ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Chinook Salmon Struggle for Survival

Roman Puppo, Environmental Studies Program, California State University Monterey Bay

Introduction

Through human impact and climate change, our world has gone through many

alterations. Some of these alterations have caused Chinook salmon populations to decline to the

point of becoming endangered species. The Chinook salmon life cycle has some complexity to it,

and for that reason they are struggling. The federal and state government have made policies to

protect the species from becoming extinct and for the health of the Chinook salmon. The policies

that are being implemented affect many different stakeholders which differ depending on the

region. This paper will focus on the Chinook salmon population within the San Joaquin River.

Stakeholders for this region include state and federal government, environmentalists, farmers,

ranchers and irrigation districts. The perspectives of these stakeholders show how they feel about

the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. Some policy options which are necessary will be

given to help revive Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin, as they need more restoration efforts for

their survival.

The Life of Chinook Salmon

When Chinook salmon spawn they provide food for many different species, and some

species are dependent on salmon spawning patterns to survive. They also bring large amounts of

nutrients into the rivers from the ocean once they die, and those nutrients help support their

environments. Chinook salmon are important not only to the ecosystem they inhabit, but as a

food source for people as well.

Chinook salmon have existed for about one million years. They are one of the largest

salmon species, reaching weights of 45 kg, and they have black spots with a silvery body.

Chinook salmon have several spawning periods depending on the area which could include fall,

winter and spring runs. During these runs males and females will change color to attract a mate,

and they will not eat while they migrate up stream. All the salmon that migrate upstream to

spawn will die due to the lack of food, and because of how exhausting the journey is on their

bodies. Chinook salmon make nests called redds in the slow flowing tributary. Once the eggs

have hatched the tiny fry rely on their yoke as a source of food. Eventually the young will

migrate downstream into estuaries where they will begin to feed on larvae and adult insects, as

well as small crustaceans. Yearling smolt will begin their migration seaward and will spend the

next few years growing there. At sea there is no limit to how far they may go away from their

original river, but each year they return to the same river from which they were born, to spawn.

They can find their native river and tributaries through olfaction (Raymond, 1979). Then the

cycle of migration and spawning will repeat itself.

2

Image 1: The Chinook

salmon life cycle is

simplified here.

Starting from an egg

you can see the

transformation and

migrations that take

place in during their

life UC Davis, 2018).

Image 2: Juvenile

Chinook salmon

going through the

parr-smolt stage are

seen here in an

estuary. Estuaries

are important for

the rearing and

growth of Chinook

salmon (Fresh,

2006).

What is Affecting Chinook Salmon Populations?

Climate change can affect the overall survival of Chinook salmon species in many

different ways. Crozier and colleagues (2008), state that although salmon spend majority of their

life in the ocean, freshwater climate change can have substantial effects on juvenile survival. As

temperatures rise in rivers this will affect development processes such as predator-avoidance

behavior and reduced growth rates. Silveus (2018), say that predator-avoidance behavior

happens when salmon leave the safety of cover to find cooler sections of the river, and this

leaves them vulnerable to predators. Reduced growth rates are actually from enzyme problems

while in the egg form. Warm water causes the enzymes to multiply rapidly causing birth defects

(Silveus, 2018). Reduced stream flows also will also have an increased impact on juvenile

survival. When stream flows are extremely low, the available habitat will shrink, causing

reduction in habitat and heightened competition (Crozier Zabel, & Hamlet, 2008).

Dams are detrimental to all salmon species, and some have advocated to remove them

completely. An example of this would be the case of the Friant dam. Prior to 1942 when the dam

was constructed, the San Joaquin River was known for had one of the largest Chinook salmon

runs in the Central Valley. After the dam was created, sections of the river went dry. This

decimated the salmon population. Dams are harmful to salmon species because they halt the

3

migration to the tributaries where they go to spawn. Dams also restrict flow to the lower sections

of rivers which will make it harder for the spawning and migration of Chinook salmon. When

river height drops the conditions for smolt survival also decreases (McCullough, 1999). These

structures also lead to decreased average depths, and woody; debris, which will lead to the loss

of important habitat for salmon life stages (McCullough, 1999). Less than 20 percent of the

spawning habitat within the Snake and Columbian river is left. Out of the 20 percent of spawning

habitat left only 6 percent of which is prime spawning grounds (Dauble, 2003).

Urbanization has had an impact on Chinook salmon as well. As cities grow, people alter

the path of rivers and streams, and along with that is pollution. Pollution enters rivers from storm

drains and sewage pipes. The larger the city, the more pollution that can be expected.

Urbanization has also cause some rivers to move too fast causing high turbidity. Turbidity is

undissolved solids in the water, and some are microscopic and make the water appear cloudy.

When turbidity is too high in rivers it causes the water temperature to rise and reduces the

dissolved oxygen in the water. Ultimately, the salmon are unable to breath and they die (Silveus,

2018). People also use a substantial amount of domestic and industrial water which the salmon

also rely on to survive. The altering of estuaries has a large impact on Chinook salmon species.

Although they spend majority of their life at sea, estuaries provide an important habitat for the

growth of fry and smolt Chinook salmon. Without these estuaries, fry and smolt survival

decreases (Katz, 2013). Mining and agricultural runoff also have an impact on Chinook salmon.

When mining is done near rivers the runoff will enter the water as silt, and it will coat the salmon

eggs. Eggs that are covered in silt are unable to breath, so they suffocate and die. There are also

molds that can spread onto the eggs from the silt. Agricultural runoff is toxic for any juvenile

salmon in the river, high Nitrate volumes can lead to brown blood disease in salmon species

(Silveus, 2018).

Invasive species also have a negative impact on Chinook salmon causing problems such

as hybridization, predation, competition, and transmission of harmful diseases (Katz, 2013).

Policy Context

4

The policies regarding Chinook salmon can be separated into, international policy,

national policy and regulation, and local policy. Some of these policies came into place to protect

environments or other species and eventually Chinook salmon were incorporated into these

policies while other policies were implemented specifically for the protection of Chinook

salmon.

An Act to Protect Chinook Salmon

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed by the 108th Congress in 1973. This

policy was set in place because the U.S. was noticing more and more organisms going extinct

due to economic growth and development. The ESA protects the ecosystems endangered and

threatened species rely on for survival, and it is Congress’ duty to uphold all federal departments

and agencies to preserve the lives of these species. It is also the policy of Congress that federal

agencies cooperate with state and local agencies to restore water resource issues relating to the

conservation of endangered and threatened species (P.L. 93-205, 1973).

In California there have been several listings of endangered Chinook salmon populations

which are monitored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and the National Marine

Fisheries Services (NMFS) which is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). NOAA is a scientific agency within the United States Department of

Commerce. The winter-run Chinook in the Sacramento River and its tributaries were listed as

Endangered on September 22, 1989 by the State of California. They were listed as Endangered

by the federal government in 1990, evaluated and remained listed in 1994, and were evaluated

again in 2005 by NMFS which verified the endangerment of extinction to winter-run Chinook

Salmon was still imminent (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017).

The California coastal Chinook salmon population was listed as threatened by the federal

government on November 15th 1999, and this included all populations south of the Klamath

River to the Russian River. In 2005, NMFS reconfirmed that the populations were still

threatened (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017).

5

Spring-run Chinook salmon in the Central Valley, including the Feather River population

was deemed threatened by the State and Federal government in 1999. Their status was re-

evaluated on August 29th 2005 and was still considered threatened by the federal government

(Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017).

International Policy

The Pacific Salmon Treaty was implemented in March 1985 between Canada and the

United States. This treaty was put in places as a cooperative management plan for the

enhancement of Pacific salmon populations. The Pacific Salmon Commission governed by

Canada and the U.S. set out to halt overfishing and to ensure both countries will receive equal

production of salmon origination in their waters (P.L. 99-5, 1985). One of the major problems

that led to this treaty was when the U.S. and Canada both noticed their salmon stocks declining

due to overfishing. Alaskan fishermen were harvesting salmon which were headed for waters in

British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Then, Canadian fisherman were harvesting salmon

migrating to Washington, and Oregon. Fisherman in Northern British Columbia were catching

salmon migrating up to Alaska. Lastly, fisherman in the United States were catching salmon

migrating to the Fraser River in Canada. Migratory salmon which would have spawned in their

native rivers were being caught in other countries waters before they could return, and this was

causing stocks in rivers to decline. In images 3 and 4 you can see the migrations of Chinook

salmon from Oregon to Alaska. The joint agreement to preserve salmon populations was

developed to benefit

both Canada and the U.S. from future frustration because overfishing in one location could

drastically affect the other countries salmon population. (Pacific Salmon Commission, 2016)

6

The Pacific Salmon Treaty expired in 1992, but a new treaty could not be decided upon

until a government to government, long-term fishing arrangement could be met. The new Pacific

Salmon Treaty was settled in 1999-2009 and included habitat restoration, catch ceiling limits for

fisherman, the establishment of the Northern and Southern restoration and enhancement fund, a

Committee on Scientific Cooperation, and the Transboundary panel who implement abundance-

based management for salmon population (Pacific Salmon Commission, 2016). In 2009, the

treaty was revised again and incorporated a new conservation and sustainable salmon harvest

sharing system between the U.S. and Canada (Pacific Salmon Commission, 2016).

National Policy and Regulation

Established in 1870, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is a

federal agency responsible for enforcing regulations regarding fish and wildlife species

nationally, as well as having the responsibility for the research and study of those species

(California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018). Regarding Chinook salmon, the USFWS

sets regulations for each state which the get passed by State Senate. These regulations can

change each year depending on species abundance. Regulations vary by state depending on the

type of capture. Chinook salmon regulations are set for commercial, and recreational fishing in

the ocean and rivers. These regulations include fish size, bag limits, legal fishing tackle, methods

of capture, open or closed seasons, and allocated fishing areas. The California Commercial

7

Image 3: From rivers in Washington you can see the migration of Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Coho salmon northward in the Pacific Ocean. If Canada, or Alaska were to overfish, the population of salmon returning to their native rivers in Washington would decrease. This is why the Pacific Salmon Treaty was

Image 4: Not only do the salmon from

Washington migrate northward, but in

general most Pacific salmon migrate

north from their native rivers (Miller

2003).

Salmon Fishing Code (1988) gives regulations to commercial fisherman regarding fish size,

methods of capture, and useable tackle.

Local Policy

The San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) was established in 2009, but not

before a civil suit Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Rodgers, et al. (1988-2006). The

case led to the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act which was added into Public Law

111-11 Title X, part of the 123 Stat. 1349 signed on March 30th 2009. This Act led to the

modification of Friant dams to provide restoration and interim flows. Also, this act is dedicated

to the long-term restoration of the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the Merced confluence,

so the reintroduction of Spring-run Chinook salmon can be implemented (P.L. 111-11, 2009).

The San Joaquin River had one of the largest historical Spring-run Chinook Salmon

populations in California, but the construction of Friant Dam in 1942 altered water flow and

8

Image 5: The SJRRP stretches from Millerton Lake/ Friant Dam to the Merced River confluence. The hopes of the restoration are to bring back the historic Chinook salmon runs which happened before the creation of Friant Dam (San Joaquin River Restoration Program, 2018).

created a dry section of the San Joaquin River which impeded Chinook salmon from spawning in

their native river. The SJRRP has two specific goals, first being to restore Chinook salmon

populations to good conditions, so that they are reproducing naturally and have a self-sustainable

population. Second, they want to monitor restoration and interim flows, so that they don’t have

impacts on long-term Friant dam contractors (San Joaquin River Restoration, 2018).

Stakeholder PerspectivesStakeholders who are affected by Chinook salmon management are state and federal

agencies, environmentalists, fisherman, irrigation districts, farmers, and miners. Although there

are different stakeholder perspectives depending on the river system, this paper will analyze

those of the San Joaquin river system. Stakeholders of the San Joaquin river include state federal

agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, National Marine

Fisheries Services, California Department of Water Resources, and California Department of

Fish and Wildlife. Other stakeholders are irrigation districts who rely on water from the San

Joaquin River, such as divisions of the Central Valley Project, Friant Water Users Association,

several districts with contracts, and the farmers who receive the water. Lastly, organizations such

as Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the River, and the Pacific Coast

Federation of Fishermen's Association, are activists for the restoration of the San Joaquin River

and act as the environmentalists of this study (Table 1).

State and Federal Perspectives

State and federal agencies do have different perspectives regarding the San Joaquin River

Restoration Program (SJRRP), but they can only have one mission and that is to uphold the law.

California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a big part of the SJRRP when it comes

9

to the restoration of Chinook salmon populations. They are responsible for the reintroduction of

Chinook salmon which entails the planning, and actions for the restoration. They research and

monitor the species and their environment, as well as operate fish facilities. They also provide

public outreach, environmental compliance and permitting. Lastly, CDFW must protect, manage,

and conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat needed for sustainable populations (Vance, 2018).

Environmentalist Perspectives

Environmentalists and environmental organizations both want and strive for the

preservation of the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it. When it comes to the restoration

of the San Joaquin River, and the return of spring-run Chinook salmon, environmental

organizations such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the River,

and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association were on board. Monty Schmitt

(2014), expert blogger for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) tells us nine different

things we can do to save the San Joaquin River. But first, he says, “Here at the NRDC, we have

worked for nearly three decades to restore the San Joaquin River… because through doing so we

are promoting the kind of water resource management solutions that our state needs, especially

given the current drought” (Schmitt 2014). The nine ways Schmitt tells us we can save the river

are:

Support the SJRRP

Conserve water and support policies that improve urban water use

Support investments in water-use efficiency for agriculture

Send low-income kids on a river trip

Vote ‘Yes’ on Proposition 1 to fund water infrastructure improvements statewide

Oppose the construction of a new Temperance Flat Dam on the Upper San Joaquin

Support the state’s efforts to implement a comprehensive flood management plan

Support increasing San Joaquin River Flows in the Bay-Delta

Keep the conversation going (Schmitt, 2014).

Environmental organizations such as Sierra Club, Friends of the River, California Wilderness

Coalition, and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance are in favor for the restoration of

10

Chinook salmon populations, but also expressed other concerns such as flood control, water

supply reliability regarding groundwater, economic impacts, land use, and wild scenic and river

implementation. In regards to groundwater they state, “The Water Management Goal and the

Restoration Goal of the San Joaquin River Restoration Project (SJRRP) as a result of a

significant reduction or possible elimination in the sales of the Recovered Water Account

(RWA) water, the proceeds of which go into the SJRRP restoration fund. The reduction in the

RWA sales also impacts the effectiveness of the groundwater banking projects that the SJRRP is

funding to meet the Water Management Goal” (Sierra Club, 2014).

Agricultural Perspective

Irrigation districts and farmers rely on water as a resource and for their livelihood. The

SJRRP allocates water from Friant dam to the San Joaquin River as part of the restoration

program, which means less water is saved for farmers. Irrigations districts are now unable to

supply as much water to farmers as well. Also, due to alteration of sections of the river which

have been dry for years will now be flooded for the restoration. This action can lead to the loss of

land for some farmers. D. McNamara states, “My home and farm are located in Reach 4B. To

my knowledge, we are the only family whose principal residence may be destroyed as a result of

the Restoration Project” (Banonis, 2012). D. McNamara then says, “The impact for us will be the

loss of our home, a couple hundred acers of our farm, and a devastating life change for our

family’s future.” D. McNamara declares that the restoration project should use the existing

bypasses to save money, and to keep them safe from any flood potential. Jim and Betty

Morehead state, “The economic impact of the restoration plan is real and have extreme

consequences. Water is the essence and livelihood of agriculture as we know it in the San

Joaquin Valley” (Banonis, 2012). They also proclaim, “The economic impact is far reaching and

would affect other regions as our state as well. A consistent loss of water would diminish the

ability to sustain todays ag economy.” To many farmers who have stated their opinions on the

restoration of the San Joaquin River, it is clear that they do not want the restoration of the river.

11

Table 1: Stakeholder Perspectives

Stakeholders Examples Their Values Stake-holder Concerns

State and Federal Agencies

Bureau of Reclamation

US Fish and Wildlife Services

National Marine Fisheries Services

CA Department of Water Resources

CA Department of Fish and Wildlife

Implementation of the law

Scientific/Utilitarian

Management of water, and allocation

Restoration of Chinook Salmon

Health of ecosystem

Flood control

Safety

Environmentalists Sierra Club

NRDC

Friends of the River

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Association

Protection of ecosystems

Protection of salmon

Restoration

Scientific/ Moralistic

Endangerment of species in the San Joaquin

Irrigation Districts Friant Water Users Utilization of water Loss of business

12

Associationdivisions of the Central Valley Project

Utilitarian / Dominionistic

Flood control

Farmers Any farmer receiving water from the San Joaquin River

Utilization of water

Utilitarian / Dominionistic

Loss of land due to restoration

Floods due to restoration

Loss of crop production due to less water allocation

Discussion

I have created four different policy options which I believe should be implemented for the restoration of Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin river. These policies are evaluated with the criteria of economic feasibility, environmental protection, and jobs for farmers and ranchers, as shown in Table 2. These options should satisfy each of the criteria presented, and this is to create a balanced system between the government, environmentalists, and farmers, ranchers, their communities, and will restore Chinook salmon populations in the San Joaquin River.

The first option would be to purchase land from farmers for the restoration of the San Joaquin River. This option might be expensive for the government to purchase, but it will allow for better restoration efforts. The restoration that could be done if the land was purchased would be to improve the rivers riparian vegetation, and construction of estuaries. Also, if there is less farmland then there will be more water in the river for the salmon. Although farmers would be getting money for their land, this may take away from their livelihood.

The second policy option would be to subsidize farmers for low water use. This might be expensive because of the large velocity of farmers in the San Joaquin river area, but this option will give farmers incentives to save water. The water that

13

is saved will greatly improve the overall river flow, and this will provide the habitat and stream flow needed for Chinook salmon to survive.

The third policy option would be to allow fishing to continue in the San Joaquin river but prohibit fishing for Chinook salmon. Allowing fishing to continue will maintain and or bring money and jobs into the communities around the river. Allowing fishing in the river may put added stress on migratory salmon, but this will allow for sustainable numbers of predatory fish which would feed on the fry, parr and smolt.

The fourth policy option would be to completely prohibit fishing in the San Joaquin river. This option may take money away from local communities but would help reduce stress on salmon from fisherman. A lack of fishing in the San Joaquin could lead to increased numbers of predatory fish.

Table 2: Analysis of Policy Options by CriteriaCriteria P.O.1

Purchase land from Farmers for restoration of the San Joaquin river.

P.O.2Subsidize Farmers for low water use.

P.O.3Allow fishing in the San Joaquin river but prohibit fishing for Chinook salmon.

P.O.4Prohibit fishing in the San Joaquin River

Feasibility-economic (-) Very expensive,Less land for farmers

(-) Might be expensive, but it will save water for future investment/use

(+) Brings money/jobs into the community

(-) Takes away money/jobs from community

Environmental protection(Salmon/River/Ecosystem

(+) Helps the ecosystem and salmon

(+) Helps save water for the Salmon/ Ecosystem

(-/+) May lower chances of salmon restoration,But could help balance

(-/+) Salmon will have less stress from fishing but may have more predatory species.

14

predatory species

Jobs- Farmers/Ranchers (-/+) Gives farmers money, but takes away their total crop production/livelihood

(-/+) Might be hard for farmers to switch crop production, but gives them incentives to choose better irrigation methods

(0) (0)

Recommendation

I would not recommend policy options 1 and 4. Buying land from farmers to restore the

San Joaquin River and prohibiting fishing in the San Joaquin River are both good options, but

they don’t meet all the criteria. Buying land from farmers to restore the San Joaquin would

potentially take some land away from farmers to help conserve water, it would also allow

members of the SJRRP to create more floodplains and habitat for juveniles. But buying land

from farmers will take away from the local economy, and it will take away from their livelihood.

Also, purchasing land from farmers would be very expensive. Prohibiting fishing in the San

Joaquin River would be somewhat easy to enforce by the CDFW, and this would allow Chinook

salmon safe travel up and down the San Joaquin River without any pressure from people fishing

around the salmon. Prohibiting fishing will also help salmon from being caught accidently. I

don’t recommend this policy because it will take income away from the local communities that

fish in the San Joaquin River. If fishing is prohibited in the San Joaquin river, some predatory

fish such as crappie, bluegill, catfish striped, spotted, and largemouth bass may a population

increase which will lead to more competition for Chinook salmon. The predatory fish will also

feed on the eggs, and juvenile salmon. This will make it hard for salmon to reach sustainable

levels.

I think a combination of policy option 2 and 3 would work the best for helping restore

Chinook salmon populations in the San Joaquin River. If farmers have incentives to use less

water, then this can potentially increase river flow so that salmon will have access to higher

sections of the river such as Friant Dam where they can spawn. An increased river flow will also

help lower the overall water temperature which will help reduce diseases, it will stop predator

15

avoidance behavior, and it will also help growth development issues seen in the egg stage. More

water also means there will be more habitat for the parr and smolt to develop. The flood plains

created from higher water levels will help provide the nurseries needed for their survival. Higher

water levels will also reduce competition for food space and gives them the ability to hide from

predators. It may be hard for farmers to switch their methods of irrigation to reduce their overall

water use, but with time, incentives to do so, and some allocation of water required for the

restoration, they will be able to make the necessary changes. The enforcement of policy option 3,

which would be to allow fishing to continue in the San Joaquin river, but to prohibit fishing for

Chinook salmon is also necessary for a healthy restoration. This policy option would help keep

money in the surrounding communities which do fish in the San Joaquin River, and it will also

keep healthy numbers of Chinook salmon. Another positive aspect that comes with allowing

fishing to continue in the San Joaquin would be that fishermen can help keep sustainable

numbers of predatory fish which would pray on the Chinook salmon while they are still in egg or

juvenile stages. If fishing were to stop, the numbers of these species may get too high, and

Chinook salmon might not be able to keep up with the increased competition. This policy will be

regulated by the CDFW. Another implementation that the CDFW could enforce in regards to

fishing regulations in the San Joaquin river is barbless hooks. While fishing, some fishermen

may hook Chinook salmon without intention, and the enforcement of barbless hooks will help

reduce any harm to the salmon and will also help insure a safe release. Allowing fishing will also

keep local fishermen happy, and it will also keep money in the surrounding communities. Policy

options 2 and 3 will be the most effective for the restoration of the endangered Chinook salmon

in the San Joaquin River, and with time I believe Chinook Salmon will be brought back to

sustainable levels.    

Conclusion

Chinook salmon populations have been in a steady decline for years now, and their

falling numbers are mainly because of human impact. From the creation of dams and other

means of altering their habitat, it has substantially affected their survival. Fortunately for

Chinook salmon there has been policies made to help preserve the species. From the Endangered

Species Act to the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, environmentalists have been doing

16

their part to keep the species population healthy; and government agencies such as the

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Oceans and Atmosphere Administration have

been doing their part to keep enforce the policies and laws made to help salmon. In regards to the

San Joaquin River I believe my additional policy options to subsidize farmers for low water use,

and to allow fishing to continue, but prohibit fishing for Chinook salmon are the kinds of policies

needed to help restore the species populations. These policy options will benefit Chinook salmon

and will not hurt other stakeholders like farmers. The overall population of Chinook salmon are

still threatened and endangered in many river systems throughout the western coast of North

America, but with restoration efforts being made they still have a fighting chance.

Literature CitedBanonis, Michelle. 2012. Scoping Report, Appendix C, Part 4, San Joaquin River Restoration.

Bureau of reclamation. [Internet]. [Cited, 2018].

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=7628

Commercial Salmon Fishing Regulations of 1988,14 CCR § 182.1

Crozier, L. G., Zabel, R. W., & Hamlet, A. F. (2008). Predicting differential effects of climate

change at the population level with life‐cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global

Change Biology, 14(2), 236-249.

Dauble, D. D., Hanrahan, T. P., Geist, D. R., & Parsley, M. J. (2003). Impacts of the Columbia

17

River hydroelectric system on main‐stem habitats of fall Chinook salmon. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(3), 641-659.

Katz, J., Moyle, P. B., Quiñones, R. M., Israel, J., & Purdy, S. (2013). Impending extinction of

salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of

Fishes, 96(10-11), 1169-1186.

McCullough, D. A. (1999). A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water

temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to

Chinook salmon (pp. 1-291). US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Rodgers, et al, Case No. CIV S-88-1658 LKK/GGH

(2006).

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2016. The Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific salmon commission.

[Internet]. [Cited, 2018]. Available from:

http://www.psc.org/about-us/history-purpose/pacific-salmon-treaty

Pacific Salmon Treaty, U.S.-Canada, Mar. 15, 1985 16 U.S.C. 3631

P.L. No. 111-11. 123 Cong, Stat. 1349 (2009).

Raymond, H. L. (1979). Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations of juvenile Chinook

salmon and steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to 1975. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society, 108(6), 505-529

San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 2018. Background and History. San Joaquin river

restoration program. [Internet]. [Cited 2018]. Available from:

http://www.restoresjr.net/about/background-and-history/

18

Schmitt, Monty. 2014. 9 Ways to Support San Joaquin River Restoration and Help California

Weather the Drought. National resources defense council. [Internet]. [Cited, 2018].

Available from:https://www.nrdc.org/experts/monty-schmitt/9-ways-support-san-

joaquin-river-restoration-and-help-california-weather

Sierra Club. 2014. Comments on the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft

Environmental Impact Statement. Sierra club. [Internet]. [Cited, 2018]. Available from:

https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/tehipite-chapter/fact-

sheets/10-27-14_FOR-SC-CSPA-CWC_USJRBSI_dEIS__TFD__comments.pdf

Silveus, J. (2018). Personal Communication. May 1, 2018.

U.S. Code 16, 108 Cong. § 1531-1533 (1973). Accessed from:

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf

Vance, Julie. 2018. San Joaquin River Restoration Program. California department of fish and

wildlife. [Internet]. [Cited, 2018]. Available from:

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/4/San-Joaquin-River

19