National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division Southwest Region coho salmon parr Oncorhynchus kisutch Federal Recovery Planning North Central California Coast

10 Populations: Four Recovery Domains Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coordinator: Greg Bryant Central Valley Coordinator: Diane Windham South Central Coast Coordinator: Mark Capelli North Central Coast Coordinator: Charlotte Ambrose Each Domain Assigned: 1 or More Populations Science Center led TRT Recovery Coordinator

RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON INTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT Version: MARCH 31, 2008 Southwest Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service Santa Rosa, CA

Salmonid Recovery: The Road Map ESA, Case Law & Policies ESA §4(f)(1) –…[NMFS] shall develop and implement plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species… –…in developing and implementing recovery plans [NMFS] shall, to the maximum extent practicable – – Give priority to...species… most likely to benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity…

Salmonid Recovery: The Road Map ESA, Case Law & Policies Management actions must be site specific wherever feasibleManagement actions must be site specific wherever feasible Actions and criteria must link to identified threats including changes in threats since listing and be organized by the 5 listing factors of Federal Register Notice listing the speciesActions and criteria must link to identified threats including changes in threats since listing and be organized by the 5 listing factors of Federal Register Notice listing the species Criteria must measure whether threats have been abated and address delisting not just downlisting.Criteria must measure whether threats have been abated and address delisting not just downlisting. Fund for Animals v. Babbitt (1995)Fund for Animals v. Babbitt (1995) SWCBD v. Babbitt (1999)SWCBD v. Babbitt (1999) Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbit (2001)Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbit (2001) Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbit (1999)Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbit (1999) Cannot promise to “develop criteria later” or use “future research” as means to not address threats Cannot promise to “develop criteria later” or use “future research” as means to not address threats

Salmonid Recovery: The Road Map ESA, Case Law & Policies A Few Examples: House Resources Committee Report on Recovery Plan Development (2006)House Resources Committee Report on Recovery Plan Development (2006) NMFS Endangered and Threatened Species Interim Recovery Planning Guidance (Oct 2004 revised 2006) Endangered and Threatened Species Interim Recovery Planning Guidance (Oct 2004 revised 2006) USFWS/NMFS Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Activities (1994)USFWS/NMFS Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Activities (1994) Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information Standards under the ESA (1994)Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information Standards under the ESA (1994) Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Implementation under the ESA (1994)Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Implementation under the ESA (1994)

Population Structure/Viability (Science Center Technical Recovery Team) Historical Structure An Analysis of Historical Population Structure for ESUs (Bjorkstedt, et al. 2005) Finalized Oct 2005 Amended 2007 Biological Viability Criteria A Framework for Assessing the Viability of Threatened and Endangered Salmon and Steelhead in the NCCC Domain (Spence et al. 2007) June 2007 Draft ~ Final Expected in April Research & Monitoring Recommendations Final Expected in April Recovery Plan Foundation

Historical Population Structure Populations Assigned Into Diversity Strata Independent vs Dependent Independent: Focus of Recovery Plan CCC coho salmon analysis will include dependent populations

Marine Recovery Coho SalmonChinook SalmonSteelhead

Viability Criteria for Populations IN DRAFT Minimum Threshold of Potential Habitat Available (IP km) Minimum Threshold of Potential Habitat Available (IP km) Spawner Density Spawner Density Annual Run Size Annual Run Size Effective Population Size Effective Population Size Total Population Size Total Population Size Population Decline Population Decline Catastrophe Catastrophe Hatchery Influence Hatchery Influence NMFS Science Center: Population Viability Criteria

139 Total Populations & The Marine Environment Objectively narrowing the universe and prioritizing populations… The Nature Conservancy Protocol: CAP… Not Just a Threats Assessment ~ Current Population/Habitat Conditions (HAB8 & Others) ~ Populations/Habitat Threats (State, local, stakeholder, public data) ~ Feasibility/Benefit/Cost of Threat Abatement (TNC protocol) ~ Strategies for poor conditions & high threats (TNC protocol) ~ Analyze across populations, Diversity Strata & ESU/DPS (PVC & RT)

NCCC Recovery Planning Inform Improve Reduce FUTURE THREATS CURRENTCONDITIONS STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

Example CAP Viability Table… CURRENT CONDITIONS BY LIFE STAGE

Data Limitations Structured Decision Process –Expert panel to rate flow conditions –Decision matrix for toxicity –A posteriori ratings for others once distribution of data can be observed

NCCC Recovery Planning Inform Improve Reduce FUTURE THREATS CURRENTCONDITIONS STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

Rank Overall Threat Levels by Life Stage Identify Highest Priorities for Strategy Development Life Stages SpawnersEgg Emergent Fry Summer Rearing Winter RearingSmolts Mulitiple Life Stages Overall Threat Rank Threats Roads & RailroadsMediumHigh MediumHigh Wood HarvestingLowMedium Very HighMediumHigh Very High Storms & FloodingMedium High Medium. DroughtsLowMedium HighMedium LowHigh EffluentsLowMedium Low

1.Roads and Railroads 2.Droughts 3.Logging and Wood Harvesting 4.Channel Modification 5.Water Diversion and Impoundment 6.Climate Change 7.Agricultural Practices 8.Residential and Commercial Development 9.Disease, Predation, and Competition Top Ranked Threats for CCC coho salmon

Freshwater Fire and Fuel Management Fishing and Collecting Hatcheries & Aquaculture Livestock farming and ranching Mining Recreational Areas and Activities Storms and Flooding Marine Reduced genetic variability Commercial and Recreational Bycatch Additional Threats Evaluated

NCCC Recovery Planning Inform Improve Reduce FUTURE THREATS CURRENTCONDITIONS STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

Strategies for Recovery For Example: Our analysis ranks Climate Change as a high or very high threat particularly in the southern ESU and the marine environment To address this threat: protect cool water refugia prevent lost or conversion of forest lands manage forests for older stages operate existing reservoirs to maintain cool flows fund and implement coordinated coast-wide monitoring develop partnerships for implementation

Strategic Partnerships State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game Water Quality Control Board California Department of Forestry ~ Jackson Demonstration State Forest Scientists Southwest Fisheries Science Center TNC Facilitated Scientific Review Workshop Flow Panel Workshop Collaboration with UC Berkeley, Lawrence Lab & Microsoft NGO’s The Nature Conservancy Sonoma Ecology Center Stakeholders Water Agencies Timber Companies Consultants Santa Rosa Office: PRD, HCD, RC

Moving Forward Single Species plan for coho, Multi- Species for other species Sequence: CCC coho salmon, CCC steelhead, CC Chinook, NC steelhead (2009) CCC Coho Salmon Internal Draft In Internal Review April 2008 North Central California Coast Domain Strategy for Completion