Category Archives: Fish (general)

Limiting Harvest Won’t Rebuild Salmon Run

Posted on by

The federal-state Salmon Rebuilding Plan for Sacramento River Fall Chinook (SRFC) (July 2019)1 was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) under a grant from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The plan was developed because the SRFC escapement (in-river and hatchery return spawners) for brood years 2012-2014 declined significantly after the 2013-2015 drought, as shown in counts of adults that returned in 2015-2017 (Figure 1).

Regrettably, this plan is doomed to failure in periods of drought, because it does not address the underlying problems or long-term solutions that would contribute to meeting goals in the future. As stated in the plan, “the occurrence of reduced stock size or spawner escapements, depending on the magnitude of the short-fall, could signal the beginning of a critical downward trend.” This is the problem any salmon rebuilding plan must correct.

Instead, the plan focuses on three strategies as alternatives: no action, reducing harvest quotas by 30%, and closing regional elements of fisheries (including all inland river fisheries). The plan’s focus on reducing harvest or increasing hatchery production will not address the population crashes during multiyear droughts and limited recovery in subsequent normal and wet years that are the main underlying cause of the population’s decline.

The plan was prepared by the Salmon Technical Team, NMFS, and Council staff with support from state and federal agencies and tribal scientists. The plan is based on an extensive review of all aspects of the issue by many knowledgeable salmon scientists. The goal is to create a consensus plan for how the SRFC stock should be rebuilt so it can sustain a maximum yield harvest strategy within several years.

The plan is designed to meet specific goals and objectives. The goal is to rebuild the SRFC stock so it can provide a Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) of 122,000 hatchery and natural-area adults to coastal and in-river fisheries. This goal has been in place since 1984. The objective is to reach the goal in two to three years.

The Salmon Rebuilding Plan is not a plan to protect and recover the Evolutionary Significant Unit designated as Central Valley Fall-Run Chinook Salmon and its component subpopulations of wild, naturally produced salmon in the river and its tributaries. Instead, it is a plan to rebuild stocks for harvest and escapement including hatchery and “wild” salmon. The plan’s strategy focuses on adjusting the fishery efforts and harvest to accomplish the PFMC’s goal of rebuilding the fishable stocks, factors the PFMC can control, while mentioning the real problems and other, more long-term solutions in passing.

The plan summarizes the development team’s analyses and conclusions, and suggests multiple factors contributed to the escapement decline of SRFC in years 2015-2017.

The critical broods of 2012-2014 resulted in well below average ocean abundance index values and adult spawner escapement in 2015-2017. Brood year 2014 appears to be the weakest of the critical broods as it was the primary contributor to the very low 2017 SI postseason estimate and one of the lowest spawner escapement estimates on record. The record low escapement to the upper Sacramento Basin in 2017 is particularly noteworthy. ( p. 60)

Some of the statements in the plan, and my response to each, are shown below. They are organized by topic.

1. Early Life History Survival –

The analysis found that below average freshwater flows and high temperatures throughout the Sacramento Basin coincided with relatively high levels of pre-spawn mortality for the critical broods (defined as brood years 2012-2014). Low flows and warm temperatures in the lower Sacramento River were likely to have affected survival of outmigrating smolts from brood years 2013 and 2014….. The 2013-2015 drought likely impacted juvenile SRFC in several ways resulting in decreased recruitment to ocean fisheries and subsequent adult escapement…. Low flows and elevated water temperatures associated with exceptional drought conditions in the Sacramento River Basin were experienced by outmigrating juvenile SRFC beginning in spring 2013 and these conditions persisted through spring outmigration periods in 2014 and 2015.

Note the plan report relates many of these early life history survival factors that have been identified over the past several decades. There is much documentation of these decades of data and studies in the plan report. Factors such as high water temperatures and redd dewatering have significantly reduced wild smolt production, especially during critical drought years.

2. Lower Hatchery Releases – “Hatchery releases were below average levels for the critical brood years, and offsite release practices utilized during drought conditions led to increased straying and river harvest of returning adults.”

The normal 26.7 million releases were reduced 17% in brood years 2012-14. Note some of these reductions in smolt releases were planned,2 while others involved difficulties in hatcheries in the critical drought years of 2013-2015.

3. Poor Ocean Survival – “for the critical brood years of 2012-2014, outmigrating juvenile SRFC encountered a wide range of ocean conditions. Poorer conditions in 2014 and 2015 were encountered by brood years 2013 and 2014.”

The primary issue appears to have been that hatchery juveniles released in the Bay generated adult survival, returns and harvest that were orders of magnitude higher than those of hatchery juveniles released in rivers.

4. Density Dependent Stock Recruitment – “High brood year 2012-2014 spawners from good 2010-2012 conditions led to high density dependent mortality and reduced escapement in 2015-2017” (Figure 2).

This statement appears to imply that excessive redd superimposition by overly abundant spawners in limited spawning habitat led to reduced wild smolt production. It is far more likely that poor returns from brood years 2012-2014 stemmed from other factors.

5. Trucking and Straying of Adult Hatchery Fish – “During the three years that contributed to the overfished status, no adults from onsite-releases were estimated to have strayed into the San Joaquin Basin. It was markedly different for offsite releases, however, and adults returning from offsite NFH releases actually strayed into the San Joaquin Basin at higher rates than those returning from offsite CNFH [Coleman National Fish Hatchery] releases. Stray rates generally increased each year during 2015-2017, and they were particularly high in 2017.”

There were many factors affecting hatchery returns from releases in critically dry years. One example is a pair of CNFH releases in April 2014, one at the hatchery in the upper river and one in the Bay (Figures 3 and 4). Although there was more straying from the Bay release group, there was also much greater survival (and fishery contribution). The fish released in the Bay did not have to pass through the lower 100 miles of the river in a drought year.

The river group was released under much higher flows (Figure 5) than the Bay group, which likely helped in return homing of the river release group. The Bay group was also larger (by 50% weight), having reared 20 days longer in the hatchery. It was wise to release all the 2015 CNFH smolts in the Bay to ensure survival and contribution to the fisheries, but they imprinted on a wide combination of Central Valley tributary flows leading to straying.

Another factor that likely increased CNFH returning adults straying was poor summer migrating conditions in the lower Sacramento River above the mouth of the Feather River (Figure 6). These conditions cause many returning adults to choose the American, Feather/Yuba, and Mokelumne Rivers.

6. Increased Harvest of Adult Stock – “Offsite-released fish were noticeably more prone to harvest once inside the Sacramento Basin. The entire SRFC stock experienced elevated in-river harvest rates during 2016 and 2017, largely due to the migratory behavior of spawners returning from offsite hatchery releases.”

Note higher harvest was also attributed to much better returns of Bay releases, as well as release timing and homing imprinting problems with Bay releases.

7. Hatcheries – “A common result across the CDFW reports is that hatchery-origin fish routinely make up the majority of natural area escapement and harvest, and at various levels of escapement.”

While hatcheries have these inherent problems, there would be few salmon and minimal salmon fisheries in California without hatcheries. However, the plan promotes the building of natural/wild components of SRFC populations. The problem is that adjusting and managing runs through fishery harvest management is not going to help make that happen.

The report recommends the following actions to rebuild the stock (fishable population) to allow Maximum Sustainable Yield (122,000 returning wild adults).

Recommendation 1 – rebuild in 3 years. Note the stock has met its goal since 2017 because brood-years’ 2015-2018 were reared in normal or wet years.

Recommendation 2 – adopt one of the alternative strategies:

  • Alternative 1 – status quo (rebuilds in three years
  • Alternative 2 – reduce harvest by 30 %
  • Alternative 3 – reduce harvest by closing southern-range ocean and all in-river fisheries (rebuilds in two years)

Recommendation 3 – eliminate or limit fall ocean fisheries

Recommendation 4 – limit harvest quota fisheries

Recommendation 5 – provide recommendations to the Council for restoration and enhancement measures within a suitable time frame. “It is recommended that the Council direct the Habitat Committee to work with tribal, federal, state, and local habitat experts to review the status of the essential fish habitat affecting SRFC and, as appropriate, provide recommendations to the Council for restoration and enhancement measures within a suitable time frame, as described in the FMP.”

Note that such processes have occurred on multiple occasions over the past several decades. Multi-stakeholder efforts abound, including the comprehensive the Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan and various federal biological opinions and state take permits, as well as associated environmental reviews.

Further Recommendations

  • Consideration should be given to estimating productivity of natural-area spawners and
    development of management objectives for this component of the SRFC stock, as has
    previously been recommended by CA HSRG (2012) and Lindley et al. (2009).
  • How far did water quality deviate from optimal conditions.
  • Evaluate the effects of redd dewatering
  • Determine factors relating to straying of trucked hatchery smolts
  • Evaluate water temperature conditions in spawning reaches.
  • Evaluate why recovery has favored hatchery components

The plan also offers a summary:

Limitations on our ability to accurately explain and forecast annual variations in Pacific salmon production remain, in part because of uncertainty in the factors responsible for salmon mortality and from the effects of climate warming on the marine distribution and abundance of salmon. It is more important than ever to promote cooperative and innovative international research to identify and better understand the ecological mechanisms regulating the distribution and abundance of salmon populations for sustainable salmon and steelhead management. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin No. 6: 501–534, 2016 .

Conclusion

Most of these recommendations miss the mark. The claim that there is too little understanding also misses the mark.

Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon escapement has benefitted from wet year periods (1995-2006 and 2010-2012; Figure 7) and off-site hatchery smolt releases to the Bay and ocean coast sites. Escapement has suffered immensely from drought conditions, which dramatically limited wild and hatchery juvenile survival (1987-1992, 2007-2009, and 2013-2015).

The plan should have focused more on the management of wild and hatchery smolt survival factors in drought years rather than adjustments to fishery harvest and hatchery production. As written, the plan will not improve the ability of the stock (population) to sustain harvest in the future, especially since the underlying problems are getting worse.

Figure 1. Sacramento River Fall Run Chinook total hatchery and in-river spawning escapement 1970-2017. SMSY = Maximum Sustained Yield target. MSST = Minimum Stock Size Threshold (minimum acceptable target). Note MSY target was not met in 2007-2009 and 2015-2017. Source of Figure: Salmon Rebuilding Plan.

Figure 2. Spawner numbers versus juvenile production index. Source of Figure: Salmon Rebuilding Plan.

Figure 3. Returns from April 4, 2014 SRFC smolts released at Coleman hatchery. Source: https://www.rmpc.org

Figure 4. Returns from April 24, 2014 SRFC smolts released in Bay. Source: https://www.rmpc.org

Figure 5. Daily Sacramento River flow at Freeport in April, 2014.

Figure 6. Migratory conditions for returning CNFH salmon in late summer. Blue regions are primary spawning areas. Green are migration and holding areas with adequate late summer water temperatures. Yellow areas are migration routes with excessive stressful water temperatures. Red area has blocking/lethal water temperatures. Note that conditions would encourage straying of upper Sacramento-bound salmon into cooler tributaries.

Figure 7. SRFC escapement 1975-2019.

  1. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2019. Salmon Rebuilding Plan for Sacramento River Fall Chinook. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/07/sacramento-river-fall-chinook-salmon-rebuilding-plan-regulatory-identifier-number-0648-bi04-july-2019.pdf/ ↩
  2. https://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=3262 ↩

Winter-Run Salmon Update – August 2020

Posted on by

In my last update, March 2019, I summarized the population trends of winter-run Chinook salmon through 2017. In this post I include run estimates for 2018 and 2019. The trend indicates the population is recovering from the poor runs in 2016 and 2017 (Figures 1and 2), which were the consequence of poor spawning and rearing conditions.

The improvement is the result of more hatchery contributions and better natural contributions. The strong spawner-recruit relationship continues (Figure 3), with an improved 2019 run that spawned (in hatchery and wild) in summer of normal year 2016 and reared and emigrated during wet water year 2017. In contrast, the poor 2016 and 2017 runs were a consequence of critical drought conditions during spawning (2013 and 2014) and rearing/emigration (fall-winter of water years 2014 and 2015). The 2017 run could have been even worse had hatchery smolt releases not been doubled in winter 2015.

NMFS (2019) concluded the recovery was due to increased hatchery contributions and “better water management”. The latter is simply not true. Year 2017 was a wet year that contributed to good fall-winter survival of broodyear 2016 (Figure 4). By December 2019 NMFS knew that its draft biological opinion was being revised to limit protections.1

The prognosis for the 2020 run (from brood year 2017) is good given wet year summer spawning and incubation conditions in 2017 and normal year winter 2018 conditions. With hatchery stocking back to the normal 200,000 annual smolt level in the Sacramento River at Redding, a run of 3000-5000 can reasonably be expected despite the depleted spawning run in 2017. High summer egg-to-fry survival in 2017 (Figure 4) will also contribute. The 2020 run may also benefit from the initial release of 215,000 winter run hatchery smolts into Battle Creek in 2018. Some of these will return as two-year-old “jacks and jills” in 2020.

Several factors make the prognoses for the 2021 and 2022 (and future) runs less optimistic. Egg/fry survival of wild winter-run was lower again in 2018 and 2019 (Figure 4). The new (October 2019) federal Biological Opinion for winter-run is less protective than the Opinion it replaced,2 and the Bureau of Reclamation’s new water management is explicitly directed toward maximizing water deliveries.

On the positive side, hatchery releases including releases into Battle Creek continued in 2019 and 2020, and the estimates of migrating juvenile winter-run were higher for brood year 2019 in wet summer 2019 (Figure 5). As a result of a Settlement Agreement with CSPA, the State Water Board has required the Bureau of Reclamation to develop new protocols to meet water temperature requirements in the Sacramento River. It remains to be seen how these protocols translate into practice.

In the past three decades, the essential needs for winter-run salmon have not been met.3 Management of winter-run salmon must improve survival of wild eggs and juveniles in the summer spawning and fall-winter rearing-emigration seasons, with supplementary hatchery smolt releases as necessary. We cannot simply rely on wet years to keep wild winter-run salmon going in the Sacramento River.

Figure 1. Spawning population estimates of adult winter-run salmon in the upper Sacramento River from 1974 to 2019. Source: CDFW GrandTab and NMFS.

Figure 2. Spawning population estimate since 1997 showing proportion of hatchery and wild adult spawners. Source: NMFS (2019).

Figure 3. Spawners versus recruits (spawners three years later) transformed (logx minus 2). Year is recruit year spawners. For example, 2017 is the run size for 2017, representing spawners from brood year 2014. Color denotes water-year type in fall-winter rearing/emigration year: bold red is critical year, non-bold red is dry year, yellow is below-normal year, and blue is wet year. For example, red 15 and dot margin represent critical water year 2013. Yellow dot fill represents spawning year was a below-normal water year. Note 2016 and 2017 had both critically dry year summer spawning and fall-winter rearing-emigration. The blue 2019 point is a preliminary estimate.

Figure 4. First summer survival rate by brood year based on egg and fry production rate estimates. Egg number is derived from adult spawner estimates. Fry number is derived from Red Bluff screw trap estimates. Source: NMFS.

Figure 5. Brood year winter-run salmon early life history and abundance (2005-2019) as measured at Red Bluff. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/sacramento/tmp/hrt_1599751617_74.html

 

Partnership Shares Science to Find Fish and Water Solutions

Posted on by

“This month six California and federal agencies representing water management, fish, and wildlife, along with the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, signed onto the Sacramento River Science Partnership. The Partnership establishes an interagency science collaborative in which members will develop, share and discuss science to inform water management activities and protection of fish in the mainstem Sacramento River.” (8/25/20 News Release)

  •  The seven signatories will foster and advance science to inform sustainable solutions to water management challenges including conflicts between water supply delivery and fish survival.

The time when anyone thought that the problems confronting Central Valley salmon could be solved with more science is long gone. The problems and solutions have not really changed in the 40+ years I have been involved. And the problems are only getting worse. Why is it so hard to address them?

The Problems

As a consequence of rainfall, snowmelt, reservoir storage and release, and water diversions, flows in the Sacramento River, have become so low and erratic that they strand salmon spawning redds and create prolonged high water temperatures in the juvenile rearing and migration reaches of salmon. It is a wonder that there are any wild salmon left. Without hatcheries, there would be few if any salmon in the Central Valley at all.

Spring-Summer Water Temperatures

Spring-summer water temperatures in the lower Sacramento River are bad. They kill salmon and sturgeon, block migrations, lead to poor juvenile salmon growth, early migration, high predation, and cause huge predation problems for young hatchery and wild salmon. The high temperatures exceed state water quality standards and water project permit requirements. Yes, water temperatures were bad during the 2013-2015 critical drought, as might be expected (Figure 1). But they have also been bad in the five normal and wet years (2016-2020) since the drought (Figure 2). The safe level is 65°F, but the standard is set at 68°F, above which stress and higher mortality occurs. 68° is supposed to be an upper limit that should not be exceeded, and in past decades it rarely was. It is now the accepted norm, and even then it is not enforced.

In 2020 (Figure 3) spring water temperatures were detrimental to the upstream migration of endangered winter-run and spring-run salmon, emigrating juvenile fall-run salmon, and larval and juvenile sturgeon. High summer temperatures hinder migration of adult fall-run salmon and are detrimental to survival of winter-run fry, over-summering late-fall-run and fall-run salmon smolts, and rearing juvenile sturgeon.

Fall Drops in Water Levels

Often, usually in October-November, flow releases from Shasta reservoir drop sharply in response to decreasing downstream irrigation demands. The decreases lead to fall-run salmon redd dewatering in the upper river spawning area near Redding and poor habitat and emigration flows for winter-run and late-fall run juvenile salmon.

Stranding

Adult and juvenile salmon are stranded throughout the Sacramento River floodplain after winter-spring, high-flow events. In addition, drops in water surface elevation of four feet in the fall (Figures 4 and 5), soon after spawning de-water the vast majority of fall-run spawning redds in the 20-mile spawning reach downstream of Keswick Dam. Drops in flows after floodway weir spills (Figures 6 and 7) strand adult salmon and sturgeon that are migrating upstream, and also strand juvenile downstream emigrants in the Sutter and Yolo floodway bypasses.

Hatchery Releases

Releases of millions of hatchery-raised salmon and steelhead smolts in winter and spring into the lower Sacramento River from federal and state hatcheries compromise wild salmon and steelhead fry, fingerling, and smolt survival throughout the lower Sacramento River. Hatchery salmon and steelhead prey upon and compete with wild salmon and steelhead, and attract non-native predatory striped bass that also feed on wild salmon and steelhead.

Solutions

A new science plan for the upper reaches of the lower Sacramento River is not going to solve the problems that stem from failure to act on what science has told us for decades.

Solutions to the problems outlined above abound. These solutions are well documented in the Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2014) and other stakeholder plans.1 The most important solution, is water temperature limits in the lower Sacramento River, which were adopted decades ago in state water permits and water quality control plans. These limits designed to protect salmon are simply no longer enforced.

Figure 1. Water temperature in the lower Sacramento River from 2013-2015 critical drought years near Grimes, CA. Also shown is average for the past 11 years of record. https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

Figure 2. Water temperature in the lower Sacramento River from 2016-2020 post-drought years near Grimes, CA. Also shown is average for the past 11 years of record.

Figure 3. Water temperature in the lower Sacramento River in 2020 near Grimes, CA. Also shown is average for the past 11 years of record.

Figure 4. Sacramento River flows in fall of 2013 below Keswick Dam near Redding.

Figure 5. Sacramento River water surface elevation in fall of 2013 below Keswick Dam.

Figure 6. Spills of water from Sacramento River over Tisdale flood control weir during the period from December 2013 to February 2015. Source: CDEC

Figure 7. Spills of water from Sacramento River over Tisdale flood control weir during the period from January 2016 to May 2017. Source: CDEC

Franks Tract Futures Project

Posted on by

The Franks Tract Futures Project is asking for additional comments on the State’s revised concept design.1 The project is an outgrowth of the State’s 2016 Delta Smelt Resilience Strategy, which recognized that Franks Tract is a death trap for state and federally listed Delta smelt.

The original design for the project included tide gates to keep salt and smelt from moving upstream from the western Delta into Franks Tract via the False River channel. Once in Franks Tract, the smelt would most assuredly not survive. A new design “transforms the project from an early focus on establishing habitat for the endangered Delta smelt to a project that has sought input from a broad range of stakeholders.” According to the project leader, Brett Milligan from University of California:

Balancing the project’s goals has been a challenge. The first round of this project, the feasibility study, met the water quality and ecology requirements but did not meet the recreational and local economy (requirements). We heard you loud and clear. More or less, this entire last year has been to try to bring in that third tier and to balance these and see if there’s a way that the project can meet all of these criteria and be beneficial to all. The original project design failed to earn public support after it was presented in January 2018. At a crossroads, the project managers made a critical decision. They scrapped the proposal and formed an advisory committee of stakeholders with varied interests in Franks Tract rather than try to force the initiative through the process, while fighting the public every step of the way.

The new design drops the barrier/gate option as “a non-starter,” Brett explained to me. But that was the essential element of the project – stopping salt (and smelt) intrusion into the interior Delta due to the pull of the south Delta export pumps. A temporary barrier has been installed in False River in drought years to protect Delta water supplies.

The conflict is over recreational access to Franks Tract from the west via False River. A similar barrier on Montezuma Slough further west in Suisun Marsh resolved a similar conflict with a boat passage lock that maintains boating access when the barrier is in use.

At this phase of design and permitting, it would seem wise to evaluate an alternative with the barrier that includes a similar boat passage facility, so that the affected public can understand the tradeoffs. That is the purpose of the environmental review process.

Saving Native Central Valley Salmonids

Posted on by

No, the fish below is not a Central Valley salmon or trout. It is a Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout from the Yellowstone River in Yellowstone National Park. This iconic species is beginning to recover from competition and predation by non-native brook, brown, rainbow, and lake trout. Yellowstone Park over the past decade has carried out an intensive eradication program of the non-native salmonids to save the iconic native cutthroat. A similar program has been underway to save the Snake River Cutthroat on the South Fork of the Snake River from Grand Teton Park in Wyoming downstream into Idaho. The eradication programs include rotenone poisoning of tributaries, gill-netting (lake trout in Yellowstone Lake), and regulations requiring angler removal (rainbow trout).

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout caught and released in the Yellowstone River in Yellowstone National Park summer 2018

California has excellent programs to protect some of its iconic trout and salmon through strict regulations and habitat protection and enhancement.

  • Redband Rainbow Trout in the upper McCloud River
  • Golden Trout in the upper Kern River
  • Lahontan cutthroat of the Truckee drainage.
  • Coastal cutthroat (NorthCoast streams)
  • Paiute cutthroat of the eastern Sierras.
  • Winter Run Chinook salmon (endangered) spawning grounds upstream of Redding are now closed to trout angling.
  • Spring Run Chinook Salmon (threatened) spawning tribs protected
  • Wild steelhead – no harvest in mark-selected fisheries (photo below)

Wild Rainbow Trout/Steelhead caught and released in the lower Yuba River near Marysville January 2019.

One survival bottleneck that needs opening for salmon and steelhead in the Central Valley is predation by non-native fish. There is a long list of non-native and native predators from which native fish need protection. The best protection is to minimize native-nonnative habitat interactions. That can best come from adequate physical-geographical habitat and habitat water quality for natives while minimizing non-native fish habitat. Changes are necessary because of global warming and continually increasing demands on water. Stream flows are too low, water temperatures are too high, waters are clearer, and in-stream cover is low, factors that all favor non-native predators and competitors.

Because many of the non-natives are sportfish with strong angler followings, non-lethal controls best serve to reduce overall predation effects on native fishes.

  • Provide natural spring flow pulses in rivers and tributary tailwaters to help emigrating salmonids avoid predators.
  • Keep water temperatures lower in rearing habitat and migrating routes of native fish.
  • Maintain the low salinity zone, the primary rearing area for native fishes, in the Bay downstream of the Delta.

At some point population controls on non-native fish may have to be considered despite their inherent problems and low potential for success.1 Note that despite the use of 50 miles of gill nets and removal of hundreds of thousands of pounds of lake trout each year in Yellowstone Lake, lake trout remain abundant. Predator control through removal would be far more difficult in the Central Valley and Bay-Delta.

Summary and Conclusion

I remain skeptical on how effective the individual actions can be, but a comprehensive multi-action program such as that employed for the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout has some chance of success. Such a program would come with tough choices and require considerable resources, but may need to be part of saving Central Valley salmon and steelhead. Focus should be on increasing the amount of native fish habitat and bettering spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat conditions.