Priority Species List (CVPCP/HRP) 

Explanation of columns: 

A. UStatusU – The federal listing status of the species: E – endangered, T - threatened. 

B. UCommon Name U– The informal name, not usually based on taxonomy, which is 

used in common parlance. Different variations may be listed. 

C. UScientific Name U– The genus and species name based on Linnaean taxonomic 

nomenclature. Only species occurring within the boundaries of the CVP CP 

project area are considered. 

D. URecovery Plan U– The name of the recovery plan which addresses the named 

species. 

E. UPlan Stage U– The extent to which the plan has been promulgated, where D is the 

published draft stage and F is the final published stage. D/NP refers to draft plans 

that are completed but not published, and N/A refers to cases where no recovery 

plan is written. 

F. UYear of Plan U– This is the year that either the draft or final published plan, as 

indicated, was signed by the promulgating authority. 

G. URecovery Priority U– The rating of the species based on recovery related criteria: 

a. listed in the recovery plans, or 

b. listed in the reports to congress. 

Recovery priorities are assigned numbers 1 to 18 depending on degree of threat, 

recovery potential, and taxonomic distinctness. A species rank may be elevated by 

adding a “C” designation to indicate that it is, or may be, in conflict with 

construction or other economic interests and development. Species with a high 

priority rank (1, 1C, 2, 2C) are those that are the most threatened and have the 

highest potential for recovery, whereas those with a low rank (16, 17, 18) are least 

threatened and have low recovery potential. See 48 FR 43102 (Sept. 21, 1983) for 

a complete explanation. 

 

H. UCVP PriorityU - The rating is based on two factors: 

a. The recovery priority assigned to the species, and 

b. The extent to which that species is impacted either directly or indirectly 

from the Central Valley Project. Both present day and historical impacts 

are considered. Future impacts are considered as best as can be predicted 

given present day trends and plans. 

The ratings are either: 

a. Very High – The recovery priority for the species is rated high with an 

imminent threat of extinction and CVP actions contributed significantly to 

the species decline, either directly or indirectly. Some species in this 

category serve as umbrella species. 

b. High – The recovery priority for the species is high and CVP actions 

contributed significantly to the species decline, either directly or 

indirectly. 

c. Medium – The recovery priority is high or medium and a UprimaryU cause of 

decline is not directly or indirectly related to CVP actions, however, CVP 

actions are in some part responsible for the species decline. 
d. Low – The recovery priority is high, medium or low and the role of CVP 

actions in the decline of the species is considered minor. 

CVP impacts can be categorized as direct and indirect. Direct impacts include 

changes in water flow regimes and habitat loss due to construction of CVP 

infrastructure. 

Indirect impacts include habitat loss due to agricultural and urban expansion that 

occur because of the availability of CVP products, loss of habitat due to the 

interruption of normal water flow regimes, the proliferation of invasive plant 

species which arrived to the Central Valley as a result of expanded agricultural 

practices and urbanization, pollution of natural water sources due to agricultural 

practices and urban runoff, flood control projects, and overgrazing. 

The degree of impact that CVP actions historically and presently have on a 

particular species is not always accurately quantifiable as described in the 

Biological Opinion for the Interim Contract Renewels, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Sservice 1995. In these cases, historical and present distribution of the species 

and the recovery plan’s list of reasons for decline can offer substantial 

background for making judgments. 

In some cases, CVP products are expected to be delivered into new areas. In 

these cases the impact expected from delivery can only be predicted based on 

prior experience. These judgments were required for certain areas like the Santa 

Cruz and Monterey County coverage by the CVP CP and HRP. 

I. UExplanationU – This is a list of rational used to determine the CVP priority. 

J. UHighest Priority ActionsU – These are the recovery actions taken from the recovery 

plans. This list includes only the top three or four actions as presented in the 

recovery plan and does not necessarily reflect which actions have been 

implemented since the publication of the recovery plan. More detail on recovery 

actions can be found in the recovery plan. This list is provided to direct the focus 

of proposed projects towards supporting planned recovery objectives. 

K. UHighest Priority AreasU – These are the areas where the species are presently 

found according to recovery plans and the CNDDB and that are within the 

delineated boundaries of the CVP CP and HRP.