
Total (Delisting) 9931
50% Total (Downlisting) 4966
ESU Recovery Criteria for Delisting

Four criteria were developed that, collectively, constitute a configuration in the number and
distributionofviableandnonviablepopulationsthatwouldlikelyprovideforESUpersistence
over 100 year time frame (i.e., viable). Thus, there may be several plausible scenarios of
population viability that could satisfy ESUlevel criteria {Spence, 2008}. The goals of the ESU
criteriaaretoreducetheriskofextinctionbyensuring(1)connectivitybetweenpopulations,(2)
representation of ecological, morphological, and genetic diversity, and (3) redundancy in
populationstominimizerisksassociatedwithcatastrophicevents.
March 2010

In characterizing a viable ESU the TRT applied the hypothesis that populations, as they
functioned in their historical context, were highly likely of persisting and that increasing
departure from historical characteristics logically requires a greater degree of proof that a population is
indeedviable(Spenceetal.2008).Duetothelikelyhistoricalrolesoffunctionallyindependentor
potentiallyindependentpopulationstheseformthefoundationoftheESUviabilitycriteria.The
nonviable or dependent population criteria were designed to ensure reservoirs of genetic
diversity, contribute to connectivity, reduce risk of ESU extinction, and provide a source of
colonizerstoextirpatedwatershedsandbufferoceanconditionsanddisturbancestoindependent
populations.
To ensure the ESU goals of reducing the risk of extinction are realized, the following viability
criteriamustbemetfordelisting(SeeSpenceet.al.2008formoreinformation):
(1)RepresentationCriteria;
1.a.AllindentifieddiversitystratathatincludehistoricalFIPsorPIPswithinan
ESU should be represented by viable population for the ESU to be considered
viable.
AND
1. b. Within each diversity stratum, all extant phenotypic diversity (i.e., major
lifehistorytypes)shouldberepresentedbyviablepopulations.

(2)RedundancyandConnectivity;
2.a.Atleastfiftypercentofhistoricallyindependentpopulations(FIPsorPIPs)
in each diversity stratum must be demonstrated to be at low risk of extinction
according to the population viability criteria. For strata with three or fewer
independentpopulations,atleasttwopopulationsmustbeviable.
AND
2.b. Within each diversity stratum, the total aggregate abundance of
independent populations selected to satisfy this criterion must meet or exceed
50% of the aggregate viable population abundance (i.e., meeting densitybased
criteriaforlowrisk)forallFIPsandPIPs.
(3)ESUOccupancy;
3.a.Remainingpopulations,includinghistoricallydependentpopulationsorany
historicalFIPsorPIPsthatarenotexpectedtoattainaviablestatus,mustexhibit
occupancypatternsconsistentwiththoseexpectedundersufficientimmigration
subsidy arising from the Independent populations selected to satisfy the
precedingcriterion.
(4)DistributionAcrossESU;
March 2010
4.a.Thedistributionofextantpopulations,regardlessofhistoricalstatus,must
maintain connectivity within the diversity stratum, as well as connectivity to
neighboringdiversitystrata.
Downlisting Recovery Criteria for Watershed Health and Threats

Toconsiderdownlisting,thefollowingcriteria(inadditiontothepopulationandESUlevel
criteria)mustbemetforeachfocusDiversityStratum(LostCoast,NavarroGualalaPoint,
Coastal,andSantaCruz)andeachidentifiedIndependentandDependentpopulation.These
criteriaarebasedontheTNCCAPworkbookanalysisandtheassociatedrankingoutputsofvery
good/good/fair/poorhabitatandlandscapeattributesandtheveryhigh/high/medium/low
threats.TheidentifiedshiftsinlevelswillbeaccomplishedbyconductingtheCAPworkbook
analysisprocessasdescribedinthisrecoveryplan.Table18providesasummaryofthese
criteria.
(1)KeyHabitatAttributesCriteriaforImprovingWatershedHealth:
1.a. Key habitat attributes rated as poor or fair shift one level to an improved
indicatorratingin50%ofCoreand50%ofPhaseIareas;
AND
1.b. Key habitat attributes rated as poor or fair shift one level higher to an
improvedratingin25%ofPhaseIIareas;
AND
1.c. > 32 IPkm of good quality habitat (based on good ratings of key habitat
attributes)existsineachfocusIndependentbasin.

(2)ThreatsCriteria:
2.a.AllCoreand75%ofPhaseIareasimproveonelevelinthreatrankand/or
allCoreand75%ofPhaseIareasrankasLoworMedium;
AND
2.b.25%ofPhaseIIareasimproveonelevelinthreatrankand/or25%ofPhaseII
areasrankasLoworMedium.

Delisting Recovery Criteria for Watershed Health and Threats

Toconsiderdelisting,thefollowingcriteria(inadditiontothepopulationandESUlevelcriteria)
mustbemetforeachfocusDiversityStratum(LostCoast,NavarroGualalaPoint,Coastal,and
SantaCruz)andeachidentifiedIndependentandDependentpopulation.Thesecriteriaare
basedontheTNCCAPworkbookanalysisandtheassociatedrankingoutputsofvery
good/good/fair/poorhabitatandlandscapeattributesandtheveryhigh/high/medium/low
threats.TheidentifiedshiftsinlevelswillbeaccomplishedbyconductingtheCAPworkbook
analysisprocessasdescribedinthisrecoveryplan.Table18providesasummaryofthese
criteria.
March 2010
(1)KeyHabitatAttributesCriteriaforImprovingWatershedHealth:
1.a. Key habitat attributes rated as poor or fair shift one level higher to an
improved rating in 75% of Core and 75% of Phase I areas and/or 75% of Core
and75%ofPhaseIareasrankGoodorVeryGoodfortheseconditions;
AND
1.b. Key habitat attributes rated as poor or fair shift one level higher to an
improved rating in50% of Phase II areas and/or 50% of Phase II areas rankas
GoodorVeryGood;
AND
1.c.>75%ofIPkmhabitatcontributingtospawningtargetsisratedashigh
quality.

(2)ThreatsCriteria:
2.a.AllCoreand75%ofPhaseIareasimproveonelevelinthreatrankand/or
allCoreand75%ofPhaseIareasrankasLoworMedium;
AND
2.b.50%ofPhaseIIareasimproveonelevelinthreatrankand/or50%ofPhaseII
areasrankasLoworMedium.
AND
2.c.Meetalllistingfactorcriteria.
To inform these criteria it is necessary that monitoring include a lengthy time series of adult
abundanceatappropriatespatialscales.Lifecyclemonitoringwillbenecessarytoinformthese
criteria. Few datasets exist and there is an urgent need to initiate monitoring programs that will
generate data of sufficient quality to rigorously assess progress toward population and ESU recovery.
Development of a comprehensive coastal monitoring plan for salmonids has been underway for several
yearsbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,withinputfromNMFS;however,datasetthatwill
allow assessment of status using the criteria described herein are likely more than a decade away.
Consequently, the present values of these criteriaare to inform the development of such a monitoring
planandtoprovidepreliminarytargetsforrecoveryplanners(Spenceetal.2008).RefertoSpenceet
al.(2008)foradditionalinformation.
Listing Factor Criteria

ListingfactorcriteriaaddresslargescaleissueslimitingthespeciesrecoveryacrosstheESU.As
recommendedintheNMFSInterimGuidance(2007),criteriaweredevelopedtoassessthese
broadscalefactorsthatoriginallyledtothelistingofthespecies.
March 2010
Listing Factor A: Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of habitat or Range
Thedestruction,modificationandcurtailmentofthehabitatandrangeoftheDomainsalmonidsare
primarydrivingfactorsthatledtotheirdeclines.Factorsexpectedtocontinueintothefutureand,ifnot
abatedorremoved,willsignificantlyaffecttherecoveryofthisspecies.
Objective:Ensureadequatequantitiesofgoodqualityhabitatareavailableacrosstherangeof
CCCcohosalmontosupportviableandrecoveredpopulationsoverthelongterm.
CriterionA1:ThewatershedconditionsandthreatabatementcriteriaidentifiedinTable20
mustbeachievedfordownlistinganddelisting.
Listing Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes
Theimpactsoffreshwaterandmarineharvesthavebeenreducedsincelisting;howeverthemagnitudeof
collection,illegalharvest,andfishinginterceptionremainunknown.
Objective:Ensurecommercial,recreationaloreducationalactivitiesarenotadverselyaffecting
thesurvivalandrecoveryofCCCcohosalmon.
DownlistingcriterionB1:Collection,illegalharvest,andbycatch(fishinginterceptionincluding
interceptionfromtherecreationalsteelheadfishery)areevidencedasnotadverselyimpacting
eachlifestageofCCCcohosalmonbymorethanfivepercentacrosstheESU.
DelistingcriterionB2:Collection,illegalharvestandbycatch(fishinginterceptionincluding
interceptionfromtherecreationalsteelheadfishery)areevidencedasnotadverselyimpacting
eachlifestageofCCCcohosalmonbymorethanonepercentacrosstheESU.
Recoveryaction:Section10ScientificCollectionPermitswillprioritizeconsistent
methods,informtherecoverycriteria,andexpandtoincludemonitoringofadultsand
smolts.
Recoveryaction:DFGSteelheadFishingReportRestorationCardwillrequireanglersto
reportincidentalcohosalmoncapture.
Recoveryaction:Conductoutreachandeducationforcommercialandrecreational
anglerstoreduceinjuryormortalityassociatedwithincidentalbycatch.
Recoveryaction:Coordinateenforcementtominimizeillegalharvest,identifyareas
whereillegalharvestmaybeaproblem,andcoordinateNOAAandDFGenforcement
actionsinthoseareas.
Listing Factor C: Disease or predation

Theimpactsofdiseaseandpredationoutlinedatthetimeoflistingeithercontinuetopersistorthe
magnitudeoftheimpactsareunknown.
Objective:DiseaseandpredationshouldnotlimitCCCcohosalmonsurvivalandrecovery.
DownlistingcriterionC1:Sufficientinformationisavailabletoreasonablyconcludethatdisease
andpredationwouldnotcompromisetherecoveredstatusofCCCcohosalmon.
March 2010
DelistingcriterionC2:DiseaseandpredationdonotcompromiselongtermpersistenceofCCC
cohosalmon.
Recoveryaction:Developandimplementprogramsinformingthespecificthreatsof
freshwaterversusdiseaseandmarinepredation.
Recoveryaction:Developandimplementtargetedprogramsthatsuccessfullyremoveor
substantiallyreducenonnativepredatorslimitingcohosalmonabundanceinkey
environments.
Recoveryaction:Evaluatetheeffectsofnativepredators(e.g.marinemammals)and
developprogramsofcontrolifwarranted.ComplywiththeMarineMammalProtection
Act.
Listing Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

DespitetheFederalandnonFederalefforts,duetofundingandimplementationuncertaintiesandthe
voluntarynatureofmanyprograms,theexistingregulatorymechanismsdonotprovidesufficient
certaintythatcombinedFederalandnonFederaleffortsarereducingthreatstoallsalmonidsintheNCCC
Domain.
Objective:EnsureFederal,State,local,andotheragenciesregulatorymechanismsareadequate
toensurethreatstotherecoveryoftheCCCcohosalmondonotpersistorreappear.
DownlistingcriterionD1:HighpriorityESUandDiversityStratastrategiesareunderwayand
areimplementedthroughappropriateregulatoryprocesses.
DownlistingCriterionD2:Stateandlocalmanagementmechanismstoensuresustainabilityof
CCCcohopopulationsinthefutureareunderway.
DelistingcriterionD3:HighpriorityESUandDiversityStratastrategiesareimplementedor
therelevantissuesareaddressedthroughanappropriateregulatoryprocess.
Recoveryaction:Appropriateagenciesshouldsecurefundingfor,andengagein,full
enforcementofrelevantlaws,codes,regulations,policiesandordinancesprotectiveof
CCCcohosalmonandtheirhabitats.
Recoveryaction:Federal,state,localgovernmentsandotherpertinentpartiesshould
cooperatetoseekregulatorystreamliningopportunitiestogethertomoreefficientlywork
towardsCCCcohorecoveryandprovideregulatoryassurancemechanismsfor
landownersandothers.
Recoveryaction:ConductoutreachandeducationtootherFederalagenciesto
encourageimplementationoftheirESAsection7(a)(1)responsibilitiesforCCCcoho
salmonrecovery.
Recoveryaction:PrioritizeESAsection7consultationswhichincludeimportant
recoveryactions,andincluderecoveryactionsinsection7ReasonableandPrudent
AlternativesandConservationRecommendations.
Recovery action: Encourage amendment of the Army Corps 404 Clean Water Act
exemptions for farming, logging, and ranching activities by terminating Section 404(f)
exemptions for discharges of dredged or fill material into US waters associated with
agriculture,logging,ranchingandfarming.
March 2010
Recoveryaction:EncourageamendmentstotheFEMAmandatestoincludefundingfor
upgradesbeneficialtoCCCcohosalmontoflooddamagedinfrastructure.
Recovery action: Petition SWRCB to declare all CCC coho salmon watersheds fully
appropriated.
Recovery action: Work with the SWRCB to bring unauthorized diversions into
compliancewithStatelaw.
DelistingCriterionD4:Stateandlocalmanagementmechanismsareinplacetoensure
sustainabilityofCCCcohopopulationsinthefuturewithouttheprotectionsoftheESA.
Listing factor E: Other natural and manmade factors affecting the species
continued existence
Otherthanthehatcheryprograms,allthreatsareexpectedtopersistintothefuturewiththeeffectsof
climatechangepredictedtonegativelyimpactsalmonidhabitats,andthustheirlikelihoodofsurvivaland
recovery.
Objective:Improveothermanmadefactorsandlessenoroffsettheeffectsofnaturalfactorsto
salmonidsandtheirhabitats.
DownlistingcriterionE1:EnsurethethreatofhatcheriesremainslowfortheCCCcohosalmon
andallfuturehatcheryprograms.DevelopanHGMPundersection10(a)(1)andcomporttothe
hatcherycriteriaidentifiedinSpenceetal.(2008).
DelistingcriterionE2:AllrecoveryactionsforClimateChange,Droughts,andStormsand
Floodingareimplementedortheissuesaddressedsufficientlytoensurepopulationandhabitat
resiliencytotheseperturbations.
March 2010
CHAPTER10:RECOVERY
ACTIONS
When I first came in 1906 there was plenty of fish and game; Anderson Valley and its hills were a
boy hunters paradise. When we lived in Mendocino I fished in Russian Gulch many times. The fish
were small but it was not trouble to catch fifty which was the limit.
The Navarro River was a fine stream for its entire length even to its smallest tributaries. Hookbills (coho)
and steelhead both ran in great numbers, although it was harshly treated by the lumber industry, not
as bad however as the Garcia.
Fifty years, looking back is quite awhile but we well remember when the fish houses in Noyo were piled
with big king salmon every day and everyone was busy. We bought them for awhile for 10 cents a
pound.
Throughout the years, the supply of fish and game has risen and fallen, nature took care of things.
Now with smaller limits and managing plus civilization; fish and game as we knew it is about gone;
soon we hang up the rifle and put aside the rod. We few old ones left had it; we too are also about
gone.
Judge Tindall 1966-1977 Mendocino County Remembered
TAKING ACTION FOR SALMON

ThedeclineofCCCcohosalmonandtheirpathtorecoveryparallelsourhumanstory.Infact,theplight
ofsalmonworldwideisintimatelytiedtothestoryoftheevolvinghumanconfiguredlandscape.
NaturalistsandbiologistsacrossEuropeandNorthAmericahavemonitoredsalmonandchronicledtheir
declineandextinctions.Biologistsalonecannotshiftaspeciestrajectoryfromextinctiontorecovery;it
requiresaunitedcommunityofexpertsandlaypeopleformingalliancestothissinglepurpose.While
salmonnowneedustoinnovatesustainableusesforourlandandwater,wealsoneedsalmon;perhaps
moreso.Salmoncansupportwholecommunitiesandbusinesses;theyareourrecreation,ourfood,anda
partofournaturalheritage.Toachievethisend,wecandosomethinguniquelyhuman,contemplateour
futureandshiftourthinkingandouractions.Nothingelsecandothis.Improvingthehumanwellbeing
whileinnovatingsustainableuseofournaturalresources(includingsecuringafutureforoursalmon)are
aoneinthesamechallenge.
Thisstoryofthesalmoncrisisisnothingnew.Europeoncehadmesmerizingsalmonruns,infactsalmon
helpedfeedtheRomanlegionsandformedthebasisoflargecommercialfishingoperations.However,
gradualchangestonaturalfreshwatersystemsthroughalonghistoryofhumaninducedimpactsleftthe
fishhomeless;despiterepeatedwarningsofsalmondemise.CharlesDickensin1861spokeoftheneed
March 2010
forsalmonprotectionsinhisweeklymagazineAllYearRound;aSalmonFisheriesActof1861was
establishedforEnglandandWalesandlateraRiversPollutionActof1876.
However,thelackofenforcementandtheoldpleaofruintoundertakesuchwork[salmon
protections](Montgomery2003)andthehumanpredispositiontoplaceblameoneachotherforthe
declineprevailed.Asimilarstorycanbetoldforothercountriesincludingourownandthedeclineofthe
Mainesalmonpopulations.ForoveracenturysalmonhaventbeenseeninEngland;untilrecently.
Actionstoreducepollutionandimprovestreamconditionsareworkingandsalmonhavebeenseenin
recentyearsreturningtocleanerandmorehabitableriverssuchastheThamesandSeine.Ifwefailto
learnthelessonsoftheseothercountriesorthestoriesofsalmonextinctionduetochangestowatershed
processesittellsusmoreaboutourselvesandsocietalprioritiesasitdoesaboutthesalmon.
PRIORITY RECOVERY ACTIONS FOR CCC COHO SALMON

Anarrayofconditionshasreducedthepopulationsizeandhistoricaldistributionofcohosalmonacross
theESU.Manyofthecausesofdeclinearesystemicandpersistent,andcrossnumerousenvironmental
andpoliticalboundaries.ThesourcesandreasonsfordeclineareidentifiedinFederalRegisterNotices,
theRecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmon(DFG2004),andthisrecoveryplan.Effectively
addressingthesecausesinvolvesmultiplechallengesandopportunitiesincluding:(1)developmentof
newandeffectiveimplementationofcurrentlaws,policiesandregulations;(2)securingadequate
fundingforrecoveryimplementation;(3)developingstrategicpartnerships;(4)assuringprioritization
andimplementationofrestoration,threatabatement,andmonitoringactions;and(5)conducting
educationandoutreach.ThestatusofCCCcohosalmonrequiresaddressingthehighestpriorityissues
atallappropriatelevelsdescribedabove(e.g.,policy,funding,partnerships,restorationandoutreach)
whichinturn,dictatesthatasubstantialandtargetedinvestmentinresourcesisneededforrecovery.
TheChapteroutlinespriorityrecoveryactionsthatapplywithinandacrosstheoverallESU,orwithin
andacrossDiversityStrata,andacrossspatialscales.AttheESUlevel,theseprioritiesareorganizedby
actionsthatneedtobeundertakeninthenextfewyearstopreventextinction.Underpinningtheselarger
scaleactionsarewatershedspecificobjectives,recoveryactions,andactionsteps.Theseweredeveloped
foreachofthe28focuswatersheds.Theseactionsprovidewatershedspecificrecommendationsfor
improvingthemostlimitingcurrentconditions,andminimizeandabatethehighestfuturethreats.They
focusandprioritizerecoveryactionsandkeyareasforimmediaterestorationandthreatabatement.The
entiredatasetofconditions,threatsandstrategicactionsforeachwatershedareprovidedbelowwith
populationslistedalphabetically.Recoveryimplementationscheduleshavebeendevelopedfor
watershedslistedbelow:
LostCoastDiversityStrata:AlbionRiver;BigRiver;BigSalmonCreek;CasparCreek;Cottaneva
Creek;NoyoRiver;PuddingCreek;TenMileRiver;UsalCreek;andWagesCreek;
NavarroPointDiversityStrata:GarciaRiver;GualalaRiver;NavarroRiver;
Coastal Diversity Strata: Lagunitas Creek; Pine Gulch Creek; Redwood Creek; Russian River;
SalmonCreek;andWalkerCreek;and
March 2010
Santa Cruz Mountain: Aptos Creek, Gazos Creek; Pescadero Creek; San Lorenzo River; San
GregorioCreek;SanVicenteCreek;ScottCreek;SoquelCreek;andWaddellCreek.
ESU LEVEL RECOVERY ACTIONS

OverarchingrecoveryactionsaddressmajorthreatsacrosstheESUandimplementationwillaffectalarge
geographicarea,andwillbenefitmultiplepopulations.Successfulimplementationwillhavepositive
longtermeffectsandmovethespeciestowardrecovery.Assuch,theseactionsarethehighestpriority
acrosstheESUandwithinindividualpopulations.
ESUlevelrecoveryactionstobeimplementedwithinthenextonetofiveyearsinclude:
EnsuringcurrentpopulationsofCCCcohosalmonareprotectedfromharmortakeandprotectingall
historicalhabitatsfromfurtherhabitatdegradation:
o Allworkadjacentto,orwithin,waterwaysoccupiedbycohosalmonshouldbe
conductedduringthesummerlowflowperiod(June15thOctober15th);
o NMFSshouldprovideinformationtotheappropriateregulatorybodiesregardingthe
currentstatusofCCCcohosalmon,prioritywatershedprocessesneedingconsideration,
andrecommendationsthatprovidenotakeorincidentaltakeassurances;
o Allrelevantpartiesarerecommendedtoconductextensiveoutreachtoimprove
educationandawarenessforagencies,professionalorganizations,landowners,andthe
publicregardingtheimportanceandimperativeneedforimmediateanddirectactionsto
preventextinctionand/orincreaseregulatoryoversightonprojectsthatmayimpair
habitatsorresultindirectharmtocohosalmon;
o NoTakeguidanceshouldbeconsideredtoassistNMFSstaffandstakeholdersin
avoidingandminimizingpotentialtakeorharmtoCCCcohosalmonortheirhabitats
whenevaluatingorplanninglandusepractices(e.g.,livestockgrazing,agriculture,road
constructionandmaintenance,channelmodification,etc.);
o Allrelevantpartiesarerecommendedtostronglyencouragingappropriateagenciesto
securefundingfor,andengagein,fullenforcementofrelevantlaws,codes,regulations
andordinancesprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitats;
Conductingactionsthatsignificantlyincreasetheprobabilityofsurvivalofeachindividualinboth
themarineandfreshwaterenvironments;
o ImplementingandenforcingthemostconservativeversionofAB2121,whichcodified
(insections1259.2and1259.4oftheCaliforniaWaterCode)DFGandNMFSWater
DiversionGuidelinestoensureprotectiveflowsforalllifestagesofcohosalmon;
o WorkwithDFGtodevelopprotectiveregulationstominimizeimpactsfromoffshore
fishingduringmigratoryperiods(e.g.untilsandbarsopennaturally)withinonemileof
therivermouthsofthefocuswatersheds;
o WorkwithDFGtoimprovefreshwatersportfishingregulationstominimize
unintentionalandunauthorizedtake,andincidentalmortality,ofCCCcohosalmonby
anglersduringtheCCCcohosalmonmigrationperiod.Considerationsmayinclude
March 2010
lowflowclosurethresholds(includingemergencyclosureduringadultmigration
beginning2010),seasonalfishingclosures,andangleroutreachprograms;
o Improvingcoordinationbetweentheagencies,particularlytheSWRCB,toeffectively
addressillegalwaterdivertersandoutofcompliancediverters,seasonsofdiversion,off
streamreservoirs,andbypassflowsfullyprotectiveofCCCcohosalmon;
o PetitioningSWRCBtohaveallCCCcohosalmonwatershedswithexistingpopulations
andongoingdiversionsdeclaredasfullyappropriated;
o EncouragingamendmentstoArmyCorps404CleanWaterActexemptionsforfarming,
logging,andranchingactivitiestoterminateSection404(f)exemptionsfordischargesof
dredgedorfillmaterialintoUSwaters(channelization)associatedwithagriculture,
logging,ranchingandfarming;
o DevelopwaterconservationmeasuresatlocalandStatelevelstoincludeadrought
managementplanforeachwatershedthatistriggeredbyminimumflowrequirements.
Workwiththeagriculturalcommunitytodevelopwaterconservationstrategies
protectiveofsalmonidswhileallowingongoingagriculturallanduses(i.e.,off
channelstorageponds).
o Projectsinvolvinghighunderwatersoundpressurelevelsshouldimplementsound
attenuationmethodstoassurethat(1)nophysicalinjurytocohosalmonresults,(2)
adversemodificationtobehaviorisavoidedand(3)extentofareaimpactedisreduced.
Wheresoundattenuationcannotmeetthethreecriteriaabovethenworkshouldbe
conductedduringestablishedseasonalworkwindows(summerlowflowperiodonly)to
avoidharmtoCCCcohosalmon.
o Immediatelyimplementorinitiatethefollowingrangewiderecommendationsoutlined
inthe2004RecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmon:streamflow,waterrights,
watertemperature,ecologicalrefugia,largewoodydebris,riparianvegetation,landuses
andoutreach.
o Initiatediscussionsonthefollowingrangewiderecommendationsoutlinedinthe2004
RecoveryStrategyforCohoSalmon:integrationwithotherplansandprograms,
permitting,enforcementofexistinglawsandassessment,monitoringandresearch.
o CollaborateandsupporttheSWRCBtoincreaseoversightandresponsibilityfor
regulatinggroundwaterhydrologicallyconnectedtosurfaceflows;and
o CollaboratewithCalFiretocoordinatefirefightingandpostfireresponsewiththe
resourceagencies;
CollaboratewithDFGtofinalizeandimplementtheStatewideCoastalMonitoringPlan.
ImplementationoftheStatewideCoastalMonitoringPlanisessentialforevaluatingthelongterm
viabilityofCCCcohosalmonaswellasotherspeciesoflistedsalmonidsinCalifornia;
o Conduct population research and monitoring focusing on life stage survival (e.g., life
cyclestations) within each Diversity Stratum including survivaland fitnessinwetland,
estuariesandlagoons;
March 2010
o Conductresearchandmonitoringoffreshwaterhabitatsandtheirsuitabilitytosupport
each life stage (adult, egg, summer/winter rearing, smolt outmigration including
adult/juvenile/smoltsurvivalinwetlandsandestuarine/lagoonhabitats);
Establishmechanismstomaintainexistinggeneticdiversitythroughinterventionandaugmentation.
Thismayinclude(1)juvenilecapturefromthewildandrearinginanestablishedconservation
hatcheryforreleaseasadultsand(2)developingcomprehensivebroodstockprogramssimilartothe
RussianRiverCohoSalmonCaptiveBroodstockprogram.
o Utilizeexistingpopulationmodelsandgeneticinformationforeachwatershedand
associatedDiversityStratumtoidentifyminimumreddoradultcountsthatwould
triggertheneedforaugmentationorintervention;
o Appropriateaugmentationorinterventionstrategiesmayvarybaseduponknowledgeof
populationgenetics,abilityofthewatershedtosupportandmaintaincohosalmon
throughthefreshwaterlifestage,andlongtermrecoveryobjectives;
Evaluate and test success of adult releases to watersheds to augment existing
cohosalmongeneticdiversity;
o Reassessmarkingprotocolofbroodstockversushatcheryfishtominimizepossiblemis
identificationbyrecreationalfishermen;
Prioritizingrestorationfunding(e.g.,PacificCoastSalmonRestorationFund(PCSRF)andCalifornias
FisheriesGrantRestorationProgram)onthoseactionsthatincreasestheprobabilityoffreshwater
survivalinCoreareasinthenextfouryearsandimprovementstonearbyexpansionhabitats(e.g.
PhaseI)followedbyhabitatimprovementstoPhaseIIareasthereafter;
o Aggressivelypromotinginstallationofinstreamlargewoodydebrisandimprovingoff
channel/floodplainhabitatstoimmediatelybenefitfreshwatersurvivalinareaswith
extantpopulation;
FullyimplementingtheProgrammaticSection7consultationforrestoration
projectsadministeredbytheNOAARestorationCenterthatpermitsplacement
ofinstreamlargewoodydebris;
o PromoterestorationprojectsinhabitatsmostlimitingforCCCcohosalmoncritical
overwinteringhabitats(suchasalcoves,backchannels,offchannelareas,andestuaries),
andcriticalsummerrearinghabitat(suchascomplexpoolhabitatandunimpeded
summerflows).
DevelopingamultiagencyCCCcohostriketeamtoaddresscriticalandimmediatethreats;
o EvaluatingestablishmentofanEmergencyDroughtOperationsCenter(similartothe
EmergencyDroughtOperationsCenterdevelopedinWashingtonState),comprisedof
theSWRCB,DFG,NMFS,andotherstodevelopemergencyrulesforaugmentingwater
suppliesandmitigatingtheeffectsofdroughtandextremeclimate(duetoclimate
change)onCCCcohosalmonandtheirhabitats;
WorkingwiththeCaliforniaBoardofForestry,CalFire,DFG,professionalorganizationsand
landownerstosecureforestlandsfromconversion,promotesustainableforestrypracticesand
provideincentivesforgrowinglargetreesandconductingrestorationactions.Forexample:
March 2010
o Modifythetimberharvestpermittingprocesstoprovideopportunitiesandincentivesfor
LWDrecruitmentduringtimberharvestoperations;
o UrgetheCaliforniaBoardofForestrytoapplyforastatewideForestryHabitat
ConservationPlan(similartothatdevelopedinWashingtonState)andseekfunding
opportunitiestosupporttheeffortorapproveRulesthatensurenotakeorharm;
o EvaluatethetimberharvestreviewprocessestoensureCalFire,DFG,WaterQuality,
forestersandlandownersarefamiliarwiththespecificareasandissuesofconcern;
EstablishingrecoveryplanimplementationgroupsacrosseachRecoveryUnit(e.g.,diversitystrata)
andsecuringfunding(e.g.,PacificCoastSalmonRestorationFund)forfourdesignated
representativestoactasliaisonsandcoordinatorforeachimplementationgroup.Theseliaisonswill
alsoworkwithgrassrootswatershedgroupstoimplementrecoveryefforts;
EvaluatinggeologicalpatternsintheCCCESUtoidentifysourcesofkarstandsimilargeology.
Thesesitesmayprovidesourcesofcoolwaterrefugiaandserveaslocationsthatcanbuffer
populationsintheadventofclimatechange;
Participatinginlandandwateruseplanningwithlocal,county,andStateagenciesthathavedirect
controlandresponsibilitiesovernonFederalpractices;
o EncouragecountiesinrevisingtheirGeneralPlanstoconsiderbuildingtheirplanning
alongwatershedboundariestoincludeAreaPlanningandassociatedanalyses;
o EvaluateotherStateprogramsthatmonitorandregulatelandandwaterusesandinitiate
newsustainableinnovationsonusesregarding,andpoliciesfor,thesenaturalresources.
o Conductanassessmentofthemechanismsmotivatingconversion(fromforestto
agriculturalorruralresidentiallanduses)anddeveloppoliciesaimedatprotecting
forestlands;
o Promoteprogramsthatpurchaselandordevelopconservationeasementsencouraging
theprotection,reestablishmentand/orenhancementofnaturalripariancommunities;
Implementingmonitoringprogramstoassessspawnerabundanceandpopulationviabilityandkey
habitatattributes.Theseprogramswillrequireconsistentmethods,reporting,databasingand
adaptivemanagementacrosstheESUtoevaluatepopulationandhabitatresponsestorecovery
actions;
o Developingstandardizedwatershedassessmentprotocols(e.g.DFGhabitatassessment
protocols)withinsubwatershedstodefinelimitingfactorsspecifictothoseareas;
o Developmentofacentralizeddatabaseandanalysistoolforpopulationandhabitatdata
collectedunderstandardizedmonitoringprotocols;
SupportandengageCalTrans,FishNet4C,countiesandotherswithoversightonroadpracticesto
reducesedimentdeliverytostreamsfromroadnetworksandchannelizationfrompoorlysituated
roads.Thisshouldbeaccomplishedthrougheducation,lawsandpoliciesdesignedtoeducatestaff
androadengineersandimproveconstruction,maintenance,anddecommissioningpractices;
WorkingwithFederalandStateagenciestocoordinateanddevelopprogrammaticpermitsfor
incidentaltakeauthorizationforactionsthatcontributetotherecoveryofCCCcohosalmonandtheir
habitats;
March 2010
o CoordinatingwithDFGandRWQCBtodevelopstreamlinedpermittingfornonPCSRF
fundedrestorationprojects;
DIVERSITY STRATA RECOVERY ACTIONS

Diversity Strata recovery actions are more general than the watershed specific actions that follow, but
they also affect large geographic areas, and benefit multiple populations. Strata are organized from
NorthtoSouth.
Lost Coast
Establishmechanismstopromotesustainableforestrypracticesandreduceforestconversions;
Continuetoparticipateandpromotethecollaborativeeffortbetweenagenciesandlandowners
onthepilotlargewoodydebrisenhancementproject;
EstablishHCPsprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitatforindustrialandnonindustrial
timberharvest;
o FinalizeMendocinoRedwoodCompanyHCP;
o EncouragedevelopmentofaHCP/NCCPwithindustrialandnonindustrialforestland
ownersincludingJacksonDemonstrationStateForest,StateParks,TheConservation
Fund,CoastalRidges,RedwoodForestFoundation,CampbellTimberlandand
HawthorneTimberCompany;
ImplementotherLoggingandWoodHarvestingstrategiesoutlinedinthisrecoveryplan;
StronglyencourageMendocinoCounty(includingcitiesandlocaljurisdictions)totakeagreater
leadershiproleandworkwiththeirvariousdepartmentsonpermitting,roadmaintenance,
ordinances,etc.toreducetheongoingimpactsofurbanization,agriculture,roadbuilding,
gradingactivities,timberconversions,etc.tosalmonandtheirhabitats.MendocinoCounty
currentlysupportsover85%ofremainingpopulationsofCCCcohosalmon.
Navarro-Gualala Point
Establishmechanismstopromotesustainableforestrypracticesandreduceforestconversions;
Promoteacollaborativeeffortbetweenagenciesandlandownersonthepilotlargewoodydebris
enhancementprojectandfloodplain/offchannelrestoration;
EstablishHCPsprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitatforindustrialandnonindustrial
timberharvest;
ImplementotherLoggingandWoodHarvestingstrategiesoutlinedinthisrecoveryplan;
EvaluatetheneedandfeasibilityofdevelopingaCaptiveBroodstockProgram;and
StronglyencourageMendocinoCounty(includingcitiesandlocaljurisdictions)totakeamore
leadershiproleandworkwiththeirvariousdepartmentsonpermitting,roadmaintenance,
March 2010
gradingactivities,timberconversions,etc.tosalmonandtheirhabitats.MendocinoCounty
currentlysupportsover85%ofremainingpopulationsofCCCcohosalmon.

Coastal
Explorestrategiestoaugmentorintervenetoassurecontinuationofexistinggeneticdiversity.
o Augmentationandinterventionsuchasjuvenilecollectionandretentionatestablished
rearingfacilitiesforreleaseasadults(orotherinterventionmethods)maybenecessaryat
thistimeduetotheextremelylowpopulationstoensurelongtermgeneticdiversityis
preserved.WatershedsofparticularinterestareLagunitas/Olema,RedwoodCreekand
PineGulchandWalker.
WorkwithSonomaandMarincountiestodevelopmoreprotectiveregulationsinregardto
vineyard,ruralresidential,andurbandevelopment;
Implementwaterdiversionandagriculturalstrategiesoutlinedinthisrecoveryplan;
EstablishHCPsprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitat;
o EncouragedevelopmentofaSonomaCountywideHCPthatincludesStateParks,major
waterdivertersintheRussianRiverWatershed,theCountyofSonoma,municipalities,
timberland,andvineyardowners;
o EncouragedevelopmentofaMarinCountywideHabitatConservationPlanthat
includesStateParks,majorwaterdivertersinthecoastalwatersheds,theCountyof
Marin,andmunicipalities;
AsthelargestfreshwaterwetlandintheCCCcohosalmonESUahistoricalecologystudyofthe
LagunadeSantaRosaisrecommendedtoidentifyphysicalprocessesthathavebeendiminished.
The study would provide the foundation for a conceptual plan to prevent wetland loss and
improvewetlandhabitatsandfunctionsforCCCcohosalmon.
o ConductafeasibilitystudyregardingthepotentialcontributiontheLagunadeSanta
RosatoRussianRiverviabilitytargets.Ifdeterminedtobefeasible,aresource
managementplanshouldbedevelopedtocoordinatelandusetoprotect,restoreand
enhancetheLagunadeSantaRosa.
Stronglyencouragethecounties(includingcitiesandlocaljurisdictions)totakeagreater
leadershiproletoworkwiththeirvariousdepartmentsonpermitting,roadmaintenance,
gradingactivities,timberconversions,etc.tosalmonandtheirhabitats.MarinCountyisleading
thistypeofeffortforSanGeronimoinLagunitas.
San Francisco Bay

Evaluatethefeasibilityandlikelihoodofsuccessofreestablishingcohosalmonpopulationsinto
CorteMaderaCreek,SonomaCreek,theNapaRiver,andotherlocalwatershedswiththe
potentialtosupportcohosalmonpopulations.

March 2010
Santa Cruz Mountains:
EstablishHCPsprotectiveofcohosalmonandtheirhabitat;
o FinalizetheCityofSantaCruzHCP,and
o Workwithforestlandownersinthisstratumtoinvestigateopportunitiestodevelopa
multilandownerforestryHCP.
Conductoutreachandeducationtoprivatelandownerregardingtheimportanceofinstream
largewoodanditsroleinprovidingcriticalhabitatsforcohosalmonsurvival;
SecurelongtermfundingofcaptivebroodstockprogramfortheKingfisherFlatfacility(Scott
Creek);
ContinueworkingwiththeSantaCruzResourceConservationDistrictandCoastalConservancy
toidentifywillinglandownerstoimplementrestorationprojectsinCoreandPhase1areas;
WorkwithDFGtoimprovefreshwatersportfishingregulationstominimizeunintentionaland
unauthorizedtake,andincidentalmortality,ofCCCcohosalmonbyanglersduringtheCCC
cohosalmonmigrationperiod.Thiseffortshouldincludethedevelopmentofappropriatelow
flowclosurethresholds(includingconsiderationofemergencyclosureduringadultmigration
beginning2010),seasonalfishingclosures,andangleroutreachprograms.
StronglyencourageSantaCruzCounty(includingcitiesandlocaljurisdictions)totakeagreater
leadershiproletoworkwiththeirvariousdepartmentsonpermitting,roadmaintenance,
gradingactivities,timberconversions,etc.tosalmonandtheirhabitats.SantaCruzcounty
currentlysupportsoverafewremainingpopulationsofCCCcohosalmon.
Conductathoroughhistoricalanalysis(includingarcheologicalanalysisofIndianmiddens)and
determinewhethercohosalmonoccupiedstreamssouthofElkhornSloughinMontereyCounty.
Ifpositivedataarediscovered,evaluatethefeasibilityandlikelihoodofsuccessofreestablishing
cohosalmonpopulationsintotheBigSurandLittleSurRivers.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Thewatershedspecificimplementationschedulesthatfollowoutlinetherecommendedrecoveryactions
andestimatedcostsfortherecoveryofCCCcohosalmonovera60yearperiod.Thefirstfiveyearsare
itemized.Theimplementationschedulesarespecificguidesforcarryingoutrecoveryactions,and
meetingthelongtermrecoverygoalsoutlinedinthisplan.Actionsareorganizedtobuildoneachother,
withoverarchingobjectivessupportedbyrecoveryactions,andthese,inturn,aresupportedand
implementedbyaseriesofactionsteps.Eachactionlinksbacktokeyhabitatfeaturesthatarecurrently
inpoorconditionandwillbeimprovedbytheaction,ortothreatstheactionisexpectedtoabate.Each
actionhasauniqueidentifyingrecoverystrategynumberwhichfacilitatesimplementationtracking,and
asuccinctdescriptionoftherecommendedaction.
Eachactionstepwasassignedapriority,whichwasdefinedasfollows:
Priority1
March 2010
Anactionthatmustbetakentopreventextinctionortopreventthe
speciesfromdecliningirreversiblyintheforeseeablefuture;

Priority2
Anactionthatmustbetakentopreventsignificantdeclineinspecies
population/habitatqualityorsomeothersignificantnegativeimpact
shortofextinction;and

Priority3
Allotheractionsnecessarytoprovideforfullrecoveryofthespecies.
An estimated duration required to complete the actions, the recovery partners responsible for actions
(either funding, permitting, reviewing, or carrying out), and estimated costs to complete the action are
also outlined. Parties with authority, responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a specific
recovery action are identified in the implementation schedules. Listing a party in the implementation
schedule does not require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for
implementingtheaction(s).Agenciesandcooperatingentitiesmayvoluntarilyparticipateinanyaspect
of implementation of particular tasks listed with this recovery plan. Recovery partners may willingly
participate in project planning, funding, provide technical assistance, staff time, or any other
contributionstorecoverygoals.
Costsofmanyrecoverytaskscannotbeestimatedatthistimedueinparttodifficultiesobtainingcost
estimatesfromotheridentifiedpartiesandbecauseestimatingcostsbecomesincreasinglyimprecisethe
furtherintothefuturetheyareprojected.Inaddition,manyactionsbuildonpreviousactions,which
havenotyetbeenimplemented.Costswillvarydependingonlandownerandagencyparticipation,
availableinformation,sitespecificandsocialconstraints,andexpertiseofagencystaff.Costsof
developingandimplementingsomemanagementandprotectionplanswillvarywithlocalcircumstances
anddetailsofindividualplans.Asaresultoftheseuncertainties,thetotalcostsshowninthe
implementationscheduleslikelysubstantiallyunderestimatetherealcostofrecoveringthespecies.
Manyactionsalsocontaincommentsthatprovideadditionalspecificityorinformationoncostestimates.
INTRODUCTION TO POPULATION LEVEL ACTIONS

AnanalysiswasconductedforeachpopulationusingtheTNCCAPtoolandprotocolswhichinclude(1)
evaluationofcurrentwatershedconditionsusingreadilyavailableinformationfromDFGandothers,(2)
anticipatedthreatstowatershedprocessesandmarineenvironmentswhicharelikelytoworsen
conditionsintothefutureand(3)developmentofrecoveryactionsthatareintendedtoimprovecurrent
conditionsandabatefuturethreats.EachwatershedorpopulationprofileinthefollowingChapters
display(1)ViabilityandThreatsTablesfromtheCAPanalysisprocesswhichprovideasummaryofour
understandingofcurrentwatershedconditionsandthreats,and(2)recoveryactionimplementation
schedulesoutliningallrecoveryactionsandtheirpriorityforthatwatershed/population.Manyofthese
actionsarethoseintheStateofCaliforniaRecoveryStrategyforCohoSalmon(DFG2004)andothers
identifiedinwatershedassessmentandmonitoringdocuments.
March 2010

Westressthattheseresultsareonlypreliminaryandshouldnotbeviewedasstatic.Theinformation
hereinisaplatformfordiscussionregardingadditionaldataandinformationtoimprovethisdraft
duringthepubliccommentperiod.TheinformationfollowingdisplaysonlytheoutputsoftheCAP
workbookanalysis.Duetothevolumeofinformationbehindouranalysis,allavailabledatawerenot
included.IfmoreinformationisdesiredpleaseemailorphonetheSantaRosaofficeandwewillbe
happytoprovidetheadditionaldatasets.
March 2010
ALBIONRIVER
Photo Courtesy: Albion River, Marilyn Stubbs
146
IndependentPopulation
AlbionRiver
59.2IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Cohosalmon,Chinooksalmon,andsteelheadpresent

The Albion River watershed is located in the

California Coast Range and drains an area of about 43
square miles, in western Mendocino County. The

Albion River enters the Pacific Ocean at the town of
Albion.Thiswatershedhasalargeestuarywithatidal

influence extending upstream as much as five miles

(Albion NCWAP 2004). The mouth is aligned so that
longshore sediment transport is minimized which

allowstheestuarytoremainopentotheoceanallyear.
About
74 percent of the Albion River watershed is
redwood coniferous forest and about eight percent of
the watershed area is either montane or riparian
hardwood
forest. The entire Albion River watershed
has moderate erodibility after considering slope,

precipitation, and the susceptibility of failure of
underlying geology. Nearly the entire Albion River

watershedisinprivateownership;theonlypublicland AlbionRiverestuary
Photo provided by Friends ofthe Gualala River, photographer Rixanne Wehren,
(<1percentofthewatershed)
is foundin Van Damme andisusedwithpermission.Allrightsreserved.
State Park. The dominant land use within the Albion

Riverwatershedisforestry.Currentlythelargestforest
landowner is Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC),

whichpurchasedtheland in1998.Withinthepastten
years,
TheWatershedataGlance
about 41 percent of the Albion River watershed
has been under a timber harvest plan. Housing SpawningQuantity&Quality: VERYGOOD

development within the Albion River watershed is
SummerWaterTemperatures: FAIR
moderatelylow about500housingunitsarepresentin
Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
thewatershed.
LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
RiparianCanopy: FAIRtoGOOD

offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoFAIR
EstuaryFunction: FAIR

NoData NoData
147
AlbionRiver RecoveryTarget: 2,300AdultCohoSalmon

Advancingrecoveryofcoho
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninAlbionRiverrequiresthese
requires protecting all individuals from threats that are priority recoveryactions:
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Addresshighpriorityroads,culverts,
LoggingandWoodHarvesting slides,andlandingsthatarecontributing
RoadsandRailroads sedimenttostreamsasidentifiedinthe
MRCAlbionRiverWatershedAnalysis,or
othercredibleassessments.
InstallorenhanceexistingLWDandother
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon featurestoincreasestreamcomplexityand
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the improvepoolfrequencyanddepth.
AlbionRiverwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest Implementprojectsthatimprovehabitat
prioritiesforrestorationareto: complexity.
Identifyandeliminatedepletionof
Improvepoolcomplexity
summerbaseflowsfromunauthorized
Increaselargewoodin wateruses.Promoteoffchannelstorageto
streams reduceimpactsofwaterdiversion.
Increaseripariantreesize Provideforwatershedprocessesby
WeNeed promotinglongtermsustainableforestry
Increasethefrequencyofoff
channelhabitat
Your practicesthatsupportcohosalmon.
Photo Discouragerezoningforestlandstorural
Reducetheamountofroads
inandneartheriparian Here residentialorotherlanduses(e.g.,
zone vineyards).
Reducetherateoftimber ...inthesecoreareas:Middleand
harvest SouthForkAlbionRiverplanning
Reducesourcesofsediment AlbionRiver watershed,andtheRailroadGulchareaof
Improvegravelqualityby Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL theLowerAlbionplanningwatershed.
reducingsedimentinputs
ConservationHighlights
The County of Mendocino has recently improved
passage on the mainstem Albion by replacing a WeNeed
problematicculvert. YourPhoto
The Mendocino Redwood Company has made road Here
upgrades and improved passage by replacing old
culverts with bridges that allow for improved passage AlbionRiver
Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
forsalmonids.
ImmediateNeeds RecoveryPartners
SupportMRCeffortstoconductroaddecommissioningandupgrade projects. NMFS
DFG
EmphasizeintroductionofentiretreesalongthemainstemAlbionRivertoimprove MendocinoRedwoodCompany
gravelretentionandoverwinteringhabitat. CountyofMendocino
TroutUnlimited
Identifyandameliorateriparianroadsandsmallwaterdiversionsandotherrural
residentialimpactstoreducecumulativeimpactstocohosalmon.
FinalizeMRCHabitatConservationPlan.
148
Albion River
Priority Areas for
Protection and Restoration
Fork Albion
rth
No
Tom
Be
ll C
k
r Comptche
ve
Alb i on R i
Ma
rs
hC
r ee k
Ra
ilr
So
oa
u th
dG
F or
Albion
ulc
kA
lb
h
i on
City/Town
Coho Intrinsic Potential (IP) Value
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2 0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
IP values represent the historical potential of
channel width, mean annual discharge and Implementation Sequence
gradient to provide suitable habitats and
Central support higher abundances of coho salmon Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
Coast 0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
Coho Salmon 0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
ESU California 0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood Phase II Expansion (2009-2024)
149
CCCCohoSalmon
AlbionRiver
CAPViabilityTableResults

Analyst Source Result Rating Target HabitatAttribute Indicator Poor Fair Good VeryGood
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 3550 Good SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC PSMFCDatabase 91% VeryGood SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers <50%ofIPkm 5070%ofIPkm 7090%ofIPkm >90%ofIPkm
NCWAP DecisionMatrix >90days VeryGood SpawningAdults Passage PassageatMouth <30days 3060days 6090days >90days
SEC CDFGHAB8 8832m2 VeryGood SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <300m2 3003100m2 31006000m2 >6000m2
NMFS BestProf.Judgment <5% Good SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest >10%ofpop. 510% <5%
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 58 Fair Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 5175 Fair Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA Poor Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Bulk) >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 19% Poor Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 67 Fair SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 25.2 Poor SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
SEC CDFGHAB8 8% Poor SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
DoesnotmeetGood 3060%ofIP<15C >60%ofIP<15C
SEC/NMFS ManySources NA Fair SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature >30%ofIP>17CMWMT
orVeryGood MWMT MWMT
SEC CDFGHAB8 25.2 Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%Connected >80%connected
NMFS NCWAP Fair Fair Smolts Estuary Estuary
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 50 Good Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC SWRCB 3.89/10IPkm Fair Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
SEC CDFGHAB8 25.2 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
NMFS BestProf.Judgment 5080% Fair MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
NMFS CDFCWHR 43% Fair MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC NLCDB 0.14% VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Hydrology ImperviousSurfaces >12.01%ofWSbyarea 7.0112% 3.017% 03%
SEC FMMP 0.06 VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 41% Poor MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC ManySources 2.1/100m Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
NMFS BestProf.Judgment 11.3/100m Fair MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
NMFS CDFCWHR >50% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition <25% 2550% >50% HistoricalConditions
NMFS CDFCWHR 43% Fair MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. DBH <39%Class5and6 4054% 5569% >69%
SEC CDFGHAB8 93% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <75%avg.overIPkm 7585% 8595% >95%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 7.7mi/sqmi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6.4mi/sqmi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
NMFS ManySources Good Good MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality Toxicity Acute SublethalorChronic NoAcuteorChronic
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.Judgment 120perIPkm Fair SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity <1perIPkm 120perIPkm 2040perIPkm >40perIPkm
NMFS BestProf.Judgment <0.2fish/m2 Poor SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDensity <0.2fish/m2 0.20.5fish/m2 0.51.0fish/m2 >1.0fish/m2
NMFS BestProf.Judgment 3550% Good SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%

SeeAppendixCforafulldescriptionoftheanalysismethodsfortheViabilityTableReports
*=watershedspecificnumbers
**=Ratingsdefinedbythedistributionofresults
150
Summer Winter Multiple
Spawning
Albion River Threats Across Targets Adults
Eggs Rearing Rearing Smolts Life
Overall Threat
Juveniles Juveniles Stages
Rank
Project-specific threats 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
2 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
3 Droughts Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium
4 Agricultural Practices Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
5 Climate Change Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
6 Fire and Fuel Management Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
7 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
8 Storms and Flooding Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
9 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
13 Mining Medium Low Low Medium Low Low Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - Medium - Low - Low
15 Fishing and Collecting Low - Low Low Low - Low
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture - - - Low Low Low Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High High - - High
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
APTOSCREEK
158
DependentPopulation
AptosCreek 27.35IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Steelheadpresentandcohosalmonextirpated
Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County drains crossings,diversions, and naturalstructures.Aptos

about 24.5 square miles of steep mountainous Creek is outside the ESU for CCC coho salmon,
terrain. Approximately 68 percent of the Aptos although they were present in the watershed
Creekwatershedisredwoodconiferousforestand historically and returning coho to Aptos is
about 11 percent of the watershed area is coastal necessaryforthelongtermviabilityofthisspecies.
oak woodland. The Aptos Creek watershed has
low to moderate erodibility after considering
slope, precipitation, and the susceptibility of
failure of underlying geology. In 2003, the
SWRCB listed the Aptos Creek watershed as
having water quality impaired by pathogens and
WeNeedYour
sediment. The water quality impairment listing
determined that sediment and pathogens were PhotoHere
impairing habitats beneficial to coho salmon
including migration, spawning and rearing
habitats,andidentifiedurbanrunoffduringstorm
events, channel erosion, and disturbed sites from
development as probable causes. Fiftytwo
percentoftheAptosCreekwatershedisprivately
AptosCreek
owned land and includes rural residential Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
development, timber and agricultural lands.
Nisene Marks State Park encompasses the
remaining48percentofthewatershed.Thelower TheWatershedataGlance
portions of the Aptos Creek watershed are
predominantly suburban/urban residential and SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOODtoVERYGOOD
commercial development. Within the past ten SummerWaterTemperatures: FAIR
years, about eight percent of the Aptos Creek Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
watershed has been under a timber harvest plan.
Housing development within the Aptos Creek
watershedismoderatetohighinareasoutsideof RiparianCanopy: FAIRtoGOOD
stateparks;approximately3,000housingunitsare Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
present in the watershed. There are numerous EstuaryFunction: POOR
barrierstosalmonmigrationcausedbyroad
NoData
159
Aptos Creek RecoveryTarget:932AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon Advancingrecoveryofcoho

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninAptosCreekrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: priority recoveryactions:
RoadsandRailroads Disease,Predation,and Promoterestorationprojects
Residentialand Competition designedtocreateorrestorealcove,
CommercialDevelopment ClimateChange
StormsandFlooding backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
LoggingandWood
Droughts Harvesting seasonalpondhabitats.
FireandFuelManagement RecreationalAreasand Identifyhabitatslackinginchannel
Activities complexityandimplement
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon restorationprojectsdesignedto
createorrestorecomplexhabitat
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the
featuresthatprovideforlocalized
AptosCreekwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest
prioritiesforrestorationareto: poolscour,velocityrefuge,and
cover.
Improvespawninghabitat
Enhanceandincreasepoolhabitat Manageriparianareasfortheirsite
Enhanceandincreasetheshelter potentialcompositionandstructure
providedwithinpools We Need wheninitiatingloggingactions.
Increaseandimproveoffchannel Your Photo Maintainintactandproperly
habitat Here functioningriparianbufferstofilter
Improvetheconditionandextent andpreventfinesedimentinput
oftheestuary fromenteringstreams.
Augmenttheamountoflarge
woodinthestream ...throughout theAptosCreek
Decreasethemilesofroads AptosCreek Planningwatershed.
withinthewatershedandlessen
theaffectsofremainingroads
TheCoastalWatershedCouncilmonitorstheAptosCreek
watershedandhasconductedseveralwatershed
assessments
FishpassageimprovementatValenciaCreekculverthas
beencompletedaswellasimprovementstothepipeline
crossingthecreek,therebyallowingbetterfishpassage.
Improvementswerepartiallyfundedbyfinemoniesfrom
aNOAAenforcementcase. CulvertinValenciaCreekretrofittedwitha
newfishladderin2007.
PhotobyRossTaylorandAssociates
RecoveryPartners ImmediateNeeds
CoastalWatershedCouncil Concentrateinthemainsteminitially
CountyofSantaCruz Improveroads
SantaCruzRCD Addstructuralcomplexitytothestreams
NMFS
StateParks
160
Aptos Creek
Priority Areas for
k
ee
Cr
ge
id
Br
Day Valley
Creek
Gulch
Aptos
Trout Creek
City/Town
Area Corralitos
0.01 - 0.34
Soquel of k
Detail C ree 0.35 - 0.69
ia
Fort Bragg l e nc
Va 0.70 - 0.99
Aptos Watershed Boundary
Santa Rosa
Capitola IP values represent the historical potential of
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 1 0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
Miles
161
CCCCohoSalmon
AptosCreek

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <35 VeryGood SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC PSMFCDatabase 33% Poor SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers <50%ofIPkm 5070%ofIPkm 7090%ofIPkm >90%ofIPkm
NCWAP DecisionMatrix 6090days Good SpawningAdults Passage PassageatMouth <30days 3060days 6090days >90days
SEC CDFGHAB8 1820m2 Good SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <200m2 2001300m2 13002500m2 >2500m2
NMFS BestProf.judgment <5% Good SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest >10%ofpop. 510% <5%
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 42 Good Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA Poor Eggs Sediment GravelQuality >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 42 Good SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 38.2 Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
NMFS NCWAP Poor Poor Smolts Estuary Estuary
SEC SWRCB 0.37/10IPkm Good Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
NMFS BestProf.judgment >80% Good MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
NMFS CDFCWHR 68% Good MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC FMMP 1.72% Good MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6% VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC BestProf.judgment NA NA MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
SEC CDFGHAB8 87% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <69%densityDacrossIPkm 7079% >80%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6mi/sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 5.9mi/sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.judgment <1perIPkm Poor SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity <1perIPkm 120perIPkm 2040perIPkm >40perIPkm
NMFS BestProf.judgment <0.2fish/m2 Poor SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDensity <0.2fish/m2 0.20.5fish/m2 0.51.0fish/m2 >1.0fish/m2
<20%IPkm
NMFS BestProf.judgment Poor SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%
occupied

162
Spawning
Aptos Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High High High Very High High Very High
2 Residential and Commercial Development Medium High High High Very High Medium Very High
3 Storms and Flooding Medium High Medium High High High High
4 Droughts Medium Medium Very High Medium Medium Medium High
5 Fire and Fuel Management Medium High High Medium High Medium High
6 Disease, Predation, and Competition High - High - High - High
7 Climate Change Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High High Medium Medium High
9 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium High
10 Agricultural Practices Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Channel Modification Medium Low High Medium Low Medium Medium
12 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
13 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
14 Fishing and Collecting Medium - Medium Low Medium - Medium
16 Mining - - - - - Low Low
Very Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High
High
High
High
High - - Very High
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
BIGRIVER

177
BigRiver 191.8IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
BigRiver drainsapproximately181squaremilesof
the California Coast Range in western Mendocino
County.BigRiverentersthePacificOceanatthetown
ofMendocino.Aneightmilelongestuaryislocatedin
the westernedgeofthe basin.About64percentof the
Big River watershed is redwood coniferous forest and
about 14 percent of the watershed area is montane WeWantYour
hardwood forest. About 72 percent of the Big River PhotoHere
watershedhasmoderatelyhightohigherodibilityafter
considering slope, precipitation, and the susceptibility
of failure of underlying geology. About 77 percent of
theBigRiverwatershedisinprivateownership.Most
of the public land within the watershed is state forest
landsandbothstateparksland.Thedominantlanduse
within the Big River watershed is forestry. Within the
past 10 years, about 14 percent of the Big River
watershed has been under a timber harvest plan. The BigRiver
EPAlistedBigRiver as having water quality impaired
forsedimentandhighwatertemperaturein2001.The
water quality impairment listing determined that
sediment was impairing the migration, spawning, TheWatershedataGlance
reproduction and early development of coho salmon
and other salmonids, and identified nonpoint source SpawningQuantity&Quality: VERYGOOD
forestryastheprobablecause.Sincethen,theEPAhas SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
established a TMDL for the watershed. Housing Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
development within the Big River watershed is LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
moderate about 290 housing units are present in the
watershed. RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
NoData
178
BigRiver RecoveryTarget:5,500AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninBigRiverrequiresthesepriority
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: recoveryactions:
Loggingandwoodharvesting Promoterestorationprojectsdesignedto
createorrestorealcove,backchannel,
Roadsthroughoutthewatershed
ephemeraltributary,orseasonalpond
StormsandFlooding habitats.
Installproperlysizedlargewoodydebris
toappropriatelocations.
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon Decommissionriparianroadsand/or
meansrestoring manykeyhabitatattributeswithintheBig upgraderoads(andskidtrailson
forestlands)thatdeliversedimentto
River watershed that are in poor condition. The highest
adjacentwatercourses.
prioritiesforrestorationareto:
Provideforwatershedprocessesby
Improvepoolhabitat
promotinglongtermsustainableforestry
Increasepoolfrequency practicesthatsupportcohosalmon.
Improvecomplexoff Undertakeafocusedefforttoimprove
channelhabitats roadsandlegacysedimentsourcesto
Reducesourcesofsediment improvefutureinstreamconditions.
Increaselargewoodydebris
...inthesecoreareas: RussellBrook
frequency
CreekareaoftheRussellBrookplanning
Increaseriparianshadeto watershed;DarkGulch,JamesCreek,East
coolstreams FailedroadinBigRiverwatershed BranchNorthForkBigRiver,andBerry
Reducetheamountofroads PhotocourtesyoftheKRISInformationSystem,Big Gulchplanningwatersheds;TwoLogCreek
Riverproject.
neartheriparianarea areaoftheTwoLogCreekplanning
watershed
California State Parks, Blencowe Forestry, Trout Unlimited
(TU), and the NOAA Restoration Center collaborated on
placementoflargewoodydebrisinthewatershed.
YourPhoto
Mendocino Redwood Company, the Conservation Fund,
California State Parks, and Coastal Ridges have upgraded Here
roads, and improved passage at undersized or poorly
designedcrossings.
ImprovedculvertcrossingofJamesCreek.
PhotocourtesyofMendocinoCounty.
ImmediateNeeds RecoveryPartners:
Continuingcollaborativerestorationefforts DFG
Identifyawatershedcoordinatorforthisbasin NOAARestorationCenter
Addressroadsedimentinput CaliforniaStateParks
FinalizeMRCHabitatConservationPlan. Blencowe Forestry
TroutUnlimited
MendocinoLandTrust
179
Willits
Big River
n
Priority Areas for
i
be rla
am
Caspar s
Ch
me
Ja
NF B
ig
E B L i tt l g
e NF
Lo
F
o
eN
Tw
EB N F Bi g
n
rti
Littl
Ma
Mendocino Bi g R i v
er
L a gu n a
Ru
ss
e ll
Broo
k Va
Little River l en
t i ne
Comptche Ra m o n
SF B
ig
Albion
d a
So
Da
ug
he
City/Town
r
ty
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2 0.70 - 0.99
Elk
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coast
0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
ESU California 180
0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood Phase II Expansion (2009-2024)
CCCCohoSalmon
BigRiver

NMFS BestProf.Judgment <5% Good SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest >10%ofpop. 510% <5%
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Good Good Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA Fair Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Bulk) >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 43% Fair Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Fair Fair SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC/NMFS ManySources NA Poor SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature >30%ofIP>17CMWMT
SEC CDFGHAB8 36.9 Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%Connected >80%connected
SEC SWRCB 0.03/10Ipkm Good Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
NMFS BestProf.Judgment 5080% Fair MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
SEC FMMP 0% VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 16% Good MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC ManySources 3/100m Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC BestProf.Judgment NA Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
NMFS CDFCWHR 2550% Fair MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition <25% 2550% >50% HistoricalConditions
NMFS CDFCWHR 34% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. DBH <39%Class5and6 4054% 5569% >69%
SEC CDFGHAB8 83% Fair MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <75%avg.overIPkm 7585% 8595% >95%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6.4mi/sqmi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6.9mi/sqmi Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
NMFS ManySources Fair Fair MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality Toxicity Acute SublethalorChronic NoAcuteorChronic
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.Judgment <1perIPkm Poor SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity <1perIPkm 120perIPkm 2040perIPkm >40perIPkm
NMFS BestProf.Judgment <0.2fish/m2 Poor SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDensity <0.2fish/m2 0.20.5fish/m2 0.51.0fish/m2 >1.0fish/m2
NMFS BestProf.Judgment 2034% Fair SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%

181
Spawning
Big River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High High High High High
2 Roads and Railroads High Medium High Medium Medium High High
3 Storms and Flooding Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium High
5 Channel Modification Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Low Medium Medium Medium - Medium
11 Mining Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low
12 Agricultural Practices Low Low Low Medium Low - Low
13 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Medium Low - Low
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - - - - - Low
15 Fishing and Collecting Low - - Low Low - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High High - - Very High *
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
BIGSALMONCREEK
192
DependentPopulation
BigSalmonCreek 17.0KmofPotentialHabitat
Cohosalmonandsteelheadpresent
Big Salmon Creek drains approximately

13 square miles of the California Coast Range in
western Mendocino County. Big Salmon Creek
entersthePacificOceanabout1milesouthofthe WeNeedYour
communityofAlbion.About71percentoftheBig PhotoHere
Salmon Creek watershed is redwood coniferous
forestandabout16percentofthewatershedarea
isgrasslandorshrubland.Theupperportionsof
the watershed consist of an uplifted marine
terracesupportingapygmyforest.TheentireBig
Salmon Creek watershed has intermediate
BigSalmonCreek
susceptibility to erosion, after considering slope, Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
underlying geology. The entire watershed is in
privateownership.Thedominantlandusewithin
theBigSalmon Creek watershed is forestry. The SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
watershedwasoriginallyloggedinlate1800s,and
more or less continually since, with heavy clear
cuttinginthe1970sand1980s. Within the past Depth&ShelterofPools POORtoFAIR
10years,about20percentoftheBigSalmonCreek LargeWoodFrequency: FAIR
watershed has been under a timber harvest plan. RiparianCanopy: POOR
Housing development within the Big Salmon offchannel/FloodplainQuality: FAIR
Creekwatershedismoderate about270housing
EstuaryFunction: GOOD
unitsarepresentinthewatershed.
NoData
193
BigSalmonCreek RecoveryTarget:578AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninBigSalmonCreekrequiresthese
LoggingandWoodHarvest RoadsandRailroads Construct/createalcoves,backwaters
inareaswherethesehabitatfeatures
arelimitingcarryingcapacity.
Developandimplementlargewoody
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon debrissupplementationprogramsto
increasestreamcomplexityandgravel
meansrestoring manykeyhabitatattributeswithintheBig
retention,andimprovepoolfrequency
Salmon Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
anddepth.
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto:
Improvegravelqualityby Discouragehomebuildingorother
reducingsedimentinputs incompatiblelanduseinareas
identifiedastimberproductionzones.
Decreaserateoftimberharvest
Increasepoolhabitatcomplexity
WeNeedYour Limitwinteruseofunsurfaced roads
Increasesizeofripariantrees
PhotoHere andrecreationaltrailsby
Increaseriparianshadingtocool unauthorizedindividualsand
streams impactingusestodecreasefine
Reduceriparianandwatershed sedimentloads.
roaddensity
...throughout theBigSalmonCreek
Decreasesourcesofsediment
watershed.
BigSalmonCreek
TheConservationFundrecentlypurchasedfrom
HawthorneTimberCompany,4,350acretractoftimber
andplansonimplementingpracticestodecreasethe WeNeedYour
intensityofharvests,increasethetimebetweenharvests PhotoHere
andwidenriparianbuffers.
HawthorneTimberCompanyhasundertakenplacement
BigSalmonCreek
oflargewoodydebrisstructuresandsediment Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
remediationprojects.
Identifyandaddresssourcesofsedimentinputtostreamsfrom roads. DFG
Protectexistingstreamflows. TheConservationFund
HawthorneTimberCompany
194
Big Salmon Creek
Priority Areas for
Albion
Litt
le S
Hazel Gulch
a lm
o n C r eek
e k
n Cr e
lm o
Sa
g
Bi
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Miles Watershed Boundary
Central
support higher abundances of coho salmon Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
Coast
0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
195
CCCCohoSalmon
BigSalmonCreek

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <35 VeryGood SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 100900m2 Fair SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <100m2 100900m2 9001900m2 >1900m2
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <35 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 50 Good Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 77% Good Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 34 Poor SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
SEC CDFGHAB8 34 Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
NMFS NCWAP Good Good Smolts Estuary Estuary
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <35 VeryGood Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 34 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
NMFS BestProf.judgment 5080% Fair MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 20.0% Poor MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC BestProf.judgment NA Fair MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC CDFGHAB8 33% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <45%avg.overIPkm 7585% 8595% >95%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 7.5mi/sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6.1mi/sq.mi Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.judgment 120perIPkm Fair SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity <1perIPkm 120perIPkm 2040perIPkm >40perIPkm
NMFS BestProf.judgment 3550% Good SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%

196
Spawning
Big Salmon Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High Medium Medium Medium Very High High
2 Droughts Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
3 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
4 Climate Change Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
5 Fire and Fuel Management Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
6 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
7 Storms and Flooding Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Channel Modification Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Mining Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium
12 Agricultural Practices Low - Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
13 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - Medium - Low - Medium
14 Livestock Farming and Ranching - Low Low Low Low - Low
15 Fishing and Collecting - - Low Low Low - Low
Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High High High High
High
- - Very High
197
198
199
200
201
CASPARCREEK
202
203
CasparCreek RecoveryTarget: 435AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninCasparCreekrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Restorationprojectsthatupgradeor
LoggingandWoodHarvesting decommissionhighriskroadsinCore
RoadsandRailroads Area.
Installorenhanceexistingwoodydebris,
boulders,andotherfeaturestoincrease
streamcomplexityandimprovepool
frequencyanddepth.
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon Implementprojectsthatimprovehabitat
complexity.
Caspar Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The ImplementtheJacksonDemonstration
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: StateForestRoadManagementPlan.
Establishamoratoriumonnewroad
Improvegravelqualityby constructioninsensitiveareasuntila
reducingsedimentinputs watershedroadmanagementplanis
createdandimplemented.
Reducesourcesofsediment
Identifyincentivestorestorehighpriority
andincreasenumberof
WeNeed sitesasdeterminedbywatershedanalysis,
Your DFG,ortheJacksonDemonstrationState
pools
Photo ForestEIR.
channelhabitatand Here ...throughout theCasparCreek
floodplainconnectivity watershed.
inandneartheriparian
zoneandthroughoutthe
CasparCreek
watershed Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
Watershed restoration and research actions by the
WeNeed
California State Parks, Mendocino Land Trust, JDSF,
and US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research YourPhoto
Station. Here
CohosalmonlifecyclestationoperatedbyDFG.
CasparCreek
ImmediateNeeds RecoveryPartners:
Continuecollaborativewatershedrestorationandresearchactions NMFS
ImplementtheJDSFRoadManagementPlan DFG
Continueeffortstoplacelargewoodydebrisstructuresinstreamsthroughoutthe CaliforniaStateParks
watershed MendocinoLandTrust
Controlinvasiveplantspecies JacksonDemonstrationStateForest
ProtecttheSitkaspruceassourceofLWD USFSPacificSouthwestResearchStation
Continueongoingfishsamplingefforts
204
Caspar Creek
Priority Areas for
Caspar
Ca
sp a
r Cree
k
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient Implementation Sequence
to provide suitable habitats and support higher
Central
Mendocino abundances of coho salmon Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
205
CCCCohoSalmon
CasparCreek

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 33 VeryGood SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <36 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC/NMFS ManySources NA Good SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature >30%ofIP>17CMWMT
SEC CDFGHAB8 52.3 Fair WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix VeryGood VeryGood Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC SWRCB 0/10IPkm VeryGood Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
SEC ManySources 13.3/100m VeryGood MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
NMFS CDFCWHR 56% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. DBH <39%Class5and6 4054% 5569% >69%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 5.1mi./sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 5.8me./sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.judgment 0.20.5fish/m2 Fair SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDensity <0.2fish/m2 0.20.5fish/m2 0.51.0fish/m2 >1.0fish/m2
NMFS BestProf.judgment >50% VeryGood SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%

206
Spawning
Caspar Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High Medium Medium Medium Very High High
2 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium High Medium Medium Medium High High
3 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
5 Climate Change Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
6 Droughts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
7 Storms and Flooding Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
8 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low Medium Medium Medium - Medium
10 Channel Modification Medium Low Low Medium Low Low Medium
12 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Medium Low - Low
13 Mining Low Low Low Medium Low - Low
14 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - - Low Low Low Low
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - Low - Low - Low
16 Fishing and Collecting - - Low Low Low - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium High Medium High High High - - High
207
Table
208
209
210
211
212
213
COTTANEVACREEK
214
DependentPopulation
Cottaneva Creek 13.8IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Cottaneva Creek drains about 17

squaremilesofwesternMendocinoCounty
andentersthePacificOceanabout25miles
north of thetownofFort Bragg. About 73
percent of the Cottaneva Creek watershed
is redwood forest and about 21 percent is
either montane or riparian hardwood
forest. The entire Cottaneva Creek
watershed has highly erodible soils. The
entire watershed is in private ownership.
The dominant land use within the
watershed is forestry. The first sawmill at
Cottaneva Creek started in 1877. Various
timber harvesting operations occurred in
Cottaneva Creekestuaryandlowerwatershed.
Cottaneva Creek over subsequent years. Copyright (C) 20022009 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project,
The Mendocino Redwood Company www.Californiacoastline.org.
(MRC), purchased approximately 75

percent of the watershed in 1998. MRC TheWatershedataGlance
currently manages the land for sustained
timber harvest. Recreational use of the SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoGOOD
watershed includes fishing, hunting, and
mushroom gathering. Housing
development within the watershed is Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
uncommon only15housesarepresent. LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
RiparianCanopy: GOOD
Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
NoData
215
Cottaneva Creek RecoveryTarget: 469AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninCottaneva Creekrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Installlargewood,boulders,andother
LoggingandWoodHarvesting structurestoincreasestreamcomplexity
RoadsandRailroads andimprovepoolfrequencyanddepth.
Promoterestorationprojectsdesignedto
createorrestorealcoveandbackchannel
habitats,includingprojectsthatwill
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon providefunctioninghabitatatflows
intermediatebetweenwinterbaseflow
andfloodstage.
Cottaneva Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
Decommissionriparianroadsystems
Reducesourcesofsediment and/orupgraderoadsandskidtrailsthat
deliversedimenttostreams.
andincreasenumberof
pools Provideforwatershedprocessesby
Increaselargewoodin promotinglongtermsustainableforestry
streams practicesthatsupportcohosalmon
channelhabitatand Treathighpriorityroads,culverts,road
floodplainconnectivity slidesandlandingstoreducesediment
Reducetheamountofroads inputtostreams.
Cottaneva Creek
inandneartheriparian Photo MendocinoRedwoodCompany
zoneandthroughoutthe
watershed ...throughout theCottaneva Creek
watershed.
WeNeed
YourPhoto
Here
Cottaneva Creek
ImplementrestorationactionsdescribedintheMendocinoRedwoodCompany NMFS
watershedanalysis. DFG
TroutUnlimited
IncorporatefishsensitivemethodsintomaintenanceofHighway 1,including MendocinoRedwoodCompany
improvementstotheDunnCreekculvertunderHighway1.
CalTrans
Describethecurrentconditionoftheestuaryandidentifyrestorationactions.
216
Cottaneva Creek
Priority Areas for
Du n
n
Cr
e k
ee
Cr
ek
va
en
tta
Co
NF
Cot
ta n e
va
C r ee
k
City/Town
va Creek
Rockport ne Watershed Boundary
tta
Area Co Coho Intrinsic Potential (IP) Value
SF
of
Detail 0.01 - 0.34
Fort Bragg
0.35 - 0.69
Santa Rosa
0.70 - 0.99
Central abundances of coho salmon Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 1 2170.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
CottanevaCreek

NMFS BestProf.judgment 510% Fair SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest >10%ofpop. 510% <5%
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix VeryGood VeryGood Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 33 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA Fair Eggs Sediment GravelQuality >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Good Good SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix VeryGood VeryGood Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 28% Fair MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC ManySources 0.7/100m% Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 6.8.i/sq/mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.judgment 2034% Fair SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%

218
Spawning
Cottaneva Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
High
2 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low High Medium Medium High High
3 Droughts Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium
4 Storms and Flooding Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
5 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
13 Agricultural Practices Medium Low Medium Medium Medium - Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - Low - Medium - Medium
15 Fishing and Collecting Medium - Low Low Low - Low
Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High
High
- - Very High
219
220
221
222
GARCIARIVER
223
GarciaRiver 76.0IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Garcia River drains about 114 square miles of

western Mendocino County, and enters the Pacific
OceanaboutfivemilesnorthofPointArena.About51
percent of the Garcia River watershed is redwood
coniferousforest,about15percentisDouglasfirforest,
andabout18percentofthewatershedareaismontane
hardwood forest. Approximately 57 percent of the
watershedhasintermediatesusceptibilitytosoilerosion
andtheremaining43percent hashighsusceptibilityto
erosion. The EPA determined the Garcia River as
havingimpaired water quality, and that sedimentation
was impairing salmonids and their habitat. The EPA
establishedaTMDLforthewatershedin2002.Mostof
theGarciaRiverwatershedisprivatelyowned;lessthan
onepercentofthewatershediseitherstateparklandor
federalforest.ThedominantlandusewithintheGarcia
Riverwatershedisforestry,thoughsomelandsareused GarciaRiver.
PhotoprovidedbyKRISInformationSystem,andisusedwithpermission
foragricultureandgravelmining.LoggingintheGarcia
Riverwatershedbeganinthelate1800s;severalrounds
of harvest of second growth timber have occurred; TheWatershedataGlance
approximately 52 percent of the basin was harvested
between1987and1997.Withinthepast10years,about SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
20 percent of the Garcia River watershed has been
SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
under a timber harvest plan. Housing development
within the Garcia River watershed is moderate; Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
approximately 380 housing units are present in the LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
watershed. There are no dams within the watershed RiparianCanopy: FAIR
that impede or block salmon migration, though there Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
are at least 34 partial barriers to salmon migration
caused by diversions, road crossings, and natural
barriers.Impassablebarriersblocksalmonidsfromless
than10percentofthewatershed.
NoData NoData
224
GarciaRiver RecoveryTarget: 2,800AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninGarciaRiverrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: ReestablishconnectivityoflowerNorth
LoggingandWoodHarvesting Agriculture ForkGarciaRivertothemainstem.
RoadsandRailroads Droughts
InstallorenhanceexistingLWD,boulders,
andotherfeaturestoincreasestream
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon complexityandimprovepoolfrequency
anddepth.Implementprojectsthat
improvehabitatcomplexity.
GarciaRiverwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest
Increasepoolhabitat Undertakerestorationprojectsthat
complexityandfrequencyof upgradeordecommissionhighriskroads
pools throughoutthecoreareas.
channelhabitat Maintainthefollowingtributariesto
Increasethefrequencyof Weneedyour providecoldwaterinputtotheGarcia
largewoodydebrisin Rivermainstem:Hathaway,NorthFork,
streams
photohere. RollingBrook,MillCreek(lowerGarcia
River),SouthFork,Signal,MillCreek
Increaseriparianshadeto
(upperGarciaRiver).
coolstreams
Reduceroaddensityin ...inthesecoreareas: NorthFork
riparianareasandacrossthe GarciaRiver,SouthForkGarciaRiver,
watershed. SignalCreek,andInmanCreekplanning
GarciaRiver
Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL watersheds.
The Conservation Fund (TCF) and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) purchased ~ 24,000 acres of the
Garcia River watershed, and will manage the property
forsustainableforestry.
Trout Unlimited (TU), MRC, TCF, Mendocino County
Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board, and TNC have
undertakenvariousstreamrestorationactions.
InstallingLWDinGarciaRiver
Established Salmonid Restoration Federation Field Photo provided by KRIS Information System, and is used with
permission
School
Continueeffectivecollaborativerestorationefforts. AmeriCorps
Developandimplementlifecycleandabundancestudies. CaliforniaConservationCorps
Identifyfloodplainactionsneededtoimprovehabitat. MendocinoCountyFishandWildlifeAdvisoryBoard
FinalizeMRCHabitatConservationPlan. TCF
TNC
TU
MRC
SalmonidRestorationFederationFieldSchool
RWQCB
225
Garcia River
Priority Areas for
Boonville
Manchester
H
a th a ia
wa G a rc
NF
y
Point Arena
In m
L ee
k
ro o an
G
ng B
ar
cia
olli
Ri
R
ve
r
Signal
SF
Ga
City/Town
rc
ia

Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0.70 - 0.99
e
Watershed Boundary
Santa Rosa pi l
IP values represent the historical potential of o ck
channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient R Implementation Sequence
California
Santa Cruz Gualala
Coho Salmon 0 2 226
0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
Miles
e
CCCCohoSalmon
GarciaRiver

NMFS BestProf.judgment >10%ofpop. Poor SpawningAdults Viability FreshwaterHarvest >10%ofpop. 510% <5%
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC FMMP 0.88% VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
SEC ManySources 3.7/100 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

227
Spawning
Garcia River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High High Medium Medium High
2 Storms and Flooding Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
4 Mining Medium Low Low Medium Medium High Medium
5 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Channel Modification Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Agricultural Practices Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
13 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium
14 Fishing and Collecting Medium - - Low Medium Medium Medium
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - - - - Low Low
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture - - - Low Low - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High High - - Very High *
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
GAZOSCREEK
236
DependentPopulation
GazosCreek 8.2IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Cohosalmonextirpatedandsteelheadpresent
Gazos Creek drains approximately 12

square miles of the Santa Cruz Mountains in
western San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.
Gazos Creek enters the Pacific Ocean about 25
milesnorthofSantaCruz.About65percentof
the Gazos Creek watershed is redwood
coniferous forest and about 24 percent of the
watershed is shrubland. Gazos Creek flows
through deep canyons developed in chalk
rock fracturedmudstonesoftheSantaCruz
formation.Streamsdrainingthechalkrockare
sustained by seepage of cool, lowsalinity,
slightly alkaline waters, rich in naturally
occurring phosphates and other nutrients.
Sustained seepage continues to emanate from GazosCreek
Photo USGS
the deep fractures through multiyear
droughts. The unusual setting of the chalks
offers a more resilient environment for
salmonids than do the sandy or decomposed
SpawningQuantity&Quality FAIRtoGOOD
granitewatershedselsewhereintheSantaCruz
Mountains. In the lower watershed, the SummerWaterTemperatures FAIR
landscape includes rolling grassland hills, Depth&ShelterofPools FAIR
coastalshrubandagriculturallands.Acoastal LargeWoodFrequency POORtoGOOD
lagoon with public access is present at the RiparianCanopy GOOD
mouthofthecreek.(CWC2003).
Offchannel/FloodplainQuality POOR
EstuaryFunction POOR
NoData
237
Gazos Creek RecoveryTarget:279AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninGazosCreekrequiresthese
RoadsandRailroads
Disease,Predation,Competition
Maintaininstreamstructuresto
preservewoodydebrismaterial
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the Promoteandcontinue
GazosCreekwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest implementation,viatechnical
prioritiesforrestorationareto: assistanceand/orregulatoryactions
forthereductionofroadsand
Increasespawninghabitat
railroadsnearstreams
Improveandincrease
frequencyofpools ...throughout theGazosCreek
Increasetheamountoflarge watershed.
woodinstreams
Increasethenumberofoff
channelhabitats
Enhancehydrologic
connectivity
Decreasethenumberof
roadsnearthestreamand RoadfailureadjacenttoGazosCreek
PhotobyJerrySmith,SJSU
reduceimpactsfrom
remainingroads
We Need Your
AnnualjuvenileabundancesurveysconductedbySan
Photo Here
JoseStateUniversityfacultyandstudentsprovides
importantpopulationdataoncohosalmonintheWaddell
Creekwatershed.
GazosCreek
Photo yourname,AFFIL
MaintaincurrentinstreamLWD
NPS
SanMateoRCD
SanJoseStateUniv. RepairroadsinOldWomansCreek
DFG
SanMateoCounty
238
Gazos Creek
Priority Areas for
k
ee
Cr
Gaz os
k
r ee
O
ld
W o ma n sC
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 239
CCCCohoSalmon
GazosCreek

1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 6080 Fair SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
SEC CDFGHAB8 <60avg.rating Fair SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
SEC CDFGHAB8 Poor Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 58 Fair Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC SWRCB 17.16/10IPkm Poor Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
SEC CDFGHAB8 <60avg.rating Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
NMFS BestProf.judgment <50% Poor MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
SEC BestProf.judgment NA Good MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC ManySources 8.8 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
SEC CDFGHAB8 7080% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <69%densityDacrossIPkm 7079% >80%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 2mi/sq.mi. Good MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
NMFS BestProf.judgment Fair SummerRearing Viability JuvenileDistribution <20%IPkmoccupied 2034% 3550% >50%
occupied

240
Spawning
Gazos Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High Medium High High High High
2 Disease, Predation, and Competition High - Medium - High - High
3 Droughts Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium
5 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
9 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Storms and Flooding Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
13 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Fishing and Collecting - - - Low Medium - Low
16 Mining - Low - - - - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High High High High High - - Very High
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
GUALALARIVER
248
GualalaRiver 251.6IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Gualala River drains approximately 298 square

milesofwesternMendocinoandSonomacounties,and
enters the Pacific Ocean at Gualala. During summer
months,asandbartypicallyformsacrossthemouthof
theestuarywhichblockstheflowoftidewatercreating
a coastal lagoon. Approximately 52 percent of the
GualalaRiverwatershedisconiferousforest(redwood,
36percent,andDouglasfir,11percent),~31percentis
montanehardwood,and16percentisannualgrassland.
Twentynine percent of the watershed has very low to
intermediate susceptibility to soil erosion, while the
remaining 71 percent has moderatelyhigh to high
susceptibilitytoerosion.TheEPAlistedtheGualalaas
having water quality impaired for sediment, and
identifiedfromtimber harvest as the maincontributor.
TheEPAestablishedaTMDLforthe watershed. Most
oftheGualalaRiverwatershedisprivatelyowned;less GualalaRiver.
thanonepercentisstateparklandorownedbytheU.S. PhotobyBobCoey,NMFS.
BureauofIndianAffairs.Landuseinthewatershedis
dominatedbytimberproduction,whichbeganin1862. TheWatershedataGlance
Within the past ten years, about 13 percent of the
watershed has been under a timber harvest plan. SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
AgricultureisasignificantlanduseintheGualala,with
vineyardsbecomingincreasinglywidespreadaswellas
instream gravel mining Housing development within Depth&ShelterofPools: POORtoGOOD
the watershed is moderately low; approximately 890 LargeWoodFrequency: GOOD
housing units are present in the watershed. There are RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
46 barriers within the watershed that impede or block offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoGOOD
salmon migration caused by dams, diversions, road
crossings, and natural barriers. Impassable barriers
block salmonids for less than ten percent of the
watershed.
NoData
249
GualalaRiver RecoveryTarget: 6,200AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninGualalaRiverrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Decommissionriparianroadsystems
LoggingandWoodHarvesting Agriculture and/orupgraderoads(andskidtrailson
RoadsandRailroads Droughts forestlands)thatdeliversedimentto
adjacentwatercoursestodecreasefine
sediment.
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the Identifyhighprioritybarriersandrestore
Gualala River watershed that are in poor condition. The passageperNMFSfishpassage
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: guidelines.
Increasepoolhabitatcomplexity
andfrequencyofpools WorkwithSWRCBandlandownerstore
Increasefrequencyofoff establishingbaseflowsthroughoutthe
channelhabitat year.Identifyunauthorizedwateruses
andnoncompliantbypassflowstoprotect
Increasetheamountoflarge
coldwaterinputtothemainstemand
woodydebrisinstreams
estuaries.
Increaseriparianshadetocool
streams
Conductprogramstopurchasewater
Reduceroaddensityinriparian
rightstoimprovesurfacestreamflows.
areasandacrossthewatershed.
Improvegravelquality(high
Wideandshallowriffleinthe
loadsoffinesediment) GualalaRiver ...inthesecoreareas: Robinson
Photo provided by KRIS Information System,
Increasesizeofripariantrees andisusedwithpermission
CreekandDotyCreekplanning
Reduceturbidity watersheds.
The Gualala River Watershed Council (GRWC) has worked
withlandownerstoconductsedimentreductionprojectsthat
have prevented more than 15,000 dump truck loads of
sedimentfrompollutingstreams.
GRWC has installed 70 stream temperature monitoring WeNeed
stationsthroughoutthewatershed. YourPhoto
GRWC conducts annual surveys of fish and aquatic and Here
riparian habitat. GRWC completed the first scientific study
oftheGualalaRiverEstuary. GualalaRiver
Gualala Redwood Company has installed many instream
LWDstructuresontheNorthForkGualalaRiver
ContinueeffectiveGRWCcollaborativerestorationeffortstoreducesedimentinputsto NMFS
streams. DFG
GualalaRiverWatershedCouncil
Watershedstakeholdersneedtoconveneagrouptoaddresswater diversionissuesand GualalaRedwoodCompany
developalternativestoreduceimpactstostreambaseflow,includingalternativefrost
protectionactions,andprogramstopurchasewaterrights.
SupporttheongoingeffortsoftheGualalaRedwoodsCompanyto increaseLWDabundance,
andtoupgradeordecommissionroads.
250
Gualala River
Priority Areas for
Be
ar
Dry
ty
a
Do
a lal
Li
ttl
NF G u
e
Cloverdale
NF
Gu
ye
a
ke
la l
uc
Os
a
se
FB
la r
Gualala la
ua
N
G ckpile Cre k
e
Ro B
uc
k ey e
Tombs
W Fuller
h ea
tfi
e
W o lf
ld
Fo
rk
se
Ha ou
H
up
t eld
City/Town
SF
n fi
Gu
Da
Pe
p
al
0.01 - 0.34
al
erwoo
p
a
d
Area 0.35 - 0.69
of
Detail 0.70 - 0.99
M
ar
Fort Bragg
Non IP, Migration Corridor Only
sh
0 2.5
all
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz
Coast 0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood
251 Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
CCCCohoSalmon
GualalaRiver

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 58 Fair SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 7,817m2 Fair SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <1100m2 11008600m2 860016100m2 >16100m2
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
NMFS CDFCWHR 35% Poor MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC ManySources 6.4 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

252
Spawning
Gualala River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High High Medium Medium High
High
2 Agricultural Practices Medium High Medium Medium Medium High High
3 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
13 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
14 Fishing and Collecting Medium - Medium Low Low - Medium
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture - - Medium Low Low Low Low
16 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - Medium - - - Low
Very
High
- - Very High
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
LAGUNITASRIVER
261
LagunitasCreek 70.3KmofPotentialHabitat
Cohosalmon,steelhead,andChinooksalmonpresent
LagunitasCreek drains approximately109

square miles of western Marin County, and
empties into Tomales Bay. The Lagunitas Creek
watershed is about 35 percent grasslands, 28
percentmontaneorriparianhardwoodforest,and
about 22 percent is redwood coniferous forest.
The upper portions of the Nicasio Creek
subwatershed are dominated by grassland
habitats while the main stem of Lagunitas Creek,
San Geronimo Creek, and Olema Creek, are
dominated by forested habitats. The Lagunitas
Creek watershed has moderate erodibility after
considering slope, precipitation, and the
susceptibility of failure of underlying geology.
Fortyeight percent of the Lagunitas Creek
watershed is in private ownership. Local water LagunitasCreek
districtlands,nationalparksandopenspacemake
up the remaining area of the watershed. Land
uses within the watershed include municipal
water supply reservoirs, agriculture, rural
SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOODtoVERYGOOD
residentialdevelopment,andrecreation.Housing
development within the Lagunitas Creek SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
watershedislowtomoderate,approximately2600 Depth&ShelterofPools POORtoGOOD
housingunitsarepresentinthewatershed.There LargeWoodFrequency: POORtoFAIR
are21damswithinthewatershedthatimpedeor RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
block salmon migration, and numerous partial
offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
barriers to salmon migration caused by road
crossings, and diversions. Impassable barriers EstuaryFunction: FAIR
blocksalmonidsfrommorethan50percentofthe
watershed, more than any other of the 28 focus
watershedsidentifiedinthisrecoveryplan.
262
Lagunitas Creek RecoveryTarget:2,600AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninLagunitasCreekrequiresthese
Droughts AgriculturalPractices Increasethefrequencyand
Residentialand WaterDiversionand functionalityofoffchannelhabitats.
CommercialDevelopment Impoundments Promote,viatechnicalassistance
ClimateChange ChannelModification and/orregulatoryaction,the
RoadsandRailroads reductionofwateruseaffectingthe
naturalhydrograph,developmentof
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon alternativewatersources,and
implementationofdiversionregimes
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the protectiveofthenaturalhydrograph.
Lagunitas Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
Maintainandrestorehydrologic
function,protectriparianand
Increasespawninghabitat floodplainareas,andminimize
Removebarriers adverseeffectstowaterqualityand
Improvepoolhabitat instreamrearinghabitatsresulting
fromcommercialandurban
Increaseandimproveoff development.
channel
habitattypes Createpassagetocurrently
inaccessiblespawningandrearing
Increasetheamountof habitatsabovemajordams.
largewoodinstreams
Improveriparianshadingto ...inthesecoreareas: SanGeronimo
PetersDamlocatedonLagunitas
coolstreams Creek Creek,OlemaCreek,ChedaCreekand
PhotoprovidedbyKRISInformation System, and is lowerLagunitasCreekfloodplainand
Decreasethenumberofroads usedwithpermission
estuarineareas.
nearthestreamandreduce
impactsfromremainingroads
Extensivemonitoringactivitiesareconductedin
LagunitasbyMarinMunicipalWaterDistrict,SPAWN,
andtheNationalParkService.Lagunitashasoneofthe
mostrobustdatasetsforCCCcohosalmon.
TheCountyofMarinandtheNPShaveremediated
severalpassagebarriersintheLagunitasCreekwatershed.
SPAWNisalsoinvolvedinsedimentremediation
activities. MonitoringinLagunitasCreek
Continuemonitoring TomalesBayWatershedCouncil
Lifecyclemonitoring:Lagunitas/Olema MMWD
ExpandmonitoringtoestuaryandTomalesBay SPAWN
NPS
CountyofMarin
CaliforniaStateParks
263
Lagunitas Creek
Priority
BlackAreas
Point for
Inverness
Point Reyes Station Ignacio

eck
Hall
Nic
as
La
io
gu
nit
h
as
u lc
sG
Cr
vil
e
De
ek
Lucas Valley
San Geron imo

Ol
Lagunitas Terra Linda

em
a
Woodacre
Cr
ee
k
Fairfax
San Anselmo San Rafael

City/Town
Ross Coho Intrinsic Potential (IP) Value
0.01 - 0.34
Area 0.35 - 0.69
of
Detail 0.70 - 0.99
Fort Bragg
0 2 Coho IP Not Considered
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
Central abundances of coho salmon
Bolinas Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
Strawberry
Coho Salmon 0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood 264
CCCCohoSalmon
LagunitasCreek

SEC PSMFCDatabase 32% Poor SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers <50%ofIPkm 5070%ofIPkm 7090%ofIPkm >90%ofIPkm
SEC CDFGHAB8 303m2 Poor SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <600m2 6006100m2 610011700m2 >11700m2
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA Good Eggs Sediment GravelQuality >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 4% Good SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
SEC CDFGHAB8 0.03% Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 33 VeryGood Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
NMFS CDFCWHR Good MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC NLCDB 0.42% Good MultipleLifeStages Hydrology ImperviousSurfaces >12.01%ofWSbyarea 7.0112% 3.017% 03%
SEC FMMP 12.48% Fair MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
SEC BestProf.judgment NA Fair MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 2.2mi/sq.mi. Good MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

NMFS BestProf.judgment 2040perIPkm Good SpawningAdults Viability AdultDensity <1perIPkm 120perIPkm 2040perIPkm >40perIPkm

265
Spawning
Lagunitas Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low High High Medium High
High
Very
2 Droughts Medium Low High Medium Medium High
High
3 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium High Medium High High
4 Climate Change Medium Low High Medium Medium High High
5 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium High Medium High High
6 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low High Medium Medium High High
7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Storms and Flooding Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - - - Low - Low
16 Fishing and Collecting - - - Low Low - Low
Very Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Low
High
High High
High
- - Very High
266
267
268
269
270
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
NAVARRORIVER
280
DependentPopulation
NavarroRiver 17.0Kmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Navarro River drains approximately 315

square miles of western Mendocino County.
Navarro River enters the Pacific Ocean about
fifteen miles south of the town of Mendocino.
Approximately 41 percent of the Navarro River
watershedisredwood,ninepercentisDouglasfir
forest, 26 percent is montane hardwood, and 15
percent is annual grassland. The entire Navarro
Riverwatershedhasmoderatetohigherodibility.
In 2000 the EPA established a TMDL for the
Navarro as water quality was impaired for
sediment and temperature. About 98 percent of
the watershedisinprivate ownership; about two
percent of the watershed is state park land, state
wildlifelands,orfederalforestandgrazinglands. NavarroRiver estuary
Landuseinthewatershedisdominatedbytimber
production,though agricultureisalsoprominent.
Timber harvesting began in the Navarro TheWatershedataGlance
watershed during the mid1800s, and a second
loggingboomoccurredfromthe1930stotheearly SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
1950s.Withinthepast10 years,about15percent SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
oftheNavarroRiverwatershedhasbeenundera Depth&ShelterofPools POORtoGOOD
timber harvest plan. Housing development LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
withintheNavarroRiverwatershedismoderately
RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
low;approximately1280housingunitsarepresent
inthe watershed.There aresixdams withinthe offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoFAIR
watershed that impede or block salmon EstuaryFunction: FAIR
migration,inaddition,therearenumerouspartial
barriers to salmon migration caused by
diversions, road crossings, and natural barriers.
Impassable barriers block salmonids for less than
tenpercentofthewatershed.
NoData
281
NavarroRiver RecoveryTarget:5,700AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninNavarroRiverrequiresthese
StormsandFlooding RoadsandRailroads Installlargewoodydebrisstructures
Drought andotherfeaturestoincreasestream
complexityandimprovepool
frequencyanddepth.
Navarro River watershed that are in poor condition. The Identifyandimplementwater
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: conservationmeasures.Identifyand
eliminateunauthorizedwateruses.
Increasepoolhabitat
complexity
WorkwithSWRCBandlandownersto
Increaseriparianshadeto
improvebasestreamflow.Develop
coolstreams
andimplementalternativefrost
Increasefrequencyofoff protectionstrategiesthatare
channelhabitat protectiveofsalmonids.
Managestreamflowto
reducereddscour
Forallruralroadsapplytestedand
Increasestreambaseflow approvedbestmanagementpractices
IncreasefrequencyofLWD forroadmaintenanceand
Photoshowingpoorconditionsin
Increasesizeofripariantrees AndersonCreek decommissioning.
PhotobyTomDaugherty,NMFS
Reduceroaddensityin ...inthese coreareas: FlynnCreek,
riparianareasandacrossthe JohnSmithCreek,LowerSouthBranch
watershed NavarroRiver,andtheNorthFork
Decreasesourcesofsediment NavarroRiverplanningwatersheds.
MRChasworkedwithTUandNMFStoimprove coho
salmon habitat, by replacing large culverts at John
SmithCreekandconductingroadupgrades.
Mendocino County RCD and NRCS continue to work
with private landowners to conduct road upgrade and
sedimentreduction projects throughout the watershed.
Also, these agencies work with landowners to conduct CulvertthatwasremovedonJohnSmithCreek
streamimprovementprojects,suchasriparianplanting,
andbankprotectionprojects.
CooperatewiththeMendocinoRCDandNRCStominimizeimpactsofprivateroadsand NMFS
agriculturalactivities. DFG
MendocinoCountyRCD
MRCfinalizeitsproposedHabitatConservationPlanandcontinuerestorationeffortsontheir NRCS
landsthatprovidecurrentandpotentialhabitatforcohosalmon. MRC
TU
WorkwithwaterdivertersalongtributariessuchasFloodgateCreek,IndianCreekandMillCreek
tomaintainapopulationofcohosalmoninthewatershedareaabovetheNorthForkconfluence.
ConductanassessmentoffloodplainandcohosalmonoverwinteringpotentialoftheHighway
128corridorandimplementactionstoimproveoverwinteringhabitatimpactedbythehighway.
282
Comptche Redwood Valley
Navarro River
Calpella
mith
Albion Priority Areas for
Joh n S
Littl e NF
Fly
Cook
nn
SBNF Nava Ukiah
rr o
Elk
Mill
Na
va
rro
R iv
er India
n
Philo
I ta
An
lia
d
n
er
so
n
Ho Boonville
rs Ra
e nc
he
ie r ia
n
Hopland
in
Manchester
M
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
Point Arena
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 5 0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 283
CCCCohoSalmon
NavarroRiver

SEC CDFGHAB8 126,528m2 VeryGood SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <900m2 9007800m2 780014800m2 >14800m2
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 76.5 Poor Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 92 Poor SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC BestProf.judgment NA Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


284
Spawning
Navarro River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Very High High
2 Storms and Flooding Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
4 Agricultural Practices Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
5 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
10 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
11 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
13 Mining Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low
14 Fishing and Collecting Medium - - Low Low - Low
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - - - - - Low
Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High
High
- - Very High
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
NOYORIVER
295
NoyoRiver 118.0IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
TheNoyoRiver drainsapproximately113square
miles of western Mendocino County, and enters the
Pacific Ocean at the town of Fort Bragg. The Noyo
River estuary is tidal and controlled by concrete
breakwaters on both sides of the harbor entrance. The
harbor supports the only major fishing fleet between
BodegaBayandEureka.About71percentoftheNoyo
Riverwatershedischaracterizedasredwoodconiferous
forest.Atleast49percentoftheNoyoRiverwatershed
has moderate to high erodibility. The EPA listed the
Noyo River as water quality impaired for sediment in
2001, and determined that sediment was impairing
salmonids and identified nonpoint source silviculture
as the probable cause. The EPA has established a
TMDL for the watershed. Eightyone percent of the
Noyo River watershed privately owned; the remaining
19 percent is stateowned forest lands. The dominant NoyoRiverharbor
Copyright (C) 20022009 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records
land use within the Noyo River watershed is forestry. Project,www.Californiacoastline.org.
Withinthepastten years,about21percentoftheNoyo
Riverwatershed has been under atimber harvestplan.
Housing development within the Noyo River TheWatershedataGlance
watershed is moderate about 1200 housing units are
present in the watershed. The town of Fort Braggs SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOODtoVERYGOOD
water supply originates from the Noyo River
(NCRWQCB2005).
Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
RiparianCanopy: FAIR
296
Noyo River RecoveryTarget: 4,000AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninNoyo Riverrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Addresshighpriorityslidesandlandings
Loggingandwoodharvesting identifiedintheMRCNoyo River
Roadsandrailroads WatershedAnalysis.
Installorenhanceexistinglargewoody
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon debris,boulders,andotherfeaturesto
increasestreamcomplexityandimprove
poolfrequencyanddepth.
Noyo Riverwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest
Reducesummerstream Provideforwatershedprocessesby
temperatures promotinglongtermsustainableforestry
practicesthatsupportcohosalmon
andincreasenumberof
pools WorkwiththeCaliforniaWestern
Increaselargewoodin RailroadtostopremovalofLWDfrom
streams streamchannels.
Increasethefrequencyof
Passageimpediment associatedwith
offchannelhabitat arailroadcrossing. Designandimplementabestmanagement
Reducetheamountof PhotocourtesyofNMFS. practicesforroadmaintenanceonprivate
roadsinandnearthe roadssimilartotheprogramforpublic
riparianzoneand roads(FiveCountyRoadProgram).
throughoutthewatershed
...inthesecoreareas:Parlin and
Reducesourcesof RedwoodCreekplanningwatersheds,and
sediment theLittleNorthForkareaoftheLittle
Improvegravelqualityby NorthForkplanningwatershed.
CalFire hasplacedlargewoodydebrisstructureswithin WeNeed
theJacksonDemonstrationStateForest. YourPhoto
MRChasundertakensedimentremediationprojects Here
DFGisconductingcohosalmonspawner surveys.
Noyo River
Continuecollaborativestreamhabitateffortsundertakenbythe NationalMarineFisheriesService
MendocinoRedwoodCompany,CampbellTimberlands CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame
Management,andstaffattheJacksonDemonstrationStateForest. CalFire,JacksonDemonstrationStateForest
Noyo WatershedAlliance
EncouragetheNoyo WatershedAlliancetocontinueandexpandits MendocinoRedwoodCompany
successfulwatershedactionssuchaslimitinguseoftheSherwood CampbellTimberlandsManagement
Roadduringthewintermonths.
297
Noyo River
Priority Areas for
h
or t
Lit yw
tle
NF Ha
NF
N oy 7
No
o
d
o
Du
wo
l ch
Fort Bragg f fy
yo
d
ul len
G Re
Gu
ulc
cM
h
M
No
yo
Ri v
Kass er Old s
NFS
F
No
SF yo
No
yo
n
li
r
Pa
Caspar
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2.5 0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Watershed Boundary
Mendocino
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 298
CCCCohoSalmon
NoyoRiver

SEC CDFGHAB8 77,894sq.mi VeryGood SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <600m2 6005400m2 540010400m2 >10400m2
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Good Good Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Fair Fair SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix Good Good Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC SWRCB 0.59/10IPkm Good MultipleLifeStages Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
SEC FMMP 0.02 VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
SEC BestProf.judgment NA Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 7.0mi/sq.mi Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


299
Spawning
Noyo River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall
Threat Rank
Very
1 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High High High Very High
High
2 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
9 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium
10 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
11 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low
14 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - - Low Low Low Low
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - Low - Low - Low
hreat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High High High High - - High
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
PESCADEROCREEK
311
PescaderoCreek 60.6IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Cohosalmonextirpatedandsteelheadpresent
Pescadero Creek drains approximately

81squaremilesoftheSantaCruzMountainsin
western San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.
Pescadero Creek enters the Pacific Ocean near
thetownofPescadero.Thewatershedcontains
steepforestedslopes,deep canyons with steep
inner gorges, a fertile coastal valley, and
grasslandsnearthecoast.ThePescaderoCreek
watershed has moderate to high erodibility
after considering slope, precipitation, and the
The SWRCB listed the Pescadero Creek as
having water quality impaired for sediment in
2003. The water quality impairment listing
PescaderoCreek
determined that sediment was impairing PhotobyJoelCasagrande
habitats beneficial to coho salmon including
migration, spawning and rearing habitats, and
identified nonpoint sources as the probable TheWatershedataGlance
cause. Pescadero has a large amount of rural
residentialhousingadjacenttoPescaderoCreek SpawningQuantity&Quality POORtoGOOD
and its tributaries, likely contributing to SummerWaterTemperatures POOR
degraded water quality. Coho salmon are Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
believed to be extirpated from the watershed, LargeWoodFrequency POOR
although some smolts have been outplanted
RiparianCanopy POORtoGOOD
from the NMFS SWFSC and Monterey Bay
Salmon and Trout Project captive broodstock Offchannel/FloodplainQuality POOR
program in recent years in an attempt to EstuaryFunction POOR
reestablishthepopulation.
NoData
312
Pescadero Creek RecoveryTarget:2,300AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninPescaderoCreekrequiresthese
Droughts FireandFuelManagement Increasethefrequencyand
StormsandFlooding LoggingandWood functionalityofoffchannelandpool
Agriculturalpractices Harvest habitats.
RoadsandRailroads WaterDiversionand Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
Disease,Predation,Competition Impoundments tocreateorrestorealcove,
backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon seasonalpondhabitats.
Promote,viatechnicalassistance
and/orregulatoryactionthe
Pescadero Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
developmentofdischargebypass
requirementsforwaterdiversions,
Increasespawninghabitat impoundments,andprotectionof
Improveandincreasethe riparianandfloodplainareas.
frequencyofpools Maintainandrestorehydrologic
Increasetheamountoflarge functiontoimproveandminimize
woodinstreams adverseaffectstowaterqualityand
Increasethenumberofoff protectriparianandfloodplainareas
channelhabitats Conducterosionsiteassessmentsto
Improvehydrologicconnectivity identifychronicsedimentsources.
Increaseriparianshadingtocool
streams ...throughout:theTeawaterand
Decreasethenumberofroads PetersCreekplanningwatersheds.
PescaderoCreek
nearthestreamandreduce PhotobySanMateoCountyPWDept
WeNeedYour
Thereareactionsunderwaytoincludea
PhotoHere
multidisciplinarytaskforcetoaddressyearlyfish
killsthatappeartoresultinsignificantmortality
ratesoffederallylistedCCCsteelhead.
PescaderoCreek
SanMateoCounty Installinstreamstructures
StateParks Protectthecoresubwatersheds
BigCreekLumberCompany Developwaterconservationpractices
SanMateoRCD Continuetaskforcetoaddressfishkillsinthelagoon
SanJoseStateUniversity
DFG
FarmBureau
313
Los Trancos Woods Loyola
Pescadero Creek
Priority Areas for
San Gregorio
La Honda
Redwood Terrace
McCormick
Loma Mar
Bradley
rs
Ev a
te
r
Pe
nge
ns
Pes
c ade
ns i
ro C
Pescadero ree
k
Ho
k
ee
Cr
o
tan
Bu
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2
0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 314
CCCCohoSalmon
PescaderoCreek

SEC PSMFCDatabase 89% Good SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers <50%ofIPkm 5070%ofIPkm 7090%ofIPkm >90%ofIPkm
SEC CDFGHAB8 <300m2 Poor SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <300m2 3003100m2 31006000m2 >6000m2
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 <60avg.rating Poor SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
<30%poolsby
SEC CDFGHAB8 Poor SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
length
SEC CDFGHAB8 6070% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <69%densityDacrossIPkm 7079% >80%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 3mi/sq.mi. Fair MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

315
Spawning
Pescadero Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very Very
1 Droughts Medium Medium Medium High Very High
High High
2 Storms and Flooding High High Medium High High Medium High
3 Agricultural Practices High High High Medium Medium Medium High
4 Roads and Railroads High High Medium Medium Medium High High
6 Fire and Fuel Management High High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
7 Logging and Wood Harvesting High High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
8 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High
9 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
10 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Fishing and Collecting High - Medium Low Medium - Medium
15 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium - Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Very Very Very

Threat Status for Targets and Project High
High
High
High
High
High - - Very High
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
PINEGULCHCREEK
334
DependentPopulation
PineGulchCreek 7.4Kmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Pine Gulch Creek drains

approximately 17 square miles of
northern Marin County, and drains into
Bolinas Lagoon. Approximately 50
percent of the Pine Gulch Creek
watershed is coniferous forest, about 22
percent is riparian hardwood forest, and
about 13 percent is grassland. Seventy
eight percent of the Pine Gulch Creek
watershed is in state, local, or federally
owned lands; the remaining 22 percent is
inprivateownership.Thedominantland PineGulchCreek
PhotoNationalParkService,PointReyes
use within the Pine Gulch Creek
watershed is recreational activities.
Housing development within the Pine TheWatershedataGlance
Gulch Creek watershed is low to
moderate;approximately50housingunits
SummerWaterTemperatures: GOOD
arepresentinthewatershed.Thereare12
Depth&ShelterofPools POORtoFAIR
barriers to salmon migration caused by
LargeWoodFrequency: POORtoFAIR
road crossings and water diversions.
RiparianCanopy: POOR
Impassablebarriersblocksalmonidsfrom
offchannel/FloodplainQuality: FAIR
lessthan10percentofthewatershed.
EstuaryFunction: POOR
NoData
335
PineGulch Creek RecoveryTarget:252AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon Advancingrecoveryof

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are coho salmoninPineGulchCreek
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: requiresthesepriority recovery
Droughts actions:
Promoterestorationprojects
WaterDiversionandImpoundment
designedtocreateorrestore
alcove,backchannel,ephemeral
ChannelModification
tributary,orseasonalpond
habitats.
Improvesummerrearingsurvival
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon byreducinginstream
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the temperaturesinpotentialrearing
Lagunitas Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The reaches.
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: Developoffchannelwaterstorage
forfarmingoperationwithinthe
Increasepoolfrequencyfor
watershedtoincreasesummerpool
summerrearing
habitatinthelowerportionofthe
Improvethequalityand watershed
extentoftheestuary
Conductrestorationactivitiesthat
Increaseriparianshading extendthedurationofsummer
Increasethefrequencyof flowandproviderefugefromhigh
largewoodinstreams winterflowsbyrestoringchannels,
floodplains,andmeadows.
LandslidenearPineGulchCreek ...inthesecoreareas: theentire

PhotobyNationalParkservice,PointReyes
PineGulchplanningwatershed.
WeNeedYour
PrivatelandownersareaugmentingflowinPine
PhotoHere
GulchCreektoimprovehydrologyforcohosalmon
PineGulchCreek
ImplementthePineGulchCreekWatershedEnhancementproject TomalesBayWatershedCouncil
Conductpresence/absencemonitoringandgeneticidentificationof MMWD
cohoyearclasses SPAWN
IncreasecapacityofestuarinehabitatinBolinasLagoon NPS
CountyofMarin
336
Fairfax
Pine Gulch-Bolinas
Priority Areas for
ch
ul
G
e
McC
in
r M
e
ormic
pp
h
o h
ulc
C ulc
G
k Cre
ty
Wilkins
n
ou
ek
eC
Pi k
Pin
e
h
Gu
Gul c h
lch
s ul c
orse G
M
n
na
Bolinas
lc h
in
cK
Lagoon
Gu
M
on
s
in City/Town
Bolinas St
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz 337
CCCCohoSalmon
PineGulchBolinas

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix <35 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 6080 Fair SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
<30%poolsby
length
SEC CDFGHAB8 Fair Fair WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
SEC CDFGHAB8 6080 Fair MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
NMFS CDFCWHR Good MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC FMMP 19.31% Fair MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset <10% VeryGood MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 1.4mi/sq.mi. VeryGood MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 0.9mi/sq.mi. Fair MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

338
Spawning
Pine Gulch Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very Very
1 Droughts Very High Low Medium Medium Very High
High High
Very
2 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Low Medium Low Medium High
High
3 Channel Modification High Low High Medium Low High High
7 Agricultural Practices Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
8 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
9 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
10 Storms and Flooding Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
12 Residential and Commercial Development Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
13 Roads and Railroads Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - Medium - - - Low
Very Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium
High
High Medium
High
- - Very High
339
340
341
342
PUDDINGCREEK
343
DependentPopulation
PuddingCreek 28.9IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Pudding Creek drains approximately 18 square

miles of western Mendocino County, and enters the
Pacific Ocean at the north edge of the town of Fort
Bragg.ThereisasmalldamacrossthelowerPudding
Creek about 200 meters upstream of the Hwy 1
crossing.Thedamwasbuiltin1953toimpoundwater
for the Union Lumber/GeorgiaPacific mill in the town
ofFortBragg. Although the mill has been dismantled,
the dam is still in place. The impacts of the dam on
water quality and estuarine dynamics are unknown at
this time. About 74 percent of the Pudding Creek
watershedisredwoodconiferousforestandaboutfour
percent of the watershed area is either montane or
riparian hardwood forest. The Pudding Creek
watershed has moderatelylow soil erodibility. The
entire Pudding Creek watershed is privately owned.
The dominant land use within the Pudding Creek PuddingCreekestuary
Copyright (C) 20022009 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records
watershed is forestry. A large portion of the forest Project,www.Californiacoastline.org.
within the watershed is in its third rotation and is
managed for maximum sustained production. Within TheWatershedataGlance
the past ten years, about 37 percent of the Pudding
Creekwatershedhasbeenunderatimberharvestplan. SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOOD
About four percent of the Pudding Creek watershed
developedforurbanuses about900housingunitsare
presentinthewatershed. Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
NoData
344
PuddingCreek RecoveryTarget: 983AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninPuddingCreekrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: EvaluatelowerPuddingCreek
LoggingandWoodHarvesting ChannelModification impoundmentanditseffectoncoho
RoadsandRailroads Droughts salmonsurvival.
Promoterestorationprojectstocreateor
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon restorecomplexhabitatfeaturesthat
provideforlocalizedpoolscour,velocity
refuge,andcover.
Pudding Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
Increaseripariantreesize Evaluatechannelmorphologyandidentify
opportunitiesimprovejuvenilesalmonid
rearinghabitat.
andincreasenumberof
pools
Increaselargewoodin Provideforwatershedprocessesby
streams
Your practicesthatsupportcohosalmon
channelhabitat
Photo
Here Discouragehomebuildingorother
inandneartheriparian incompatiblelanduseinareasidentified
zoneandthroughoutthe astimberproductionzones.
watershed
Reducesourcesofsediment PuddingCreek
...throughout thePuddingCreek
Improvegravelqualityby watershed.
WeNeed
Campbell Timberland Management and the California YourPhoto
Department of Fish and Game have collaborated on
Here
adultandsmoltcohosalmonsurveys.
PuddingCreek
Identifyrestorationactionstoimproveoverwinteringhabitats. NMFS
DFG
CampbellTimberlandManagement
345
Pudding Creek
Priority Areas for
Little Valley Creek

k
ree
gC
din
Pud
Fort Bragg
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 346
CCCCohoSalmon
PuddingCreek

1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
<30%poolsby
SEC CDFGHAB8 Fair SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
length
NMFS NCWAP VeryGood VeryGood Smolts Estuary Estuary
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


347
Spawning
Pudding Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium High High Medium Medium High High
2 Roads and Railroads Medium High High Medium Medium High High
3 Channel Modification Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
7 Mining Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - Medium - Medium - Medium
Very
High
High High High - - Very High
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
REDWOODCREEK
356
DependentPopulation
RedwoodCreek 8.0IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
RedwoodCreek drainsapproximatelynine
square miles of Mount Tamalpais in western
MarinCounty.RedwoodCreekentersthePacific
OceanatMuirBeach,about13milesnorthofSan
Francisco. Vegetation in the Redwood Creek
watershed consists of about 32 percent shrub, 31
percent coniferous forest, 18 percent montane or
riparian hardwood forest, and 12 percent
grassland. Only five percent of the Redwood
Creek watershed is in private ownership. State
and federally owned forest lands, local water
districtlands,andmilitarylandsmakeuptherest
of the watershed area which includes the Muir
Woods National Monument. Redwood Creek
RedwoodCreek
provides a critical spawning and rearing habitat Photo provided by KRIS Information System,
for endangered coho salmon. Decades of andisusedwithpermission
agricultural activity, channel straightening and

levee construction resulted in the loss or
degradation of large areas of floodplain
SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOOD
woodland, riparian vegetation and inchannel
complexity. Today the dominant land use within SummerWaterTemperatures: GOOD
the Redwood Creek watershed is recreational Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
activities. Housing development within the LargeWoodFrequency: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
RedwoodCreekwatershedislow;approximately RiparianCanopy: POORtoFair
150 housing units are present in the watershed.
Thereare18 barriersto salmon migration caused
by road crossings, diversions, and natural EstuaryFunction: POOR
structures. Impassable barriers block salmonids
fromlessthanten percentofthewatershed.
NoData
357
Redwood Creek RecoveryTarget:272AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninRedwoodCreekrequiresthese
Droughts ClimateChange SupporteffortsofNPStorestore
ChannelModification FireandFuelManagement functionalfloodplainandlagoon
RoadsandRailroads habitatinthelowerportionofthe
watershed.
Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon tocreateorrestorealcove,
backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
seasonalpondhabitats.
Redwood Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
Improveandincreasepool Addresssedimentsourcesfromroad
habitat networksandotheractionsthat
deliversedimenttostreamchannels.
Increaseandimproveoff
channel
habitattypes We Need Avoidand/orminimizetheadverse
Enhancetheestuaryhabitat
Your Photo effectsofwaterdiversiononCCC
Here cohosalmon.
Improveriparianshadingto
coolstreams ...inthesecoreareas:entire
Decreasethenumberofroads RedwoodCreekplanningwatershed
nearthestreamandreduce
impactsfromremaining RedwoodCreek estuary
roads Photo provided by KRIS Information System,
andisusedwithpermission
Eliminatesourcesofsediment
Estuaryandfloodplainrestorationactivities
AgriculturalBestManagementPracticeshavebeen
developedandimplementedinthewatershed
Acquisitionofkeyareasfortheconservationofhabitat
Annualjuvenileabundancesurveysconductedby
NationalParkServiceprovidesimportantpopulationdata
oncoho salmonintheRedwoodCreekwatershed. Avolunteerplantingriparianvegetationalong
RedwoodCreek
NPS Assessandprioritizesedimentsourcesfromroadnetworks
StateParks
DFG Assessandmapwaterdiversions
NMFS
MarinRCD
358
Redwood Creek
Priority Areas for
k
ee
F e r n Cr
Strawberry

channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient
abundances of coho salmon
Almonte
0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood
0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood
k
ee
Cr
d
w oo
R ed
City/Town
Marin City
lc h
Area 0.01 - 0.34

Gu
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
en
Fort Bragg Gr e
0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
Implementation Sequence
Central Core Areas (2009-2014)
California
Santa Cruz
Coast Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
Coho Salmon 0 1 359
ESU California Phase II Expansion (2009-2024)
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
RedwoodCreek

1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA VeryGood Eggs Sediment GravelQuality >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
<30%poolsby
length
SEC ManySources 14.6/100m VeryGood MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC CDFGHAB8 <60% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <45%avg.overIPkm 7585% 8595% >95%
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


360
Spawning
Redwood Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very Very
1 Droughts Medium Low Medium High Very High
High High
Very
2 Channel Modification Medium Low High High High Very High
High
Very
3 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium Medium High High
High
4 Climate Change Medium Low High Medium High High High
5 Fire and Fuel Management Medium Low High Medium High Medium High
6 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
9 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
11 Storms and Flooding Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
16 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - - - - Low Low
Very Very Very

Threat Status for Targets and Project High Low
High
High
High High
- - Very High
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
RUSSIANRIVER
373
RussianRiver 757.4IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Cohosalmon,steelhead,andChinooksalmonpresent
Russian River drains approximately 1,483

square miles of Sonoma and Mendocino County.
The Russian River enters the Pacific Ocean near the
town of Jenner. Approximately 40 percent of the
Russian River watershed is montane or riparian
hardwoodforest,18percentisgrassland,13percent
isagriculturalgrazingandfarmland,and12percent
isconiferousforest.To date, only 75 percent of the
Russian River watershed has been evaluated for
erodibility.Evenso,58percentoftheRussianRiver
watershed has moderate to high erodibility after
susceptibility of failure of underlying geology. The
SWRCB listed the Russian River as having water
quality impaired for sediment and temperature in
2003. The water quality impairment listing
determined that sediment was impairing habitats
beneficial to coho salmon including migration, RussianRiver
spawning and rearing habitats, and identified areas PhotobyJoePecharich
disturbedfromconstruction,dams,erosion/siltation,
flow habitat modification, silviculture, and removal TheWatershedataGlance
of riparian vegetation as the probable causes. The
majority of the watershed is in private ownership; SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoGOOD
the remaining 8 percent is state owned park,
universityland,andfederallyownedland.Housing SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
development within the Russian River watershed is Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
moderate to high; approximately 148,500 housing LargeWoodFrequency: FAIRtoPOOR
units are present in the watershed. There are over
500 small dams on the Russian River and its RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
tributaries (SEC 1996). An additional 2314 other offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
barriers to salmon migration caused by road EstuaryFunction: FAIR
crossings, diversions, and natural structures.
Impassablebarriersblocksalmonidsforlessthan10
percentofthewatershed.
RussianRiverAdultCohoSalmonEstimatesbyTimePeriod
24000
22000
20000 20000
18000
15000
Number
16000
14000
12000 10100
10000
8000 6000 5500
6000
4000
2000 1000 100
0
al s s s s nt ry
ri c 50 70 80 90 se ve
sto 19 19 19 19 re co
i s s s s P e
H 30 60 70 80 0 s R
19 19 19 19 9
19
Year
Historical Coho(wild) Coho(hatchery) Recovery
374
RussianRiver RecoveryTarget:10,100AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon Advancingrecoveryof

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are coho salmonintheRussianRiver
jeopardizing coho salmon. The highest ranked threats are: requiresthesepriority recovery
AgriculturalPractices Residentialand actions:
CommercialDevelopment
Improveoverwintersurvivalby
Droughts
increasingthefrequencyand
WaterDiversionand functionalityofoffchannelhabitats
RoadsandRailroads Impoundment
ontributaries
InstallorenhanceexistingLWD,
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon boulders,andotherfeaturesto
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the increasestreamcomplexityand
Russian River watershed that are in poor condition. The improvepoolfrequencyinhistoric
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: cohostreams
Improvehydrologytosupport Supportthedevelopmentofnew
redds,juveniles,andsmolts regulationstominimizeimpactson
Improvespawninghabitat springandsummerbaseflowfrom
frostprotectionandotherwater
Increaseandimprovepool diversions.
habitat
Useavailablebestmanagement
Increaseandimproveoff
practicesforroadconstruction,
channelhabitat
maintenance,managementand
Increasetheamountoflarge decommissioning
woodinandnearthestream
...inthesecoreareas: Sheephouse
Improveriparianshadingto
coolstreams CreekareaoftheWillowCreek
planningwatershed;FreezeoutCreek
Decreasethenumberofroads areaoftheFreezeoutCreekPlanning
nearthestreamandreduce Lowflowconditionsinatributary
watershed;DutchBill,Felta,Wallace,
totheRussianRiver
impactsfromremainingroads PhotobyJoePecharich Palmer,andUpperEastGrayCreek
planningwatersheds;PurringtonCreek
areaofthePurringtonCreekplanning
ConservationHighlights watershed
ConservationHatchery
FishFriendlyFarmingProgram
CitizenMonitoring RecoveryPartners
USArmyCorpsofEngineers
AgriculturalBMPs NRCS
UCCE
MonitoringonMillCreek SCWA
PhotobyJoePecharich MCRRFCD
RWQCB
NFWF
TroutUnlimited
ImmediateNeeds DFG
Developstreamflowmonitoringandevaluationprograms RegionalRCDs
SonomaGrapegrowers
Expandbroodstockreleasestootherstreams
RussianRiverPropertyAssociation
Developtributaryacclimationsites/facilities SonomaandMendocinoCountyandCityAgencies
Monitorsalmonidtrendandabundance Sotoyome,Goldridge,andMendocinoUnitedWinegrowers
375
Russian River
Priority Areas for
City/Town
0.01 - 0.34
0.35 - 0.69
Ukiah
0.70 - 0.99
Non-Coho IP Included in Analysis
0.01 - 0.34
0.35 - 0.69
0.70 - 0.99
Coho IP Not Considered
Hopland Non IP, Migration Corridor Only
Watershed Boundary
Core Areas (2009-2014)
Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
Phase II Expansion (2009-2024)
Cloverdale

channel width, mean annual discharge and
gradient to provide suitable habitats and support
higher abundances of coho salmon
P ena

Redwoo
Dr
0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood d

y
0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood Healdsburg Franz

G r ay Mi
ll C
k. ta
Fel
Au
s
tin
Por
ter Porter
rd
Wa
Area
e st
of kW
G rn
Ma r
Detail
Jenner
. Vl
Fort Bragg Santa Rosa

le y
Du
tch
Bi
At
ll
as
Santa Rosa
ca d
ero
Central
California
Coast Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 4 376
ESU California
Miles
Cloverdale
Lower Russian River
Priority Areas for
Ackerman
Pena
Dr
Redwoo
d
y
W
al Healdsburg
la
ce Franz Bidwell
De v
il
Br
Gr ay M
ill
ook
s
Au
ta
Gi llia
m Fel
sti
in
n
st
Au
Por r
te r Porte
E
rd ol
Wa Po
Hulbert
sor
Fife
d
Win
t
k Wes
Mar
Gr n.
Vlle
Jenner
y
Santa Rosa
Du
Wi tch
llow B
At
ill
as
ca d
City/Town
ero

0.01 - 0.34
0.35 - 0.69
0.70 - 0.99
Non-Coho IP Included in Analysis
0.01 - 0.34
0.35 - 0.69
Area 0.70 - 0.99
of
Detail Coho IP Not Considered
Fort Bragg
0 5 Non IP, Migration Corridor Only
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 377
A S l
CCCCohoSalmon
RussianRiver

SEC CDFGHAB8 8184.6m2 Fair SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <3400m2 340021800m2 2180040400m2 >40400m2
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 83 Poor Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 83 Poor Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA Good Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 83 Poor Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC ManySources 2/100m Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC ManySources 1.2 Fair MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW10100) <1/100m 11.3/100m 1.34/100m >4/100m
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

378
Spawning
: Russian River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Agricultural Practices Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
High
Very
2 Droughts Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
High
Very
3 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
High
4 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low High Medium Medium High High
5 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
6 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium - Medium Low Medium Low Medium
16 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - Medium - Medium - Medium
Very Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium
High
High High
High
- - Very High
379
380
381
382
383
384
400
SALMONCREEK
401
DependentPopulation
SalmonCreek 47.6IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Salmon Creek drains about 35 square

milesinwesternSonomaCounty.SalmonCreek
entersthePacificOceanabouttwomilesnorthof
the town of Bodega Bay. Approximately 42
percentoftheSalmonCreekwatershedisannual
grasslandandabout42percentofthewatershed
area is either redwood forest or montane
hardwood forest. The entire Salmon Creek
watershed has moderately to low erodibility
Nearly the entire Salmon Creek watershed is in
private ownership; only 98 acres of the
watershedisstateparkland.Thedominantland
use within the Salmon Creek watershed is SalmonCreek
agriculture, primarily livestock and dairy PhotobyDanLogan,NMFS
production. Housing development within the

watershed is moderately to low: approximate
about 90 homes are present in the watershed.
There are no dams within the Salmon Creek
watershed that impede or block salmon SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
migration,thoughthereareatleast42diversions Depth&ShelterofPools POORtoGOOD
and natural barriers that are partially or totally LargeWoodFrequency: POORtoFAIR
impassable to migrating salmon. Impassable RiparianCanopy: POORtoFAIR
barriers block salmonids from less than ten
percent ofthewatershed.
NoData
402
Salmon Creek RecoveryTarget:1,618AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninSalmonCreekrequiresthese
Droughts ClimateChange Continuerestorationeffortson
StormsandFlooding WaterDiversionand SalmonCreekEstuarytobenefitcoho
LivestockFarmingandRanch Impoundment salmonduringalllifephasesand
ChannelModification seasons.
Installlargewood,boulders,andother
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon instreamfeaturestoincreasehabitat
frequencyanddepth.
Salmon Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
Improvepool Developalargewoodrecruitment
complexityand plantoensurelongtermnatural
frequency recruitmentofwoodvialargetree
retention.
Improvefloodplain
WeNeed
connectivity
YourPhoto Promotewaterconservationbythe
Reduceroadsinriparian
areas
Here public,wateragencies,agriculture,
privateindustry,andthecitizenry.
Increasetheamountof
largewoodinstreams ...throughout: theSalmonCreek
SalmonCreek
Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL watershed.
SalmonCreekwasselectedasalocationforplantingof
progenyfromaconservationhatchery.
Michael Fawcett and Jennifer Michaud

monitoringSalmonCreek
PhotobyDanLogan,NMFS
ImmediateNeed RecoveryPartners
NMFS
Conductlandowneroutreachtoexpandbroodstockreleases/monitoring. DFG
GoldridgeRCD
UCCE
NOAARestorationCenter
403
Salmon Creek
Priority Areas for
Occidental
Colem a
Finley
n Val
sto n Cre ek
ley Creek
Cr ee
k
Cree
ek
k
Cr e
y
Th u r
Tanner
an
Nol
Salmon
C ree
k
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of Bodega Bay
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Miles
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 404
CCCCohoSalmon
SalmonCreek

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix NA NA SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix NA NA Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix NA NA Eggs Hydrology ReddScour >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix NA NA SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 0.06% Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
NMFS CDFCWHR NA Fair MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 2.9mi/sq.mi. Fair MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 4mi/sq.mi. Poor MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport Roaddensity100 >1miles/sq.mile 10.5 0.50.1 <0.1
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

405
Spawning
Salmon Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Droughts High High High High High High Very High
2 Storms and Flooding High High High High High High Very High
3 Channel Modification High Medium High High High High High
4 Climate Change High Medium High High High High High
5 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low High High High High High
6 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium High High Medium High Medium High
7 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium
8 Agricultural Practices Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
10 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
16 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - - - - Low Low
Very Very Very Very

High High High High
- - Very High
406
407
408
409
SANGREGORIOCREEK
414
DependantPopulation
SanGregorioCreek 40.1IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
San Gregorio Creek drains

approximately 52 square miles of the Santa Cruz
MountainsinwesternSan MateoandSantaCruz
Counties. San Gregorio Creek enters the Pacific
Ocean downstream of the small town of San
Gregorio. About 39 percent of the San Gregorio
Creek watershed is shrubland, about 32 percent
coniferous forest, and about 23 percent of the
watershed area is annual grassland. The San
Gregorio Creek watershed has moderate
erodibility after considering slope, precipitation,
and the susceptibility of failure of underlying
geology. The SWRCB listed the San Gregorio
Creek as having water quality impaired for
coliformandsedimentin2003.Thewaterquality
impairmentlistingdeterminedthatsediment and SanGregoriolagoon
PhotobyKristineAtkinson
coliformwasimpairinghabitatsbeneficialtocoho
salmon including migration, spawning and
rearinghabitats,andidentifiednonpointsources TheWatershedataGlance
astheprobablecause.Ninetyeightpercentofthe
San Gregorio Creek watershed is in private SpawningQuantity&Quality GOOD
ownership; the remaining two percent is local SummerWaterTemperatures FAIR
owned park lands. Housing development within Depth&ShelterofPools FAIR
the San Gregorio Creek watershed is low to LargeWoodFrequency POOR
moderate; approximately 1,007 housing units are
RiparianCanopy FAIRtoGOOD
present in the watershed. Of the 28 focus
watersheds in the recovery plan, San Gregorio Offchannel/FloodplainQuality POOR
mayhavethemostseriouswaterdiversionissues. EstuaryFunction POOR
NMFS has estimated that over 50 percent of the
annualbaseflowisdivertedfromthestream.
NoData
415
SanGregorio RecoveryTarget:1,363AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninSanGregoriorequiresthese
Droughts Roadsandrailroads Increasethefrequencyand
WaterDiversionsand StormsandFlooding functionalityofoffchannelhabitats.
Impoundments ClimateChange
Residentialand AgriculturalPractices Implement,viatechnicalassistance
CommercialDevelopment FireandFuelManagement and/orregulatoryactiontheflow
bypassrequirementssufficiently
protectiveofallfreshwaterlifestages.
meansrestoring manykeyhabitatattributeswithinthe
Promoteeffortstoprotectriparianand
SanGregorioCreekwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.The floodplainareas.
Improvebaseflow Promotesupplementalprogramsto
Increaseandimprovethe increaseLWDrecruitmenttoimprove
numberoffchannelhabitats streamcomplexity,gravelretention,
andpoolfrequencyanddepth.
woodinstreams
Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
Decreasethenumberofroads tocreateorrestorealcove,
nearthestreamandreduce backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
impactsfromremainingroads seasonalpondhabitats.
Improvepoolhabitat Streambankerosionin
SanGregorioCreek
PhotobyKristineAtkinson
...inthiscorearea: AlpineCreek
MidPeninsulaOpenSpaceDistrictisperforming
sedimentabatementprograms We Need Your
ArmyUSArmyCorpsofEngineersofEngineersis Photo Here
fundingoperationofaUSGSinstalledflowgage.
TheCountyofSanMateoisdevelopingwater
conservationdevelopment
SanGregorio
MidPeninsulaRegionalOpenSpaceDistrict
Addressallocationofinstreamflow
CoastalWatershedCouncil
Reducesedimentinput
Addresslackofinstreamstructures
MontereyBaySanctuaryCitizenWatershed
MonitoringNetwork
StillwaterSciences
NaturalHeritageInstitute
SanGregorioEnvironmentalResourceCenter
SanMateoRCD
416
Woodside Stanford
San Gregorio Creek
Priority Areas for
Ladera
Sky Londa Portola Valley

Los Altos Hills
da
on
H
Los Trancos Woods
La
gt o n
g ess
ote
r rin
Bo
Coy
Ha
r
San Gregorio
ea
Cl
S an
Greg La Honda
ori o
Cr Redwood Terrace
eek
d e go
Min
City/Town
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail Loma Mar 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 2 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Pescadero IP values represent the historical potential of
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 417
CCCCohoSalmon
SanGregorioCreek

SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <200m2 2001800 18003600 >3600
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SummerRearing PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SummerRearing PoolHabitat PrimaryPools <30%poolsbylength 3040% 4050% >50%
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix NA NA Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat ShelterRating <60avg.rating 6080 80100 >100
NMFS CDFCWHR NA Good MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
SEC CDFGHAB8 7080% Fair MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <69%densityDacrossIPkm 7079% >80%
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

418
Summer Winter
San Gregorio Creek Threats Across Spawning Multiple Life Overall Threat
Eggs Rearing Rearing Smolts
Targets Adults Stages Rank
Juveniles Juveniles
Project-specific threats 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Droughts Very High Medium Very High Medium Very High Medium Very High
2 Water Diversion and Impoundment High High Very High Medium Very High Medium Very High
3 Residential and Commercial Development Very High High High High High High Very High
4 Roads and Railroads Medium High Very High Medium High Medium High
5 Storms and Flooding Medium High Medium High High High High
6 Climate Change High Medium High Medium High Medium High
7 Agricultural Practices High Medium Medium Medium High Medium High
8 Fire and Fuel Management High Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
9 Fishing and Collecting High - Medium Low Low - Medium
13 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
14 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium - - Low Low Low Low
15 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - - - Medium - Low
16 Mining - - - Low - - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project Very High High Very High High Very High High Very High
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
SANLORENZORIVER
434
SanLorenzoRiver 126.4IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
San Lorenzo River drains approximately 139 cohosalmonareextirpatedintheSanLorenzoRiver.

squaremilesoftheSantaCruzMountainsin western Amajorcauseofthenumerouslimitingfactorinthe
SantaCruzCounty.TheSanLorenzoRiverentersthe San Lorenzo results from the high amount of urban
Pacific Ocean at the city of Santa Cruz. About 62 interfaceadjacenttotheriveranditstributaries.The
percent of the San Lorenzo River watershed is high density of housing close to the river promotes
coniferous forest and about 22 percent of the detrimentalpracticessuch as bank stabilization, loss
watershed area is either shrub or grasslands, the of riparian buffers, and removal of critical large
reaming16percentisurbandevelopment.Todate,83 woodydebrisbylandowners.
percentoftheSanLorenzoRiverwatershedhasbeen
evaluated for erodibility. Eightynine percent of the
SanLorenzoRiverwatershedthathasbeenevaluated
has moderate to high erodibility after considering
slope,precipitation,andthesusceptibilityoffailureof
underlyinggeology.TheEPAlistedtheSan Lorenzo
River as having water quality impaired for sediment
andpathogensin2006.Thewaterqualityimpairment
listingdeterminedthat sedimentandpathogenswere
impairinghabitatsbeneficialtocohosalmonincluding
migration, spawning, and rearing habitats, and
identified urban runoff during storm events, septic
seepage and discharge, and natural sources as the SanLorenzoRiver
probable causes. Ninety percent of the San Lorenzo Photo USGS
River watershed is in private ownership; the TheWatershedataGlance
remaining ten percent is state owned parks and
universitylands.Withinthepasttenyears,aboutnine SpawningQuantity&Quality: POORtoVERYGOOD
percentoftheSanLorenzoRiverwatershedhasbeen
under timber harvest plans. Housing development SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
within the San Lorenzo River watershed is high; Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
approximately34,000housingunitsarepresentinthe LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
watershed.Therearenumerouspartialbarriersinthe RiparianCanopy: GOOD
San Lorenzo, many of these are formed by road
crossings and abutments for recreational summer Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoFAIR
dams. The current southern extent of the CCCCoho EstuaryFunction: POOR
ESUistheSanLorenzoRiver;however,
NoData
435
SanLorenzoRiver RecoveryTarget:4,200AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninSanLorenzoRiverrequiresthese
Residentialand WaterDiversionand Createfloodrefugehabitatsuchas
CommercialDevelopment Impoundment hydrologicallyconnectedfloodplains
RoadsandRailroads Disease,Predation,and withriparianforest,orremovalor
StormsandFlooding Competition setbackoflevees,andusestreamway
Droughts LoggingandWood conceptwhereappropriate.
FireandFuelManagement Harvesting Identifyhistoricalhabitatslackingin
ChannelModification FishingandCollecting channelcomplexityandpromote
ClimateChange restorationprojectsdesignedtocreate
poolscour,velocityrefuge,andcover.
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon Implementaprivateroadssediment
reductionprogramtoimprovegravel
meansrestoring manykeyhabitatattributeswithintheSan
qualityandflowaugmentation.
Lorenzo River watershed that are in poor condition. The
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: Evaluateandmonitorallwater
diversionsforcompliancewithstate
Increaseandprotectthespawninghabitat
regulations.
Ensureadequateflowsyearround
Minimizepotentialimpactsfrom
Increaseandimprovepoolhabitat commercialandresidentialdevelopment
Decreaseinstreamtemperatures suchasfaultysepticsystemsandthe
Increaseandimproveoffchannelhabitat ongoingLWDremovalactivitiesto
protectinfrastructurefrompotential
Increasetheamountoflargewoodinallstreams erosion.
Decreaseandreducetheimpactsfromroads
...inthiscorearea: BeanCreek;and
Minimizesediment
Improvewaterquality
PhaseI areas: ZayanteCreek,Bean
Creek,BranciforteCreek,BearCreek,and
BoulderCreekplanningwatersheds
TheSanLorenzoValleyWaterAgencyandthe
CountyofSantaCruzarefundingannualjuvenile
abundancesurveys
TheSantaCruzRCDandtheCaliforniaCoastal
PassageimpedimentonSanLorenzoRiver Conservancyareinvolvedinnumerousbarrier
PhotobyD.W.ALLEY&Associates
removal/modificationandsedimentremediation
projects
TheCityofSantaCruzisdevelopingaHCP
RecoveryPartners
SantaCruzFishandWildlifeAdvisoryBoard
CountyofSantaCruz
SanLorenzoRiverRestorationInstitute
SempervirenFund
RWQCB
ImmediateNeeds
CityofSantaCruz Developacoordinatedwatershedstrategy
SantaCruzRCD Addressthesedimentinputfromruralroads
DFG
SanLorenzoValleyWaterAgency
MontereyBaySalmonandTroutProject
436
Cambrian Park
San Lorenzo River
Monte Sereno Priority Areas for
Los Gatos Protection and Restoration
D e er
Lexington Hills
gs
ar
n
Be
Ki
Bo
ulch
uld
e r
lie G
Boulder Creek
Char
M t.
nte Lompico
Love
art G ulch
ell
Ben Lomond
New
Lockh
ya
Za
n
Bea
Scotts Valley City/Town
Felton Coho Intrinsic
Day Potential
Valley (IP) Value
iforte
Sa
era
0.01 - 0.34
n Lo
c
Carbon
Bran
Area 0.35 - 0.69
r en
of
zo
Davenport
Detail 0.70 - 0.99
Riv
Fort Bragg
e

r
Miles
Santa Rosa Soquel Watershed Boundary
channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient Implementation
Aptos Sequence
to provide suitable habitats and support higher Santa Cruz Capitola
California
Santa Cruz
Coast 0.01 - 0.34 Lower Likelihood Phase
Rio del MarI Expansion (2009-2019)
Coho Salmon 0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood 437
CCCCohoSalmon
SanLorenzoRiver

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 83 Poor SpawningAdults Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix >75(score) Poor SummerRearing Hydrology Baseflow >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix >75(score) Poor Smolts Hydrology PassageFlows >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
Noevidenceoftoxins
NMFS ManySources Poor Poor MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality Toxicity Acute SublethalorChronic NoAcuteorChronic
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

438
Spawning
San Lorenzo River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Residential and Commercial Development Medium High High High Very High Very High Very High
2 Roads and Railroads Medium High High High Very High Very High Very High
3 Storms and Flooding Medium High Medium High Very High High Very High
4 Droughts High Medium Very High Medium High Medium High
5 Fire and Fuel Management Medium High High Medium High High High
6 Channel Modification Medium Low High High High High High
7 Water Diversion and Impoundment High Medium High Medium High - High
9 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
10 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low High Medium High Medium High
11 Climate Change Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
15 Mining Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium - - Low Low - Low
Very Very Very Very

Threat Status for Targets and Project High
High
High
High
High High
- - Very High
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
SANVICENTECREEK
462
DependentPopulation
SanVicenteCreek 3.1IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
SanVicenteCreek drainsapproximately11 been under timber harvest plans. Housing

square miles of the Santa Cruz Mountains in development within the San Vicente Creek
western Santa Cruz County. San Vicente Creek watershed is moderate to low; approximately 450
enters the Pacific Ocean at the town of Davenport housingunitsarepresentinthewatershed.
abouttenmilesnorthofSantaCruz,whereitflows
under a highway and through a railroad tunnel.
About 60 percent of the San Vicente Creek
watershedisconiferousforestandabout30percent
ofthewatershedareaiseithershrubland,montane
or riparian hardwood forest. The San Vicente
Creek watershed has moderate to high erodibility
Karst geology appears to help provide a source of
relatively cool water during the summer low flow
period. The SWRCB listed San Vicente Creek as
having water quality impaired for sediment in
2001. The water quality impairment listing CohosalmonsmoltfromSanVicenteCreek
determined that sediment was impairing habitats PhotobyChrisBerry,CityofSantaCruzWaterDepartment
beneficial to coho salmon including migration,
spawningandrearinghabitats,andidentifiednon
point source silviculture as the probable cause.
Ninetynine percent of the San Vicente Creek TheWatershedataGlance
watershed is in private ownership; the remaining
one percent is stateowned forest lands. The Trust SpawningQuantity&Quality: POORtoGOOD
for Public Land recently purchased the property SummerWaterTemperatures: GOOD
ownedbyCoastDairiesandweanticipatethisland Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
will be turned over to State Parks and BLM. Land LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
use in the watershed includes rural residential,
forestry, commercial (in the town of Davenport) RiparianCanopy: FAIRtoGOOD
andquarrying.Withinthe pastten years, about22 Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoGOOD
percentoftheSanVicenteCreekwatershedhas EstuaryFunction: POOR
NoData
463
SanVicente Creek RecoveryTarget:105AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninSanVicenteCreekrequires
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: thesepriority recoveryactions:
Mining FireandFuelManagement Targetrestorationandhabitat
RoadsandRailroads ClimateChange enhancementthatwillprovide
Droughts functioninghabitatatflowsbetween
winterbaseflowandfloodstage.
InstallproperlysizedLWDto
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon increasethefrequencyandcondition
meansrestoring manykeyhabitatattributeswithintheSan ofpoolhabitat.
Vicente Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The Conductannualinspectionsofall
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: roadspriortowinter.Correct
Create,and/orexpandthe conditionsthatarelikelytodeliver
quantityandqualityof sedimenttostreams.Hydrologically
spawninghabitat close/disconnecttheroads(remove
Improveandincreasepool fillsandculvertsrestoringthe
habitat naturalhydrologyofhillslope).
Increaseandimproveoff EncourageSWRCBtobringillegal
channelhabitat waterdiverters,andoutof
Increasetheamountoflarge compliancediverters,into
woodinstreams compliancewithStatelaw.
Reducethenumberofroads ...inthesecoreareas: entireSan
PassageimpedimentonSan
inthewatershedand VicenteCreek VicenteCreekplanningwatershed
minimizetheeffectsfromthe PhotobyJerrySmith,SJSUL
remainingroads
Diminishsedimentsources
TheSanVicenteTAC,SantaCruzRCD,California
CoastalConservancy,andBLMareworkingtorestore We Need Your
offchannelhabitatsaswellasimplementsidechannel Photo Here
LWDprojects
SanVicenteCreek
CEMEX Developmoreinstreamhabitatprojects
BLM Protectinstreamflows
CoastDairies
SantaCruzRCD
SanVicenteTAC
NMFS
DFG
464
San Vicente Creek
Priority Areas for
Ben Lomond
City/Town
ek
C re

te
Area 0.01 - 0.34

en
of
Vic
Detail 0.35 - 0.69

n
Fort Bragg
Sa
0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
Davenport IP values represent the historical potential of
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 1 465
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
SanVicenteCreek

SEC CDFGHAB8 NA Poor SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <100m2 100200m2 200300m2 >300m2
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA Poor Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
SEC ManySources 0 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


466
Spawning
San Vicente Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Mining Medium High High High Very High Medium Very High
2 Roads and Railroads Low Medium Medium High Very High High High
3 Droughts Medium Medium Very High Medium High Medium High
4 Fire and Fuel Management Medium High High Medium High Medium High
5 Climate Change Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
6 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium
8 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - High - Low - Medium
10 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
15 Fishing and Collecting Low - Medium Low Low - Low
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture - - - Low - Low Low
Very Very
High
High
High
High - - Very High
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
SCOTTCREEK
478
DependentPopulation
ScottCreek 15.0IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Scott Creek drainsapproximately30 square DFG run a critical hatchery that is used for the
miles of the Santa Cruz Mountains in coho broodstock program in the Scott Creek
northwestern Santa Cruz County. Scott Creek watershed.Unfortunately,over7,000acresofthis
entersthePacificOceanapproximatelytwomiles watershed burned during the 2009 Lockheed fire,
northwest of Davenport and 12 miles northwest placing the remaining coho in severe jeopardy
oftheCityofSantaCruz.About70percentofthe fromincreasederosionwiththeupcoming winter
Scott Creek watershed is coniferous forest and rains.
about 30 percent of the watershed is either
shrubland, grasslands, or montane or riparian
hardwoodforest.TheScottCreekwatershed has
moderate to high erodibility after considering
slope, precipitation, and the susceptibility of
failureofunderlyinggeology.Ninetyfivepercent
of the Scott Creek watershed is in private
ownership;theremainingfivepercentisstateand
militaryownedlands.Landusesinthewatershed
include forestry, rural residential development,
and agriculture. Within the past ten years, about
sixpercentoftheScottCreekwatershedhasbeen
under timber harvest plans. There are two dams
withinthewatershedthatimpedeorblocksalmon
migration, and an additional 21 other barriers to ScottCreek
salmon migration caused by road crossings,
diversions, and natural structures. Scott Creek is TheWatershedataGlance
the most important creek in the Santa Cruz
diversity stratum because it maintains the largest SpawningQuantity&Quality FAIRtoVERYGOOD
remainingcoho salmonpopulations and possibly
SummerWaterTemperatures FAIR
individuals from all three year classes. Monterey
Bay Salmon and Trout Project, in cooperation Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
withBigCreekTimber Company, SWFSC, and LargeWoodFrequency POOR
RiparianCanopy GOOD
Offchannel/FloodplainQuality POORtoGOOD
EstuaryFunction POOR
NoData
479
Scott Creek RecoveryTarget:510AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninScottCreekrequiresthese
Droughts Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
Roadsandrailroads tocreateorrestorealcove,
LoggingandWoodHarvesting AgriculturalPractices
ClimateChange backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
StormsandFlooding seasonalpondhabitats.
ChannelModification
Maintainandpromoteconservation
measuresincludingKingfisherFlat
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon HatcheryperDept.ofFishandGame
andNMFSguidelines
Promote,viatechnicalassistance
ScottCreekwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest and/orregulatoryofwateruse
prioritiesforrestorationareto: affectingthenaturalhydrograph,
Improvefireandfuel developmentofalternativewater
managementpractices sources,andimplementationof
Enhanceriparianbuffers diversionregimesprotectiveofthe
Preserveexistingforestlands naturalhydrograph
Improvechannelmodifications Conducterosionsiteassessmentsto
identifychronicsedimentsourcesand
Improveplanningfornatural assessrunoffsourcesfromnetworks.
disasters
Addressingandremediatingthe
Decreasethenumberofroads devastatingeffectsresultingfromthe
nearthestreamandreduce 2009Lockheedfire.
Scottcreek
PhotobyJerrySmith,SJSU ...inthesecoreareas: ScottCreek,Big
Creek,andLittleCreekplanning
watersheds
SantaCruzRCD,sedimentremediationproject
ScottCreekwatershedassessment
We Need Your
OngoingactionsincludeMontereyBaySalmonandTrout
ProjectbroodstockprogramandNOAASWFSC Photo Here
populationestimates.
ScottCreek
ScottCreekWatershedCounsel Addresssedimentimpactsfollowingthe2009LockheedFire
MontereyBaySalmonandTroutProject Installlargewooddebris
CalPoly
BigCreek
NOAASWFSC
Caltrans
CalFire
480
Scott Creek
Priority Areas for
Boulder Creek
k
ee
Cr
Sco
Ben Lomond
ll
Mi
tt
C re e
k
k
ee
Cr
g
Bi
ek
e Cre City/Town
Littl
Area eek 0.01 - 0.34
of h iba ld Cr
A rc
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 1 481
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
ScottCreek

NCWAP DecisionMatrix 3060days Fair SpawningAdults Passage PassageatMouth <30days 3060days 6090days >90days
FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 33 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


482
Spawning
Scott Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Fire and Fuel Management Medium High High High High Medium High
2 Roads and Railroads High High High Medium Low High High
Very
3 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High
High
4 Storms and Flooding High High Medium Medium Low High High
5 Channel Modification Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
6 Droughts Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
7 Agricultural Practices Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
8 Climate Change High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
10 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
11 Livestock Farming and Ranching Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
12 Mining Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
13 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - Low - Medium - Low
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - Low Low Low Low Low
Very
High
483
Table
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
498
499
500
501
SOQUELCREEK
502
DependentPopulation
SoquelCreek 33.0IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Soquel Creek drains approximately 42 watershed that impede or block salmon migration,
square miles of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Impassable barriers block salmonids for 10 to 30
westernSantaCruzCounty.SoquelCreekenters percentofthewatershed.
thePacificOceanatthetownofSoquel.About64
percentoftheSoquelCreekwatershedisredwood
coniferousforest and approximately20percentis
shrubland; the remaining 16 percent is either
riparian oak woodland, grassland, agriculture,
and urban development. The Soquel Creek
watershed has moderate to high erodibility after
The SWRCB listed the Soquel Creek lagoon as
having water quality impaired for sediment,
nutrients, and pathogens in 2003. The water
quality impairment listing determined that
sediment, nutrients, and pathogens were
impairing migration, spawning and rearing SoquelCreek
PhotobyD.W.ALLEY&Associates
habitats beneficial to coho salmon. Additional
probable causes include; identified natural TheWatershedataGlance
sources, septage disposal, nonpoint sources,
construction and development, and urban runoff SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOOD
during storm events. Eightyeight percent of the SummerWaterTemperatures: FAIR
Soquel Creek watershed is in private ownership; Depth&ShelterofPools FAIR
the remaining 12 percent is state owned forest
lands. Housing development within the Soquel LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
Creek watershed is moderate to high; RiparianCanopy: GOOD
approximately 7,000 housing units are present in Offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POOR
thewatershed.Thereare8damswithinthe EstuaryFunction: POOR
NoData
503
Soquel Creek RecoveryTarget:1,122AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninSoquelCreekrequiresthese
Residentialand RoadsandRailroads Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
CommercialDevelopment WaterDiversionand tocreateorrestorealcove,
StormsandFlooding Impoundment backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
Droughts ClimateChange seasonalpondhabitats.
FireandFuelManagement LoggingandWood InstallproperlysizedLWDto
Harvesting increasethesizeandfrequencyof
poolhabitat.
EncourageSWRCBtobringillegal
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon waterdiverters,andoutof
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the compliancediverters,intocompliance
Soquel Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The withStatelaw.
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: Discouragehomebuildingorother
Increasethequantityofoffchannelhabitat incompatiblelanduseinareas
Increasetheamountoflargewoodinstreams identifiedastimberproductionzones
(TPZ).
Limitthenumberofnewroadsanddecreasethe
amountofexistingnearstreamroads ...intheSoquelCreekplanning
watershed.
Diminishtheamountofsedimentinputintothe
streams
Improveandexpandtheestuary
Enhanceandincreasetheshelterprovidedwithin
pools TheCityofCapitolahasanactivelagoon
managementprogram
Improvefloodplainconnectivitytoproviderearing
habitat TheCountyofSantaCruzandtheSantaCruz
ResourceConservationDistrictworkto
removebarrierstofishpassage.
SoquelLagoon
PhotobyMichelleLeicester,DFG
Criticallyimportantwoodydebriscutinhalfand removed
fromSoquelCreek
PhotobyMichelleLeicester,DFG
SoquelWaterDistrict CityofCapitola Adoptwatershedwideconservationstrategies
SantaCruzRCD CountyofSantaCruz Installinstreamstructurestoaddcomplexity
DFG FriendsofSoquelCreek Addressroadsedimentinput
StateParks SantaCruzLandTrust
SoquelDemonstration
StateForest
504
Soquel Creek
Priority Areas for
Am a y a
WB
So
que
l
Hester
ey
Mo c kl
in
H
ore
Scotts Valley s G ul c h
Felton
er
G u lch Day Valley
v
Creek
Gro
City/Town
l
Soque
Area 0.01 - 0.34

of s
Detail B at e 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg Soquel Corralitos
0.70 - 0.99
Live Oak
Watershed Boundary
Santa Rosa Aptos
Capitola IP values represent the historical potential of
Santa Cruz channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient Implementation Sequence
California
Coast Santa Cruz Twin Lakes 0.01Rio
- 0.34 Phase I Expansion (2009-2019)
Coho Salmon 0 505
2 del Mar
Lower Likelihood
Opal Cliffs 0.35 - 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
SoquelCreek

SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <2m2 21500m2 15003000m2 >3000m2
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
<50%
SEC CDFGHAB8 Poor WinterRearing Floodplain ComplexHabitat** <50%Connected 5080%connected >80%connected
Connected
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 0% MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
SEC BestProf.judgment NA VeryGood MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
SEC CDFGHAB8 >80% Good MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <69%densityDacrossIPkm 7079% >80%
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

506
Summer Winter
Spawning Multiple Life Overall Threat
Soquel Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Stages Rank
Juveniles Juveniles
1 Residential and Commercial Development Medium High Very High High High High Very High
2 Storms and Flooding Low High High High High High High
3 Droughts High Medium Very High Medium Medium Medium High
4 Fire and Fuel Management Medium High Very High Medium Medium Medium High
5 Roads and Railroads Medium High High High Medium High High
6 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Medium Very High Medium Medium Medium High
7 Climate Change Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High
9 Mining Low Medium High Low Low Medium Medium
11 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - Medium - High - Medium
15 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High Very High High High High Very High
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
TENMILERIVER
524
TenMileRiver 105.1IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
The Ten Mile River drains approximately 120

squaremilesofwesternMendocinoCounty,andenters
thePacificOceanabouteightmilesnorthofthetownof
FortBragg.Themouthoftheriverissemienclosedby
a sandbar which forms a tidal estuary. About 75
percent of the Ten Mile River watershed is redwood
coniferousforestandabout12percentofthewatershed
areaiseithermontane orriparianhardwoodforest.The
Ten Mile River watershed has moderate to high soil
erodibility. The EPA listed the Ten Mile as having
waterqualityimpairedforsedimentin1998.Thelisting
determinedthatsedimentwasimpairingsalmonidsand
identified nonpoint source silviculture as the probable
cause.Sincethen,theEPAhasestablishedaTMDLfor
the watershed. Nearly the entire Ten Mile River
watershedisinprivateownership; only 18 acres are in
public park land. The dominant land use within the SouthForkTenMileRiver.
Ten Mile River watershed is forestry. Timber harvest Photo provided by KRIS Information System, and is used with
permission.
beganabout1870.Secondgrowthloggingbeganinthe
1960s and continues today. Most of the watersheds TheWatershedataGlance
forest land is managed using about a 60 year average
rotationage.Withinthepast10years,about43percent SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOOD
of the Ten Mile River watershed has been under a
timber harvest plan. Housing development within the
Ten Mile River watershed is low about 120 housing Depth&ShelterofPools: POOR
unitsarepresentinthewatershed. LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoGOOD
NoData
525
TenMileRiver RecoveryTarget: 3,700AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninTenMileRiverrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare: Promoterestorationprojectsdesignedto
LoggingandWoodHarvesting createorrestorealcove,backchannel,
RoadsandRailroadsthroughoutthewatershed ephemeraltributary,orseasonalpond
habitats.Restorefloodplainconnectivity
toincreasenumberandsizeofover
winteringhabitats.
Encouragethedevelopmentand
Ten Mile River watershed that are in poor condition. The
implementationoflargewoodydebris
supplementationprogramstoincrease
Improvepoolcomplexity streamcomplexityandgravelretention,
andincreasenumberof andimprovepoolfrequencyanddepth.
pools
Reducesummerstream
temperature
Increaselargewoodin practicesthatsupportcohosalmon.
streamsandripariantree Your
size Photo
Here Decommissionriparianroadsystems
and/orupgraderoads(andskidtrailson
channelhabitatand
forestlands)thatdeliversedimentto
floodplainconnectivity
adjacentwatercoursestodecreasefine
Reducetheamountofroads sediment.
throughoutthewatershed
TenMileRiver
Reducesourcesofsediment Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
...inthesecoreareas: LittleNorth
ForkTenMile,BearHavenCreek,
Improvegravelqualityby
ChurchmanCreek,SmithCreek,and
reducingsedimentinputs CampbellCreek.
Campbell Timberland Management, Trout Unlimited,
WeNeed
DFG, and Blencowe Forestry have collaborated on
placement of large woody debris structures and YourPhoto
sedimentremediationprojects. Here
Problem roads have been decommissioned, reducing
TenMileRiver
sedimentinputstostreams. Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
Initiateastudyoftheestuary. NMFS
Identifyrestorationactionstoimproveoverwinteringhabitats. DFG
TroutUnlimited
Blencowe Forestry
CaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard
526
Ten Mile River
Priority Areas for
Westport
NF Ten M ile
Ba
ld
Hill
n
or IP values represent the historical potential of
NF T
h
ck
e channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient
le
t n Mi
le
Bu
Lit to provide suitable habitats and support higher

Bear H 0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood
aven C
re ek
G
l ch
u
aven
M rH
F
h
ea
o th Gulc
Te
it tle B
n
M
ile
Mi L
ll
Bo
Sm
it h
Ca
m
pb City/Town
e ll
ood
Re dw Coho Intrinsic Potential (IP) Value
Area SF 0.01 - 0.34
of Te
n
Detail M 0.35 - 0.69
ile
Fort Bragg
0.70 - 0.99
ch
u r chman
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
Gu
ch Implementation Sequence
l
11
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 2 527
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
TenMileRiver

1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 42% Poor MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance TimberHarvest >35%ofWSbyarea 2535% 1025% <10%
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants


528
Spawning
Ten Mile River Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Roads and Railroads Medium High High High Medium Very High
High
Very
2 Logging and Wood Harvesting Medium Medium High High Medium High
High
3 Droughts Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium High
6 Mining Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - Medium - Medium - Medium
15 Fishing and Collecting Medium - Low Low Low - Low
16 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - Low Low Low Low Low
Very
High
- - Very High
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
USALCREEK
537
DependentPopulation
UsalCreek 10.6KmofPotentialHabitat
Usal Creek drains an area of approximately

28 square miles of western Mendocino County,
and enters directly to the Pacific Ocean about 30
miles north of the town of Fort Bragg. About 70
percent of the Usal Creek watershed is redwood
coniferous forest and about 20 percent of the
watershed area is either montane or riparian
hardwood forest. The entire Usal Creek
watershedhasbeencharacterizedasbeinghighly
erodibleafterconsideringslope,precipitation,and
thesusceptibilityoffailureofunderlyinggeology.
The watershed consists of 98 percent private
lands,withabouttwopercentofthewatershedis
in public parks and recreation lands. The UsalCreek
dominant land use within the Usal Creek Copyright (C) 20022009 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California
CoastalRecordsProject,www.Californiacoastline.org.
watershed is forestry. Within the past ten years,
abouttenpercentoftheUsalCreekwatershedhas
been under a timber harvest plan. Housing TheWatershedataGlance
development within the watershed is rare only
twohousesarepresent. SpawningQuantity&Quality: GOODtoVERYGOOD
SummerWaterTemperatures: GOOD
Depth&ShelterofPools FAIR
LargeWoodFrequency: FAIR
RiparianCanopy: GOODtoVERYGOOD
EstuaryFunction: POOR
No Data
538
Usal Creek RecoveryTarget:360AdultCohoSalmon

salmoninUsalCreekrequiresthese
requires protecting all individuals from threats that are
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreatsare:
priority recoveryactions:
Installlargewood,boulders,andother
RoadsandRailroads structurestoincreasestream
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon frequencyanddepth.
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the Promoterestorationprojectsdesigned
UsalCreekwatershedthatareinpoorcondition.Thehighest tocreateorrestorealcove,
prioritiesforrestorationareto: backchannel,ephemeraltributary,or
seasonalpondhabitats.
Improvepoolcomplexity Reducetheamountof
roadsinriparianareas Decommissionriparianroadsystems
Reducessourcesofsediment
and/orupgraderoadsandskidtrails
Reducetheamountofroads Improveestuarycondition
thatdeliversedimenttostreams.
throughoutwatershed
promotinglongtermsustainable
forestrypracticesthatsupportcoho
salmon
Buildnomoreroadswithin
floodplains,riparianareas,areaswith
unstablesoilsorothersensitive
characteristicsuntilawatershedor
specificroadmanagementplanis
createdandimplemented.
...throughout theUsalCreek
watershed.
SeriesofphotosdocumentinglandslideonSoldierCreek(upperleft
andright)andturbidityplumedownstreamtoconfluencewithUsal
Creek(lowerright) andcontinuingdownstreamonUsalCreek(lower
left).
PhotoprovidedbytheNationalMarineFisheriesServiceandisusedwithpermission.
ToimproveaquatichabitatCampbellTimberland
ManagementandRedwoodForestFoundationhave
collaboratedonsedimentremediationprojects.
UsalCreek(left)SoldierCreekconfluence.This
isthesamelocation,12yearslater,asthelower
rightphotoofthepreviousfigure.
Photo provided by Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc., and is used with
permission.Allrightsreserved.
Placeinstreamstructurestoimprovehabitat DFG
Roadsedimentremediation CampbellTimberlandManagement
RedwoodForestFoundation,Inc.
TroutUnlimited
539
Usal Creek
Priority Areas for

channel width, mean annual discharge and gradient

0.70 - 0.99 - High Likelihood
Leggett
Us
a
lC
r
ldie
ree
So
k
City/Town
Area SF U 0.01 - 0.34
sa
of
l
Detail 0.35 - 0.69

Fort Bragg
0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 0 1 540
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
UsalCreek

SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <100m2 100500m2 5001,000m2 >1,000
1214%0.85mmandor
SEC ManySources NA NA Eggs Sediment GravelQuality >17%0.85mmandor>30%6.3mm 1517%0.85 <12%0.85
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC/NMFS ManySources NA NA SummerRearing WaterQuality Temperature >30%ofIP>17CMWMT
NMFS BestProf.judgment Good Good MultipleLifeStages Floodplain FloodplainConnectivity <50% 5080% >80% notdefined
NMFS CDFCWHR <25% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition <25% 2550% >50% HistoricalConditions
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

541
Summer Winter
Usal Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Stages Rank
Juveniles Juveniles
1 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High
2 Droughts Medium Low High Medium High Low High
3 Fire and Fuel Management Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
5 Fishing and Collecting High - Medium - Medium - Medium
6 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - Medium - High - Medium
11 Storms and Flooding Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Residential and Commercial Development - Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium
13 Water Diversion and Impoundment Low Low Medium Low Medium - Medium
14 Agricultural Practices - Low Low - - Medium Low
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - - - - - Low
16 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low - - - - - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High Medium High Medium High High High
542
543
544
545
546
547
WADDELLCREEK
548
DependentPopulation
WaddellCreek 9.2IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Waddell Creek drains approximately 24 onadultandsmoltruntimingandsurvivalratios.

square miles of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Their work serves as the foundation for most
northwestern Santa Cruz County. Waddell Creek studies on coho salmon life history in California.
enters the Pacific Ocean about 15 miles north of Unfortunately, coho salmon are nearly extripated
SantaCruz.About85percentoftheWaddellCreek inWaddellCreektoday.
watershedisconiferousforestandabout14percent
of the watershed is shrubland. The SWRCB listed
the East branch of Waddell Creek as having water
quality impaired for nutrients in 2003. The water
quality impairment listing determined that
nutrientswereimpairinghabitatsbeneficialtocoho
salmonincludingmigration,spawning,andrearing
habitats, and identified municipal point sources as
the probable cause. Eightysix percent of the
Waddell Creek watershed is in stateowned forest
lands; the remaining 14 percent is private WaddellCreek
ownership.Thereare2damswithinthewatershed
that block salmon migration, and an additional 24 TheWatershedataGlance
other barriers to salmon migration caused by road
crossings, diversions, and natural structures. SpawningQuantity&Quality VERYGOOD
Impassable barriers block salmonids for less than SummerWaterTemperatures FAIR
10 percent of the watershed. Seminal work on the Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
lifehistoryofcoho salmon and steelheadoccurred LargeWoodFrequency POOR
in Waddell Creek from 1933 to 1942 (Shapavolof RiparianCanopy GOODtoVERYGOOD
andTaft1954).Theirstudyexaminedthevarious Offchannel/FloodplainQuality FAIR
lifestagesofcohosalmonwithparticularemphasis EstuaryFunction FAIR
NoData
549
Waddell Creek RecoveryTarget:313AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninWaddellCreekrequiresthese
Droughts InstallLWD,boulders,andother
featurestoincreasestreamcomplexity
RoadsandRailroads andimprovepoolfrequencyand
depth.
ChannelModifications
Evaluatesourceofongoingfishkillsin
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon upperWaddellCreekandimplement
appropriaterestorationactions.
Waddell Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: Identifyandworkwithwaterusers
Improveandexpandpool andappropriateregulatoryagenciesto
habitat minimizedepletionofsummerbase
flowsfromunauthorizedwateruses.
woodinstreams Workwithlandownerstoassess
effectivenessoferosioncontrol
measuresthroughoutthewinter
Decreaseexistingandlimitnew period.
nearstreamroads,alleviating
effectsfromremainingroads ...inthesecoreareas: Northernand
southwesternportionoftheWaddell
WaddellCreek
Creekplanningwatershed.
Augmentandimproveoff PhotobyJerrySmith,SJSU
channelhabitat
AnnualjuvenileabundancesurveysconductedbySan
JoseStateUniversityfacultyandstudentsprovides
We Need Your
importantpopulationdataoncohosalmonintheWaddell
Creekwatershed. Photo Here
WaddellCreek
StateParks
IdentifythesourceofupperWaddellCreekfishkills
WaddellCreekAssociation
NOAASWFSC
Caltrans
550
tan
Bu
Waddell Creek
Priority Areas for
ek
re
sC
zo
Ga
West W
a
ddell C
k
ee
Cr
reek
ll
de
ad
W
st
Ea
Boulder Creek
City/Town
0.01 - 0.34
k
ree
Area 0.35 - 0.69

ell C
of
Detail 0.70 - 0.99
dd
Fort Bragg
Wa
Non IP, Migration Corridor Only
Santa Rosa
Watershed Boundary
California
Santa Cruz
0.35 551
Coho Salmon 0 1
- 0.69 - Moderate likelihood
Miles
CCCCohoSalmon
WaddellCreek

FlowPanel DecisionMatrix 25 VeryGood Eggs Hydrology InstantaneousCondition >75(score) 5175 3550 <35
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
SEC CDFGHAB8 NA Fair Eggs Sediment GravelQuality(Embeddedness) <25%ofscores1s&2s >50%ofscores1s&2s
1s&2s
SEC ManySources 0 Poor MultipleLifeStages PoolHabitat LWDFreq.(BFW010) <4keypcs/100m 46/100m 611/100m >11/100m
Historical
NMFS CDFCWHR VeryGood MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition <25% 2550% >50% HistoricalConditions
Conditions
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 2.1mi/sq.mi. Good MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

552
Spawning
Waddell Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
1 Droughts Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High
2 Roads and Railroads Medium Low Medium High High Medium High
3 Channel Modification Low Low Medium High High Medium High
4 Climate Change Medium Low High Medium Medium Low Medium
5 Storms and Flooding Low Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium
6 Disease, Predation, and Competition - - Medium - High - Medium
11 Residential and Commercial Development Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
12 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
13 Mining Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
14 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low
Very
Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium Medium High High
High
Medium - - High
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
WAGESCREEK
561
DependentPopulation
WagesCreek 10IPKmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Wages Creek drains about 13 square

miles, in western Mendocino County, and
entersthePacificOceanaboutonemilenorth
ofthe town of Westport. About 79 percent
of the Wages Creek watershed is redwood
coniferousforestandabout13percentofthe
watershedareaiseithermontane orriparian
hardwood forest. The entire Wages Creek
watershed has moderately high erodibility
afterconsideringslope,precipitation,andthe
susceptibility of failure of underlying
geology. Nearly the entire Wages Creek
watershed is in private ownership; only 21
acres of the watershed is public park land. WagesCreekestuaryandcampground.
The dominant land use within the Wages Copyright (C) 20022009 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project,
www.Californiacoastline.org.
Creekwatershedisforestry.Withinthepast
10 years, about 29 percent of the Wages TheWatershedataGlance
Creek watershed has been under a timber
harvest plan. Housing development within SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIR
the watershed is moderately low about 90 SummerWaterTemperatures: VERYGOOD
homesarepresentinthewatershed. Depth&ShelterofPools: POORtoFAIR
LargeWoodFrequency: POORtoFAIR
RiparianCanopy: FAIRtoGOOD
NoData
562
WagesCreek RecoveryTarget: 340AdultCohoSalmon
Increasing the survival of coho salmon salmoninWagesCreekrequiresthese
requires protecting all individuals from threats that priority recoveryactions:
arejeopardizingcohosalmon.Thehighestrankedthreats Installlargewood,boulders,andother
are: structurestoincreasestreamcomplexityand
LoggingandWoodHarvesting gravelretention,andimproveandimprove
RoadsandRailroads poolfrequencyanddepth.
StormsandFlooding
Promoterestorationprojectsdesignedto
createorrestorealcove,backchannel,
Preventingtheextinctionofcoho salmon ephemeraltributary,orseasonalpond
habitats.Improvefloodplainconnectivity.
Wages Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: Improvethestructureandcompositionof
riparianareastoprovideshade,largewoody
debrisinput,nutrientinput,andbank
Improveestuarycondition stabilization.
andincreasenumberof
Discouragerezoningforestlandstorural
pools WeNeed residentialorotherlanduses(e.g.,
Increaselargewoodin Your vineyards).
streams Photo
Increasethefrequencyofoff Here Conductannualinspectionsofallroadsprior
channelhabitatand
towinterandrepairormaintainroadsto
floodplainconnectivity
reducesedimentinputstowaterways.
inandneartheriparian
zoneandthroughoutthe WagesCreek
...throughout theWagesCreek
watershed watershed.
Campbell Timberland Management has undertaken
WeNeed
sedimentremediationprojects.
YourPhoto
The Wages Creek Monitoring Study Group, a Here
collaborative effort, is conducting effectiveness
monitoring to assess current conditions and long term
WagesCreek
trendsinchannelconditions. Photo YourNameHere,AFFIL
Identifyandaddresssourcesofsedimentinputtostreamsfrom roads. NMFS
DFG
WestportWaterDistrict
BoardofForestryMonitoringStudyGroup
BallardForestry
563
Wages Creek
Priority Areas for
Wa
ge s
sC ge
re e
a
R
W
id k
NF
e r
Gu
lc h
Westport
City/Town
Coho Intrinsic Potential (IP) value
Area 0.01 - 0.34
of
Detail 0.35 - 0.69
Fort Bragg
0 1 0.70 - 0.99
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz
Coho Salmon 564
CCCCohoSalmon
WagesCreek

SEC CDFGHAB8 NA NA SpawningAdults Sediment AmountofGravel* <100m2 100500 500900 >900
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
SEC SWRCB 3/10IPkm Fair Smolts Passage #ofDiversions** >5/10IPkm 1.15 0.011 0
NMFS CDFCWHR NA Fair MultipleLifeStages Hydrology StandAge >40yearsold
Noevidenceoftoxins
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

565
Summer Winter
Wages Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Stages Rank
Juveniles Juveniles
1 Droughts Medium Medium High Medium Very High Medium High
2 Roads and Railroads High High High Medium Medium High High
3 Logging and Wood Harvesting High High Medium Medium Medium High High
4 Storms and Flooding High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
5 Recreational Areas and Activities Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium
6 Disease, Predation, and Competition Medium - High - Medium - Medium
13 Channel Modification Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium
14 Fishing and Collecting Medium - Medium - Medium - Medium
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Medium - - - Medium - Medium
16 Mining - - - - Low - Low
Threat Status for Targets and Project High High High High Very High High High
566
567
568
569
570
WALKERCREEK
571
WalkerCreek 76.2IPkmofpotentialcohosalmonhabitat
Walker Creek drains approximately 75 square

miles of northern Marin County and empties into
TomalesBay.Approximately61percentoftheWalker
Creekwatershedisgrasslandandabout24percentof
the watershed area is either montane or riparian
hardwood forest. The Walker Creek watershed has
low to moderate erodibility after considering slope,
underlying geology. The SWRCB listed the lower 16
milesoftheWalkerCreekwatershedashavingwater
qualityimpairedformercury,nutrients,andsediment
in 2003. The water quality impairment listing
determined that mercury, nutrients, and sediment
were impairing habitats beneficial to coho salmon,
including migration, spawning, and rearing habitats, WalkerCreek
and identified surface mining, mine tailings, and PhotobyBobCoey,NMFS
agriculturesastheprobablecauses.Ninetysixpercent
of the Walker Creek watershed is in private TheWatershedataGlance
ownership; the remaining four percent is state and
localownedlands.Thedominantlandusewithinthe SpawningQuantity&Quality: FAIRtoVERYGOOD
WalkerCreek watershed is dairy rangeland. Housing SummerWaterTemperatures: POOR
development within the Walker Creek watershed is Depth&ShelterofPools POOR
low; approximately 300 housing units are present in LargeWoodFrequency: POOR
the watershed. There are three dams within the
watershed that impede or block salmon migration,
and additional numerous partial barriers to salmon offchannel/FloodplainQuality: POORtoFAIR
migration caused by road crossings and water EstuaryFunction: FAIR
diversions.Impassablebarriersblocksalmonidsfrom
30to50percentofthewatershed.
NoData
572
Walker Creek RecoveryTarget:252AdultCohoSalmon

requires protecting all individuals from threats that are salmoninWalkerCreekrequiresthese
jeopardizingcohosalmon.Theonlythreatthatrankedhighin priority recoveryactions:
theWalkerCreekwaterhshedwas: Developsitespecificrecommendations,
includingincentives,toremedyhigh
LivestockFarmingandRanching temperaturesandimplement(DFG2004)
initiallyincoreareas,followingwith
Phase1and2areas.
Preventing the extinction of coho salmon Implementhighprioritycohosalmon
means restoring many key habitat attributes within the enhancementprojectsforthereductionof
Walker Creek watershed that are in poor condition. The sedimentdeliveryandtherestorationof
highestprioritiesforrestorationareto: ripariancorridorsaslistedintheWalker
CreekEnhancementPlan
Improvespawninghabitat Addresswaterqualityandnutrient
Increasefrequencyofpoolhabitat loadingissuesbyencouragingsustainable
Increaseriparianshadingtocoolstreams landmanagementpractices,controlling
sedimentsources,protectingriparian
Improveflows zonesandemployingBMPsthat
Promoteriparianvegetationconservation encouragepermeabilityandinfiltration
Reduceimpactstothestreamsfromagriculture Promotegrazingandranchingpractices
Increasetheamountoflargewoodinandnear thatprotectandrestoreCCCcohosalmon
streams habitats.
Decreasethenumberofroadsnearstreamsand ...inthesecoreareas: WalkerCreekare
reducetheimpactsofexistingroads aboveChilenoCreekoftheLowerWalker
Eliminatesourcesofsedimentandtoxins Creekplanningwatershed;MainstemWalker
CreekandFrinkCanyonoftheUpperWalker
Creekplanningwatershed
Cohosalmonfrombroodstockprogramswerereleasedinto
thewatershed WeNeedYour
Erosioncontroleffortsaretakingplacetocontrolsedimentin PhotoHere
thewatershed
DairyandfarmingBestManagementPracticeshavebeen
developedandimplementedintheWalkerCreekWatershed StreambankrestorationonWalkerCreek
PhotobyBobCoey,NMFS
MMWD
Assessandprioritizesedimentsourcesfromroadnetworks MarinRCD
Conductlandowneroutreachtoexpandbroodstockreleases/monitoring DFG
UCCE
Explorepassageabovewaterdiversionsanddams TomalesBayWatershedCouncilPrivate
573
Walker Creek
Priority Areas for
C reek
ys Petaluma
Ke
Chilen
o C r ee
k
Wa
lk e
r Cr
ee
y on
k
an
C
in k
Salmon Cre e
Fr
nyo
k
e Ca
rd
Ve
City/Town
0.01 - 0.34
Area 0.35 - 0.69
of
Detail Inverness 0.70 - 0.99
Fort Bragg
Santa Rosa
California
Santa Cruz Point Reyes Station
Coho Salmon 574
CCCCohoSalmon
WalkerCreek

SEC PSMFCDatabase 70% Fair SpawningAdults Passage PhysicalBarriers <50%ofIPkm 5070%ofIPkm 7090%ofIPkm >90%ofIPkm
1214%0.85mmandor
<30%6.3mm
2550%ofscores
1s&2s
<30%poolsby
length
SEC FMMP 33.38% Poor MultipleLifeStages Landdisturbance Agriculture >30%ofWSbyarea 1030% 0.110% <0.1%
NMFS CDFCWHR <25% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. SpeciesComposition <25% 2550% >50% HistoricalConditions
SEC CDFGHAB8 <60% Poor MultipleLifeStages RiparianVeg. CanopyCover <45%avg.overIPkm 7585% 8595% >95%
NMFS CDFTHPDataset 1.3mi/sq.mi. VeryGood MultipleLifeStages SedimentTransport RoadDensity >3miles/sq.mile 3to2.5 2.5to1.6 <1.6
Noevidenceoftoxins
NMFS ManySources Poor Poor MultipleLifeStages WaterQuality Toxicity Acute SublethalorChronic NoAcuteorChronic
orContaminants

<20%IPkm
occupied

575
Spawning
Walker Creek Threats Across Targets Adults
Overall Threat
Rank
Very
1 Livestock Farming and Ranching High High High Medium High Very High
High
2 Droughts Medium Medium High Medium Medium Low Medium
3 Roads and Railroads Medium Medium Medium Medium Low High Medium
10 Residential and Commercial Development Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
12 Water Diversion and Impoundment Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium
13 Disease, Predation, and Competition Low - Medium - Medium - Medium
14 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low
15 Hatcheries and Aquaculture Low - Medium Low Low Low Low
Very
High
576
577
578
CHAPTER11:MONITORING
It is imperative that California, which is well behind other states in the Pacific
Northwest, begin conducting monitoring at spatial scales relevant to recovery
planning if we are to have any hope of accurately evaluating status and
progress towards recovery.
Spence et al. 2008
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe coho recovery monitoring necessary to evaluate all viable
salmonid population (VSP) criteria (McElhany et al. 2000) and associated listing factors and threats
(CrawfordandRumsey2009)inrelationtorecoverycriteriafortheCCCcohosalmonESUdescribedin
Chapter 9. Implementation of this recovery plan will require monitoring to determine with scientific
certaintythatrecoveryactionsidentifiedhereinareworkingtoimprovecohosalmonpopulations,their
habitats, and that limiting factors and threats to survival are diminishing. Because of the length and
complexityofthecohosalmonslifecycleandthediversityofenvironmentstheyoccupy,therearemany
uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of management prescriptions for improving production,
survival,and habitat andreducing threats. Identifying relationships between management actionsand
salmonid responses are challenging scientific questions. It is important monitoring is directed at
answering basic questions regarding assessment methods, responses, progress, success, failure,
additional data needs, and evaluation methods. Including an adaptive management component will
allow NMFS, as well as others, to learn from past experiences through experimentation via altering
actionsbasedonmeasuredeffectiveness,abasictenantofscience.Finally,allmonitoringdatamustbe
coordinatedinaregionalsetofdatabasesordistributeddatasystemusingacommonsetofmetadataand
datadictionariesthatfitswithinanintegratedmastersampleprogram(CrawfordandRumsey2009).
GiventheimperilednatureofcohoinCaliforniaitiscriticalthatcoastwideinstreammonitoring
programsbeimplementedandmaintainedtoallowwarningofimpendingproblemstothesevaluable
resources.Withouttheexistingminimalmonitoringeffort,sincecohoarenotcommerciallyfishedor
regulated,therewouldbelittlenoticeoftheirdecline.
MacFarlaneetal.2008,indraft
ExistingadultcohosalmonescapementmonitoringprogramsintheCCCcohosalmonESUarecurrently
inadequate to estimate VSP criteria with any statistical certainty for the management purposes of: (1)
providing a sound basis for assessing recovery of listed populations; and (2) monitoring the success of
restoration programs. Similarly, spatial pattern, diversity, and limiting factor and threat (including
habitat status and trend) monitoring efforts are either inadequate or nonexistent. Recently, NMFS
publishedthedraftGuidelinesforMonitoringRecoveryofPacificNorthwestSalmonandSteelheadin
Idaho,Oregon,andWashington(CrawfordandRumsey2009).Theauthorsmakerecommendationsfor
data collection and reporting, monitoring VSP status and trends, and monitoring
584
listingfactorsandthreats(includinghabitatstatusandtrends,hatchery,harvest,andregulatoryactions).
Inthischaptertheseguidelinesareincorporatedwithongoingeffortstodevelopandimplementacoast
widesalmonidmonitoringprograminCalifornia(BoydstunandMcDonald2005,Adamsetal.inreview)
toidentifyhighprioritymonitoringneedsspecifictotheCCCcohosalmonESU.
MONITORING CCC COHO SALMON ESU VSP STATUS AND TRENDS

VSP Adult Spawner Abundance
Themostimportantmetricforpopulationviabilitycriteriaisspawnerabundanceovermultiple
generations.SystematicandcomprehensivelongtermmonitoringofadultCCCcohosalmoniscritical
andimmediateinitiationofmonitoringconsistentlyacrosstheESUisimperativeforrecovery.Currently
thereisnotacoordinatedstatewidelongtermmonitoringprogramandthishassignificantadverse
ramificationstoourabilitytoevaluatethestatusandtrendsofpopulationswithintheESU.Onlyafew
organizationsareconductingsomelevelofadultmonitoringand,whileitprovidesvaluableinformation
forspecificwatersheds,theseeffortsareinsufficienttotrackthestatusofpopulationsandrecoverygoals
acrosstheESU.Theseeffortsneedintegrationwithacohesivemastersampledesign.Boydstunand
McDonald(2005)andAdamsetal.(inreview)recommendatwostagesamplingapproachformonitoring
thestatusandtrendsofCaliforniascoastalsalmonidsatevolutionarilysignificantregionalspatialscales
thatcanalsobedecomposedtoprovidepopulationlevelestimates.Firststagesamplingiscomprisedof
extensiveregionalspawningsurveystoestimateescapementfromreddcountscollectedinstream
reachesselectedunderaGeneralizedRandomTessellationSampling(GRTS,Larsenetal.2008)rotating
paneldesignatasurveylevelof10percentofavailablehabitateachyear.Secondstagesamplingconsists
ofproducingescapementestimatesinintensivelymonitoredcensusstreams(alsocalledLifeCycle
Monitoringstations)througheithertotalfishcountsofreturningadultsorcapturerecapturestudies.The
secondstageestimatesareconsideredtorepresenttrueadultescapementandresultingspawnertoredd
ratiosareusedtocalibratefirststageestimatesofregionaladultabundance(GallagherandWright2008).
TheLifeCycleMonitoringstationsareplaceswheresmoltandsummerrearingabundancearemonitored
toestimatefreshwaterandmarinesurvivalandtoevaluatelifehistorieswhichhelpwithinterpreting
regionalstatusandtrendinformation(thestageonedata).Thesestreamsarealsointendedtobefocal
pointsforevaluatingrestorationandencouragingfurtherresearch.TheNMFSmonitoringguidelines
(CrawfordandRumsey2009)recommendusingarobustunbiasedspawnerabundancesamplingscheme
thathasknownprecisionandaccuracy.SimilartoAdamsetal.(inreview)theyofferprobabilistic
samplingofallaccessiblespawningareasusingunbiasedrandomizedsites(GRTS)withrotatingpanels
asanoptionthatwillproducestatisticallyvalidestimatesofspawnerabundancewithknowncertainty.
MonitoringneedsandrecommendationspresentedbelowdrawheavilyonNMFSsGuidelinesfor
MonitoringRecoveryofPacificNorthwestSalmonandSteelhead(CrawfordandRumsey2009).
585

Adult CCC coho salmon males collected at the Pudding Creek weir Life Cycle Monitoring station, Fort Bragg,
California.Pudding Creekmaintainsoneofthestrongerremainingruns ofcohosalmon intheESU.Thelifecycle
station is a cooperative effort between Hawthorne Timber Company (HTC) and DFG (partially funded by the
FisheriesRestorationGrantsProgram)andisanimportantsourceofinformationregardingadultcohosalmonreturns.
(PhotoscourtesyofDavidWrightHTC)
1. Implement,assoonaspossible,anunbiasedtwostageGRTSbasedESUwidemonitoring
programofadultCCCcohosalmonthathasknownprecisionandaccuracy.Monitoring
shouldinclude:

a. YearlyadultspawnerabundanceestimatesfortheentireESU,foreachdiversity
stratum,andwherepossiblyforeachpopulationidentifiedinTable8and9of
Chapter5thatincorporatesexistingmonitoringintoamastersampleGRTSdesign;

b. Establish(ataminimumoneorpreferablytwo)LifeCycleMonitoringstreamsin
eachdiversitystratum,andmaintaincurrentlifecyclestationsinLagunitasCreekin
MarinCounty,PuddingCreekinMendocinoCounty,andScottCreekinSantaCruz
Countytoestimatespawner:reddratiosforcalibratingregionalreddcountsand
adultsin/smoltsoutforestimatingsurvivalthesestreamsmayalsoserveas
intensivelymonitoredwatershedsforevaluatingrestorationactions;

c. StrivetohaveESUleveladultspawnerdatawithacoefficientofvariation(CV)on
averageof15%orless;

d. Regionalspawnerdatashouldhavethestatisticalpowertodetectachangeof30%
with80%certaintywithin10years;

e. StrivetohaveabundanceestimatesattheLifeCycleMonitoringstationswithCVon
averageof15%orless;

586
f. Estimatemigrationratesbetweenbasinsandtributariesoflargerbasinstovalidate
assumptionsthatunderliepopulationdelineationsandtoassesspotentialroleof
interbasinexchangeonextinctionprobabilities;
g. Evaluatehatcheryimpactsandhatcherywildratios(thisshouldcoverarangeof
issuesfromgeneticchangestobroodstockmining)andimplementhatchery
recommendationsperSpenceetal.2008;and
h. MonitoringshouldutilizetheprotocolspublishedintheAmericanFisheriesSociety
SalmonidFieldProtocolsHandbook(Johnsonetal.2007).
VSP Productivity
1. Developa12yearorgreaterdatasetofaccuratespawnerinformationtoestimategeometric
meanrecruitsperspawnerandevaluatepopulationtrends.
2. Implementyearlysmoltabundancemonitoringinatleastonesignificantpopulationineach
diversitystrata.TheLifeCycleMonitoringstationsshouldcoverthisrequirement.

a. JuvenilemonitoringshouldstrivetohavedatawithaCVonaverageof15percentor
less;

b. Poweranalysisforeachmonitoredjuvenilepopulationshouldbeconductedto
determinethestatisticalpowerofthedatatodetectsignificantchangesin
abundance;and

c. Estimateapparentmarineandfreshwatersurvival(coupleadultdatawiththesmolt
abundanceestimates).
VSP Spatial Distribution

1. DeterminethespatialdistributionofcohosalmonintheCCCESUwiththeabilitytodetecta
changeof15percentwith80percentcertainty.FollowBoydstunandMcDonald(2005)and
Adamsetal.(inreview)todevelopandimplement,assoonaspossible,randomized
probabilistic(GRTS)summerandfallsnorkelsurveysamplingofjuvenilecohosalmon
withintheESU.
2. Evaluatechangesinadultspawningareasusingprobabilisticsampling.
VSP Diversity
1. Monitorstatusandtrendsofspawntiming,sexratio,agedistribution,fecundity,andetc.(see
Adamsetal.inreview)atoneLifeCyclingMonitoringStreamperdiversitystrataandwithin
andamongdiversitystrata.
2. DevelopageneticbaselineofDNAmicrosatellitemarkersforeachpopulationintheESU.
587

MONITORING CCC COHO SALMON LISTING FACTORS AND THREATS
1. DevelopandimplementaGRTSbasedhabitatstatusandtrendmonitoringprogramwhichis
coordinatedwiththejuvenilespatialstructureevaluationsandtheLifeCycleMonitoring
stations.
a. Developastandardizedsurveymethodologyforevaluatinghabitatattributes;
b. IntegrateongoinghabitatassessmentworkintoamasterGRTSsampledesign;
c. Incorporate consistent habitat monitoring protocols that provide comparable
watershedinformation;and
d. Develop and employ suitable habitat assessment criteria and models that provide
highlevelindicatorsofwatershedconditions.
2. Whereverpossible,habitatrestorationactivitiesshouldhavebothanimplementationandan
effectivenessmonitoringcomponent.WorkinLifeCycleMonitoringstationsandintensively
monitoredwatershedsshouldalsoincorporatevalidationmonitoring.
a. Restorationeffortsshouldbereportedandcorrelatedwithhabitatlimitingfactorsso
cumulativeimpactscanbetrackedwithintheESU;
b. ReachscaleeffectivenessmonitoringshouldbeconductedfollowingtheBeforeAfter
ControlImpact(BACI)design;
c. Habitat restoration in the Life Cycle Monitoring stations should follow the BACI
design, have enough of the watershed treated and monitored to effect a detectable
changeinfish abundance, occurin streams with alllife stages ofcoho salmon, and
occurinproximitytosimilarsizedwatershedsthatcanserveascontrols;and
d. EstablishatleastoneIntensivelyMonitoredWatershed(asdetailedinCrawfordand
Rumsey 2009) within the ESU. Conduct power analysis early in development to
determine amount of watershed required to be treated necessary to detect 3050
percentchangeinfishresponse.
3. Currently no monitoring program exists that tracks freshwater harvest or ocean bycatch.
NMFSrecommendstheCaliforniaFishandGamecommission,incollaborationwithNMFS,
deviseanappropriatemechanismfortracking.
4. Water quality monitoring relevant to salmonids is recommended as part of recovery
monitoring.
5. To assess adequacy of regulatory actions implement a recovery plan tracking system to
document if local and State agencies have implemented actions proposed in this recovery
plan.
6. Climate change is a significant potential threat and monitoring the effects of this on coho
salmon should include changes in stream flow and temperature and their effects on fresh
watersurvival.
588
DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING
1. All monitoring data must be coordinated in a regional set of databases or distributed data
systemusingacommonsetofmetadataanddatadictionariesthatfitswithinanintegrated
mastersampleprogram.Thisshouldbeshouldbehousedandmaintainedinoneplaceby
oneentity.
2. Allentitiescollectinghabitatandfishmonitoringdatashouldcoordinatetheirsamplingand
datacollectiontofitintoamastersampleprogramfortheCCCcohosalmonESU.
COSTS ESTIMATES
Regionalspawninggroundsurveyscostabout$3,000tosurveyonereachasufficientnumberof
times each season to generate reliable redd counts (Gallagher and Wright 2008). There are 339
0.1kmto3.9kmreachesencompassing834kmofspawninghabitatincoastalMendocinoCounty
fromUsalCreekintheNorthtoSchoonerGulchintheSouth(S.Gallagherunpublished).Tables
8and9inChapter5indicatethereare827IP/kminthisareaandatotalof2398IP/kmintheCCC
cohosalmonESU.A10%sampleof3kmreachesintheESUwouldresultinasampledrawof
approximately 80 reaches at an annual cost of ~$240,000, not including data storage and report
preparation.AdultmonitoringatthePuddingCreekLifeCycleMonitoringstationinMendocino
Countycostsabout$36,000peryear(GallagherandWright2008).Thisestimatedoesnotinclude
smoltorsummerrearingabundanceestimatesnordoesitincludedataanalysisandreporting.It
costs about $15,000 per year to conduct the juvenile monitoring in Pudding Creek for an
approximate grand total of $51,000 perLife CycleStation. One Life Cycle Station per recovery
domain comes out to at least $204,000 per year. Note that this estimate is based on Pudding
Creek,asmallstreamclassifiedashavingadependentcohosalmonpopulation.Toconductlife
cyclemonitoringinthenearbyTenMileRiver(afunctionallyindependentpopulation)wouldbe
moredifficultandmuchmoreexpensiveduetothelackofinfrastructureandthelargersizeof
theriver.Juvenilespatialstructureandhabitatmonitoringlikelywillrunabout$1,000perreach.
Thereisagreatdealmorejuvenilehabitatthanspawninghabitat,perhapstwiceasmuch,thusan
annualsampleof160reachesmightcostabout$160,000peryear.Thisestimatedoesnotinclude
dataanalysis,storage,orreportpreparation.Samplesizeandreachvarianceissueswillhaveto
bedevelopedforjuvenilespatialstructureandhabitatmonitoring.Determiningactualcostsof
this monitoring could be part of this evaluation and will need to include cost estimates for
evaluatingrestorationactions,implementingarecoverytrackingsystem,andfordevelopingand
maintaining a coordinated data management system. Finally, monitoring the recovery of coho
salmon in the CCC ESU will require continuing evaluation of costs, dedicated funding, and a
longtermcommitmentofresourcesbyallinvolvedparties.
589
CHAPTER12:
IMPLEMENTATION&COSTS
Recovery plans and the threats assessment process will provide the guide map for priority
setting. Once recovery plans are in place, species protection and conservation will be
facilitated by ongoing use of the plans to guide policy and decision-making. The Division
will refocus its priorities from a project-by-project approach to one that focuses efforts on
those activities or areas that have biologically significant beneficial or adverse impacts on
species and ecosystem recovery.
NMFS SWR PRD Strategic Plan for 2007-2011 (NMFS 2006)
INTEGRATING RECOVERY INTO NMFS ACTIONS

Itisaworthychallengetoreversethepathofaspeciesawayfromextinctionandtoward
recovery.Thiswillrequirefundamentalchangesinlongstandingpolicesandpracticesboth
withinNMFSandothermanagementagencies,aswellaswithprivatelandowners,professional
organizations,communities,andindividuals.Thesechangescanonlybeaccomplishedwith
effectiveoutreachandeducation,strongpartnerships,focusedrecoverystrategiesandsolution
orientedthinkingthatcanshiftagencyandsocietalattitudes,practicesandunderstanding.
Topromotespeciesandecosystemconservation,NMFSmustapproachspeciesconservation
morestrategically.NMFSwillbecomeamoreproactiveandeffectiveforceforconservationby
focusingprioritiestowardthoseactivitiesandareasthathavebiologicallysignificantimpacts.
NMFSwillincorporaterecoverygoalsandactionsintoalloftheprogramsandcriticalhabitat
designationsunderESAsection4,ESAconsultationsundersection7,andpermitactionsunder
ESAsection10.NMFSwillinstitutionalizetherecoveryplangoalsandtakeeveryopportunityto
incorporatethemindailyeffortsanddecisionmaking.
ImplementationoftherecoveryplanbyNMFSwilltakemanyforms.ThePRDStrategicPlan
(NMFS2006;AppendixG)describesbothgeneralandspecificwaysNMFSwillimplementthe
recoveryplan.TheRecoveryPlanningGuidance(NMFS2007)alsooutlineshowNMFSwill
cooperatewithotheragenciesonplanimplementation.Thesedocuments,inadditiontotheESA,
willbeusedbyNMFStosettheframeworkandenvironmentforplanimplementation.
NMFSactionstopromoteandimplementrecoveryplanningshallinclude:
Formalizingrecoveryplanninggoalsonaprogramwidebasistoprioritizeworkload
allocationanddecisionmaking,includingdevelopingmechanismstopromote
implementation(e.g.,restoration);
590
Aligningregulatoryrequirements(e.g.,section7consultations,criticalhabitatdesignations,
and4(d)rules)withrecoveryactions;
Promotingrapidimplementationofexistingrestorationplansandrecoveryactions,
particularlythosedirectedtowardCoreAreas;
Conductinganoutreachandeducationprogram;
Facilitatingaconsistentframeworkforresearch,monitoring,andadaptivemanagementthat
directlyinformsrecoveryobjectivesandgoals;and
Establishinganimplementationtrackingsystemthatisadaptiveandpertinenttoannual
reportingfortheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsAct,BiAnnualRecoveryReportsto
Congress,and5YearReviewsofeachspecieslistingstatus.
Working with Constituents

Successfulimplementationofthisrecoveryplanwillrequiretheeffortsandresourcesofmany
entities,fromFederalagenciestoindividualmembersofthepublic.NMFSeffortsmustbeas
farreachingastheissuesadverselyaffectingthespecies,extendingbeyondthedirectregulatory
jurisdictionofNMFS.NMFScommitstoworkingcooperativelywithotherindividualsand
agenciestoimplementrecoveryactionsandtoencourageotherFederalagenciestoimplement
actionswheretheyhaveresponsibility,initiative,orauthority.Toachieverecovery,NMFSwill
promotetherecoveryplanandprovidetechnicalinformationandassistancetootherentitiesthat
implementactionsthatmayimpactthespeciesrecovery.Forexample,NMFSwillworkwith
partnersonhighprioritiessuchasfacilitatingrevisionstothewaterrightsprocess,formalizing
CaliforniaForestPracticeRulessotheyadequatelyprotectsalmonids,andworkingwithcounties
(particularlyMendocinoandSantaCruz)toensureprotectivemeasuresareincludedintheir
GeneralPlansforthehighestpriorityareas.
BeyondNMFSstatutoryauthoritiesandobligations,weareengagedinsignificantoutreach
effortstovariousconstituenciestoprovidetechnicalassistanceregardinglistedsalmonids,their
habitatneeds,andvariouslifehistoryrequirements.MostofthelandintheCCCcohosalmon
domainisprivatelyowned.Section7haslimitedreachontheseprivatelands.Therefore,
developingpartnershipsthroughprovidingtechnicalassistanceiscriticalforrecovery
implementation.NMFSwillfocusoutreachandassistanceeffortsinkeyareascriticalfor
recoverythroughthefollowingactions:
WorkwiththecountiesofMendocino,Sonoma,Marin,SanMateo,andSantaCruzto
recommendcountyplanningandpoliciesprotectiveofcohosalmonthroughFishNet4Cas
wellaswiththeindividualcounties;
ContinueworkingwithNaturalResourcesConservationService,ResourceConservation
Districts,andtheFrostProtectionTaskForcetoimproveagriculturalpracticesandlanduse
practicesofruralresidentiallandowners;
EncourageSmartGrowthpoliciesandprovideoutreachandeducationtourbanplannersand
builders.Encourageplanningthataccountsfornaturaleventssuchasdroughts,storms,
flooding,andclimatechange;
591
Prioritizecooperationandassistancetolandowners(includingpermittingassistance)
proposingactivitiesorprogramsdesignedtoachieverecoveryobjectives;
Establishpoliciesandcompliancethatpreserveandprotectstreamflowsrequiredbyall
freshwaterlifestagesofcohosalmon;
Developanddistributenotakeguidelinesforlandusepracticesandotheractivitiesthatmay
takeorharmCCCcohosalmon;
AssembleaNMFSWaterRightsTeamthatworkswiththeDFGandSWRCBtofocuson
restoringandmaintainingnaturalstreamflowregimesacrosstheESU;
Reviewselecttimberharvestplans(THPs)inCorewatershedstoevaluatepotentialimpacts
tocohosalmon,givingtopprioritytoTHPsassociatedwithforestconversion;
Worktoacquirefundingandstaffforfullenforcementofexistingprotectivelaws,codes,
regulationsandordinancesacrosstheCCCcohosalmonESU;and
Developoutreachandeducationalmaterialstoinformthegeneralpublicandinspirethemto
contributetorecovery.
Ongoing Regulatory Practices

TheESAprovidesNMFSwithmanytoolsforprotectingandthenrecoveringlistedspecies.
Generally,theESAfocusesonrecoveryplanningprovisionsinsection4,cooperationwithStates
insection6,anddirectiontoFederalagenciesinsection7(a)(1).Specifically,theESAfocusesfirst
onidentifyingspeciesandecosystemsindangerofimmediateorforeseeableextinctionor
destruction,andprotectingthemastheirconditionwarrants.Then,theESAfocuseson
preventingfurtherdeclinesinspeciesconditionthroughtheconsultationprovisionsofsection
7(a)(2);habitatprotectionandenhancementprovisionsofsections4and5;takeprohibitionsof
sections4(d)and9;cooperationwiththestate(s)inwhichthesespeciesarefound(section6);and
neededresearch,enhancement,andnonFederalconservationactions(section10).
NMFShasalreadyutilizedmanyoftheESAsprovisionstoconservethreatenedandendangered
species.NMFShaslistedpopulationsofsalmonandsteelheadinCaliforniaanddesignated
criticalhabitat.NMFShasworkedwithFederalagenciesandprivatelandownersonfishery
managementactionsandconsultationsconductedundertheEssentialFishHabitat(EFH)
provisionsoftheMagnusonStevensFisheryConservationandManagementAct(MSFCMA)and
sections7(a)(2)and10(a)(1)oftheESAtoavoidandminimizeharmtothesespecies.Significant
benefitshaveaccruedtothelistedspeciesfromchangesinlandandwaterusepractices.
Unfortunately,CCCcohosalmonpopulationscontinuetodecline.
Recoveryplanshaveagreaterscopethanthemorereactive,projectbyprojectfocusofmost
effortstakenunderEFHprovisions,section7,andsection10.NMFSintendstousethisbroader
perspectivetoachievemoresignificantandfocusedbenefitsforCCCcohosalmon.NMFSwill
592
strivetoimplementeveryactionwithinthisrecoveryplanforwhichithasauthority.The
RecoveryPlanningGuidance(NMFS2007)describeshowrecoveryplanswillshapeNMFS
actions:
...theESAclearlyenvisionsrecoveryplansasthecentralorganizingtoolforguiding
eachspeciesrecoveryprocess.TheyshouldalsoguideFederalagenciesinfulfilling
theirobligationsundersection7(a)(1)oftheESAandprovidecontextanda
frameworkforimplementingotherprovisionsoftheESAsuchassection7(a)(2),
developmentofHabitatConservationPlansorSafeHarboragreementsundersection
10,specialrulesforthreatenedspeciesundersection4(d).
ThespecificapproachesNMFSwillusewhenimplementingvarioussectionsoftheESAand
MSFCMAarediscussedindetailbelowandsummarizedinTable21.Theseapproachesare
intendedtoincorporatetherecoveryplansinthedailyeffortsanddecisionmakingatNMFSin
theSouthwestRegion.SomeoftheseapproachesaddressissuesofstaffingandworkloadNMFS
currentlyfaces.Asaresult,ourcommitmenttoimplementingrecoveryplansextendstothe
waysweprioritizethemanyrequestsfortechnicalassistance,consultations,andpermits
received.
Section4providesmechanismstolistnewspeciesasthreatenedorendangered,designatecritical
habitat,developprotectiveregulationsforthreatenedspecies,anddeveloprecoveryplans.
Criticalhabitatdesignationsmayberevisedtoreflectrecoverystrategies.Criticalhabitatis
designatedinspecificgeographicalareaswherephysicalorbiologicalfeaturesessentialtothe
speciesarefoundandwherespecialmanagementconsiderationsorprotectionsmaybeneededto
preserveandprotectthem.CriticalhabitatforCCCcohosalmonwasdesignatedin1999(64FR
24049),andincludedallareasoccupiedbynaturallyspawnedpopulationsatthattime.NMFS
willreevaluatethedesignationinlightofthedataandcriteriadevelopedforthisplan,andmay
designateadditionalhabitat(includingmarinehabitat),orcurrentlyunoccupiedhabitatdeemed
essentialfortheconservationofthespecies.
Unlikeendangeredspecies,whichareautomaticallysubjecttotheprohibitionsofsection9,
specialregulationsmustbedevelopedundersection4(d)toprohibittakeofthreatenedspecies.
Tailored4(d)section9takeprohibitionsandregulatorylimitsthatcontributetotherecoveryof
thespeciesmaybedevelopedforthreatenedspecies.However,becauseCCCcohosalmonare
listedasendangered,section7(a)(2),section10processesaretheonlylegalmechanismsavailable
undertheESAtoaddressactivitiesthatmayresultintake.
593
Table26:RecoveryPlanImplementationundertheESAandMSFCMAbyNMFS

Authority Description ImplementationActions
ESA Section7(a)(1) UsethreatsassessmentsandrecoveryactionstoguideFederalpartnersto

InteragencyCooperation furthertheconservationofCCCcohosalmon.
Section7
(Useofauthorities)
ESA Section7(a)(2) Userecoverycriteriaandobjectivestodetermineeffectsofproposedactions

InteragencyCooperation onthelikelihoodofspeciesrecovery,andtodevelopconservation
Section7
(Consultation) recommendationsandreasonableandprudentmeasuresand
alternatives.
Note:Permitsissued Usethreatsassessmentsandrecoverystrategytoprioritizeconsultations
undersection10(a)(1)of whenmakingworkloaddecisions.
theESAalsoundergo
section7consultationprior
toissuance.
Prioritizeconsultationsforactionsthatimplementrecoverystrategyor
specificrecoveryactions.
Streamlineconsultationsforactionswithlittleornoeffectonrecoveryareas
orpriorities.
ESA Section9Enforcement Prioritizeactionsandareasdeemedofgreatestthreatorimportancefor

focusedeffortstohaltillegaltakeoflistedspecies.
Section9
Developnotakeguidelinesforlanduseactivitiesassociatedwithhigh
threatsinCoreAreas,PhaseI,andPhaseIIAreas.
ESA Section10(a)(1)(A) Prioritizepermitapplicationsthataddressresearchandmonitoringneeds

Researchand identifiedintherecoveryplan.
Section10
EnhancementPermits
Section10(a)(1)(B) Prioritizecooperationandassistancetolandownersproposingactivitiesor
IncidentalTakePermits programsdesignedtoachieverecoveryobjectives.
StandardizemonitoringmethodsinHCPstoconformtoTRTresearchneeds
andtherecoveryplantemplate.
Magnuson FisheryManagement Implementfisheryregulationstomaintainsalmonharvestlevelsatorbelow

StevensFishery thosenecessarytoallowtherecoveryoflistedsalmonandsteelhead.
Management
ImplementfisheryregulationstoreducebycatchofsalmoninFederally
managedfisheries.
594
ESA Section 4
Section4providesmechanismstolistnewspeciesasthreatenedorendangered,designatecritical
habitat,developprotectiveregulationsforthreatenedspecies,anddeveloprecoveryplans.
Criticalhabitatdesignationsmayberevisedtoreflectrecoverystrategies.Criticalhabitatis
designatedinspecificgeographicalareaswherephysicalorbiologicalfeaturesessentialtothe
speciesarefoundandwherespecialmanagementconsiderationsorprotectionsmaybeneededto
preserveandprotectthem.CriticalhabitatforCCCcohosalmonwasdesignatedin1999(64FR
24049),andincludedallareasoccupiedbynaturallyspawnedpopulationsatthattime.NMFS
willreevaluatethedesignationinlightofthedataandcriteriadevelopedforthisplan,andmay
designateadditionalhabitat(includingmarinehabitat),orcurrentlyunoccupiedhabitatdeemed
essentialfortheconservationofthespecies.
Unlikeendangeredspecies,whichareautomaticallysubjecttotheprohibitionsofsection9,
specialregulationsmustbedevelopedundersection4(d)toprohibittakeofthreatenedspecies.
Tailored4(d)section9takeprohibitionsandregulatorylimitsthatcontributetotherecoveryof
thespeciesmaybedevelopedforthreatenedspecies.However,becauseCCCcohosalmonare
listedasendangered,section7(a)(2),section10processesaretheonlylegalmechanismsavailable
undertheESAtoaddressactivitiesthatmayresultintake.
ESA Section 5
Section5isaprogramthatappliestolandacquisitionwithrespecttotheNationalForestSystem.
NoNationalForestlandsarepresentwithintherangeofCCCcohosalmon.Itisunlikelynew
NationalForestswillbeestablishedwithinthisspeciesrangeintheforeseeablefuture.Therefore,
thisprogramwillnotbenefitcohorecovery.
ESA Section 6 and the PCSRF

Section6describesprotocolsforconsultationandagreementsbetweenNMFSandthestatesfor
thepurposeofconservingthreatenedorendangeredspecies.Californiaiscurrentlydevelopinga
section6agreementwithNMFS.
Asanothermeansofprovidingfundingtothestates,CongressestablishedthePCSRFto
contributetotherestorationandconservationofPacificsalmonandsteelheadpopulationsand
theirhabitats.ThestatesofWashington,Oregon,California,Idaho,Nevada,andAlaska,andthe
PacificCoastalandColumbiaRivertribesreceivePCSRFappropriationsthroughNMFSeach
year.Thefundssupplementexistingstate,tribal,andlocalprogramstofosterdevelopmentof
Federalstatetriballocalpartnershipsinsalmonandsteelheadrecoveryandconservation.NMFS
hasestablishedmemorandaofunderstanding(MOU)withthestatesofWashington,Oregon,
California,Idaho,andAlaska,andwiththreetribalcommissionsonbehalfof28Indiantribes.
TheMOUsestablishcriteriaandprocessesforfundingpriorityPCSRFprojects.
595
NMFSintendstoworkwithCaliforniatoensuretheCCCcohosalmonrecoverystrategyand
prioritiesareincludedintheallocationoffundingforprojects.NMFSalsointendstousePCSRF
reportstohighlightareasandactionspertinenttorecoverythatmightnotoccurintheabsenceof
PCSRFfunds.
ESA Section 7
Section7(a)(1)providesthatallFederalagenciesshallinconsultationwithandwiththe
assistanceoftheSecretary,utilizetheirauthoritiesinfurtheranceofthepurposesofthisActby
carryingoutprogramsfortheconservationofendangeredspecies.Section7(a)(1)allowsa
Federalagencythediscretiontogivetheconservationofendangeredspeciesahighpriority.
ConservationisdefinedintheESAasthosemeasuresnecessarytodelistaspecies.Inother
words,thethemeisrecovery.Todate,otherFederalagencieshavenotfullyembracedsection
7(a)(1)requirementtodevelopconservationprogramsforCCCcohosalmon.TopromptFederal
agenciestodevelopconservationprograms,NMFSshall:
EstablishaframeworkforcooperationtofurtherthepurposesoftheESAthatspecifically
outlinesaprocessforcoordinatingandimplementingappropriaterecoveryactionsidentified
inrecoveryplans(e.g.,MOUsimilartoanowexpired1994MOUbetweenBureauof
NationalAffairsInc.1994andAgencieswhichexpiredin1999).
Prepare,anddeliverafterrecoveryplanapproval,alettertootherappropriateFederal
agenciesoutliningtheirsection7(a)(1)obligationsandopportunities,anddiscussing
salmonidconservationandrecoverypriorities;
EncouragedevelopmentofConservationBankAgreementsforcreatinganarrayof
conservationbanksitesthatwillprovidecreditsascompensationforactionsthatmayaffect
anadromoussalmonidswithintheNCCCrecoverydomain.Focusconservationbanksitesin
keyCCCcohosalmonwatersheds,particularlyinCoreandPhaseIareas;
Encouragemeaningfulandfocusedmitigation,inalignmentwithrecoverygoalsfor
restorationandthreatabatement,forallactionsthatincidentallytakecohosalmonoraffect
theirhabitatinCoreareasandPhaseIandPhaseIIexpansionareas;
EncourageFederalpartnersandtheirconstituentstoincluderecoveryactionsinproject
proposals;and
Thepurposeofsection7(a)(2)istoinsurethatanyactionauthorized,funded,orcarriedoutby
[aFederalagency]isnotlikelytojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofany[listedspecies]or
resultinthedestructionoradversemodificationof[alistedspeciescriticalhabitat].Thetheme
isnotoneofrecoverybutofavoidingjeopardytothespeciesoradversemodificationof
criticalhabitat.FederalagenciesrequestinteragencyconsultationwithNMFS(and/orUSFWS)
whentheydetermineanactionmayaffectalistedspeciesoritscriticalhabitat.NMFSthen
conductsananalysisofpotentialeffectsoftheaction.Intheprocessofconsultation,NMFS
expendsconsiderableefforttoassistagenciesinavoidingandminimizingthepotentialeffectsof
proposedactions,andtoensureagencyactionsdonotjeopardizeaspeciesordestroyordegrade
596
habitat.Consultationshavehelpedavoidandminimizedirecttakebuthavenotledtorecovery
ofCCCcohosalmon.
Becausesection7(a)(2)appliesonlytoFederalactions,itsapplicationsarelimited.IntheCCC
ESUtherearefewFederallandsandalargeproportionoflandsareinprivateownership.Most
ofthelandusepracticesonprivateownershipthatimpactsalmonidsdonottriggerinteragency
consultation.ThislackofconsultationnexusisdueinlargeparttotheUSACEsCleanWaterAct
section404(f)exemptionsforfarming,logging,andranchingactivities.Theseexemptions
eliminateFederaloversightandreviewfortheselandmanagementactivities,includingactions
adverselyaffectingcohosalmonandtheirhabitat.Withoutanexus,thecontributionsection
7(a)(2)providestoCCCcohosalmonrecoveryislimited.
Thelimitedeffectivenessof7(a)(2)toprotectandrecoverCCCcohosalmonmightbebest
illustratedbythecurrentstatusofthepopulationsouthofSanFranciscoBay.Cohosalmonwere
listedbytheStateofCaliforniaasendangeredin1994.Intheir1993listingpetitiontotheFish
andGameCommission,theCountyofSantaCruzFishandWildlifeCommissionpredictedcoho
salmonmightgoextinctbetween2008and2010.SincethefollowupFederallistingin1996,
NMFShasconductednumeroussection7consultationsinthisarea,yetthespeciescurrent
abundancetrendinSantaCruzandSanMateocountiescontinuessteeplydownward.For
example,ScottCreekinSantaCruzCountywasthelastremainingstreamsouthofSanFrancisco
withallthreecohoyearclassesstillpresent.Unfortunately,thestrongyearclass(the2008
cohort)remainingatScottCreekwasdecimatedduetoextremelypooroceanconditions.Many
fisheriesexperts,basedontheimplicationsofthisloss,nowbelievecohosalmonareontheverge
ofcompleteextirpationsouthofSanFrancisco.Unlessdramaticchangesintheregulatory
processandoversight,landandwatermanagementpractices,restorationfocus,andocean
conditions,occurintheverynearfuture,theearlierpredictionsbytheSantaCruzFishand
WildlifeCommissionmay,unfortunately,berealized.
Currently,NMFSexpendssignificantstafftimeandresourcesonconductingsection7
consultations(fundedmandates).Implementationofthisrecoveryplanwillrequire
improvementstotheapplicationofsection7(a)(2)consultationprocessacrosstheESU.Inorder
todevotemoreresourcestorecoveryactionimplementationandtoensuresection7(a)(2)
consultationsareeffective,NMFSwillutilizeitsauthoritiesto:
Userecoverycriteria,objectives,andongoingmonitoringeffortsasareferencepointto
determineeffectsofproposedactionsonthelikelihoodofspeciesrecovery;
Placehighpriorityonconsultationsforactionsthatimplementtherecoverystrategyor
specificrecoveryactions;
Developandmaintaindatabasestotracktheamountofincidentaltakeauthorizedandthe
effectivenessofconservationandmitigationmeasures;
IncorporaterecoveryactionsinformalconsultationsasReasonableandPrudentMeasures,
ReasonableandPrudentAlternatives,andConservationRecommendations;
597
Prioritizestafftimetocarefullyandconsistentlyconsidershortandlongtermimpactsto
watershedprocesseswhenconductingjeopardyanalysesforFederalactionsoccurringin
CCCcohosalmonCoreareasandPhaseIexpansionareas;
Focusstaffpriorities,totheextentpossible,awayfromsection7complianceinwatersheds
notdesignatedasapriorityforrecoveryanddirecteffortstorecoveryimplementationby
developing4(d)rulesforlowimpactactivities,etc.;
Streamlineconsultationsforactionswithlittleornoeffectonrecoveryareasorpriorities.
Developstreamlinedprogrammaticapproachesforactionsnotposingathreattothesurvival
andrecoveryofthespecies;
ApplytheVSPframeworkandrecoveryprioritiestoevaluatepopulationandarea
importanceinjeopardyandadversemodificationanalysis;
Workwithestablishedconservationbankprogramstoinfluenceconservationbank
agreementsandactionsthatprovidemeasurablecontributionstothreatabatementand
recovery.
Inaddition,inanefforttobemoreproactiveinleadingconservationefforts,NMFSwillutilizeits
authoritiestoencourage:
AmendmentstotheUSACEsection404CleanWaterActexemptionsforfarming,logging,
andranchingactivities.Terminatingsection404(f)exemptionsfordischargesofdredgedor
fillmaterialintowatersoftheUnitedStatesassociatedwithcertainnormalagricultural
activities(definedaslogging,ranching,andfarming)wouldallowinteragencyconsultations
inkeydependentandindependentwatershedsandprovideincidentaltakecoveragefor
individuals,corporations,andagenciesengagedinthoseactivities;
TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)tofundupgradesforflooddamaged
facilitiestomeettherequirementsoftheESAandfacilitaterecovery;
TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)toprioritizeactionsonpesticidesknowntobe
toxictofishand/orarelikelytobefoundinfishhabitat,andtotakeprotectiveactions,such
asrestrictionsonpesticideusenearwater;
TheFHWAandCaltranstodevelopandfollowpiledrivingguidelinesapprovedbyNMFS
forbridgeconstructionprojectsinkeydependent,independent,andotherwatershedswith
extantcohosalmonpopulations;
Developmentofsection7ConservationRecommendationsbasedonrecoveryactionstohelp
prioritizeFederalfundingtowardsrecoveryactions(NFMS,USFWS,NRCS,EPA,etc.)during
formalconsultations;
AllFederalagencieswhodesignateanonFederalrepresentativetoconductinformal
consultationorprepareabiologicalassessmenttoensuretheassociateddocumentation
598
comportsto50CFR402.14(c)priortoinitiatingconsultationswithNMFS.Compliancewith
theserequirementswillincreaseconsultationeffectivenessandtimeliness;
AllFederalagencies,ortheirdesignatedrepresentatives,tofieldreviewprojectsandactions
uponcompletion,todeterminewhethertheprojectswereimplementedasplannedand
approved.EncourageallFederalagencies,ortheirdesignatedrepresentatives,toreport
findingsoffieldreviewtoNMFS;and
Federalagenciestocoordinateanddevelopprogrammaticincidentaltakeauthorizationfor
activitiesthatcontributetotherecoveryofCCCcohosalmon,andtostreamlinetheir
permittingprocesses,particularlyforrestorationorrecoveryactions.
ESA Section 9
Section9prohibitsanypersonfromharmingmembersoflistedspeciesincludingdirectformsof
harmsuchaskillinganindividual,orindirectformssuchasdestructionofhabitatwhere
individualsrearorspawn.TherecoveryplanwillassistNMFSEnforcementpersonnelby
targetingkeywatershedsessentialforspeciesrecovery.Corerecoveryareasidentifiedinthis
planshouldbeconsideredthehighestpriorityareasforoversight.NMFSPRDstaffwillwork
closelywithNMFSEnforcementtoidentifythreatsandotheractivitiesbelievedtoplacecoho
salmonathighriskoftakeand/orextirpation.Actionswillincludethefollowing:
NMFSwillprioritizeactionsandareasdeemedofgreatestthreatorimportanceforfocused
effortstohaltillegaltakeoflistedspecies;
Landuseactivitiesidentifiedashighprioritythreatsineachwatershedwillbeevaluatedfor
theirpotentialtotakeorharmcohosalmon.Notakeguidelineswillbedevelopedand
implementedforalllanduseactivitiesassociatedwithhighthreatstocohosalmon,focusing
onCoreandPriorityIAreas;
Whentakehasoccurredinahighpriorityarea,NMFSPRDwillworkwithOLE,totheextent
feasible,todevelopatakestatement;
NMFSOLEwillworkwiththeDFG,inconjunctionwiththeJointEnforcementAgreement,
toincreasepatrolsandlandowneroutreachincriticalwatersheds,particularlyduring
droughts,whencohosalmonareatgreaterthreatofunauthorizedtaking;and
ESA Section 10
Section10(a)(1)(A)providespermitsfortheauthorizationoftakeforscientificresearch,orto
enhancethepropagationorsurvivaloflistedspecies.TypicallyNMFShasauthorized
conservationhatcheriesandresearchactivitiesundersection10(a)(1)(A).Section10(a)(1)(B)
providespermitsforotherwiselawfulactivitiesthatincidentallytakelistedspecies.Habitat
conservationplansminimizingandmitigatingtheincidentaltakeoflistedspeciesfromnon
Federalactivitiesarepreparedundersection10(a)(1)(B).Currently,bothprocessestakea
significantamountoftimetoimplementandrecoveryplanshavenotbeenavailabletoguide
prioritiesforpermitissuance.Toimprovethesection10authorizationprocess,NMFSwillutilize
itsauthoritiesinthefollowingways:
599
Section10(a)(1)(A)ResearchPermits
Exploresecuringaregionalcoordinatorandexpandingstaffassignedtoresearchpermits.
Prioritizepermitapplicationsthataddressidentifiedresearchandmonitoringneedsinthe
recoveryplan,and/orenhancethesurvivalofpopulationsofCCCcohosalmon(e.g.,captive
broodstockprograms).Developstreamlinedapproachestopermittingsimilartypesof
researchandmonitoringinthe28focuswatersheds.
Evaluateproposedactivitiesagainsttheidentifiedthreats,recoverystrategy,andrecovery
actionsidentifiedintheplan.
DevelopandmaintainatrackingdatabasetooutputrealtimeinformationforNMFSstaffon
currentresearchtakingplace,locationsandfindings..
Section10(a)(1)(B)HabitatConservationPlans
WerecommendallfutureHCPswherecohosalmonareacoveredspeciesadopttheviabilityand
threatsassessmentprotocolsestablishedinthisrecoveryplan.Adoptionoftheseguidelineswill
facilitatestandardizationandcouldhelpinthetrackingofrecoveryactionsandthreats
abatement.Additionally,adoptionoftheassessmentprotocolsshouldstreamlinejeopardy
analysisandassistapplicantsinidentificationoflimitingfactorsandstrategicallytargeting
beneficialandconservationandmitigationopportunitiesandlocations.Finally,adoptionofthe
assessmentprotocolswillfacilitateconsistencyinthedevelopmentofstandardstodeterminethe
appropriatelevelsofmitigationnecessarytoensurethecontinuedexistenceofCCCcohosalmon.
TheHabitatConservationPlanningHandbookstressestheneedforconsistencyofmitigation
measuresforaspeciesandforspecificstandards.Although,notapreferredoption(accordingto
theUSFWS/NMFSHCPHandbook),ifoffsitemitigationisnecessarythisrecoveryplancanbe
usedtodirectmitigationtowardidentifiedhighprioritywatersheds.Priorityshouldbegivento
Coreareas,followedbyareasdesignatedasPhaseIandthenPhaseII.Insomecircumstancesoff
sitemitigationmayprovidegreaterrecoverybenefitsthanonsitemitigation(e.g.,ifanHCPs
coveredactivitiesoccurinanonfocuswatershedwherethespeciesnolongerpersists).
WithinthisframeworkNMFSwillutilizeitsauthoritiesto:
Prioritizecooperationandassistancetolandownersproposingactivitiesorprograms
designedtoachieverecoveryobjectives.
StandardizemonitoringmethodsinHCPstotheTRTsidentifiedresearchneedsandthe
recoveryplantemplate.Consistentdatacollectiontechniquesandtheabilitytocompare
similardatasetsoverspaceandtimewillsettheframeworkforthefiveyearreviewandhelp
trackrecoveryprogress.
EncouragetheStateBoardofForestrytoseeknotakerulesorapplyforastatewideForestry
HCP(similartothatdevelopedforWashingtonState);and
Prioritizeareasandactionswherethreatabatementhasthepotentialtoprovidethemost
significantcontributiontospeciesrecovery,basedonthethreatsassessmentdevelopedand
updatedaspartoftherecoveryplan;and
600
Section10(j)ExperimentalPopulations
Amongthesignificantchangesmadeinthe1982amendmentstotheESAwasthecreationof
section10(j),whichprovidesforthedesignationofspecificpopulationsofspecieslistedas
experimentalpopulationssolongastheyarewhollyseparatefromothernonexperimental
populations.Undersectionl0(j),reintroducedpopulationsofendangeredorthreatenedspecies
establishedoutsidethecurrentrangebutwithinthespecieshistoricalrangemaybedesignated,
atthediscretionofNMFS,asexperimental,lesseningtheESAsregulatoryauthorityoversuch
populations.BecausethesepopulationsarenotprovidedfullESAprotection,management
flexibilityisincreased,localoppositionisreduced,andmorereintroductionsarepossible.
Twotypesofexperimentalpopulationdesignationsexist:essentialandnonessential.An
essentialexperimentalpopulationisareintroducedpopulationwhoselosswouldbelikelyto
appreciablyreducethelikelihoodofthesurvivalofthespeciesinthewild.Thesepopulationsare
treatedasthreatenedspecies(withspecialrules)forthepurposesofsection9oftheESA.
Therefore,theycanbemanagedwithgreaterflexibilitywithregardtoincidentaltakeand
regulatedtake.
Anonessentialexperimentalpopulationisareintroducedpopulationwhoselosswouldnotbe
likelytoappreciablyreducethelikelihoodofthesurvivalofthespeciesinthewild.These
populations,besidesbeingtreatedasthreatenedspecies,aretreatedasproposedspeciesforthe
purposesofsection7.Theestablishmentofexperimentalpopulationsisavaluabletoolforusein
therecoveryofsomelistedspecies
Tofacilitatetheimplementationofspeciesreintroduction,andtominimizetheregulatory
prohibitionsthatmaycreateoppositiontoreintroductionprograms,candidatereintroduction
areasintheDomainshouldbeconsideredfor10(j)ruleproposals.Additionalanalysisisneeded
todetermineifspecificpopulationsshouldbeproposedasessentialornonessential.However,
wehaveevaluatedreintroductionpotentialforseveralhistoric,currentlyunoccupiedhabitats
andrecommendthat10(j)rulesbedevelopedforseveralwatershedswithintheSanFrancisco
Baydiversitystrata,andpossiblyforotherareaswhereextirpationhasoccurred.
Fisheries Management and EFH

CCCcohosalmonhabitatislocatedinanareaidentifiedasEssentialFishHabitat(EFH)forthe
PacificCoastSalmonFisheryManagementPlan(FMP)undertheMagnusonStevensFishery
ConservationandManagementAct(MSFCMA).NMFSwillimplementfisheryregulationsto
maintainsalmonharvestlevelsatorbelowthosenecessarytoallowfortherecoveryoflisted
salmon.Recoverystrategiesandobjectiveswillserveasaguidewhenprovidingconservation
recommendationsforactionsthatmayadverselyaffectEFH.Inaddition,NMFSwillworkto
implementfisheryregulationstoreducebycatchofsalmoninFederallymanagedfisheries.
601
Coordination with other NMFS Divisions
OtherlineofficesandprogramswithinNOAAcancontributesignificantlytorecovery.NMFS
PRDstaffwillcoordinatewiththeSWFSC,NMFSHabitatConservationDivision,OLE,and
NOAARestorationCentertoassistinrecoveryplanningandimplementationacrosstheNCCC
Domain.Inaddition,collaborationwithotherNOAAlineofficesandNMFSProgramsarealso
expectedtobenefitrecoveryefforts.
TIME AND COST ESTIMATES

Section4(f)oftheESArequiresthatrecoveryplansincludeestimatesofthetimerequiredand
thecosttocarryoutthosemeasuresneededtoachievethePlansgoalandtoachieve
intermediatestepstowardthatgoal(16U.S.C.15311544,asamended).NMFSestimates
recoveryforCCCcohosalmon,likeformostoftheESAlistedPacificNorthwestsalmonand
steelhead,willtake50to100years.Thelistofactionsisextensiveandmanyuncertaintiesexistin
predictingthecourseandcostofrecovery.Suchuncertaintiesincludebiologicalandecosystem
responsestorecoveryactions,statusofthelargereconomy,andtheoffsetofcostsasNMFSand
otherentitiesimplementtheirlawsandpoliciesasamatterofpracticeindoingbusiness.
Theanalysisandconsiderationofrecoverycostswerederivedprimarilyfromthreesources:(1)
RecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmon(DFG,2004);(2)HabitatRestorationCost
ReferencesforSalmonRecoveryPlanning(ThompsonandPinkerton,2008)and(3)coordination
withNOAARestorationCenterOfficeinSantaRosa,California.Costsweredeveloped,where
possible,formany(butnotall)lowerlevelrecoveryactionsineachpopulation(e.g.,watershed).
ThesearedisplayedinassociatedimplementationtablesinChapter10.Costsforeachpopulation
werenotaggregatedtodetermineatotalcost.Thiswouldresultinainaccuratecostestimatedue
tothehighnumberofactionsnotassignedacostandtheuncertaintyassociatedwiththecurrent
costestimates.NMFSisworkingataregionalscaleandacrossallrecoverydomainstodevelopa
consistentmethodofassigningcoststoindividualrecoveryactions.Thus,forthepurposesof
thispublicdraftrecoveryplanNMFSisrequestinginformationfromthepublicandfindsthe
RecoveryStrategyforCohoSalmon(DFG,2004)isarelevantgeneralreferenceforthelikelycosts
forCCCcohosalmonrecovery.
TheStateofCaliforniaconductedacomprehensivecostanalysisforcohosalmonrecoveryin
2004.Togeneratecostestimates,theyreviewedhistoricalprojectdata,butdidnotcorrectthe
coststoreflectinflationortheeverincreasingcostofprojectimplementation.Thetotalcostfor
recoveringCCCcohosalmonacrosstwoESUs(theSouthernOregonNorthernCaliforniaandthe
CCCESU)wasestimatedbyCalifornia.Theestimateincludeddirectfiscalcostsofphysically
performingarecoveryaction,suchastheexpenditurerequiredtopurchase,plant,andmaintain
riparianvegetation.Theestimatealsoincludedsocioeconomiccostssuchasforegoneincome
fromlandtakenoutofproductiontoprovideriparianbuffers.NMFSsubtractedcostsidentified
fortheSouthernOregonNorthernCaliforniaESUandfortheShastaandScottRiverPilot
Program,toarriveatanestimateofbetweenatbetween$3,848,658,328.00and$5,130,658,328.00
(dependingonAlternativesimplemented)(DFG,2004)toachieverecoveryforCCCcohosalmon.
602
Thisestimatemayunderoroverestimatethefullcostofimplementation,becausenotallcosts
couldbequantified,andsomecostsmaybeincurredevenwithoutimplementationoftheplan.
Inaddition,theStatePlanmaderecommendationsthatdifferfromthosepresentedinthisplan.
TheStateCohoRecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmonalsonotesthatthesecostswere
presentedinthesimplestpossibleterms:thecurrentdollarcostofcompletingtheactionin2004.
NMFSproducedareportprovidinginformationoncostsassociatedwithrestorationactivities
(AppendixH){ThomsonandPinkerton2008}.Datafrompubliclyavailablesourceswereusedto
obtainestimatesofrestorationcostsforavarietyofrestorationactivities.Allcostsdescribedin
thereportpertaintodirectexpendituresonrestorationanddonotincludeeconomicopportunity
costs(e.g.,foregoneprofitsassociatedwithrestrictionsonlivestockgrazing,timberharvestand
otheractivities).TheinformationinthereportisdifficulttoapplyintheCCCcohosalmonESU.
ThereportcontainsextensivedatafromthenorthernmostpartofCalifornia,Oregon,
Washington,andIdaho,wherecosts(labor,materials,equipment,etc.)arelikelytobelowerthan
ontheCentralCoastofCalifornia.ThereportoffersrangesofcostsapplicableattheESUscale.
ActualcostsmayvarywidelyfromonewatershedtoanotherandacrosstheextentoftheNCCC
Domainduetodifferencesinregionallaborcosts,propertyvalues,availabilityofexpert
contractorsandmaterials,andpermittingissues,etc.
AlthoughtherearedifferencesbetweentheStateCohoRecoveryPlanandtheFederalCCCcoho
salmonrecoveryplan,NMFSwillusetheStatecostestimatesastheycurrentlyrepresentthebest
availableinformationmostrelevanttotheCCCcohosalmonESU.Duringthepubliccomment
period,wewillfurtherevaluatethecostanalysiswithassistancefromtheNMFSScienceCenter,
NOAARestorationCenterandothersincludingadditionalrequeststothepublicformoreprecise
costestimatesassociatedwithrestoration,monitoringandthreatabatement.
Inclosing,wefinditimperativetoacknowledgethathealthysalmonpopulationsprovide
significanteconomicbenefits.Entirecommunities,businesses,andjobshavebeenbuiltaround
thesalmonofCalifornia.BasedonstudiesthatexaminedstreamsinColoradoandsalmon
restorationintheColumbiaRiverBasin,theSanJoaquinRiver,andtheElwhaRiver,thevalueof
Californiacohosalmonrecoverycouldbesignificantlylargerthanthefiscalorsocioeconomic
costsofrecovery(DFG2004).Importantly,thegeneralmodelforviewingcostversusbenefits
mustbeviewedintermsoflongtermbenefitsderivedfromshorttermcosts.Recoveryactions
takenonbehalfofcohosalmonarelikelytobenefitotherlistedspeciesintheNCCCDomain,
thusincreasingthecosteffectivenessoftheactions.Habitatsrestoredtohighlyfunctioning
conditionsoffertangiblebenefitssuchasimprovedwaterquality,andlesstangiblebenefitssuch
asreducedexpendituresonbankstabilizationorfloodcontrol.Restorationactivitieswill
generatepositivesocioeconomicbenefits.Becauseofthedirectandindirecteconomicvalueof
salmonasaresourceforfishing,recreationandtourismrelatedactivities,eachdollarspenton
salmonrecoverymaygeneratethousandsofdollarsforlocal,state,Federal,andtribaleconomies.
Inotherwords,salmonrecoveryisbestviewednotasacost,butasaninvestmentand
opportunitytodiversifyandstrengthentheeconomy.Thedollarsrequiredtorecoversalmon
shouldbemadeavailablewithoutdelaysuchthatthebenefitscanbegintoaccrueassoonas
possible.
603
CHAPTER13:RESTORATION
The secret of getting started is breaking your complex overwhelming tasks into
manageable tasks, and then starting on the first one.
Mark Twain
RESTORING OUR WATERSHEDS

Recovering CCC coho salmon populations will require addressing multiple factors leading to
theirdecline.OneoftheleadingcausesresultinginthedeclineofCCCcohosalmonishabitat
degradation. Habitat degradation has diminished population carrying capacities and reduced
their likelihood of survival in most watersheds across the range of CCC coho salmon.
Addressingdegradedhabitatscantaketwoapproaches:(1)abatingthreatsandallowinghabitats
to recover at natural rates or (2) abating threats and accelerating the recovery of degraded
habitats through active restoration and enhancement actions. Due to the status of CCC coho
salmon, active restoration and enhancement actions are essential to ensure the survival of this
species.Recoverywillrequireasystematicandsustainedwatershedbywatershedapproachto
rehabilitateimpairedhabitatsanddegradedwatershedprocesses.Recoveryactionsrecommend
implementation ofgeneral and sitespecific restoration strategies, on a watershed by watershed
basis.
Recommended restoration and enhancement actions take a two pronged approach: returning
habitats to properly functioning condition, and in some cases creating entirely new habitat.
Examples of actions that restore habitats to proper function include: replanting riparian areas;
creating riparian buffers; excluding livestock from instream and riparian areas; installing large
wood or other instream habitat features; treating sediment sources and decommissioning
unpaved roads; improving water diversion practices; and providing offchannel habitats.
Creating new habitat involves building and maintaining artificial structures, and utilizing best
management practices to reduce the negative effects of urban development, agriculture, water
diversion, and other land use impacts. The majority of actions recommended in this recovery
plan focus on returning habitats to properly functioning conditions rather than creating new
habitats.
PRIORITIZING RESTORATION ACTIONS

CCCcohosalmonhabitatqualitycurrentlydivergessignificantlyfromhistoricalconditions.This
divergence,alongwitharecentshiftinmarineconditionsthathasloweredmarinesurvival,has
led to the extreme decline in CCC coho salmon abundance across the ESU. CCC coho salmon
populations are so low that simply improving one element of habitat condition or access to
additionalhabitatwillnothalttheirdecline.Prioritizationisnecessarytoemphasizerestoration
techniqueswhicharesufficienttoensuretheexistenceofCCCcohosalmonintothefuture.For
604
example,retrofittingaproblemculvertcanimprovepassageupstream,butunlesshabitatexists
that allows completion of all life stages there will not be an increase in the population. In this
recovery plan, restoration actions are emphasized which directly improve survival, increase
carryingcapacity,andultimatelyimprovepopulationnumbers.
In Chapter 10, subwatersheds (also called planning watersheds) for all twentyeight focus
populations were ranked based on current occupancy patterns and the importance of these
subwatersheds for shortterm and longterm coho salmon survival. Ranking is an attempt to
prioritizelimitedrestorationmoniesandexpertise,andtoguidepractitionersandlandmanagers
towards projects for immediate and longlasting habitat improvement. Specific actions
recommendedforeachsubwatershedwillvarybasedonassessmentinformation,andthestatus
ofwatershedconditionsandlandusedevelopment.Theimmediatepriorityofthisrecoveryplan
istoimprovehabitat,oraccesstohabitats,insubwatershedswherecohosalmonstillpersist(i.e.,
core habitat areas). Once restoration of Core areas is accomplished, the next priority is to
restore subwatersheds with generally suitable habitat conditions that are currently unoccupied,
or nearly so (i.e., Phase I areas). Finally, as a longterm goal, the plan recommends restoring
unoccupied watersheds (i.e., Phase II areas), which can be utilized in the future by expanding
coho salmon populations once conditions improve. The three ranks, the rationale behind their
definitions,andthestrategyforrestorationandsubsequentmonitoringaredescribedbelow:
CoreAreas
Core Areas are subwatersheds believed to maintain at least one coho salmon lineage.
ThegoalofrestorationinCoreAreasistoimproveandprotectoccupiedhabitatsassoon
aspossibletoensuresurvivalandlongtermpersistence.Projecttypeswilllikelyinclude
(a) protecting intact habitat through regulatory actions, conservation easements, and
other means; (b) installing large woody debris for cover and stream scour (leading to
pool formation); (c) creating/providing additional access to off channel overwintering
habitat for juveniles; (d) controlling sediment input from roads; and (e) addressing
instream flows. Highcost intensive efforts are appropriate in these areas. Watershed
assessments to focus restoration actions, water quality monitoring, and fish population
trend monitoring are necessary to provide feedback on the effectiveness of restoration
actions.
PhaseIAreas
PhaseIareasarewatershedsadjacentto,ornear,CoreAreasthat(a)recentlysupported
cohosalmonpopulations;(b)currentlysupportcohosalmoninlownumbersrelativeto
other occupied subwatersheds; (c) maintain most of the instream habitat conditions
necessary for successful completion ofallfreshwater life stages;and/or(d) may receive
strays from Core Areas. Due to their proximity to many Core Areas, PhaseI areasare
likelytoprovideseasonalrefugewhenhabitatinPhaseIIareasisinhabitable.Thegoal
ofrestorationactivitiesinthesewatershedsistoimprovehabitatforpopulationsofcoho
salmonexpandingfromCoreAreas.Carefulanalysisoflimitingfactorsandconnectivity
of project sites is needed to ensure restoration activities address the highest priority
limiting factors in the correct sequence. Project types will likely include (a) improving
605
habitatandchannelcomplexity;(b)removingbarrierstosuitablehabitat;(c)controlling
sediment input from roads; and (c) improving riparian corridors. In addition to
presence/absence monitoring of habitat usage by coho salmon, monitoring water and
habitat quality and quantity is also important to track restoration success, inspace and
time,withinPhaseIareas.
PhaseIIAreas
PhaseIIareasaresubwatershedsareunlikelytoreceiveappreciablenumbersofstraysor
tosupportsmallpopulationsintheimmediatefuture.Thesesubwatershedsoftenhave
habitatshighlydivergentfromhistoricalconditions.PhaseIIareasareessentialforlong
term recovery goals, but they need largescale and sustained longterm restoration
efforts. It will likely take many decades to restore habitat conditions in some Phase II
areas. Priority project types include improving passage upstream to Core and Phase I
areas, remediating degraded watershed processes that affect downstream Core and
Phase I areas, protecting riparian areas to aid natural revegetation, inserting instream
structuretoremediatehomogenoushabitats,andgraduallychangingorimprovingland
managementpracticestorestorenaturalwatershedprocesses.
RESTORATION PLANNING
Successfulrestorationprojectsrequireanunderstandingofchannelprocessesandlocallimiting
factors for coho salmon. Restoration must take into account the relative influence and spatial
scalesofchannelprocessesandbiologicalconstraintsattheprojectsite.Projectsshouldbebased
on the best available science and the biological constraints of coho salmon. Laborintensive
projectsmustbebuilttoappropriatespecificationsandhaveappropriatefundingcommitments
to ensure they are adequately maintained. Monitoring must reflect the goals and scale of the
project.Monitoringandevaluationdonotusuallyaffectthesuccessofindividualprojects,but
they improve the design of future projects and are an important component of a restoration
strategy.
Early coordination is essential for timely approval and execution of restoration projects,
particularly when many stakeholders are involved. Considerable support is available to those
willing to undertake restoration projects. Local, state, and Federal agencies provide technical
assistance,costshare,andgrantfundingfordesign,implementation,andmonitoring.Numerous
nongovernmental organizations provide similar services and also offer project management,
liabilitycoverage,andenvironmentalcompliancecoordinationandsupport.Theseservicesare
typicallyprovidedatnoorlowcosttothelandownerorprojectproponent.Privateconsulting
firms also provide technical assistance, project management, environmental compliance,
monitoring, as well as engineering and other services necessary for successful project
implementation.
Theavailabilityofinkindservicesandgrantfundingdependson:
Location:mostprogramsservealimitedgeographicarea;
Land ownership and use: some programs serve only private, public, agricultural or
urbanlands;
606
Importanceorpriorityoftheproject;
The identification of a project in a stream inventory, watershed plan, or within a
local/state/federalmanagementplan;
Ecosystemtype:someprogramsfocusonstreams,wetlands,estuariesoruplands;and
Costshare,commitmentorparticipationbyprivatelandownersoralocalsponsor.

Permitting and project management can be considerable obstacles to landowners, individuals,
and small groups wishing to carry out restoration projects. Permit waivers or programmatic
permits can reduce costs and streamline the regulatory process by providing umbrellas for
local/stateorfederalconsultation.However,theavailabilityofpermitwaiversorprogrammatic
permitsdependsonaprojectstypeandlocation,andadditionalworkbypublicagenciesisoften
neededtofacilitateprojectsandremoveregulatoryobstacles.Furtherpermitstreamliningwillbe
necessarytoprovideincentivestolandownersandmanagerswantingtoimplementrestoration
andenhancementprojects.
OpportunitiesandChallengesforRestorationProjects
Many projects use wellunderstood and documented techniques that have been consistently
demonstrated to benefit coho salmon and their habitats. Examples include: removing barriers;
installingwoodydebris;andestablishingriparianbuffers.
High priority projects which may lead to long term restoration of functional stream processes,
butthatarenotaswellunderstood,requiremoreresearch,monitoring,andlongtermevaluation
oftheirsuccess.Theseinclude:
Reconnectingincisedchannelswiththeirfloodplains;
Reconnectingwetlandsandrecreatingoffchannelhabitat,especiallyindevelopedareas
wherechannelstabilityisquestionableorfloodingisaconcern;and
Providingsafepassageforadultsandsmoltsthroughurbanizedareaswithchannelized
streamsandinadequateflows.
Other high priority projects need regulatory solutions to reduce costs, time and risk to private
landownersandpublicentitiestobemorewidelyutilized:
Offchannelwaterstorageduringwinter,withthegoalofreducingdependencyon
summerriparianrights(withoutincreasingtotalannualwaterwithdrawals);
Additionofsecuredandengineeredlargewoodydebrisprojectsupstreamofculverts,
bridgesandurbaninfrastructure;and
Actionstoimprovedegradedlagoonsandestuarieswherefloodingisaconcernor
conflictswithotherlisted/protectedspeciesoccur.
Because many of the actions outlined in this recovery plan will be carried out on a voluntary
basis,publicsupportisimportant.NMFSbelievespublicparticipationandastewardshiprole,
ledbyprivatelandownersandpubliclandmanagers,isessentialtothesurvivalandlongterm
recovery of CCC coho salmon, particularly in light of the significant amount of private land
ownership within the range of this species. Conducting outreach and assisting interested and
607
affected parties in becoming partners in restoration and recovery is critical to success.
Stakeholdersinrestorationprojectsinclude:
Landownerswhowishtocarryoutrestorationactivitiesontheirownproperty,either
aloneorincooperationwithagenciesandNGOs.Projectmanagementandgrant
fundingisavailabletohelplandownerscarryoutprojectsatnoorlowcostto
themselves;
ResourceConservationDistrictsandNGOs.Theseorganizationoftenworkasabridge
betweengovernmentagenciesandprivatelandownerstoassuagefearsregarding
regulations,andalsoworktoencouragelandownerstoimplementrecoveryactions;
Membersofthepublicwhodonotownlandsuitableforrestorationcanmakesignificant
contributionsbyvolunteeringandparticipatinginrestoration,monitoring,andplanning
efforts;and
Clubs,socialorganizations,andotherorganizedgroupscanassistinrestorationby
providingvolunteerlaborforprojects,conductingoutreachwithintheircommunities,
andcoordinatingandcontactingregulatoryagencies.
RESTORATION PARTNERS
The following is a partial list of organizations that can assist in restoration design and
implementation. Additional resources are available in most areas from watershed groups,
alliances, or other NGOs. Occasional funding may be available from agencies in the form of
mitigationordisbursementsfromenvironmentalfines.
ThePacificCoastSalmonRecoveryFund
Congress established the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) to contribute to
restorationandconservationofPacificsalmonandsteelheadpopulationsandtheirhabitats.The
statesofWashington,Oregon,California,Idaho,andAlaska,andPacificCoastalandColumbia
River tribes, receive PCSRF appropriations from NMFS each year. The fund supplements
existing state, tribal and local programs to foster development of Federalstatetriballocal
partnerships in salmon and steelhead recovery and conservation. The PCSRF supports grant
programs that directly fund recovery actions, such as: (a) instream habitat improvement; (b)
watershedevaluations;(c)assessment,planningandprojectdesign;(d)educationandoutreach;
(e) watershed organizational support and assistance; (f) public involvement and capacity
building;(g)privatesectortrainingandeducation;(h)monitoringofsalmonidpopulationsand
restoration projects; (i) cooperative rearing; project maintenance; fish screening of diversions;
tailwater management; water conservation measures; water measuring devices; and water
purchaseandlease.
ItisimperativePCSRFfundsaregrantedconsistentwithrecoveryplanninggoalsandbecreative
in funding a wide variety of actions promoting recovery. Projects should be based on the
strongestscientificfoundationandshouldincludemonitoringandmaintenancetoinformfuture
recoveryefforts.
608
TheNOAARestorationCenter
TheNOAARestorationCenterprovidesfundingandtechnicalassistancetorestorationprojects
benefiting NOAA trust resources, including salmon and steelhead. Since 1996, the NOAA
RestorationCenterhasfundedover300projectsbenefitingCaliforniasalmonandsteelhead.The
Restoration Center works with NMFS staff to develop and implement projects addressing
limitingfactorstosalmonidrecovery;partnerswithgrassrootsorganizationstoencouragehands
oncitizenparticipation,anddeliverstechnicalsupporttohelpensureprojectsuccess.
NMFS PRDwill work with the Restoration Center to coordinate recovery efforts for CCC coho
salmon. PRD and the Restoration Center, in combination with other funding programs, will
facilitate funding, permit streamlining, technical assistance, and outreach to the restoration
community. The Restoration Center will bring its funding and restoration partners into the
recoveryprocess,whilealsonetworkingtofindnewrecoverypartnersanddeterminingwhois
best suited to take on specific recovery actions. The Restoration Centers goal to fund
communitybased habitat restoration and provide technical restoration assistance directly
complimentsthegoalsoftherecoveryplanforCCCcohosalmon.
NMFSScienceCenters
NMFSPRDwillcoordinatewiththeNMFSSouthwestFisheriesScienceCenterstoidentifyand
address research needs regarding coho salmon recovery. They will also coordinate on captive
broodstock conservation programs to ensure that outplantings and restoration activities
complimenteachother.
State&LocalGovernmentalAgencies
CCCcohosalmonarelistedasendangeredbytheStateofCalifornia.NMFSwillcoordinatewith
stateagenciesonplanning,research,monitoring,andcarryingoutprojectsandprograms.These
agencies include: DFG; CalFire; California Coastal Conservancy; University of California
CooperativeExtension;CaliforniaConservationCorps;ResourceConservationDistricts;theState
WaterResourcesControlBoard;localfloodcontroldistricts;wateragencies;andcityandcounty
governments.
NonGovernmentalOrganizations
Numerous nonprofits, volunteer groups, professional organizations, and quasigovernmental
organizations are engaged in ecological restoration. Where their focus intersects with NMFS
recoverygoals,NMFSwillcoordinatewiththemtofacilitateplanning,research,monitoring,and
projectimplementation.
RESTORATION ASSISTANCE
Federalprogramsthatprovideinformation,fundingand/ortechnicalassistance:
NMFS,SouthwestRegionswr.nmfs.noaa.gov
609
NOAARestorationCenternmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/
USFWSPartnersforFishandWildlifefws.gov/partners/andCoastalPrograms
fws.gov/coastal/CoastalProgram
USEPAepa.gov
NRCSnrcs.usda.gov
USACEhttp://www.usace.army.mil/missions/environment.html
Stateprogramsthatprovideinformation,fundingand/ortechnicalassistance:
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamewww.dfg.ca.gov/fish/
CaliforniaCoastalConservancywww.scc.ca.gov
StateWaterResourcesControlBoardwww.swrcb.ca.gov
CaliforniaConservationCorpswww.ccc.ca.gov/
UniversityofCaliforniaCooperativeExtensionhttp://ucanr.org/index.cfm
Localandregionalprogramsthatprovideinformation,fundingand/ortechnicalassistance:
CalFishwww.calfish.org
CoastalWatershedPlanningandAssessmentProgram(CWPAP)
http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/Home/tabid/54/Default.aspx
ResourceConservationDistrictswww.carcd.org
o SantaCruzResourceConservationDistricthttp://www.rcdsantacruz.org/
o SanMateoCountyResourceConservationDistricthttp://www.sanmateorcd.org/
o GoldRidgeResourceConservationDistricthttp://www.goldridgercd.org/
o SotoyomeResourceConservationDistricthttp://sotoyomercd.org/
o MarinResourceConservationDistricthttp://www.marinrcd.org/
o SouthernSonomaResourceConservationDistricthttp://www.sscrcd.org/
o MendocinoCountyResourceConservationDistrict http://www.mcrcd.org/
o Andothers
CityandCountyGovernments
FiveCountiesSalmonidConservationProgramwww.5counties.org
Fishnet4Chttp://fishnet.marin.org
TheFishPassageForum
http://www.calfish.org/ProgramsandProjects/FishPassageForum/tabid/127/Default.aspx
KlamathResourceInformationSystem(KRIS)http://www.krisweb.com/
SalmonidRestorationFederationhttp://www.calsalmon.org/
610
TroutUnlimitedhttp://www.tu.org/
CaliforniaTrouthttp://www.caltrout.org/
Andothers
611
CHAPTER14:5YEARREVIEWS
ANDPOSTDELISTING
We wont forge a sustainable society until we have nurtured a generation that is imbued
by a guiding environmental ethic.
Gaylord Nelson,
former U.S. Senator

5-YEAR REVIEWS OF SPECIES STATUS

Itisaworthychallengetoreversethepathofaspeciesawayfromextinctionandtowardrecovery.This
willrequirefundamentalchangesinlongstandingpolicesandpracticesbothwithinNMFSESAsection
4(c)(2)requiresaperiodicanalysisofaspeciesstatusconductedtoensurethatthelistingclassificationof
aspeciesisaccurate,calleda5YearReview.GuidancehasbeendevelopedbytheU.S.FishandWildlife
Service and NMFS (2006): 5Year Review Guidance: Procedures for Conducting 5Year Reviews Under the
Endangered Species Act. The 5year reviews do not involve rulemaking, it is a process to request
information from the public, review the classification of a species and track the progress of a species
towardsrecoveryandtoproposeappropriatenextstepsforitsconservation.The5yearreviewsprovide
theagencywiththemechanismtoobtainadditionalinformationto:(1)Summarizeandanalyzestatusof
aspecies;(2)Trackaspeciesprogresstowardsrecovery;(3)Recordthedeliberativeprocessusedtomake
arecommendationonwhetherornottoreclassifyaspecies;and(4)Recommendwhetherreclassification
ofthespeciesisindicated.
In 2013, NMFS shall initiate the five year review of the CCC coho salmon ESU in accordance with
Guidance.Thegeneralprocesstoconductthe5yearreviewinvolves5steps:
(1) InformationGathering
a. PublishaFederalRegisternoticeannouncingaspeciesisunderactivereview.Thisisrequired
under50CFR424.21forthepurposeofnotifyingthepublicandtorequestinformationto
assistinthereview.Atemplateisprovidedinthe5YearReviewGuidance.
b. Solicitinformationdirectlyfromoutsidesources,includingStateagencies,otherFederal
agencies,tribes,universities,institutions,expertsandotherinterestedparties.Solicitation
willbemadebyletterandatemplateisprovidedinthe5YearReviewGuidancedocument.
c. Allrequestsaretobekeptfortheagencyadministrativerecord.
(2) Completionofthe5YearReviewTemplate
a. ThetemplateprovidedintheGuidancewasdevelopedtoaidinnationalconsistency,to
streamlinethedocumentationofthereview,andtodocumentthedeliberativeprocess
requiredforthereview.
b. Thetemplateincludesgeneralinformation,reviewanalysis,results,recommendationsfor
futureactionsandreferences.
(3) ConductaPeerReviewoftheTemplate(iffoundappropriate)
March 2010
(4) ConcurrencebytheNMFSRegionalAdministrator
(5) ReportingandPublicNotificationofResults
a. Postresultsonregionalandnationalwebsites;
b. IncludeinformationintoBiennialReporttoCongress;and
c. AnnounceresultsinFederalRegister(optional).
POST-DELISTING MONITORING
Postdelisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted, due to
recovery, remains secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the protections of the
ESA.TheprimarygoalofPDMistoconfirmthatthespeciesdoesnotrequirerelistingasthreatenedor
endangeredduringtheperiodfollowingremovalofESAprotections.Section4(g),addedtotheESAin
the1988reauthorization,requiresNMFStoimplementasystemincooperationwiththestatestomonitor
fornotlessthanfiveyearsthestatusofallspeciesthathaverecoveredandbeenremovedfromthelistsof
threatenedandendangered{50CFR17.11,17.12,224.101,and227.4}.Section4(g)directsNMFStomake
promptuseoftheiremergencylistingauthoritiesundersection4(b)(7)topreventasignificantrisktothe
wellbeingofanyrecoveredspecies.Whilenotspecificallymentionedinsection4(g),authoritiestolist
species in accordance with the process prescribed in section 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) may also be utilized to
reinstatespeciesonthelistofthreatenedorendangered,ifsuchanactionisfoundtobeappropriate.
March 2010
Public Review
March 2010

N M F S L istin g S ta tu s D e cisio n F r a m e w o r k
N M F S w ill d e te rm in e a n E S U is re c o v e re d w h e n a n E S U is n o lo n g e r in d a n g e r o f e x tin c tio n
o r lik e ly to b e c o m e e n d a n g e re d in th e fo re s e e a b le fu tu re , b a s e d o n a n e v a lu a tio n o f b o th
th e E S U s s ta tu s a n d th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e th re a ts fa c in g th e E S U h a v e b e e n a d d re s s e d
E S U V ia b ility
S ta tu s o f S ta tu to r y L is tin g F a c to rs
Assessm ent
614
E S U S ta tu s
L is tin g F a c to r 1 : L is tin g F a c to r 2 : L is tin g L is tin g F a c to r 4 : L is tin g F a c to r 5 :
T h e p re s e n t o r th re a te n e d O v e r u tiliz a tio n F a c to r 3 : T h e in a d e q u a c y O th e r N a tu ra l o r
M a jo r P o p u la tio n G ro u p S ta tu s d e s tru c tio n , m o d ific a tio n , o r fo r c o m m e rc ia l, D is e a s e o f e x is tin g m a n m a d e fa c to rs
c u rta ilm e n t o f its h a b ita t o r re c re a tio n a l o r or re g u la to ry a ffe c tin g c o n tin u e d
ra n g e e d u c a tio n a l p re d a tio n m e c h a n is m s e x is te n c e
p u rp o s e s
P o p u la tio n S ta tu s :
S ta tu s o f
D is e a s e S ta tu s o f S ta tu s o f
S ta tu s o f V ia b ility P a ra m e te rs S ta tu s o f S ta tu s o f and R e g u la to ry H a tc h e ry S ta tu s o f
CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan

A b u n d a n c e H a b ita t H yd ro p o w e r S ta tu s o f P re d a tio n M e c h a n is m s p ro g ra m s N a tu ra l
P ro d u c tiv ity T h re a ts & T h re a ts & H a rv e s t T h re a ts T h re a ts & T h re a ts & T h re a ts & T h re a ts &
S p a tia l D is trib u tio n L im itin g L im itin g & L im itin g L im itin g L im itin g L im itin g L im itin g
D iv e rs ity F a c to rs F a c to rs F a c to rs F a c to rs F a c to rs F a c to rs F a c to rs
A c tio n s
E v a lu a tio n
C o m p lia n c e a n d A c tio n E ffe c tiv e n e s s C ritic a l U n c e rta in ty
Im p le m e n ta tio n M o n ito rin g M o n ito rin g R e s e a rc h a n d E v a lu a tio n
Im p le m e n t A d a p tiv e
M a n a g e m e n t P la n
LITERATURECITED
16U.S.C.15311544.1973.EndangeredSpeciesAct.USCode,Title16Conservation,Chapter35
EndangeredSpecies,Section1531andfollowing.
16U.S.C.1826.1995.Highseasdriftnetfishingmoratoriumprotectionact.16U.S.C.:1826d1826g.
50CFR17.2008.CodeofFederalRegulations.Title50Wildlifeandfisheries.Part17Endangeredand
threatenedwildlifeandplants.Section17.11Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife.Section17.12
Endangeredandthreatenedplants.
50CFR224.2008.CodeofFederalRegulations.Title50Wildlifeandfisheries.Part224Endangered
marineandanadromousspecies.Section224.101Enumerationofendangeredmarineandanadromous
species.
50CFR227.2008.CodeofFederalRegulations.Title50Wildlifeandfisheries.Part227.
50CFR402.2008.InteragencycooperationEndangeredSpeciesActof1973,asamended.CodeofFederal
Regulations,Title50,WildlifeandFisheries:part402.
50CFR424.2008.Listingendangeredandthreatenedspeciesanddesignatingcriticalhabitat.Codeof
FederalRegulations,Title50,WildlifeandFisheries:part424.
59FR21744.1994.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies:CohosalmoninScottandWaddellCreeks,
California.FederalRegister,59:2174421746.
59FR24271.1994.Endangeredandthreatenedwildlifeandplants:noticeofinteragencycooperative
policyoninformationstandardsundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.FederalRegister,59:24271
60FR38011.1995.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies;proposedthreatenedstatusforthreecontiguous
ESUsofcohosalmonrangingfromOregonthroughcentralCalifornia.FederalRegister,60:3801138030.
61FR41541.1996.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ProposedEndangeredStatusforFiveESUsof
SteelheadandProposedThreatenedStatusforFiveESUsofSteelheadinWashington,Oregon,Idaho,and
California.FederalRegister,61:4154141561.
March 2010
61FR56138.1996.Finalrule:Endangeredandthreatenedspecies:threatenedstatusforcentralCalifornia
cohosalmonevolutionarilysignificantunit(ESU).FederalRegister,61:5613856149.
62FR43937.1997.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ListingofSeveralEvolutionarySignificantUnits
(ESUs)ofWestCoastSteelhead.FederalRegister,62:4393743954.
63FR11482.1998.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ProposedEndangeredStatusforTwoChinook
SalmonESUsandProposedThreatenedStatusforFiveChinookSalmonESUs;ProposedRedefinition,
ThreatenedStatus,andRevisionofCriticalHabitatforOneChinookSalmonESU;ProposedDesignation
ofChinookSalmonCriticalHabitatinCalifornia,Oregon,Washington,Idaho.FederalRegister,63:11482
11520.
63FR13347.1998.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ThreatenedStatusforTwoESUsofSteelheadin
Washington,Oregon,andCalifornia.FederalRegister,63:1334713371.
64FR14308.1999.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies;ThreatenedStatusforThreeChinookSalmon
EvolutionarilySignificantUnits(ESUs)inWashingtonandOregon,andEndangeredStatusforOne
ChinookSalmonESUinWashington.FederalRegister,64:1430814328.
64FR24049.1999.Designatedcriticalhabitat:centralCaliforniacoastandsouthernOregon/northern
Californiacoastscohosalmon.FederalRegister:2404924062.
64FR50393.1999.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies;ThreatenedStatusforTwoChinookSalmon
EvolutionarilySignificantUnits(ESUs)inCalifornia;FinalRule.FederalRegister,64:5039350415.
65FR6960.2000.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ThreatenedStatusforOneEvolutionarily
SignificantUnitofSteelheadinCalifornia.FederalRegister,65:69606975.
65FR36074.2000.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:ThreatenedStatusforOneSteelhead
EvolutionarilySignificantUnit(ESU)inCalifornia.FederalRegister,65:3607436094.
65FR42422.2000.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies;finalrulegoverningtakeof14threatenedsalmon
andsteelheadevolutionarilysignificantunits(ESUs).65:4242242481.
66FR49718.2001.Guidelinesforensuringandmaximizingthequality,objectivity,utility,andintegrity
ofinformationdisseminatedbyfederalagencies(DataQualityActof2002).FederalRegister,66:49718
49725.
March 2010
67FR1116.2002.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies;finalrulegoverningtakeoffourthreatened
evolutionarilysignificantunits(ESUs)ofWestCoastsalmonids.FederalRegister,67:11161133.
68FR15100.2003.Policyforevaluationofconservationeffortswhenmakinglistingdecisions.Federal
Register,68:1510015115.
69FR33102.2004.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies:proposedlistingdeterminationsfor27ESUsof
WestCoastsalmonids.FederalRegister,69:3310233179.
70FR37160.2005.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies:finallistingdeterminationsfor16ESUsofWest
CoastSalmon,andfinal4(d)protectiveregulationsforthreatenedsalmonidESUs.FederalRegister,70:
37160.
70FR52488.2005.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies;designationofcriticalhabitatforseven
evolutionarilysignificantunitsofPacificsalmonandsteelheadinCalifornia.FederalRegister,70:52488
52627.
71FR834.2006.EndangeredandThreatenedSpecies:FinalListingDeterminationsfor10Distinct
PopulationSegmentsofWestCoastSteelhead.FederalRegister,71:834862.
71FR14683.2006.Endangeredandthreatenedspecies:90dayfindingonpetitiontoredefinethe
southernextentofthecentralCaliforniacohosalmonevolutionarilysignificantunit.FederalRegister,71:
1468314687.
437U.S.153.1978.TennesseeValleyAuth.v.Hill,437U.S.153(1978).USSupremeCourtCases&
Opinions,437:153213.
Aalto,R.2004.ReportonsedimentaccumulationratesforafloodplainoftheLagunadeSantaRosa(CA)
determinedwith210Pbgeochronology.PreparedfortheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,Seattle,
Washington,NOAADoc.No.SR64307.9pp.
Adams,P.B.,L.B.Boydstun,S.P.Gallagher,M.Lacy,T.McDonald&K.Shaffer.Inreview.The
Californiacoastalsalmonidmonitoringplan:overalldesignandmethods.FishBulletin.California
DepartmentofFishandGame.64pp.
Agrawal,A.,R.S.Schick,E.P.Bjorkstedt,R.G.Szerlong,M.N.Goslin,B.C.Spence,T.H.Williams&K.
M.Burnett.2005.Predictingthepotentialforhistoricalcoho,Chinook,andsteelheadhabitatinnorthern
California.U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,NOAATMNMFSSWFSC379.34pp.
March 2010

Allendorf,F.W.,D.Bayles,D.L.Bottom,K.P.Currens,C.A.Frissell,D.Hankin,J.A.Lichatowich,W.
Nehlsen,P.C.Trotter&T.H.Williams.1997.PrioritizingPacificsalmonstocksforconservation.
ConservationBiology,11:140152.
Alley,D.W.,J.Dvorsky,J.Ricker,K.Schroeder&J.Smith.2004.SanLorenzoRiversalmonid
enhancementplan:fisheriesenhancementstrategyfortheSanLorenzoRiver.SantaCruz,California.
PreparedforSantaCruzCountyEnvironmentalHealthservices.177pp.
Altimira,J.1823.Diariodelaexpedicionverificadaconobjectodereconocerterrnosparalanuevaplanta
delaMisiondeNuestroPadreSanFranciscoprincipiadaledia25deJuniode1823.
Ambrose,J.2008.Personalcommunication.(Ed.byDawson,A.),pp.Emailconfirmationthatfingerlings
collectedinSanMateoCreekindicatespawningcoho.Eldridge,California.
Anderson,K.R.1995.AStatusReviewOfTheCohoSalmon(OncorhynchusKisutch)inCaliforniaSouth
OfSanFranciscoBay.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Region3,Monterey;preparedforthe
CaliforniaFishandGameCommission.131pp.
Armour,C.L.,D.A.Duff&W.Elmore.1991.Theeffectsoflivestockgrazingonriparianandstream
ecosystems.Fisheries,16:711.
Battin,J.,M.W.Wiley,M.H.Ruckelshaus,R.N.Palmer,E.Korb,K.K.Bartz&H.Imaki.2007.Projected
impactsofclimatechangeonsalmonhabitatrestoration.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyof
SciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,104:67206725.
Beamish,R.J.&C.Mahnken.2001.Acriticalsizeandperiodhypothesistoexplainnaturalregulationof
salmonabundanceandthelinkagetoclimateandclimatechange.ProgressinOceanography,49:423437.
Beamish,R.J.,C.Mahnken&C.M.Neville.1997.HatcheryandwildproductionofPacificsalmonin
relationtolargescale,naturalshiftsintheproductivityofthemarineenvironment.ICESJournalof
MarineScience,54:12001215.
Beamish,R.J.,C.Mahnken&C.M.Neville.2004.Evidencethatreducedearlymarinegrowthis
associatedwithlowermarinesurvivalofcohosalmon.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety,
133:2633.
March 2010
Beamish,R.J.,D.J.Noakes,G.A.McFarlane,L.Klyashtorin,V.V.Ivanov&V.Kurashov.1999.The
regimeconceptandnaturaltrendsintheproductionofPacificsalmon.CanadianJournalofFisheriesand
AquaticSciences,56:516526.
Beamish,R.J.,D.J.Noakes,G.A.McFarlane,W.Pinnix,R.Sweeting&J.King.2000.Trendsincoho
marinesurvivalandrelationtotheregimeconcept.FisheriesOceanography,9:114119.
Becker,G.&I.Reining.2007.InformationoncohosalmondistributionincoaststreamssouthofSan
Francisco.CenterorEcosystemManagementandRestoration.
Beechie,T.J.,E.A.Steel,P.Roni&E.Quimby.2003.Ecosystemrecoveryplanningforlistedsalmon:an
integratedassessmentapproachforsalmonhabitat.pp.183:NationalMarineFisheriesService.
Behnke,R.J.1980.Salmogairdneri(Richardson),Rainbowtrout.In:D.S.Leeetal.,AtlasofNorth
AmericanFreshwaterFishes.NorthCarolinaMuseumofNaturalHistoryRaleighNC.pp.106.
Bell,C.2003.EvaluationofGarciaRiverRestorationwithRecommendationsforFutureProjects.Prepared
fortheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamebyCraigBellofTroutUnlimited.
Bell,E.2001.Survival,growthandmovementofjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhyncuskisutch)over
winteringinalcoves,backwaters,andmainchannelpoolsinPrairieCreek,California.HumboldtState
University,Arcata,CA.
Bell,E.&W.G.Duffy.2007.Previouslyundocumentedtwoyearfreshwaterresidencyofjuvenilecoho
salmoninPrairieCreek,California.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety,136:966970.
Bisson,P.A.,R.E.Bilby,M.D.Bryant,C.A.Dolloff,G.B.Grette,R.A.House,M.L.Murphy,K.V.Koski
&J.R.Sedell.1987.LargewoodydebrisinforestedstreamsinthePacificNorthwest:Past,present,and
future.In:Streamsidemanagement:forestryandfisheryinteractions(Ed.bySalo,E.O.&Cundy,T.W.).
pp.143190.
Bisson,P.A.&G.E.Davis.1976.Productionofjuvenilechinooksalmon,Oncorhynchustshawytcha,ina
heatedmodelstream.FisheryBulletin,74:763774.
Bjorkstedt,E.P.,B.C.Spence,J.C.Garza,D.G.Hankin,D.Fuller,W.E.Jones,J.J.Smith&R.Macedo.
2005.AnanalysisofhistoricalpopulationstructureforevolutionarilysignificantunitsofChinook
salmon,cohosalmon,andsteelheadinthenorthcentralCaliforniacoastrecoverydomain.U.S.
March 2010
DepartmentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheries
Service,SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,NOAATMNMFSSWFSC382.210pp.
Boehlert,G.W.,G.R.McMurray&C.E.Tortorici(editors).2008.Ecologicaleffectsofwaveenergyinthe
PacificNorthwest.NationalMarineFisheriesService.174pp.
Boesch,D.F.,J.N.Butler,D.A.Cacchione,J.R.Geraci,J.M.Neff,J.P.Ray&J.M.Teal.1987.An
assessmentofthelongtermenvironmentaleffectsofU.S.offshoreoilandgasdevelopmentactivities:
futureresearchneeds.In:LongtermEnvironmentalEffectsofOffshoreOilandGasDevelopment(Ed.by
Boesch,D.F.&Rabalais,N.N.).ElsevierAppliedScience.London.pp.153.
Bograd,S.2007.EmailfromS.BogradtoJ.Weederwith5pageattachment.December11,2007.
Boydstun,L.B.&T.McDonald.2005.ActionplanforMonitoringCaliforniascoastalsalmonids.Final
reporttoNOAAFisheries,SantaCruz,CA.NOAAFisheries,SantaCruz,CA.
ContractNumberWASC31295.78pp.plusappendicespp.
Bradford,M.J.1995.ComparativereviewofPacificsalmonsurvivalrates.CanadianJournalofFisheries
andAquaticSciences,52:13271338.
Brannon,E.L.&A.W.Maki.1996.TheExxonValdezoilspill:analysisofimpactsonthePrinceWilliam
Soundpinksalmon.ReviewsinFisheriesScience,4:289337.
Brewer,P.G.&J.Barry.2008.Risingacidityintheocean,theotherCO2problem.ScientificAmerican.
Brown,L.R.&P.B.Moyle.1991.StatusofCohoSalmoninCalifornia.DepartmentofWildlifeand
FisheriesBiology,UniversityofCaliforniaDavis.PreparedfortheNationalMarineFisheriesService.89
pp.
Brown,L.R.,P.B.Moyle&R.M.Yoshiyama.1994.HistoricalDeclineandCurrentStatusofCohoSalmon
inCalifornia.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement,14:237261.
Brown,R.F.&B.R.Mate.1983.Abundance,movementsandfeedinghabitsofharborseals(Phoca
vitulina)atNetartsandTillamookbays,Oregon.NOAAFisheryBulletin,81:291301.
Bryant,G.J.1994.StatusreviewofcohosalmonpopulationsinScottandWaddellCreeks,SantaCruz
County,California.NationalMarineFisheriesServicesSouthwestRegion,SantaRosa.102pp.
March 2010

Buchanan,D.V.,J.E.Sanders,J.L.Zinn&J.L.Fryer.1983.Relativesusceptibilityoffourstrainsof
summersteelheadtoinfectionbyCeratomyxashasta.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety,112:
541543.
BureauofNationalAffairsInc.1994.Memorandumofunderstandingbetweenfederalagencieson
implementationoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct,signedSeptember28,1994.DailyEnvironmentalReport,
188(JulyDecember):E1.
Burgett,J.2009.ClimateChangeanditsImplicationsforConservationandPolicy.In:Presentationgiven
atClimateChange,NaturalResources,andCoastalManagementWorkshop.29January2009.San
Francisco,CA.
Burns,J.W.1972.SomeeffectsofloggingandassociatedroadconstructiononnorthernCalifornia
streams.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety,101:117.
Bustard,D.R.&D.W.Narver.1975.Aspectsofthewinterecologyofjuvenilecohosalmon
(Oncorhynchuskisutch)andsteelheadtrout(Salmogairdneri).JournaloftheFisheriesResearchBoardof
Canada32:667680.
CaliforniaClimateActionRegistry.http://www.climateregistry.org/.
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestry&FireProtection.2008.Finalenvironmentalimpactreportforthe
JacksonDemonstrationStateForestmanagementplan.CaliforniaStateBoardofForestry&Fire
Protection,SCH#2004022025.
CaliforniaWaterCode.17.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Carranco,L.&J.Labbe.1975.LoggingtheRedwoods.TheCaxtonPrinters,Ltd.Caldwell,Idaho.
Casola,J.H.,J.E.Kay,A.K.Snover,R.A.Norheim,L.C.W.Binder&C.I.Group.2005.Climateimpacts
onWashingtonshydropower,watersupply,forests,fish,andagriculture.CenterforScienceintheEarth
System,JointinstitutefortheStudyoftheAtmosphereandOcean,UniversityofWashington,Seattle,
Washington.44pp.
CDF.2008.JacksonDemonstrationStateForestmanagementplan.CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryand
FireProtection.291pp.
March 2010
Chartrand,S.,B.Hecht&D.Shaw.2003.SoquelCreekwatershedassessment:geomorphologyand
baseflowhydrology.PreparedbyBalanceHydrologics,Inc.fortheSantaCruzCountyResource
ConservationDistrict,SantaCruzCounty,California.Inadditiontofigures,89pp.
CircuitRiderProductionsInc.,SonomaStateUniversityDepartmentofBiology&U.o.C.B.D.o.I.
Biology.2001?Giantreed(Arundodonax)intheRussianRiverwatershed:invasionstatus,impactsand
effectivecontrolmethods.12pp.
Clark,R.N.&D.R.Gibbons.1991.Recreation.In:InfluencesofForestandRangelandManagementon
SalmonidFishesandtheirHabitats(Ed.byMeehan,W.R.).AmericanFisheriesSociety,Special
Publication19.BethesdaMD.
Coey,R.PersonalcommunicationfromR.Coey,formerDFGsupervisoryfisherybiologist.
Coey,R.,S.NossamanPearce,C.Brooks&Z.Young.2002.2002DraftRussianRiverBasinFisheries
RestorationPlan.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.133pp.
Cole,J.2000.CoastalseasurfacetemperatureandcohosalmonproductionoffthenorthwestUnited
States.FisheriesOceanography,9:116.
Conrad,M.T.,S.Chartrand&J.Owens.2003.GazosCreekWatershedAssessmentandEnhancement
Plan.CoastalWatershedCouncil,SantaCruzCA,andBalanceHydrologics,BerkeleyCA;preparedfor
theCoastalWatershedCouncil.92pp.
Conrad,M.T.&J.Dvorsky.2003.AptosCreekWatershedAssessmentandEnhancementPlan.Coastal
WatershedCouncilandSwansonHydrology&Geomorphology,SantaCruzCA;preparedforthe
CoastalWatershedCouncil.101pp.
Cooney,R.T.,J.R.Allen,M.A.Bishop,D.L.Eslinger,T.Kline,B.L.Norcross,C.P.McRoy,J.Milton,V.
Patrick,A.J.Paul,D.Salmon,D.Scheel,G.L.Thomas,S.L.Vaughan&T.M.Willette.2001.Ecosystem
controlofjuvenilepinksalmon(Onchorynchusgorbuscha)andPacificherring(Clupeapallasi)
populationsinPrinceWilliamSound,Alaska:SoundEcosystemAssessment(SEA).Fisheries
Oceanography,10:113.
CountyofSantaCruz.1976.PreliminaryReportSanLorenzoWatershedPlanningProcess
.4956pp.
March 2010
CountyofSantaCruz.2001.DraftSanLorenzoRiverwatershedmanagementplanupdate.SantaCruz,
California,CountyofSantaCruzWaterResourcesProgram,EnvironmentalHealthServices,and
PlanningDepartment.82pp.
Crawford,B.A.&S.Rumsey.2009.GuidanceformonitoringrecoveryofPacificNorthwestsalmonand
steelheadlistedundertheFederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(Idaho,Oregon,andWashington).National
MarineFisheriesService,Northwestregion.129pp.
Cury,P.&C.Roy.1989.Optimalenvironmentalwindowandpelagicfishrecruitmentsuccessin
upwellingareas.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,46:670680.
D.W.AlleyandAssociates.2009.SoquelCreeklagoonmonitoringreport,2008.PreparedfortheCityof
Capitola,Capitola,California,Project#10618.145pp.
Dawson,A.1998.FromArrowheadMountaintoYulupa:TheStoriesBehindSonomaValleyPlace
Names.KulupiPress.GlenEllen,California.
Dawson,A.2002.TheOralHistoryProject;AreportontheSonomaEcologyCentersOralHistory
Project,focusingonSonomaCreekandthehistoricalecologyofSonomaValley.Includesinterview
transcripts,appendixes&maps.SonomaEcologyCenter,Sonoma,California.330pp.
Deiner,K.,J.C.Garza,R.Coey&D.J.Girman.2006.Populationstructureandgeneticdiversityoftrout
(Oncorhynchusmykiss)aboveandbelownaturalandmanmadebarriersintheRussianRiver,California.
ConservationGenetics,8:437454.DFG.CoastalWatershedPlanningandAssessmentProgram;
DFG.1969.TheRussianRiverdrainageasummaryreportonthefishandwildliferesourcesandtheir
problems.PreparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,InlandFisheriesandWildlifestaffs,
Region3,underthesupervisionofEldenH.VestalandRobertW.Lassen.21pp.
DFG.2000.Annualperformancereport:federalaidinSportFishRestorationAct.CaliforniaDepartment
ofFish&Game.Granttitle:inlandandanadromoussportfishmanagementandresearch.Grant
agreementF52R13.ProjectNo.22:northcentraldistrictsalmonandsteelheadmanagement.JobNo.5:
evaluationofhatcherycohoreleases.
DFG.2002.StatusreviewofCaliforniacohosalmonnorthofSanFranciscobay.ReporttotheCalifornia
FishandGameCommission.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento,California.234pp.
March 2010
DFG.2004.RecoveryStrategyforCaliforniaCohoSalmon.ReporttotheCaliforniaFishandGame
Commission.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game,SacramentoCA.594pp.
DFG.2005.StatusReviewofCohoSalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)inCaliforniaSouthofSanFrancisco.
ReporttotheFishandGameCommission.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:SoldierCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.24pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:HotelGulch.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.25pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:BearCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.25pp.
http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/Portals/1/Watersheds/NorthCoast/MendocinoCoast/docs/UsalWages/Bea
rCreek_2006_StreamInvRpt.pdf
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:UsalCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.25pp.
http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/Portals/1/Watersheds/NorthCoast/MendocinoCoast/docs/UsalWages/Usa
lCreek_2006_StreamInvRpt.pdf
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:southforkUsalCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.27
pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:JuliasCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.24pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:LittleBearCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.24pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:ShadyDell.23.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:MarkWestCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.17pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:MatanzasCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.12pp.
DFG.2006.Streaminventoryreport:SantaRosaCreek.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.27pp.
DFG.2007.20072008Californiafreshwatersportfishingregulations.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishand
Game.
March 2010
DFG.2008.MasterPlanforMarineProtectedAreas.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame.
DFG&NMFS.2002.GuidelinesforMaintainingInstreamFlowstoProtectFisheriesResources
DownstreamofWaterDiversionsinMidCaliforniaCoastalStreams,Draft.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish
andGame,SacramentoCA,andNationalMarineFisheriesServices,SouthwestRegion,SantaRosaCA.
23pp.
Donahue,D.L.1999.Thewesternrangerevisited;removinglivestockfrompubliclandstoconserve
nativebiodiversity.LegalHistoryofNorthAmericaSeries(Vol.5).UniversityofOklahomaPress.
NormanOK.352pp.
Downie,S.,B.deWaard,E.Dudik,D.McGuire&R.Rutland.2006.BigRiverBasinAssessmentReport.
NorthCoastWatershedAssessmentProgram,CaliforniaResourcesAgency,andCalifornia
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,SacramentoCA.approx.400pp.
Downie,S.T.,C.M.LeDouxBloom,K.Spivak&F.Yee.2004.AlbionBasinAssessmentReport.North
CoastWatershedAssessmentProgram.CaliforniaResourcesAgency,andCaliforniaEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency,SacramentoCA.218pp.
Dunne,G.c.1990.PioneerSpirit:AHistoryoftheWinterhalderFamilyinSantaCruzCounty.
Dunne,G.nodate.1001Stagnaros.
Dunne,T.,J.Agee,S.Beissinger,W.E.Dietrich,D.Gray,M.E.Power,V.H.Resh&K.Rodriques.2001.A
scientificbasisforthepredictionofcumulativewatershedeffects.UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.103
pp.
Dykstra,C.2007.Personalcommunication.Surveymanager,InternationalPacificHalibutCommission.
Emmett,R.L.&D.B.Sampson.2007.Therelationshipsbetweenpredatoryfishes,foragefishes,and
juvenilesalmonidmarinesurvivalofftheColumbiaRiver:asimpletrophicmodelanalysis.California
CooperativeOceanicFisheriesInvestigationsReports,48:92105.
Emmett,R.L.,S.L.Stone,S.A.Hinton&M.E.Monaco.1991.DistributionandAbundanceofFishesand
InvertebratesinWestCoastEstuaries.VolumeII:SpeciesLifeHistorySummaries.NationalOceanicand
AtmosphericAdministration,NationalOceanService,StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentsDivision,
Rockville,MD,ELMRReportNumber8.334pp.
March 2010
ENTRIXInc.2004.RussianRiverbiologicalassessment.PreparedforU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,San
FranciscoDistrict,andSonomaCountyWaterAgency.
EntrixInc.,PacificWatershedAssociates,CircuitRiderProductionsInc.,NavarroWatershedCommunity
AdvisoryGroup&D.T.Sicular.1998.NavarroWatershedRestorationPlan.Publishedjointlyby
AndersonValleyLandTrustInc.,CaliforniaStateCoastalConservancy,andMendocinoCountyWater
Agency.544pp.
EnvironmentalScienceAssociates,PacificWatershedAssociates,OConnorEnvironmentalInc.,Albion
EnvironmentalInc.&D.Jackson.2004.PescaderoButanoWatershedAssessment.Finalreportprepared
forMontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuaryFoundation,MontereyCA.248pp.
EPA.1998.GarciaRiversedimenttotalmaximumdailyload.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
RegionIX.20pp.
EPA.1999.NoyoRiverTotalMaximumDailyLoadforSediment.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
RegionIX.87pp.
EPA.2000.NavarroRivertotalmaximumdailyloadsfortemperatureandsediment.U.S.Environmental
ProtectionAgency,RegionIX.45pp.
EPA.2000.TenMileRivertotalmaximumdailyloadforsediment.U.S.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency,RegionIX.86pp.
Ettlinger,E.,E.Childress,M.Piovarcsik&G.Andrew.2008.LagunitasCreekSalmonSpawnerReport
20072008.PreparedfortheMarinMunicipalWaterDistrict.
Fimrite,P.2008.Scientiststhrilledbysurprisingfindoffish.In:SanFranciscoChronicle,pp.1.San
Francisco.
Fisher,J.P.&W.G.Pearcy.1988.Growthofjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)offOregon
andWashington,USA,inyearsofdifferingcoastalupwelling.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquatic
Sciences,45:10361044.
Florsheim,J.L.&P.Goodwin.1993.GeomorphicandhydrologicconditionsintheRussianRiver,
California:historictrendsandexistingconditions.PreparedbyPhilipWilliams&Associates,Ltd.forthe
CaliforniaStateCoastalConservancyandtheMendocinoCountyWaterAgency,#791/813.
March 2010
Flosi,G.,S.Downie,J.Hopelain,M.Bird,R.Coey&B.Collins.1998.Californiasalmonidstreamhabitat
restorationmanual.CaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game.
Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs&C.S.Yee.1991.Roadconstructionandmaintenance.In:Influencesofforest
andrangelandmanagementonsalmonidfishesandtheirhabitats(Ed.byMeehan,W.R.).American
FisheriesSociety,SpecialPublication19.Bethesda,MD.pp.297324.
Garza,J.C.&E.GilbertHorvath.2003.Reportonthegeneticsofcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)
heldatWarmSprings(DonClausen)hatcheryforrecoveryeffortsintheRussianRiver.SantaCruz
Laboratory,NOAASouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter.15pp.
GeorgiaPacific&CampbellTimberlandManagement.19931999.Unpublishedfisherymonitoringdata
fromstreamsintheNoyoRiverwatershed.
Gibson,R.E.1994.SanLorenzoOncewasFullofFish:TheRiverwasSantaCruzsNo.2TouristDraw.
In:SanJoseMercuryNews,pp.1.
Gobalet,K.W.2008.ResponsetocommunicationofJamesBuchal.
Gobalet,K.W.2008inpress.
Gobalet,K.W.,P.D.Schulz,T.A.Wake&N.Siefkin.2004.ArchaeologicalPerspectivesonNative
AmericanFisheriesofCalifornia,withEmphasisonSteelheadandSalmon.Trans.AM.Fish.Soc.,133:
801833.
Godfrey,H.1965.SalmonoftheNorthPacificocean.PartIX.Coho,chinookandmasusalmoninoffshore
waters.1.Cohosalmoninoffshorewaters.Int.N.Pac.Fish.Comm.Bull.,16:139.
GoldRidgeResourceConservationDistrict&PrunuskeChathamInc.2007.TheSalmonCreekwatershed
assessmentandrestorationplan.PreparedbyLisaHulette,PatriciaHickey,andBrittanyHeckatGold
RidgeRCDandLaurenHammackandChrisChooatPrunuskeChatham,Inc.,Occidental,California.92
pp.
Goley,D.&A.Gemmer.2000.Pinniped/salmonidinteractionsontheSmith,MadandEelriversin
northernCaliforniabetween31Augustand15December1999.Unpublishedreport.HumboldtState
UniversityMarineMammalEducationandResearchProgram,Arcata,California.
March 2010
Good,T.P.,R.S.Waples&P.B.Adams.2005.UpdatedstatusoffederallylistedESUsofWestCoast
salmonandsteelhead.U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmospheric
Administration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,NMFSNWFSC66.598pp.
GordonJr.,D.C.&N.J.Prouse.1973.Theeffectsofthreeoilsonmarinephytoplanktonphotosynthesis.
MarineBiology,22:329333.
GrahamMatthews&Associates.2004.ProjectscaleeffectivenessmonitoringforthesouthforkWages
Creekwatershed.PreparedforCampbellTimberlandManagementandCaliforniaDepartmentof
ForestryandFireProtection,FortBragg,California.46pp.
Groot,C.&L.Margolis.1991.PacificSalmonLifeHistories.UniversityofBritishColumbiaPress.
Vancouver,BritishColumbia.
Grover,A.M.,M.S.Mohr&M.L.PalmerZwahlen.2002.Hookandreleasemortalityofchinooksalmon
fromdriftmoochingwithcirclehooks:ManagementimplicationsforCaliforniasoceansportfishery.
AmericanFisheriesSocietySymposium:3956.
Gunsolus,R.T.1978.ThestatusofOregoncohoandrecommendationsformanagingtheproduction,
harvestandescapementofwildandhatcheryrearedstocks.OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife
ProceedingsReport.OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.
Hagans,D.&W.E.Weaver.1994.Handbookforforestandranchroads:aguideforplanning,designing,
constructing,reconstructing,maintainingandclosingwildlandroads.PreparedfortheMendocino
CountyResourceConservationDistrictincooperationwiththeCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandthe
U.S.D.A.SoilConservationService.198pp.
Hallock,R.J.&D.H.Fry,Jr.1967.Fivespeciesofsalmon,Oncorhynchus,intheSacramentoRiver,
California.CaliforniaFishandGame,53:522.
Hamilton,J.&B.Konar.2007.Implicationsofsubstratecomplexityandkelpvariabilityforsouthcentral
Alaskanearshorefishcommunities.FisheryBulletin,105:189196.
Hanson,L.C.1993.Theforagingecologyofharborseals,Phocavitulina,andCaliforniasealions,
Zalophuscalifornianus,atthemouthoftheRussianRiver,California.SonomaStateUniversity,Rohnert
Park,California.
Hare,J.A.&P.E.Whitfield.2003.Anintegratedassessmentoftheintroductionof
March 2010
lionfish(Pteroisvolitans/milescomplex)tothewesternAtlanticOcean.NOAATechnicalMemorandum
NOSNCCOS2.21pp.
Hare,S.R.&R.C.Francis.1995.ClimatechangeandsalmonproductioninthenortheastPacificOcean.
In:Climatechangeandnorthernfishpopulations(Ed.byBeamish,R.J.).CanadianSpecialPublicationof
FisheriesandAquaticSciences121.pp.357372.
Hartt,A.C.1980.Juvenilesalmonidsintheoceanicecosystem:thefirstcriticalsummer.In:Salmonid
ecosystemsoftheNorthPacific(Ed.byMcNeil,W.J.&Himsworth,D.C.).OregonStateUniversity
Press.Corvallis,Oregon.pp.2537.
Hassler,T.J.1987.Speciesprofiles:lifehistoriesandenvironmentalrequirementsofcoastalfishesand
invertebrates(PacificSouthwest)cohosalmon.HumboldtStateUniversity,CaliforniaCooperative
FisheryResearchUnit;U.S.FishandWildlifeService,NationalWetlandResearchCenter,Slidell,LAfor
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,CoastalEcologyGroup,WaterwaysExperimentStationandforU.S.
DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService,ResearchandDevelopment,NationalWetlands
ResearchCenter,Washington,DC,Arcata,USFWSBiologicalReport82(11.70);COEreportTREL824.
19pp.
Healy,M.C.1980.TheecologyofjuvenilesalmoninGeorgiaStrait,BritishColumbia.In:Salmonid
ecosystemsoftheNorthPacific(Ed.byMcNeil,W.J.&Himsworth,D.C.).OregonStateUniversity
Press.Corvallis,OR.pp.203229.
Hecht,B.&G.Kittleson.1998.AnAssessmentofStreambedConditionsandErosionControlEffortsin
theSanLorenzoRiverWatershed,SantaCruzCounty,California.BalanceHydrologics,Inc.,Berkeley
CA;preparedforEnvironmentalHealthDept.,SantaCruzCounty.114pp.
Higgins,C.G.1952.LowercourseoftheRussianRiver,California.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
BerkeleyandLosAngeles.pp.216225.
Higgins,P.1996.RussianRiverwintercreelcensusandspawningsurvey.SotoyomeSantaRosa
ResourceConservationDistrict,SantaRosa,California.15pp.
Hobday,A.J.&G.W.Boehlert.2001.Theroleofcoastaloceanvariationinspatioalandtemporalpatterns
insurvivalandsizeofcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquatic
Sciences,58:20212036.
March 2010
Holtby,L.B.1988.EffectsofloggingonstreamtemperaturesinCarnationCreek,BritishColumbia,and
associatedimpactsonthecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CanadianJournalofFisheriesand
AquaticSciences,45:502515.
Holtby,L.B.,B.C.Andersen&R.K.Kadowaki.1990.Importanceofsmoltsizeandearlyoceangrowthto
interannualvariabilityinmarinesurvivalofcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CanadianJournalof
FisheriesandAquaticSciences,47:21812194.
Hope,D.1993.ExecutiveSummary,1993PetitiontolistSouthofSanFranciscoCoho.NorthCoast
RegionalWaterboard,SantaRosaCA.
Hopkirk,J.D.&P.T.Northen.1980.TechnicalreportonfisheriesoftheRussianRiver.Partofthe
aggregateresourcesmanagementstudyconductedbythecountyofSonoma.SonomaCountyPlanning
Department.30pp.
Hose,J.E.,M.D.McGurk,M.G.D.,D.E.Hinton,E.D.Brown&T.T.Baker.1996.Sublethaleffectsofthe
ExxonValdezoilspillonherringembryosandlarvae:morphological,cytogenetic,andhistopathological
assessments,1989,1991.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,53:23552365.
House,F.1998.TotemSalmon:LifeLessonsfromAnotherSpecies.BeaconPress.Boston.
HydenAssociatesLandscapeArchitecture&GoldenBearBiostudies.1993?CityofSebastopolLagunade
SantaRosaParkMasterPlan.Volume1:masterplan.CityofSebastopol,Sebastopol,California.48pp.
HydenAssociatesLandscapeArchitecture&GoldenBearBiostudies.1993?CityofSebastopolLagunade
SantaRosaParkMasterPlan.Volume2:technicalinformation.,Sebastopol,California.66pp.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.2007.ClimateChange2007SynthesisReport:Contribution
ofWorkingGroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelon
ClimateChange.IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,Geneva,Switzerland.104pp.
Janssen,H.2008.InterviewTranscript.SonomaEcologyCenter.
Johnson,D.H.,B.M.Shrier,J.S.ONeal,J.A.Knutzen,X.Augerot,T.A.ONeil&T.N.Pearsons.2007.
Salmonidfieldprotocolshandbook:techniquesforassessingstatusandtrendsinsalmonandtrout
populations.AmericanFisheriesSociety.Bethesda,Maryland.
March 2010
Johnson,S.L.1988.Theeffectsofthe1983ElNioonOregonscoho,Oncorhynchuskisutch,and
chinook,O.tshawytscha,salmon.FisheriesResearch,6:105123.
Johnson,S.W.,M.L.Murphy,D.J.Csepp,P.M.Harris&J.F.Thedinga.2003.Asurveyoffish
assemblagesineelgrassandkelphabitatsofSoutheasternAlaska.NationalMarineFisheriesService,
NOAATechnicalMemorandum:NMFSAFSC139.
Koslow,J.A.,A.J.Hobday&G.W.Boehlert.2002.Climatevariabilityandmarinesurvivalofcoho
salmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)intheOregonproductionarea.FisheriesOceanography11:6577.
Kovalchik,B.L.&W.Elmore.1992.Effectsofcattlegrazingsystemsonwillowdominatedplant
associationsincentralOregonIn:Proceedingsecologyandmanagementofriparianshrubcommunities,
1991May2931,SunValleyID.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearch
Station,Gen.Tech.Rep.INT289,111119pp.
Kruzic,L.M.,D.L.Scarnecchia&B.B.Roper.2001.Comparisonofmidsummersurvivalandgrowthof
age0hatcherycohosalmonheldinpoolsandriffles.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety.
Larsen,D.P.,A.R.Olsen&D.L.Stevens.2008.Aregionalapproachtomonitoringsalmonidabundance
trends:ApilotprojectfortheapplicationoftheCaliforniaCoastalSalmonidMonitoringPlanincoastal
MendocinoCounty,YearIII.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,CoastalWatershedPlanningand
AssessmentProgram,Fortuna,CA.
LaurelMarcusandAssociates.2004.FishFriendlyFarming;
Lawson,P.W.1993.Cyclesinoceanproductivity,trendsinhabitatquality,andtherestorationofsalmon
runsinOregon.Fisheries,18:610.
Leaman,B.2007.Personalcommunication.ExecutiveDirector,InternationalPacificHalibutCommission.
Lehmann,S.2000.FullyDevelopedContextStatementfortheCityofSantaCruz.preparedfortheCityof
SantaCruzPlanningandDevelopmentDepartment.
Leidy,R.A.2007.Ecology,AssemblageStructure,Distribution,andStatusofFishesinStreamsTributary
totheSanFranciscoEstuary.SanFranciscoEstuaryInstitute.
Leidy,R.A.,G.Becker&B.N.Harvey.2005.HistoricalStatusofCohoSalmoninStreamsofthe
UrbanizedSanFranciscoEstuary,California.CaliforniaFishandGame,91:219254.
March 2010
Levene,B.,W.Brad,L.Krasner,G.Petrykowski&R.Zucker.1976.MendocinoCountyRemembered:An
OralHistory.MendocinoCountyHistoricalSociety.MendocinoCounty.
Ligon,F.,A.Rich,G.Rynearson,D.Thornburgh&W.Trush.1999.Reportofthescientificreviewpanel
onCaliforniaForestPracticeRulesandsalmonidhabitat.TheResourcesAgencyofCaliforniaandthe
NationalMarineFisheriesService,Sacramento.21pp.
Lindley,S.T.,R.S.Schick,E.Mora,P.B.Adams,J.J.Anderson,S.Greene,C.Hanson,B.P.May,D.R.
McEwan,R.B.MacFarlane,C.Swanson&J.G.Williams.2007.Frameworkforassessingviabilityof
threatenedandendangeredChinooksalmonandsteelheadintheSacramnetoSanJoaquinbasin;
LittleHooverCommission.1994.TimberHarvestPlans:AFlawedEfforttoBalanceEconomicand
EnvironmentalNeeds.Report#126.StateofCalifornia.
Logerwell,E.A.,P.W.Mantua,P.W.Lawson,R.C.Francis&V.N.Agostini.2003.Tracking
environmentalprocessesinthecoastalzoneforunderstandingandpredictingOregoncoho
(Onchorhynchuskisutch)marinesurvival.FisheriesOceanography,12:554568.
LouisianaPacificCorporation.1997.SustainedyieldplanforcoastalMendocinoCounty.Samoa,
California.
Lufkin,A.1991.CaliforniasSalmonandSteelhead:TheStruggletoRestoreanImperiledResource.
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Berkeley.
Lydon,S.2008.(personalcommunicationviaemail).(Ed.byDawson,A.),pp.authorisHistorian
Emeritus,CabrilloCollege,Aptos.
MacFarlane,R.B.,S.Hayes&B.Wells.2008.CohoandChinookSalmonDeclineinCaliforniaduringthe
SpawningSeasonsof2007/08.Unpublishedmemo.NationalMarineFisheriesService,Southwest
FisheriesScienceCenter6pp.
Mantua,N.J.,S.R.Hare,Y.Zhang,J.M.Wallace&R.C.Francis.1997.APacificinterdecadalclimate
oscillationwithimpactsonsalmonproduction.BulletinoftheAmericanMeteorologicalSociety,78:1069
1079.
Marcus,L.a.A.2004.WatershedAssessmentAtascaderoGreenValleyCreekWatershed.preparedfor
GoldRidgeResourceConservationDistrict.
March 2010
MarkWestCreekAssociates.2003.ThepreservationofMarkWestCreek.Preparedin1973bystudentsat
CaliforniaStateCollege,SonomaandChico.Reprintedin2003byTheAlpineClub,Inc.25pp.
Mathews,S.B.&R.Buckley.1976.MarinemortalityofPugetSoundcohosalmon(Oncorhynchus
kisutch).JournaloftheFisheriesResearchBoardofCanada,33:16771684.
McBainandTrush&TroutUnlimited.2000.Allocatingstreamflowstoprotectandrecoverthreatened
salmonandsteelheadpopulationsintheRussianRiverandothernorthcoastriversofCalifornia.
CommentaryNo.3.Inadditiontoappendices,41pp.
McElhany,P.,M.H.Ruckelshaus,M.J.Ford,T.C.Wainwright&E.P.Bjorkstedt.2000.Viablesalmonid
populationsandtherecoveryofevolutionarysignificantunits.UnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce,
NationalOceanicAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,Resource
EnhancementandUtilizationTechnologiesDivision,NorthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,Santa
Cruz/TiburonLaboratory,SalmonAnalysisBranch,SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,NMFSNWFSC
42.158pp.
McMahon,D.1997.FloodsandFloodControlontheSanLorenzoRiverintheCityofSantaCruz.
McMahon,T.E.&G.Hartman.1989.Influenceofcovercomplexityandcurrentvelocityonwinterhabitat
usebyjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquatic
Sciences,46:15511557.
Meehan,W.R.(editors).1991.InfluencesofForestandRangelandManagementonSalmonidFishesand
TheirHabitats.SpecialPublications(AmericanFisheriesSociety),No.19.AmericanFisheriesSociety,
BethesdaMD,0913235687.751pp.
Meehan,W.R.&T.C.Bjornn.1991.Salmoniddistributionandlifehistories.In:InfluencesofForestand
RangelandManagementonSalmonidFishesandtheirHabitats(Ed.byMeehan,W.R.).American
FisheriesSociety,SpecialPublication19.BethesdaMD.pp.4782.
MendocinoCountyResourceConservationDistrict.1992.GarciaRiverwatershedenhancementplan.
PreparedfortheCaliforniaStateCoastalConservancybyMendocinoCountyResourceConservation
District;reportpreparedbyJackMonschkeWatershedManagement,DebraCaldon,WilliamM.Kier
Associates,Ukiah,California.Approx.122pp.
MendocinoRedwoodCompany.2004.WatershedanalysisforMendocinoRedwoodCompanys
ownershipintheGarciaRiverwatershed.
March 2010
MendocinoRedwoodCompany.2004.WatershedanalysisforMendocinoRedwoodCompanys
ownershipintheAlbionRiverwatershed.
MendocinoRedwoodCompany.2005.WatershedAnalysisforMendocinoRedwoodCompanys
OwnershipintheCottanevaCreekWatershed.MendocinoRedwoodCo.,LLC,UkiahCA.approx.100
pp.http://www.mrc.com/monitoring/cottaneva_creek_watershed.html
MendocinoBeacon.1890.Untitled.Issuedate:February22,1890.In:MendocinoBeacon.Mendocino,
California.
MerrittSmithConsulting.1996.SantaRosaSubregionalLongTermWastewaterProject,Anadromous
FishMigrationStudyProgramreports.CircuitRiderProductions,Inc,Lafayette,CA.
Moles,A.&S.D.Rice.1983.Effectsofcrudeoilandnaphthaleneongrowth,caloriccontent,andfat
contentofpinksalmonjuvenilesinseawater.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety,112:205
211.
Monschke,J.,D.Caldon,MendocinoCountyResourceConservationDistrict,W.Management&K.
Associates.1992.GarciaRiverWatershedEnhancementPlan.preparedfortheCaliforniaStateCoastal
Conservancy,Ukiah,CA.
Mortensen,D.,A.Wertheimer,S.Taylor&J.Landingham.2000.Therelationbetweenearlymarine
growthofpinksalmon,Oncorhynchusgorbuscha,andmarinewatertemperature,secondaryproduction,
andsurvivaltoadulthood.FisheryBulletin:319335.
Moyle,P.B.2002.InlandfishesofCalifornia.UniversityofCaliforniaPress.BerekelyandLosAngeles,
CA.502pp.
Moyle,P.B.,J.A.Israel&S.Purdy.2008.SOS:CaliforniasNativeFishCrisis:StatusandSolutionsfor
RestoringOurVitalSalmon,Steelhead,andTroutPopulations.commissionedbyCaliforniaTrout.
MunroFraser,J.P.1880.HistoryofSonomaCounty:includingitsgeology,topography,mountains,
valleysandstreams;togetherwithafullandparticularrecordoftheSpanishgrants;itsearlyhistoryand
settlement.Alley,Bowen&Co.SanFrancisco.
MurrayDamCommittee.1997?ApplicationforDepartmentofArmyPermitforsummerdamatMurrays
CamponAustinCreek.
Nationallandcoverdata.2001.Multivectorconsortium.
March 2010

NationalResearchCouncil.1996.Upstream:SalmonandsocietyinthePacificNorthwest.National
AcademyPress.Washington,D.C.451pp.
NationalResearchCouncil.2003.OilintheSeaIII:Inputs,Fates,andEffects.NationalAcademiesPress.
Washington,D.C.
Nelson,J.&P.Anderson.1996.StreamSpecificCohoSalmonHabitatDeficienciesandLimitations,
CoastalStreamsofSanMateoandSantaCruzCountiesCurrentlySupportingCohoSalmonorUnder
ConsiderationforCohoSalmonRecoveryEfforts.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Region3,
Monterey;preparedforEnvironmentalServicesDivision,SacramentoCA.80pp.
Nelson,J.,E.Baglivio&T.Kahles.2007.BaselineassessmentofjuvenilesalmonidpopulationsinBogess
Creek,HarringtonCreekandLaHondaCreek,tributariestoSanGregorioCreek,2007.California
DepartmentofFish&GameandCaliforniaConservationCorps.Inadditiontodatatables,24pp.
Nelson,R.L.,M.L.McHenry&W.S.Platts.1991.Mining.In:InfluencesofForestandRangeland
ManagementonSalmonidFishesandtheirHabitats(Ed.byMeehan,W.R.).AmericanFisheriesSociety,
SpecialPublication19.BethesdaMD.pp.425482.
Nickelson,T.E.1986.Influencesofupwelling,oceantemperature,andsmoltabundanceonmarine
survivalofcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)intheOregonProductionArea.CanadianJournalof
FisheriesandAquaticSciences,43:527535.
Nickelson,T.E.,J.D.Rodgers,S.L.Johnson&M.F.Solazzi.1992.Seasonalchangesinhabitatuseby
juvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)inOregoncoastalstreams.Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.,49:783
789.
NMFS.1997.InvestigationofscientificinformationontheimpactsofCaliforniasealionsandpacific
harborsealsonsalmonidsandonthecoastalecosystemsofWashington,Oregon,andCalifornia.
NationalMarineFisheriesService,NorthwestFisheriesScienceCenterandNorthwestRegion,Seattle
WA,NOAATech.Memo.NMFSNWFSC28.172pp.
NMFS.1998.FactorsContributingtotheDeclineofChinookSalmon:AnAddendumtothe1996West
CoastSteelheadFactorsforDeclineReport.NationalMarineFisheriesService,PortlandOR.71pp.
NMFS.1999a.SupplementalBiologicalOpinionandIncidentalTakeStatement:ThePacificCoastSalmon
PlanandAmendment13tothePlan.NationalMarineFisheriesService,NorthwestandSouthwest
RegionalSustainableFisheriesDivisions.
March 2010

NMFS.1999b.BiologicalOpinion:FishingconductedunderthePacificCoastGroundfishFishery
ManagementPlanfortheCalifornia,Oregon,andWashingtonGroundfishFishery.NationalMarine
FisheriesService.
NMFS.2001a.Guidelinesforsalmonidpassageatstreamcrossings.pp.14:NationalMarineFisheries
Service,SouthwestRegion.http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/NMFSSCG.PDF
NMFS.2001b.Statusreviewupdateforcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskistuch)fromthecentralCalifornia
coastandtheCaliforniaportionoftheSouthernOregon/NorthernCaliforniacoastsevolutionarily
significantunits(revision).NationalMarineFisheriesService,SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,Santa
Cruz,CA.40pp.
NMFS.2005a.PacificCoastGroundfishEssentialFishHabitat(EFH)FinalEnvironmentalImpact
Statement.NationalMarineFisheriesService,Portland,OR.
NMFS.2005b.Biologicalopinionfortheproposed2005Pacificsardineharvestguideline.
NMFS.2006a.Interimendangeredandthreatenedspeciesrecoveryplanningguidance.NationalMarine
FisheriesService,SilverSpring,MD.121pp.
NMFS.2006b.StrategicPlan,FiscalYears2007through2011.NOAA,NationalMarineFisheriesService,
SouthwestRegion,ProtectedResourcesDivision.24pp.
NMFS.Undated.RussianRiverbasinanadromousfishstreamguide.NationalMarineFisheriesService,
HabitatConservationBranch,SantaRosa,California.47pp.
NMFS&USFWS.2005.FinalrecoveryplanfortheGulfofMainedistinctpopulationsegmentofAtlantic
salmon(Salmosalar).NationalMarineFisheriesServiceandUSFishandWildlifeService,Northeastern
Region.
NOAA.2007.NOAA10YearPlanfortheNOAAAquacultureProgram.NationalOceanicand
AtmosphericAdministrationhttp://www.aquaculture.noaa.gov
Norberg,B.2009.RareCohoHookedinFishingContest.In:SantaRosaPressDemocrat.SantaRosa,
California.
March 2010
Noss,R.F.&A.Cooperrider.1994.Savingnatureslegacy.IslandPress.WashingtonDC.443pp.
OConnor,M.,B.Rosser&CircuitRiderProductionsInc.2003.GreenValleyCreekspawningsubstrate
characterizationandfluvialgeomorphicanalysis.PreparedforSonomaCountyWaterAgency,
Healdsburg,California.24pp.
OregonDepartmentofTransportation.1999.Routineroadmaintenance:Waterqualityandhabitatguide,
bestmanagementpractices.OregonDepartmentofTransportation.43pp.
Oreskes,N.2004.Thescientificconsensusonclimatechange.Science,306:1686.
Overton,C.K.,G.L.Chandler&J.A.Pisano.1994.Northern/IntermountainRegionsfishhabitat
inventory:grazed,rested,andungrazedreferencestreamreaches,SilverKingCreek,California.U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation,GeneralTechnicalReport
INTGTR311.28pp.
Paddack,M.J.&J.A.Estes.2000.Kelpforestfishpopulationsinmarinereservesandadjacentexploited
areasofCentralCalifornia.EcologicalApplications,10:855870.
PalmerZwahlen,M.2007.Personalcommunication.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamebiologist.
Pearcy,W.G.1992.OceanecologyofNorthPacificsalmonids.UniversityofWashingtonPress.Seattle
WA.179pp.
Pearcy,W.G.&J.P.Fisher.1990.DistributionandabundanceofjuvenilesalmonidsoffOregonand
Washington,19811985.NationalMarineFisheriesService,NOAATechnicalReportNMFS93.
Pert,H.A.1993.WinterfoodhabitsofcoastaljuvenilesteelheadandcohosalmoninPuddingCreek,
northernCalifornia.UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,California.
Peterman,R.M.1982.Modelofsalmonageandstructureanditsuseinpreseasonforecastingandstudies
ofmarinesurvival.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,39:14441452.
Peterson,N.P.1982.Immigrationofjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)intoriverineponds.
CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,39:13081310.
March 2010
Peterson,W.T.,R.C.Hooff,C.A.Morgan,K.L.Hunter,E.Casillas&J.W.Ferguson.2006.Ocean
conditionsandsalmonsurvivalintheNorthernCaliforniaCurrent.NationalMarineFisheriesService,
NorthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,FishEcologyDivision,Newport,OR.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/ecosysrep.pdf
PFMC.1998.CoastalPelagicSpeciesFisheryManagementPlan(Amendment8totheNorthernAnchovy
FisheryManagementPlan).PacificFisheryManagementCouncil.
PFMC.2007.PreseasonReportI:Stockabundanceanalysisfor2007oceansalmonfisheries.Pacific
FisheryManagementCouncil,Portland,OR.
PhilipWilliams&AssociatesLtd.2001.LagunadeSantaRosafeasibilitystudy:yearonegeomorphic
investigation.Finalreport.Volume1.PreparedfortheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,SanFrancisco
District,andSonomaCountyWaterAgency.,PWAref.#141108.76pp.
PhilipWilliams&AssociatesLtd.2004.Sedimentsources,rate&fateintheLagunadeSantaRosa,
Sonoma,California.PreparedforU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,SanFranciscoDistrict,andSonoma
CountyWaterAgency,NOAASR63426.PWARef.1411.20LagunadeSantaRosa.Approx.138pp.
Phillips,R.W.,R.L.Lantz,E.W.Claire&J.R.Moring.1975.Someeffectsofgravelmixtureson
emergenceofcohosalmonandsteelheadtroutfry.Trans.AM.Fish.Soc.,104:461466.
Pintler,H.E.&W.C.Johnson.1958.ChemicalcontrolofroughfishintheRussianRiverdrainage,
California.CaliforniaFishandGame,44:91124.
PrunuskeChathamInc.2001.WalkerCreekwatershedenhancementplan.PreparedforMarinCounty
ResourceConservationDistrict,PointReyesStation,California.101pp.
PSMFC.2008.Californiafishpassageassessmentdatabase.www.calfish.org
Quinn,T.P.2005.ThebehaviorandecologyofPacificsalmonandtrout.AmericanFisheriesSociety.
Bethesda,MD.378pp.
Quinn,T.P.&N.P.Peterson.1996.Theinfluenceofhabitatcomplexityandfishsizeonoverwinter
survivalandgrowthofindividuallymarkedjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)inBigBeef
Creek,Washington.Can.J.Fish.Aquat.,53:15551564.
RedwoodCityTimesandGazette.1877.May19.In:RedwoodCityTimesandGazette.RedwoodCity,
California.
March 2010
RedwoodForestFoundationInc.2007.UsalRedwoodForest;
http://www.rffi.org/UsalRedwoodForest.html.
Reeves,G.H.,F.H.Everest&J.D.Hall.1987.Interactionsbetweentheredsideshiner(Richardsonius
balteatus)andthesteelheadtrout(Salmogairdneri)inwesternOregon:Theinfluenceofwater
temperature.Can.J.Fish.Aquat.,44:16031613.
ResourceManagementAssociatesInc.1995.SimulationofwatertemperaturewithinLakeSonoma,Dry
CreekandtheRussianRiver.PreparedfortheSonomaCountyWaterAgency,SuisunCity,California.23
pp.
Rich,A.1997.AggregateresourcesmanagementplanfortheupperRussianRiver,MendocinoCounty.
Statusoffisheryresources.PreparedbyA.A.RichandAssociatesforPhilipWilliams&Associates.,San
Anselmo,California.Inadditiontoappendices,98pp.
Ristow,P.L.2006.CaliforniaDairies:ProtectingWaterQuality.UniversityofCalifornia,Agricultureand
NaturalResourcesDepartment,DavisCA,UCPubl.21630.16pp.
Russell,S.&B.Levene.1991.VoicesandDreams:AMendocinoCountyNativeAmericanOralHistory.
MendocinoCountyLibrary.Ukiah,CA.
Ryding,K.E.&J.R.Skalski.1999.Multivariateregressionrelationshipsbetweenoceanconditionsand
earlymarinesurvivalofcohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch).CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquatic
Sciences,56:23742384.
Sandercock,F.K.1991.Lifehistoryofcohosalmon.In:PacificSalmonLifeHistories(Ed.byGroot,C.&
Margolis,L.).UniversityofBritishColumbiaPress.Vancouver,B.C.pp.397445.
Sanders,J.E.,J.J.Long,C.K.Arakawa,J.L.Bartholomew&J.S.Rohovec.1992.Prevalenceof
RenibacteriumsalmoninarumamongdownstreammigratingsalmonidsintheColumbiaRiver.Journalof
AquaticAnimalHealth,4:7275.
SantaCruzCountyCode.2008.Title13Planningandzoningregulations.Chapter13.14Rural
residentialdensitydeterminations.Section13.14.06Matrixcalculation.CountyofSantaCruz,Santa
Cruz,California.
SantaCruzSentinel.1859.April16.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz.
March 2010
SantaCruzSentinel.1864.April16.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz.
SantaCruzSentinel.1867.July6.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz.
SantaCruzSentinel.1871.May20.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz.
SantaCruzSentinel.1873.October14.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz.
SantaCruzSentinel.1877.November17.In:SantaCruzSentinel.SantaCruz,California.
Scheel,D.&K.R.Hough.1997.SalmonfrypredationbyseabirdsnearanAlaskanhatchery.Marine
EcologyProgressSeries,150:4548.
Scheffer,T.H.&C.C.Sperry.1931.FoodhabitsofthePacificharborseal,Phocavitulinarichardsi.
JournalofMammalogy,12:214226.
Schmidt,E.1997.ResourcemanagementplanningfortheCoastDairiesproperty:analysisifexisting
researchanddataresources.PreparedbytheLandTrustofSantaCruzCounty,December15,1997.
Schubert,J.C.2005.Guernevilleearlydays,ahistoryofthelowerRussianRiver.JohnC.Schubert.
Guerneville,California.
ScottsCreekWatershedCouncil.c.2004.ScottsCreekWatershedAssessment.ScottsCreekWatershed
Council,DavenportCA.approx.100pp.
Shaffer,A.2004.Preferentialuseofnearshorekelphabitatsbyjuvenilesalmonandforagefish.In:
ProceedingsoftheGeorgiaBasin/PugetSoundResearchConference(Ed.byDroscher,T.W.&Fraser,D.
A.).Vancouver,B.C.pp.111.
Shapovalov,L.1949.Fishrescueandstreamimprovementworkinthenorthcoastareain1945.California
DivisionofFishandGame.BureauofFishConservation.11pp.
Shapovalov,L.&A.C.Taft.1954.Thelifehistoriesofthesteelheadrainbowtrout(Salmogairdneri
gairdneri)andsilversalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)withspecialreferencetoWaddellCreek,California,
andrecommendationsregardingtheirmanagement.InlandFisheriesBranch,CaliforniaDepartmentof
FishandGame,FishBulletinNo.54.
March 2010

SharedStrategyforPugetSound.2007.PugetSoundSalmonRecoveryPlan.Planadoptedbythe
NationalMarineFisheriesServiceJanuary19,2007,Seattle,Washington.
Singer,S.2009.Countylogjamremovalprogram,March4,2009Boardagendaitem.LettertoSantaCruz
CountyBoardofSupervisors.February18,2009.,SantaCruz,California.
Sommarstrom,S.,A.Caneday&T.Stephens.2002.AWaterQualityAndStreamHabitatProtection
ManualForCountyRoadMaintenanceInNorthwesternCaliforniaWatersheds,AdministrativeDraft.
PreparedfortheFiveCountiesSalmonConservationProgram.324pp.
SonomaCountyWaterAgency.1995.Staffreport:SonomaCountyWaterAgencyRussianRiveractivities
workshop.SonomaCountyWaterAgency,SantaRosa,California.54pp.
SonomaCountyWaterAgency&CircuitRiderProductionsInc.1998.Aguidetorestoringnativeriparian
habitatintheRussianRiverwatershed.Windsor,California.80pp.
Spence,B.,E.P.Bjorkstedt,J.C.Garza,J.J.Smith,D.G.Hankin,D.Fuller,W.E.Jones,R.Macedo,T.H.
Williams&E.Mora.2008.Aframeworkforassessingtheviabilityofthreatenedandendangeredsalmon
andsteelheadinNorthCentralCaliforniaCoastRecoveryDomain.NOAATMNMFSSWFSC423.
Spence,B.C.2008.Personalcommunication.
Spence,B.C.,E.P.Bjorkstedt,J.C.Garza,D.Hankin,D.Fuller,W.E.Jones,J.Smith&R.Macedo.2005.
AnanalysisofthehistoricalpopulationstructureforEvolutionarilySignificantUnitsofChinookSalmon,
CohoSalmon,andSteelheadintheNorthCentralCaliforniaCoastRecoveryDomain.U.S.Department
ofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,
SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,NOAATMNMFSSWFSC383.231pp.
Spence,B.C.,S.L.Harris,J.Weldon,M.N.Goslin,A.Agrawal&E.Mora.2005.Historicaloccurrenceof
cohosalmoninstreamsofthecentralCaliforniacoastcohosalmonevolutionarilysignificantunit.U.S.
DepartmentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheries
Service,SouthwestFisheriesScienceCenter,NOAATMNMFSSWFSC383.88pp.
Springer,Y.,C.Hays,M.Carr&M.Mackey.2007.Ecologyandmanagementofthebullkelp,Nereocystis
luetkeana:Asynthesiswithrecommendationsforfutureresearch.LenfestOceanProgram.Washington,
D.C.
StateofCalifornia.2006.SustainableOceansAct.
March 2010

Stebbins,B.1986.TheNoyo:BeinganaccountofhistoryatthemouthoftheNoyoRiver,onthe
MendocinoCountycoastofCaliforniafrom1852into1920andalittlebeyond.BearandStebbins.
Mendocino,CA.
SteinerEnvironmentalConsulting.1996.AhistoryofthesalmoniddeclineintheRussianRiver.
SponsoredbySonomaCountyWaterAgency,CaliforniaStateCoastalConservancy,andSteiner
EnvironmentalConsulting.86pp.
SteinerEnvironmentalConsulting&R2ResourceConsultantsInc.1999.Proposaltoconductpreliminary
feasibilitystudiesfortheLakeMendocinobypass.PotterValley,California.26pp.
StrelowandAssociates,D.W.AlleyandAssociates,BalanceHydrologicsInc.,GreeningAssociates&
CoastalWatershedCouncil.2003.SoquelCreekwatershedassessmentandenhancementprojectplan.
PreparedfortheSantaCruzCountyResourceConservationDistrict,Capitola,California.Approx64pp.
SwansonHydrology&Geomorphology,NativeVegetationNetwork&HagarEnvironmentalScience.
2002.LowerSanLorenzoRiverandlagoonmanagementplan.PreparedforCityofSantaCruz
RedevelopmentAgency,SanLorenzoUrbanRiverTaskForce,CityofSantaCruz,andStateCoastal
Conservancy.,SantaCruz,California.
TetraTechInc.2002.BolinasLagoonecosystemrestorationproject:draftenvironmentalimpact
study/environmentalimpactreport,MarinCounty,California.PreparedforU.S.ArmyCorpsof
EngineersandMarinCountyOpenSpaceDistrict.311pp.
TheNatureConservancy.2007.Conservationactionplanningworkbookusermanual,version5a.The
NatureConservancysGlobalConservationApproachTeam,TechnologyandInformationSystems.129
pp.Mostcurrentversionofmanualisavailableat
TheTrustforPublicLand.2004.CoastDairiesLongTermResourceProtectionandAccessPlan.
TheSonomaDemocrat.1876.SalmonandBrookTrout.In:TheSonomaDemocrat.SantaRosa,California.
Thompson,L.1916.TotheAmericanIndian:ReminiscencesofaYurokWoman.Originalpublishedby
theauthor.ReprintedbyHeydayBooks1991.Berkeley(1991reprint).
Thompson,T.H.1877.SonomaCountyHistoricalAtlas.publishedbytheauthor.Oakland,CA.
March 2010

Thorpe,J.E.1994.Salmonidfishesandtheestuarineenvironment.Estuaries,17:7693.
TroutUnlimited.NorthCoastCohoProject;
Tschaplinski,P.J.&G.F.Hartman.1983.Winterdistributionofjuvenilecohosalmon(Oncorhynchus
kisutch)beforeandafterlogginginCarnationCreek,BritishColumbia,andsomeimplicationsfor
overwintersurvival.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,40:452461.
U.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice.2006.Endangeredspecies:timeandcostsrequiredtorecover
speciesarelargelyunknown.GAO06463R.27pp.
Unwin,M.J.1997.FrytoadultsurvivalofnaturalandhatcheryproducedChinooksalmon
(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)fromacommonorigin.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,
54:12461254.
URSCorporation.2008.CountyOfSantaCruzIntegratedVegetationManagementPlanForRoadsNear
PerennialWaters.URSCorporation,SanJoseCA.PreparedforCountyofSantaCruz,Dept.ofPublic
Works.186pp.
USACE.1982.RussianRiverbasinstudy.NorthernCaliforniastreamsinvestigation.U.S.ArmyCorpsof
Engineers,SanFranciscoDistrict,SanFrancisco.Inadditiontoappendices,131pp.
USFWS&NMFS.1996.HabitatconservationplanninghandbookUSFish&WildlifeServiceandNational
MarineFisheriesService.Approx.115pp.
USFWS&NMFS.2006.5YearReviewGuidance:ProceduresforConducting5YearReviewsUnderthe
EndangeredSpeciesAct.U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceandNationalMarineFisheriesService.74pp.
Valentine,B.E.&M.Jameson.1994.LittleNorthForkNoyofisherystudy,1992.CaliforniaDepartmentof
ForestryandFireProtection,CoastCascadeRegion,SantaRosa,California.48pp.
VanDoornik,D.M.,D.J.Teel,D.R.Kuligowski,C.A.Morgan&E.Casillas.2007.Geneticanalyses
provideinsightintotheearlyoceanstockdistributionandsurvivalofjuvenilecohosalmonoffthecoasts
ofWashingtonandOregon.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement,27:220237.
Waples,R.S.1991.Geneticinteractionsbetweenhatcheryandwildsalmonids:lessonsfromthePacific
Northwest.Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.,48:124133.
March 2010

WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2001.Droughtcontingencyplan.WashingtonDepartment
ofFishandWildlife
WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources.2005.ForestPracticesHabitatConservationPlan.
WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources.
Weitkamp,L.,A.,T.C.Wainwright,G.J.Bryant,G.B.Milner,D.J.Teel,R.G.Kope&R.S.Waples.1995.
StatusreviewofcohosalmonfromWashington,Oregon,andCalifornia.UnitedStatesDepartmentOf
Commerce;NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration;NationalMarineFisheriesService,
Seattle,NMFSNWFSC24.
Weitkamp,L.A.&K.Neely.2002.Cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)oceanmigrationpatterns:
insightfrommarinecodedwiretagrecoveries.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences,59:
11001115.
Wells,B.K.,C.G.Grimes,J.C.Field&C.S.Reiss.2006.Covariationbetweenaveragelengthsofmature
coho(Oncorhynchuskisutch)andChinooksalmon(O.tshawytscha)andtheoceanenvironment.
FisheriesOceanography,15:6779.
Welsh,H.H.,Jr.,G.R.Hodgson,B.C.Harvey&M.E.Roche.2001.DistributionofJuvenileCohoSalmon
inRelationtoWaterTemperaturesinTributariesoftheMattoleRiver,California.NorthAmerican
JournalofFisheriesManagement,21:464470.
Willette,M.1996.ImpactsoftheExxonValdezoilspillonthemigration,growth,andsurvivalofjuvenile
pinksalmoninPrinceWilliamSound.In:ProceedingsoftheExxonValdezOilSpillSymposium.pp.533
550.
Williams,E.H.&T.J.Q.II.2000.Pacificherring,Clupeapallasi,recruitmentintheBeringSeaandnorth
eastPacificOcean,II:relationshipstoenvironmentalvariablesandimplicationsforforecasting.Fisheries
Oceanography,9:300315.
Williams,R.N.,P.A.Bisson,D.L.Bottom,L.D.Calvin,C.C.Coutant,M.W.Erho,C.A.Frissell,J.A.
Lichatowich,W.J.Liss,W.E.McConnaha,P.R.Mundy,J.A.Stanford&R.R.Whitney.1999.Scientific
IssuesintherestorationofsalmonidfishesintheColumbiaRiver.Fisheries,24:1019.
Williamson,K.&D.Hillemeyer.2001.AnAssessmentofPinnipedPredationUponFallrunChinook
SalmonintheKlamathRiverEstuary,California,1999.YurokTribalFisheriesProgram.
March 2010

Wilson,C.,S.Manchester,M.Rowley&R.Smith.c.2004.ScottCreekWatershedAssessment.ScottCreek
WatershedCouncil,DavenportCA.approx.100pp.
Wright,D.2009.PersonalcommunicationfromD.Wright,fisherybiologist.CampbellTimberlands
Management,FortBragg,CA.
Zatkin,R.C.2002.SanMateoCountyStreams(SanGregorioCreekWatershed).NMFS#1659.CDFG
Region3.
March 2010

2010 Coho Recovery Plan Public Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Coho Recovery Plan Public Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECOVERY PLAN

FOR THE EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT OF

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CHAPTER9:RECOVERYCRITERIA ................................................................................ 121

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

ALBIONRIVER ...................................................................................................................... 146

BIGRIVER ............................................................................................................................... 177

CASPARCREEK ..................................................................................................................... 202

COTTANEVACREEK ........................................................................................................... 214

GAZOSCREEK ....................................................................................................................... 236

GUALALARIVER .................................................................................................................. 248

NAVARRORIVER ................................................................................................................. 280

NOYORIVER .......................................................................................................................... 295

PINEGULCHCREEK ............................................................................................................ 334

PUDDINGCREEK ................................................................................................................. 343

REDWOODCREEK ............................................................................................................... 356

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

SALMONCREEK ................................................................................................................... 401

SANGREGORIOCREEK ..................................................................................................... 414

SANLORENZORIVER ........................................................................................................ 434

WALKERCREEK .................................................................................................................... 571

CHAPTER11:MONITORING ............................................................................................ 584

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CHAPTER13:RESTORATION .......................................................................................... 604

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 1 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 2 Public Review

LET THE FISH TELL THE STORY

Photo Courtesy: Kelley House Museum, Fort Bragg, California, 1920s

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 3 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 4 Public Review

Within the living memories

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 5 Public Review

Photo Courtesy: Juvenile coho salmon,

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 6 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 7 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 8 Public Review

It is impossible to know exactly how much effect commercial and

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 9 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 10 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 11 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 12 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 13 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 14 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 15 Public Review

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Draft Recovery Plan 16 Public Review