Draft Recovery Plan

For the 

Tidewater Goby

(Eucyclogobius newberryi)

(October 2004)

Pacific Region 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Portland, Oregon 

Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office 

Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Date: _______________________________________
i

DISCLAIMER 

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or 

protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, 

sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and 

others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary 

and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. 

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of 

any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent 

our official position only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, Director, or 

California/Nevada Operations Manager as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to 

modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of 

recovery tasks. 

Literature citation should read as follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby 

(Eucyclogobius newberryi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 163 

pp. 

An electronic version of this recovery plan will also be made available at 

http://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html and 

http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html. 
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Primary Authors

Chris Dellith of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, 

California served as the Recovery Team Manager and prepared this draft recovery plan, with 

assistance from Bill McIver of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Recovery plan preparation 

was supervised and edited by Diane Noda, Carl Benz, and Mike McCrary of the Ventura Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

Each member of the tidewater goby recovery team contributed valuable information and 

assistance. In particular, we gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Camm Swift, Dr. Kevin 

Lafferty, and Dr. David Jacobs, for being generous with their technical assistance and time 

throughout the development of this recovery plan. We thank them also for their thorough 

editorial review. 

Drawings of Eucyclogobius newberryi are reproduced by permission of Camm Swift, from Swift 

et al. (1989). 

The following individuals contributed significant information/assistance during recovery plan 

development (tidewater goby recovery team members are italicized): 

Ed Ballard 

Roger Bloom 

Ray Bosch 

Diane Elam 

Bridget Fahey 

Darren Fong 

Nancy Francine 

Greg Goldsmith 

Gjon Hazard 

Bob Hoffman 

David Jacobs 

Kevin Lafferty 

Bill McIver 

Jack Malone 

Mike Nepstad 

Carl Page 

Ramona Swenson 

Camm Swift 

Anna Toline 

Christopher White 

Larry Williamson 

Jill Terp 

Mark Helvey 

Rick Farris 

Lilian Carswell 

Kurt Roblek 

Grant Canterbury 

David Anderson 
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current Species Status: The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is listed as 

endangered. It is a small fish that inhabits coastal brackish water habitats entirely within 

California, ranging from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County) near the 

Oregon border south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San Diego County). The tidewater 

goby is known to have historically inhabited at least 124 localities. Presently 28 (23 percent) of 

the 124 documented localities are considered extirpated and 55 to 70 (45 to 55 percent) of the 

localities are naturally so small or have been degraded over time that long-term persistence is 

uncertain. 

Habitat Requirements: Tidewater gobies are uniquely adapted to coastal lagoons and the 

uppermost brackish zone of larger estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater habitats. The 

species is typically found in water less than 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep and salinities of less than 12 

parts per thousand. Principal threats to the tidewater goby include loss and modification of 

habitat, water diversions, predatory and competitive introduced fish species, habitat 

channelization, and degraded water quality. 

Recovery Objective: Downlist to threatened status, then delist. The primary objective of this 

recovery plan is to eliminate the threats to and improve the population status of the tidewater 

goby sufficiently to warrant reclassification (from endangered to threatened status) or delisting. 

Recovery Priority Number: The tidewater goby has a recovery priority number of 7C (on a 

scale of 1 to 18), per criteria published in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1983). This number indicates a species with moderate threats and a high potential for recovery. 

The letter C indicates that there is some degree of conflict between the species’ recovery efforts 

and economic development.

Recovery Criteria: We subdivide the geographic distribution of the tidewater goby into 6 

recovery units, encompassing a total of 26 Sub-Units defined according to genetic differentiation 

and geomorphology. The tidewater goby may be considered for downlisting when: 

1) An analysis based on scientifically credible monitoring over a 10-year period projects a 75 

percent chance of all Sub-Units within each recovery unit persisting for a minimum of 100 years. 

This projection would incorporate a metapopulation viability analysis using a complex suite of 

information. A partial list of information needed for the metapopulation viability analysis 

includes: presence/absence data; population estimates; observed rates of extirpation and natural 

recolonization; results of introduction efforts to new localities and reintroduction to sites of 

known or suspected extirpation; and the relationships between climate variation and extinction 

and recolonization probabilities. This projection will also require incorporating information on 

new threats at the time of downlisting, such as any new exotic predator introductions that may 

have occurred. 

2) All goby metapopulations are managed so that threats from habitat destruction and alteration 

(e.g., coastal development, upstream diversion, channelization of rivers and streams, discharge of 
iv

agriculture and sewage effluents), introduced predators (e.g., centrarchid fishes), and competition 

with introduced species (e.g., yellowfin and chameleon gobies) are reduced to the extent that 

each metapopulation is not at risk of extirpation. 

The tidewater goby may be considered for delisting when downlisting criteria have been met 

and: 

1) An analysis based on scientifically credible monitoring over a 10-year period projects a 95 

percent chance of all Sub-Units within each recovery unit persisting for a minimum of 100 years. 

This projection would incorporate a metapopulation viability analysis using a complex suite of 

information. A partial list of information needed for the metapopulation viability analysis 

includes: presence/absence data; population estimates; observed rates of extirpation and natural 

recolonization; results of introduction efforts to new localities and reintroduction to sites of 

known or suspected extirpation; and the relationships between climate variation and extinction 

and recolonization probabilities. This projection will also require incorporating information on 

new threats at the time of delisting, such as any new exotic predator introductions that may have 

occurred. 

Actions Needed: 

1. Monitor, protect and enhance currently occupied tidewater goby habitat. 

2. Conduct biological research to enhance the ability to integrate land use practices with 

tidewater goby recovery and revise recovery tasks as pertinent new information becomes 

available. 

3. Evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate. 

4. Increase public awareness about tidewater gobies. 

Estimated Total Cost of Recovery: $1,505,000 over the next 10 years, with costs yet to be 

determined for securing and protecting coastal wetlands and for assurance of successful 

establishment of additional populations of tidewater goby. Funding opportunities and 

management will need to be developed between landowners, regulatory agencies, nonprofit 

organizations, and other interested parties.

Date of Recovery: If recovery criteria are met, reclassification to threatened status could be 

initiated in 2015. 
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1 

A. Brief Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 

B. Description and Taxonomy.................................................................................................... 1 

C. Distribution and Habitat......................................................................................................... 5 

D. Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................... 10 

E. Life History .......................................................................................................................... 10 

F. Abundance and Trends......................................................................................................... 12 

G. Reason for Decline and Current Threats ............................................................................. 13 

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range....................................................................................................................................... 13 

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.......... 14 

3. Disease or predation. ........................................................................................................ 14 

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ......................................................... 15 

5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence ............................... 16 

H. Conservation Measures........................................................................................................ 19 

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY ..................................................................................................... 23 

III. RECOVERY GOALS AND CRITERIA............................................................................... 25 

A. Recovery Units .................................................................................................................... 25 

1. Criteria for Designating Recovery Units/Sub-Units......................................................... 25 

2. Regional Genetic Structure and Recovery Units............................................................... 26 

3. Regional Morphologic Data.............................................................................................. 26 

4. Local Differentiation......................................................................................................... 27 

5. Summary of Units from North to South............................................................................. 28 

B. Recovery Criteria................................................................................................................. 31 

1. Reclassification to Threatened.......................................................................................... 32 

2. Delisting ............................................................................................................................ 32 

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM..................................................................................................... 34 

A. Recovery Action Outline ..................................................................................................... 34 

B. Recovery Action Narrative .................................................................................................. 35 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE....................................................................................... 47 

VI. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 54 

A. Literature Cited.................................................................................................................... 54 

B. Personal Communications ................................................................................................... 60 

Appendix A. Glossary.................................................................................................................. 61 

Appendix B. Maps of Recovery Sub-Units ................................................................................. 65 

Appendix C. Status of Recovery Sub-Units ................................................................................ 86 

Appendix D. Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat Description ...................................................... 114 
vi

Appendix E. Tidewater Goby Threats Table ............................................................................. 116 

Appendix F. Tidewater Goby Survey Protocol.......................................................................... 121 

Appendix G. Description of Recovery Units and Sub-Units..................................................... 143 

Appendix H. Summary of Threats and Recommended Recovery Actions. .............................. 162 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table G-1. Tidewater Goby Reintroduction Sites ..................................................................... 157 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi).................................................................. 2 

Figure 2 Tidewater Goby Rangewide Distribution....................................................................... 4 

Figure 3. Tillas Slough, Del Norte County.................................................................................... 5

Figure 4. Santa Clara River, Ventura County, after a storm-breach-event.................................... 7 

Figure 5. Lake Talawa, Del Norte County................................................................................... 10 

Figure 6. Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) ................................................................ 11 

Figure 7. Arundo in Santa Clara River Estuary Ventura County................................................. 19 
1

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Brief Overview 

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listed the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) as 

endangered on March 7, 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) and designated critical 

habitat on November 20, 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). On June 24, 1999, we 

published a proposed rule to remove the northern populations* of the tidewater goby from the 

endangered species list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The proposed rule was 

withdrawn on November 7, 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

The tidewater goby, a species endemic to California, is found primarily in waters of coastal 

lagoons*

, estuaries*, and marshes. The species is benthic* in nature, and its habitat* is 

characterized by brackish, shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches where the water is fairly 

still but not stagnant (Miller and Lea 1972; Wang 1982; Irwin and Soltz 1984; Swift et al. 1989; 

Swenson 1999; Moyle 2002). Tidewater gobies prefer a sandy substrate for breeding, but they 

can be found on rocky, mud, and silt substrates as well. Tidewater gobies have been documented 

in waters with salinity*

 levels from 0 to 42 parts per thousand, temperature levels from 8 to 25 

degrees Celsius (46 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit), and water depths from 25 to 200 centimeters (10 

to 79 inches) (Irwin and Soltz 1984; Swift et al. 1989; Worcester 1992; Lafferty 1997; Smith 

1998). 

The tidewater goby appears to spend all life stages in lagoons, estuaries, and river mouths. 

Tidewater gobies may enter marine environments only when flushed out of lagoons, estuaries, 

and river mouths by normal breaching of the sandbars following storm events. The tidewater 

goby is typically an annual species, although some variation has been observed (Irwin and Soltz 

1984; Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1999). Reproduction occurs year-round although distinct 

peaks in spawning, often in early spring and late summer, do occur (Swenson 1999). 

This recovery plan briefly describes the species and provides a history of its taxonomy and 

known distribution. Tidewater goby life history and habitat parameters are described. The 

factors responsible for the tidewater goby’s decline are tabulated and actions that have been 

taken thus far to protect populations of this species are summarized. 

B. Description and Taxonomy 

The tidewater goby is a small, elongate, grey-brown fish rarely exceeding 50 millimeters (2 

inches) standard length*

. It is characterized by large pectoral fins (Figure 1). The pelvic or 

ventral fins are joined to each other below the chest and belly from below the gill cover back to 

just anteriorly*

 of the anus. Tidewater gobies have two dorsal fins set very close together or with 

a slightly confluent membrane. The first dorsal fin has five to seven slender spines, the second 

 

* Technical terms are marked with an asterisk and defined below in the Glossary (Appendix A). 
2

11 to 13 soft, branched rays. The anal fin has 11 to 13 rays as well. The median fins are usually 

dusky, and the pectoral fin is transparent. Male tidewater gobies are nearly transparent, with a 

mottled brownish upper surface and generally remain near the burrows. Female tidewater gobies 

develop darker colors, often black, on the body and dorsal and anal fins. However, pectoral and 

pelvic fins, head and tail remain grey or brown. 

Other native estuarine gobies that occur in California are the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), 

cheekspot goby (Ilypnus gilberti), shadow goby (Quietula cauda), bay goby (Lepidogobius 

lepidus), and mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis). In addition, four introduced Japanese species of 

goby occur in California estuaries within the range of the tidewater goby: yellowfin goby 

(Acanthogobius flavimanus), chameleon goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus), shokihaze goby 

(Tridentiger barbatus), and shimofuri goby (Tridentiger bifasciatus) (Dawson et al. 2001; Moyle 

2002). Tidewater goby scales are very small and imbedded in the skin, and are only visible with 

magnification even on large specimens. This character separates the tidewater goby from the 

mudsucker, yellowfin goby, chameleon goby, and shimofuri goby. The latter four are well 

scaled, even as small juveniles (20 millimeters [0.75 inch] or more in length). The best field 

mark for tidewater gobies is the transparent, whitish or yellowish triangular area on the upper 1/4 

to 1/3 of the first, spinous dorsal fin (Figure 1). Another characteristic unique to the tidewater 

goby is that the upper end of the gill opening stops a few fin rays below the upper end of the 

pectoral fin base (Miller and Lea 1972). Arrow gobies are much more slender, particularly at 

small sizes. They also have a much smaller spinous dorsal fin widely separated from the soft 

dorsal, rather than adjacent to it. The spinous dorsal fins on cheekspot and bay gobies are dusky 

or mottled throughout, or with only a narrow pale edge. Specimens of the last three species can 

be difficult to distinguish from tidewater gobies smaller than approximately 25 millimeters 

(approximately 1 inch) in standard length. Cheekspot and bay gobies inhabit deeper, more 

marine, tidal habitats and have been rarely collected with tidewater gobies. The species most 

likely to occur with tidewater gobies are the arrow goby, mudsucker, and possibly yellowfin 

goby, which are all easy to distinguish from the early juvenile stage onward. 

 Figure 1. Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) 
3

The tidewater goby was first described as a new species by Girard (1857) as Gobius newberryi. 

Gill (1863) erected the genus Eucyclogobius for this distinctive species. The vast majority of 

scientists have accepted this classification (Jordan and Everman 1898; Miller and Lea 1972; 

Hubbs et al. 1979; Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Nelson et al. 2004). No other species has been 

described in this genus. A few older works and Ginsberg (1945), a gobiid systematist, put the 

tidewater goby and all the related eastern Pacific species into the genus Lepidogobius. This 

classification includes the currently recognized genera Lepidogobius, Clevelandia, Ilypnus, 

Quietula, and Eucyclogobius. These genera, which include the eastern Pacific species, are 

related to each other. Birdsong et al. (1988) recognized this relationship, and that these eastern 

Pacific gobies were phyletically related to several similar species in the northwestern Pacific. 

Birdsong et al. (1988) coined the informal Chasmichthys species group as a collective name for 

all of these northwestern and eastern Pacific species. Unpublished work by Camm Swift 

indicates that all the eastern Pacific genera noted above are closely related to each other. As a 

group, they are more distantly related to the species in the northwestern Pacific. 

The intraspecific phylogeny* of the tidewater goby is highly geographically structured. 

Crabtree’s (1985) genetic work on the tidewater goby shows fixed allelic*

 differences at the 

extreme northern (Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay, Appendix B and C) and southern (Cañada de Agua 

Caliente, Winchester Canyon, and San Onofre Lagoon, Appendix B and C) ends of the range and 

some variation in Corcoran Lagoon in Santa Cruz County, central California (Appendix B and 

C). Each of these northern and southern populations is distinct from each other and from those 

central populations that have been sampled. The other more centrally distributed populations are 

relatively similar to each other (Brush Creek, Estero Americano, Arroyo de Corral, Morro Bay, 

Santa Ynez River, and Jalama Creek (Appendix B and C). This study is based on 12 localities 

distributed over most of the range. The precise limits of allozyme*

 differentiation are not known. 

The results of this study indicate that there is a very low level of gene flow between the 

populations sampled. Many of the populations may be diverging genetically from each other due 

to discrete, seasonally closed estuaries, where tidewater gobies have low dispersal ability 

(Crabtree 1985). 

Dawson et al. (2001) analyzed mitochondrial DNA*

 and cytochrome* b sequences of individual 

tidewater gobies collected from 31 locations between 1990 and 1999. Their study revealed six 

major phylogeographic*

 groups in four clusters – the San Diego clade* south of Los Angeles and 

Point Buchon, a lone Estero Bay group from central California, and San Francisco and Cape 

Mendocino groups from northern California – that genetically vary. Barriers to gene flow likely 

exist in the vicinities of Los Angeles, Seacliff, Point Buchon, Big Sur, and Point Arena (Figure 

2). Finer scale phylogeographic structure within these regions is suggested by genetic 

differences between estuaries, but is poorly resolved by current analysis (Dawson et al. 2001). 

Dawson et al. (2001) found that phylogenetic relationships between and patterns of molecular 

diversity within the six groups are consistent with repeated and sometimes rapid northward and 

southward range expansions out of central California, likely caused by Quaternary climate 

change. The modern geographic and genetic structure of the tidewater goby has probably also 

been influenced by patterns of expansion and contraction, colonization*

, extirpation*, and gene 

flow linked to Pliocene*-Pleistocene* tectonism, Quaternary* coastal geography and 

hydrography, and historical human activities (Dawson et al. 2001). 
4

Figure 2. Tidewater Goby Rangewide Distribution with Recovery Unit and Sub-Unit 

Boundaries. 
5

The deepest phylogenetic gap in 

Eucyclogobius coincides with 

phylogeographic breaks in several 

other coastal California taxa in the 

vicinity of Los Angeles, 

suggesting common extrinsic 

factors have had similar effects on 

different species in this region. In 

contrast, evidence exists in this 

species of gene flow across the 

biogeographic boundary at Point 

Conception (Dawson et al. 2001). 

C. Distribution and Habitat 

Tidewater gobies are endemic* to 

California and historically ranged 

from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County; Figure 3) near the Oregon 

border to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San Diego County), and are found today entirely 

within the original known range of the species. The known localities (Appendix B, C; Figure 2) 

are discrete lagoons, estuaries, or stream mouths separated by mostly marine conditions. 

Tidewater gobies are absent from areas where the coastline is steep and streams do not form 

lagoons or estuaries. Tributaries to Arcata Bay (northern Humboldt Bay) and Morro Bay are 

each treated as single localities. Inhabited localities are separated by as little as a few hundred 

meters up to tens of kilometers. North of Tomales Bay in Sonoma County, several large gaps in 

distribution are considered natural; no evidence has been found for historical occurrences in the 

intervening streams in this area. From Tomales Bay southward to San Francisco Bay, many 

populations are extirpated, leaving large unnatural gaps between remaining populations. 

Another apparently natural gap occurs south of San Francisco Bay to San Gregorio Creek, San 

Mateo County. A much larger natural gap occurs between the Salinas River, (Monterey 

County), southward to Arroyo del Oso (northern San Luis Obispo County), because of very steep 

shorelines preventing lagoon development. The only other large gap occurs in the Los Angeles 

Basin between city of Santa Monica (western Los Angeles County) and Aliso Creek (central 

Orange County). Habitat conditions ideal for the tidewater goby historically existed in the Los 

Angeles Basin (Swift et al. 1993). Literature records by Eigenmann and Eigenmann (1892) for 

collection of the tidewater goby in Santa Monica are supported by specimens (Camm Swift, 

Entrix Inc., pers. comm. 2004). 

Swift et al. (1989) reported 87 localities where the tidewater goby was historically known to 

occur, although 124 localities are currently known (Appendix B, C; Figure 2) (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, unpublished data, 2004). Twenty-eight (23 percent) of the 124 documented 

locations are considered extirpated and 55 to 70 (45 to 55 percent) localities are naturally so 

small or have been degraded over time that long-term persistence is uncertain (C. Swift pers. 

comm. 2004). 

Figure 3. Tillas Slough, Del Norte County 
6

Tidewater goby localities closely correspond to major stream drainages. Sediments provided by 

major drainages produce sandy beaches with low-lying coastal areas conducive to formation of 

coastal lagoons (Swift et al. 1989; Habel and Armstrong 1977). Recolonization of extirpated 

localities has been documented as occurring when extant populations are present within several 

kilometers (Holland 1992; Lafferty et al. 1999a, 1999b). More recently, tidewater gobies have 

been found in localities considered extirpated that are separated from the nearest tidewater goby 

locality by 10 to 20 kilometers (6.2 to 12.4 miles). In 1995, tidewater gobies were found for the 

first time in Cañada Honda, Santa Barbara County (Lafferty et al. 1996). Tidewater gobies had 

never been found in this locality during previous surveys. The locality was observed to go 

nearly dry during the drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (C. Swift, pers. comm. 1995). 

The nearest locality to Cañada Honda is the Santa Ynez River, 10.5 kilometers (6.5 miles) to the 

north. These more recent records suggest that distant movement by tidewater gobies is possible. 

However, the source of these recolonizations may have been small numbers of individuals 

present in these localities that were missed by surveyors (K. Lafferty, U.S. Geological Survey, 

pers. comm. 1996). 

Tidewater gobies generally select habitat in the upper estuary, usually within the fresh-saltwater 

interface. Tidewater gobies range upstream a short distance into fresh water, and downstream 

into water of up to about 75 percent sea water (28 parts per thousand). The species is typically 

found in salinities of less than 12 parts per thousand (Swift et al. 1989). These conditions occur 

in two relatively distinct situations: 1) the upper edge of tidal bays, such as Tomales, Bolinas, 

and San Francisco Bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries, and 2) the coastal lagoons 

formed at the mouths of coastal rivers, streams, or seasonally wet canyons. 

Tidewater gobies held at the Granite Canyon Fish Culture Facility were subject to a salinity 

tolerance test in hypersaline*

 water (45 to 54 parts per thousand) for 6 months, with no mortality 

(Worcester and Lea 1996). Holding temperatures (fresh water) varied annually from 4.0 to 21.5 

degrees Celsius (39.2 to 70.7 degrees Fahrenheit). During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, 

Karen Worcester (Morro Bay Estuary Program) conducted an investigation of habitat use in Pico 

Creek lagoon, and observed large numbers of tidewater gobies using the lower portion of the 

lagoon where highest salinities (up to 27 parts per thousand) were observed. In general, 

abundance did not appear to be associated with oxygen levels, which at times were quite low. 

Based on these studies it appears that the tidewater goby is adapted to a broad range of 

environmental conditions (Worcester and Lea 1996). 

Like estuarine habitats in general, tidewater goby habitat is subject to considerable fluctuation of 

physical factors on both a daily and a seasonal basis. The lagoonal nature of many habitats tends 

to dampen short-term variation, but annual variation can still be wide. Winter rains and 

subsequent increased stream flows usually cause considerable flooding, breaching, and washing 

out of lagoonal waters, reducing salinity levels to near fresh water conditions (Figure 4). These 

flows may bring in considerable sediment. The finely divided mud and clay either moves 

through or settles out in backwaters, while the heavier sand is left in or near the lagoon. Initial 

high flows can scour out the lagoon bottom to lower levels, with sand building up again after 

flows decline. The sediments are usually spread quite evenly by the declining flows; lagoons 
7

often end up only 1 to 2 meters (3.3 

to 6.6 feet) deep despite a width of 

30 to 150 meters (100 to 500 feet) 

or more (Habel and Armstrong 

1977). This pattern holds true even 

in larger systems, such as the Santa 

Ynez River and Santa Margarita 

River. A central channel, excavated 

by brief winter flows in these larger 

streams, will be another meter (3.3 

feet) or so deeper than most of the 

lagoon. Half or more of the 

substrate of the lagoon will be soft 

sand, with mud in backwaters. 

Elevated lateral backwaters often 

flood only in winter. Without these 

deeper, backwater habitats (e.g.

lateral sloughs), tidewater gobies can be flushed out by heavy winter floods (Jerry Smith, 

Biology Department, San Jose State University, pers. comm. 2004), resulting in the extirpation 

of some populations (however, see next paragraph). Some rocks or gravel may be present, 

mostly at the upper (inlet) and lower (outlet) ends where constricted flow directly scours the 

channel. These rocks are exposed by high water flow. Declining flows continue to bring in sand 

that often covers the rocks by early spring. 

Lafferty et al. (1999a) monitored post-flood persistence of 17 tidewater goby populations in 

Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties during and after the heavy winter floods of 1995. All 

17 populations persisted after the floods, and no significant changes in population sizes were 

noted. In addition, gobies apparently colonized Cañada Honda after the flood. This information 

suggests that flooding, although generally negative, may sometimes have a positive effect by 

contributing to recolonization of extirpated habitats. 

In general, water is least saline during the winter and spring rainy seasons because of 

precipitation and runoff. However, in north coast lagoons, the salinity level following breaching 

can be near marine levels, as the breach site remains low and open to high tides once or twice 

daily. This condition can last for weeks (Ray Bosch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. 

comm. 2004). Later in the year, occasional waves washing over the sandbars can introduce some 

sea water, but good mixing often keeps the lagoon water at a few parts per thousand or less. 

Summer salinity in the lagoon depends upon the amount of freshwater inflow at the time of 

sandbar formation. Time of sandbar closure, which usually occurs from spring to late summer, 

varies greatly between systems and years. The flow into the lagoon declines enough to allow the 

surf to build up the sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon. The sandbar closes the lagoon with the 

water at a relatively high and stable level. Typically, water level changes slowly, in response to 

the balance between inflow, evaporation, and outflow. In drier systems or in drought years the 

closed lagoons may remain brackish after bar formation. Also, in very wet years beach erosion 

due to storm waves may delay bar formation until stream flow is low, resulting in a brackish 

lagoon. Larger systems with greater tidal prisms may close later, but even this relationship is 

Figure 4. Santa Clara River, Ventura County, after a stormbreach-event 
8

often less important than beach processes, lagoon shape (especially width), and inflow. The role 

of waves washing over the sandbar also varies with the system. In some (usually small) lagoons 

with little inflow, overwash may be important in affecting lagoon volume and salinity. In others, 

overwash has insignificant effects on lagoon salinity or volume (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1996). 

Different degrees of mixing or stratification of fresh and salt water occur in systems open to the 

ocean, varying greatly with system surface area, depth, and wind. Small, narrow systems or 

wind-protected upper portions of lagoons may be stratified for salinity (and temperature and 

dissolved oxygen). In broad, shallow, open embayments wind gradually can mix the salt layers; 

in some systems the broad embayment by the sandbar may be mixed, but the narrow protected 

upper channels remain stratified (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1996). Lagoons in areas dominated by 

sand dunes usually fluctuate in tandem with the local water table. In summer, the fresh water 

seeps into the lagoon from the water table, exerting a strong freshening influence often absent in 

lagoons bounded by firmer substrate (Ferren et al. 1995). 

The high water line in lagoons is usually 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) higher than local high tide 

levels, typically during the times of the year when the mouth is closed off. The perimeter of the 

lagoon usually is defined by a steeply inclined or vertical bank, typically 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1 to 

3.3 feet) high. The position and location of these lateral banks is usually stable for years at a 

time. They often delineate the inland or upstream two-thirds to three-quarters of most lagoons. 

They are strongly cut into clay or rocky substrate and are usually stabilized along the top by 

Salicornia (pickleweed), Distichlis (salt grass), Scirpus (tules), Spartina (cordgrass) and other 

marsh vegetation. The banks on the seaward one-third to one-quarter are usually more gently 

sloping, unstable, mostly unvegetated and mostly sand. Even lagoons within large areas of sand 

dunes have their configuration carved into the underlying harder substrate. These banks 

maintain the integrity of the lagoon for years at a time. 

The shallow, pan configuration of the lagoons means that normal vertical changes in water level 

have little effect on surface area. Only at extremely high or low water levels does surface area 

change dramatically. Conversely, once the water level drops below the base of the steep lateral 

banks, any further drop directly lowers the surface area. Once the water level surmounts the top 

of these banks, the surface area can double or triple because the flats adjacent to the lagoon 

suddenly become flooded. Only a much larger volume of water will enable the lagoon to occupy 

this much larger area, and such enlargements are infrequent events. For this reason, these flats 

are often muddy, anoxic*

, or hypersaline, and are seldom, if ever, heavily utilized by tidewater 

gobies. 

Water temperatures in lagoons closed to the ocean seldom exceed a range of 10 to 25 degrees 

Celsius (50 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit), and usually fall somewhere in between. North of Point 

Conception, where the ocean is consistently 9 to 11 degrees Celsius (48 to 52 degrees 

Fahrenheit), lagoons are almost always warmer than the ocean. South of Point Conception, 

winter temperatures are similar, but late summer ocean temperatures reach 19 to 21 degrees 

Celsius (68 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit). Shallow, stratified lagoons can act as solar collectors, 

with more saline bottom layers trapping heat and reaching 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees 

Fahrenheit). Thus, in southern California, lagoons are usually warmer than the ocean in winter 

and cooler in summer (Swift et al. 1989). Often the surface is a few degrees warmer than the 

bottom if the salinity is uniform. Coastal fog and maritime influence often keep lagoon waters 
9

several degrees cooler than stream waters just a few kilometers further upstream. In addition, 

heavy summer fog can block the sun's warming effect and cause a depression in water 

temperatures for a few weeks or months. The sunnier days in spring and fall result in bimodal 

peaks of higher water temperatures (Purer 1942; Swift and Frantz 1981). At localities open to 

tidal influence, temperature fluctuates more in parallel with the ocean, salinities stay mixed, and 

these microgeographic effects may not develop (Purer 1942; Swift and Frantz 1981). 

Stable lagoons are often almost completely choked with aquatic*

 vegetation, usually with 

Potamogeton pectinatus (sago pond weed) and two species of Ruppia (widgeon grass), R. 

maritima and R. cirrhosa. Ruppia cirrhosa is more typical of the brackish zone inhabited by 

tidewater gobies (Wayne Ferren, Museum of Systematic Biology, University of California, Santa 

Barbara, pers. comm. 1995). The invasion of fall migrating waterfowl and winter washing out of 

lagoons often removes virtually all of this growth (Mason 1957). This vegetation rapidly 

regrows in the spring and summer and provides cover from predators and substrate for the 

invertebrates used as food by tidewater gobies. This role is particularly important in steep 

narrow lagoons with little or no vegetation along the lagoon margin, or even in wide lagoons if 

the water level falls below the level of the emergent vegetation. 

The lagoons in which tidewater gobies are found range in size from a few square meters of 

surface area to about 800 hectares (2,000 acres). Most lagoons are much smaller, ranging from 

about 0.5 to 5 hectares (1.25 to 12.5 acres). Surveys of tidewater goby localities and historic 

records indicate that size, configuration, location, and access by humans are all factors in the 

persistence of populations of this species (Swift et al. 1989, 1994). Lagoons and estuaries 

smaller than about 2 hectares (about 5 acres) generally have histories of extinction*

, extirpation, 

or population reduction to very low levels. Many of the records for smaller localities, less than 

about 0.5 hectare (1 acre), include one or a few large tidewater gobies with no evidence of 

reproduction. These small localities are also often within a kilometer or so of another locality 

from which recolonization could occur following catastrophic events (C. Swift, pers. comm. 

2004). 

The largest localities are not necessarily the most secure, as evidenced by the fact that San 

Francisco Bay and the Santa Margarita River have lost their populations of tidewater gobies. 

However, an exception is Lake Talawa, Del Norte County, which is several thousand acres in 

size (Figure 5). The most stable or largest populations today are in localities of intermediate 

sizes, 2 to 50 hectares (5 to 125 acres) that have remained relatively unaffected. In many cases 

these have probably provided the colonists for the smaller ephemeral sites (Lafferty et al. 

1999b). 
10

D. Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat, as defined by 

section 3 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et sec.), as amended, and 

at 50 CFR Part 424, includes: 

1) the specific areas, within the 

geographic area occupied by a 

species at the time of its listing 

in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act on 

which are found those physical 

or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special management considerations or protection; and 2) specific 

areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed*

 which are 

determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Tidewater goby critical habitat 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) includes 10 coastal stream segments in Orange and San 

Diego Counties, California. See Appendix D for a description of tidewater goby critical habitat. 

Critical habitat includes the stream channels and their associated wetlands, flood plains, and 

estuaries. These habitat areas provide for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, 

reproduction, and dispersal, which are essential for the conservation of the tidewater goby. 

Information exists suggesting that critical habitat boundaries should be revised (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2002). 

E. Life History 

The life history of tidewater gobies is keyed to the annual cycles of the coastal lagoons and 

estuaries (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1995, 1999). Most tidewater goby collections occurred in 

water of approximately 1/3 sea salinity; i.e. 12 parts per thousand or less. Tidewater gobies are 

usually collected in areas with water less than 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep (Swenson 1999). 

Tidewater gobies often migrate upstream into tributaries, as far as 1.0 kilometer (0.5 mile) from 

the estuary. However, in Ten Mile River, Mendocino County, and San Antonio Creek and the 

Santa Ynez River, Santa Barbara County, tidewater gobies are often collected 5 to 8 kilometers 

(3 to 5 miles) upstream of the tidal lagoonal areas, sometimes in sections of stream impounded 

by beavers (Castor canadensis) (Irwin and Soltz 1984). Half-grown to adult tidewater gobies 

move upstream in summer and fall (Figure 6). Evidence demonstrates reproduction in these 

upstream tributaries. 

Figure 5. Lake Talawa, Del Norte County 
11

Male tidewater gobies begin digging breeding burrows in relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse 

sand (averaging 0.5 millimeter [0.02 inch] in diameter), in April or May after lagoons close to 

the ocean (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1995). Swenson (1995) has shown that tidewater gobies 

also prefer this substrate in the laboratory. Burrows are at least 70 to 100 millimeters (3 to 4 

inches) from each other. 

Female tidewater gobies aggressively spar with each other for access to males with burrows for 

laying their eggs. This rare female-dominant breeding system in vertebrates makes the tidewater 

goby evolutionarily interesting and almost unique among gobies (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 

1995). 

Female tidewater gobies can lay 300 to 500 eggs per clutch, depending on the size of the 

individual female tidewater goby (Swift et al. 1989). Female tidewater gobies lay 6 to 12 

clutches per year (Swenson 1999). Male tidewater gobies remain in the burrow to guard the eggs 

that are attached to sand grains in the burrow ceiling and walls. Egg clutches are laid 

approximately 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) below the entrance of the burrow (Swenson 1999). Field 

collections of egg clutches have demonstrated that male tidewater gobies may accept more than 

one clutch, but this behavior is uncommon (Swenson 1999). The male tidewater goby cares for 

the embryos for approximately 9 to 11 days until they hatch, rarely if ever emerging from the 

burrow to feed. 

Tidewater gobies generally live for only 1 year, with few individuals living longer than a year 

(Moyle 2002). Reproduction occurs at all times of the year, as indicated by female tidewater 

gobies in various stages of ovarian development (Swenson 1999). The peak of spawning activity 

occurs during the spring and then again in the late-summer. Fluctuations in reproduction are 

probably due to death of breeding adults in early summer and colder temperatures or 

hydrological disruptions in winter (Swift et al. 1989). Reproduction takes place in water 

between 9 to 25 degrees Celsius (48 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit) and at salinities of 2 to 27 parts 

per thousand (Swenson 1999). 

Tidewater gobies have successfully reproduced under laboratory conditions for at least two 

different investigators (Worcester and Lea 1996). Several thousand were raised at the Granite 

Canyon Hatchery facility of the California Department of Fish and Game, Carmel, California in 

the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (Worcester and Lea 1996). Swenson (1999) observed tidewater 

gobies spawning regularly in 8 to 15 parts per thousand and 17 to 22 degrees Celsius (62 to 71 

degrees Fahrenheit). Larvae and juveniles have been successfully raised to reproductive 

maturity on green 

algae, rotifers, and 

brine shrimp larvae 

(Artemia nauplii). 

Tidewater goby 

standard length at 

hatching is 

approximately 4 to 5 

millimeters (0.17 to 

0.25 inch). Tidewater Figure 6. Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) 
12

goby larvae are planktonic for 1 to 3 days and then become benthic from that point on. The 

average size of tidewater gobies tends to be significantly larger in marshes (43 to 45 millimeters 

[1.7 to 1.8 inches] standard length) when compared to tidewater gobies from lagoons or creek 

habitats (Swenson 1999). Swenson (1999) speculated that the more stable physical conditions of 

the marsh foster improved growth or a more consistent or abundant supply of prey. 

Tidewater gobies feed mainly on small animals, usually mysid shrimp, gamarid amphipods*

, 

ostracods*

, and aquatic insects, especially chironomid midge larvae (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 

1995; Moyle 2002). Swenson (1996) found that juvenile tidewater gobies are generally day 

feeders, although adults mainly feed at night. Tidewater gobies use three different foraging 

styles to capture benthic prey: plucking prey from the substrate surface, sifting sediment in their 

mouth, and mid-water capture. Swenson and McCray (1996) suggested that the tidewater goby’s 

food requirements are adaptable to a variety of habitats, an advantageous trait in a fluctuating 

estuarine environment. 

Tidewater gobies are known to be preyed upon by native species such as small steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus 

armatus) (Swift et al. 1989). Predation by the tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski), and historically 

by the Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus), has probably prevented tidewater gobies from 

inhabiting the San Francisco Bay delta, an otherwise ideal habitat for tidewater gobies (C. Swift, 

pers. comm., 1995). 

Tidewater gobies are also preyed upon by several nonnative fish species. Shapavalov and Taft 

(1954) documented the nonnative striped bass (Morone saxatilis) preying upon tidewater gobies 

in Waddell Creek Lagoon. Sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) and basses (Micropterus spp.), have been 

introduced in or near coastal lagoons and could prey heavily on tidewater gobies. Anecdotal 

observations indicate that tidewater gobies have disappeared at several localities, soon after 

centrarchids were introduced (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Rathbun 1991). Other predatory fish such 

as catfish and bullheads (Ictaluridae) have been introduced into some localities, including the 

San Francisco Bay delta (Moyle 2002). In addition, the shimofuri goby, which has become 

established in the San Francisco Bay region (Moyle 2002), competes with and preys upon the 

smaller tidewater goby (Swenson and Matern 1995). 

Many piscivorous*

 birds, including egrets (Egretta spp.), herons (Ardea herodias, Butorides 

striatus, Nycticorax nycticorax), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), terns (Sterna spp.), 

mergansers (Mergus spp.), grebes (Podiceps ssp., Podilymbus spp., Aechmophorus spp.), and 

loons (Gavia spp.), frequent the coastal lagoon habitats, mainly in fall and winter, and may feed 

on tidewater gobies (Rathbun 1991). Garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) also probably prey on 

tidewater gobies. Rathbun (1991) suggested that robust populations of tidewater gobies, as well 

as threespine stickleback and prickly sculpins, would provide food for the two-striped garter 

snake (Thamnophis hammondii) in Santa Rosa Creek Lagoon. 

F. Abundance and Trends 

No long-term monitoring program is available for the tidewater goby, and population dynamics 

are not well documented for this species. Deriving population size estimates for the tidewater 

goby is difficult because of the variability in local abundance. In addition, seasonal changes in 

distribution and abundance further hamper efforts to estimate population size, especially for a 
13

short-lived species. Tidewater goby populations also vary greatly with the varying 

environmental conditions (e.g., drought, El Niño) among years; this environmental variation is a 

normal phenomenon, but one that makes the determination of trends difficult. 

Estimating tidewater goby population size is complicated because the populations are controlled 

by environmental conditions. For example, when lagoons are breached due to flood events 

during the rainy seasons, tidewater goby populations decrease and then recover during the 

following summer. Swift et al. (1989) estimated that individual tidewater gobies within a 

population at Aliso Creek Lagoon ranged from 1,000 to 1,500 in the late winter-early spring and 

10,000 to 15,000 tidewater gobies in the late summer-early fall. 

When present, tidewater gobies are frequently the most abundant fish species found at the site 

(Lafferty et al. 1999a). Worchester (1992) documented a patchy distribution within habitats 

using meter-square drop traps for fine scale sampling. The results indicated density at Little Pico 

Creek, San Luis Obispo County ranged from 0 to 67 tidewater gobies per square meter in May 

1990, 0 to 138 tidewater gobies per square meter in November 1990, and 0 to 27 tidewater 

gobies per square meter in February 1991. Density ranges for the following locations at the 

Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego County in October 1996 included 2 to 11 

tidewater gobies per square meter in San Mateo Creek, 1 to 102 tidewater gobies per square 

meter in the creek at San Onofre Lagoon (October 1996), 0 to 4 tidewater gobies per square 

meter in Los Flores Creek (November 1996), 0 to 6 tidewater gobies per square meter in Hidden 

Creek (November 1996), and 1 to 51 tidewater gobies per square meter in French Creek Lagoon 

(October 1996)(Swift and Holland 1998). 

G. Reason for Decline and Current Threats 

The tidewater goby is threatened by modification and loss of habitat as a result of coastal 

development, channelization of habitat, diversions of water flows, groundwater overdrafting, and 

alteration of water flows. Potential threats to the tidewater goby include discharge of agricultural 

and sewage effluents, increased sedimentation due to cattle grazing and feral pig activity, 

summer breaching of lagoons, upstream alteration of sediment flows into the lagoon areas, 

introduction of exotic*

 gobies (e.g., yellowfin and shimofuri gobies) and rainwater killifish 

(Lucina parva), habitat damage, and watercourse contamination resulting from vehicular activity 

in the vicinity of lagoons. The following discussion is organized according to the five listing 

criteria under section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. 

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

Coastal development projects that modify or destroy coastal brackish-water habitat are the major 

factor adversely affecting the tidewater goby. Coastal lagoons and marshes have been drained 

and reclaimed for residential and industrial developments. Waterways have been dredged for 

navigation and harbors, resulting in direct losses of wetland habitats as well as indirect losses due 

to associated changes in salinity. Coastal road and railroad construction have severed the 

connection between marshes and the ocean, resulting in unnatural temperature and salinity 

profiles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 
14

Bridging of coastal lagoons and consequent restriction of water flow probably began with the 

railroads; the early coastal highways always turned inland and crossed upstream of lagoons. The 

railroads along the coast often obliterated much or all of those lagoons traversed. Populations in 

San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and San Diego Counties were probably lost before 1900 (Swift 

et al. 1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994; Moyle 2002). Many early highway bridges and 

trestles spanned the lagoons, leaving the lagoon habitat intact. Subsequently, highway builders 

adopted some of the methods used for building crossings for railroads near the coast. Later, 

some lagoons were obliterated by complete filling. 

For several reasons, lagoons and their tributary streams have been partially or completely 

channelized to protect bridges, adjacent structures, and farmland. These efforts hasten the flow 

of water through the marsh to the sea and isolate the lateral marshes from the mainstream. 

Tidewater gobies depend on the cover and protection of the marshes for growth and as refugia 

from scouring winter flows. If they are denied access to the marsh, the possibility of losing a 

population to a major flood event increases. One such loss where channelization had been done 

was documented by Jack Nelson in 1972 and 1973 at Waddell Creek (Swift et al. 1989). The 

channelization upstream of San Onofre Lagoon on Camp Pendleton probably led to the washing 

out of the tidewater gobies during the “March miracle” storm of 1993 (Swift et al. 1994). Strong 

flood flows in January and March of 1995 severely reduced the population at the channelized 

Jalama Creek, Vandenberg Air Force Base, but some individuals survived (Swift et al.1997). In 

addition, channelization can increase scouring and deepen the narrow channels, leaving behind 

only rocks and gravel. Increased velocity of flow created by channelization transports sand into 

the ocean. Therefore, substrate required for breeding by the tidewater goby is reduced or 

eliminated. 

Stream diversions have adversely affected the tidewater goby by altering downstream flows, 

thereby diminishing the extent of marsh habitats that occurred historically at the mouths of most 

rivers and creeks. Diversions are known to exacerbate the effects of natural deleterious events. 

In San Luis Obispo County alone, the effects of drought, exacerbated by upstream water 

diversions, were responsible for the extirpation of at least three populations between 1986 and 

1990 (K. Worcester, pers. comm. 1991, as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Alterations of flows upstream of coastal lagoons have changed the distribution of downstream 

salinity regimes. Changes in salinity distributions because of upstream water diversions may 

adversely affect both the size and distribution of tidewater goby populations (D. Holland, pers. 

comm. 1991, as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

We do not believe overutilization is a threat to the tidewater goby. 

3. Disease or predation. 

The only parasite recorded on tidewater gobies is the fluke Cryptocotyle lingua, which occurred 

on the skin of many adults from Corcoran Lagoon and possibly Pescadero Lagoon (Swenson 

1999; Swift et al. 1989). Cryptocotyle lingua is a common marine parasite in the family 

Heterophyidae. The infection can kill the host fish, particularly juveniles, at high intensities or 

facilitate secondary bacterial infections in the ruptured skin. In addition to pathological impacts, 
15

infection could increase the fish’s vulnerability to predation, either by increased visibility 

because of the black cysts, or by altered predator-avoidance behavior (Swenson 1999). 

Tidewater gobies are vulnerable to introduced predators and exotic estuarine species of goby. 

Unauthorized illegal introductions of nonnative species are on the increase today for sport, bait, 

commercial, and aquaculture purposes (Baltz 1991; Courtenay and Williams 1992; Aquatic 

Nuisance Task Force 1993; Swift et al. 1993; Hastings and Henle 1995). Shapavalov and Taft 

(1954) documented predation on tidewater gobies by striped bass at Waddell Creek lagoon. The 

bass were introduced to San Francisco Bay and drifted down the coast to Waddell Creek. Since 

the early 1900's, several introductions of striped bass have been made to a variety of coastal 

lagoons and bays in central and southern California and are a threat to those populations (Swift et 

al. 1993). Nonnative African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) also prey upon tidewater gobies 

(Lafferty and Page 1997), although they are probably not a significant source of mortality due to 

the limited distribution of this species in tidewater goby habitat. 

Although few brackish or estuarine fish species have been introduced to California, several 

freshwater species potentially affect the brackish zone also. Introduced centrarchid sunfishes 

and basses have long been a staple feature of California fresh waters. Studies in their native 

habitats in Mississippi and Florida show that, seasonally, they can be the major fish predators in 

the upper brackish portion of estuaries (Swift et al. 1977; Hackney and de la Cruz 1981). Only 

further seaward, in more saline water, do the major marine predators become abundant. 

Introduced centrarchids occur in virtually all tributaries to tidewater goby habitats. It is not clear 

why more lagoons have not been invaded. A substantial downstream movement of centrarchids 

into upper Santa Margarita River Lagoon seems to have eliminated or severely reduced tidewater 

gobies there in the summer of 1993 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 1995). Tidewater gobies seem to 

have been eliminated by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) at Old Lagoon, San Luis 

Obispo County in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s (D. Holland, pers. comm. 1992). Green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus) dominated San Mateo Creek Lagoon, San Diego County in the late 1980’s 

and early 1990’s (Feldmuth and Soltz 1986; Swift et al. 1994) and tidewater gobies could not be 

found. Green sunfish were absent in the fall of 1993 and a small number of tidewater gobies 

were present. The sunfish may have been washed out during high flows or were eliminated by 

other factors such as changing salinity. Survival in lateral marshes or recolonization from other 

extant sites may explain the re-occurrence of tidewater gobies in San Mateo Lagoon following 

the elimination of the green sunfish. 

Abbotts Lagoon on Pt. Reyes National Recreation Area appears to be ideal tidewater goby 

habitat but is inhabited by introduced Sacramento perch that may have eliminated them. The 

proximity of these Sacramento perch possibly threatens other local populations of tidewater 

gobies at Estero San Antonio, Estero Americano, and Rodeo Lagoon on Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. 

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the California Coastal 
16

Act are regulatory mechanisms that may be used to manage tidewater goby habitat. We have the 

authority to comment on notifications from these Acts. However, our comments are only 

advisory, although procedures exist for elevation when disagreements between agencies arise. 

Therefore, the agencies’ (i.e. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal 

Commission) actions under the legislation discussed above may be insufficient to protect the 

tidewater goby. 

5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

The brackish zone, preferred by the tidewater goby, is often modified or eliminated by human 

created barriers (e.g., dikes and levees), typically at the upstream terminus of channelization. 

These barriers are typically built to create water reservoirs or provide flood protection to farm or 

grazing land, residential or commercial development. In several areas, including the mouth of 

the Santa Maria River, Ballona Marsh, and the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor area, subsurface 

oil and water extraction causes the land to sink below sea level in areas just behind the beaches. 

This subsidence makes surrounding dikes and levees necessary to keep the salt water from 

flooding those areas. In all of these cases the fresh water flowing downstream toward the lagoon 

reaches the dike or levee and falls over or seeps through into relatively high salinity water on the 

downstream side. The water downstream tends to be saltier than it would be in the absence of 

the dikes and levees because of reduced freshwater inflow, evaporation, opening of the barrier 

sandbar to the ocean, and sometimes saltwater intrusion underground from the ocean as the 

freshwater volumes decline underground. The net result is to narrow or eliminate the broad low 

salinity zones of the downstream brackish lagoons and estuaries (Ferren et al. 1995). 

In addition to the loss of coastal marsh caused by water diversions and alteration of flows, as 

noted above, water diversions and alterations of water flows may negatively affect the species’ 

breeding and foraging activities. Reductions in water flows may allow aggressive plant species 

to colonize the otherwise bare sand/mud substrates of lagoon margins, thus degrading the open 

sand/mud substrate needed by the tidewater goby for breeding (Holland 1992). Decreases in 

stream flows also reduce the depth of streams, preventing tidewater gobies from venturing 

upstream from lagoons. 

As the size of the human population and use of many coastal areas increases, more wells are dug 

and the increasing demand on the water supply can result in groundwater overdrafting. 

Groundwater overdrafting decreases the amount of fresh water reaching the lagoons (Moyle and 

Williams 1990; Swift et al. 1993), thus contributing to a reduction or elimination of the brackish 

zone. During the drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, many small lagoons in San Luis 

Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties went dry or nearly so. This natural drought was 

often made worse by water tables lowered from additional water withdrawal upstream (Rathbun 

1991). The degree to which some of these populations survived is not known. In San Antonio 

Creek, Santa Barbara County, 5 to 6 kilometers (3.2 to 3.8 miles) of stream upstream of the 

lagoon that historically held tidewater gobies were dry until the rains in January 1995. 

Additional water withdrawal will further reduce tidewater goby habitat. 
17

A trend in southern California is for more water to be available all year in streams that receive 

municipal waste discharges. Today many streams (e.g., Santa Ynez River and Malibu Creek) are 

flowing with much more water in the dry season than probably occurred historically. This water 

is high in nutrients that contribute to enrichment of lagoon water and the associated decreases in 

dissolved oxygen. This extra water can cause the lagoon to rise and increase the frequency of 

breaching experienced under natural conditions, causing erratic fluctuations in water level. 

These erratic fluctuations result in decreases in habitat that increase chances of predation and 

leave spawning burrows exposed to the air. The sudden draining of a lagoon in late spring or 

summer also can allow marine water to dominate the lagoon for months until winter rains return 

(Swift et al. 1989). 

Many current drainages to coastal lagoons are contaminated with animal wastes (manure, dairy 

washings, lime from stalls), agricultural runoff (both chemicals and soil), and oil field runoff (C. 

Swift, pers. comm. 1995) (see Appendix B for water quality information for each location if 

available). Oil field runoff consists of petroleum products and various well slurries, salts, and 

chemicals. The larger the drainage, the greater the possibility that more of these factors may be 

present. The Santa Maria River Lagoon lies in an active oil field. The Ventura River drains the 

area of extensive productive oil fields. Many smaller lagoons receive local septic tank effluent, 

particularly in winter when flooding overwhelms or washes out some systems. 

Estero San Antonio, Arroyo del Oso, Pismo Creek, Santa Ynez River, and other localities show 

clear signs of extensive anoxia in the summer and fall, due to oxidation of the excess nutrients 

and phytoplankton*

 blooms. The enrichment stimulates macroalgae* growth. The excessive 

consumption of oxygen by the algae at night can make lagoon waters anoxic. Excessive 

nutrients are also implicated in the increasing frequency of toxic algae blooms in estuaries 

(Lewitus et al. 1995). Anecdotal evidence indicates that the algal blooms and deoxygenation 

resulting from agricultural and sewage effluent enrichment reduce the habitable area of lagoons 

in summer (Swift et al. 1989). The extirpation of tidewater gobies in the Salinas River probably 

occurred during the period when poorly treated sewage was discharged into the lagoon (J. Smith, 

pers. comm. 2004). 

Several small, potentially competitive or predatory estuarine fishes have been introduced into 

tidewater goby habitat. Rainwater killifish, chameleon goby, and yellowfin goby appeared in the 

1960’s in San Francisco Bay, coincident with the last collections of tidewater gobies there 

(Hubbs and Miller 1965; Haaker 1979; Swift et al. 1989). Rainwater killifish have become 

widespread in San Francisco Bay, and have recently become established in Upper Newport Bay, 

but have not become established elsewhere (Moyle 2002; C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). 

Yellowfin gobies have slowly spread to many of the larger, tidal and muddy California estuaries. 

They have seldom been collected in the smaller brackish, nontidal systems where tidewater 

gobies are found (Swift et al. 1993). However, in 1992 and 1993 yellowfin gobies were 

collected in the Santa Clara River and Santa Margarita River lagoons (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 

1994; Swift et al. 1994). The recent appearance of yellowfin gobies in southern California and 

the coincident disappearance of the tidewater goby in the Santa Margarita River in late 1993 

suggest that the species is slowly spreading to brackish habitats and may be eliminating tidewater 

gobies. 
18

Chameleon gobies have been locally abundant on hard substrates in San Francisco and Los 

Angeles harbors since the 1960’s and 1970’s, respectively (Haaker 1979). Recently, shimofuri 

gobies made an upstream invasion into the San Francisco Bay Delta that allowed them to move 

down the California Aqueduct into Pyramid Reservoir and Piru Creek in southern California. 

The shimofuri goby is a more freshwater adapted taxon*

, as described by Akihito and Sakamoto 

(1989). Thus, marine invasions from bilge water of marine ships and downstream or inland 

invasions with imported water are possible now in southern California. California Aqueduct 

water is soon to be piped into central coastal California, and the potential invasion of exotic 

gobies with this water poses a potential threat to tidewater gobies in this area (C. Swift, pers. 

comm. 1995). 

Initial experiments by Swenson and Matern (1995) indicated that shimofuri gobies aggressively 

intimidate, outcompete and prey upon tidewater gobies in the laboratory. However, like the 

chameleon goby, the shimofuri goby prefers hard substrates. It was found almost exclusively on 

rocky shores and around boulders of levees and breakwaters in Pyramid Lake (Wade Sinnen and 

Janice Curl, California Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1992). Thus it might be 

expected to remain in such habitats in coastal lagoons, and perhaps not interact extensively with 

tidewater gobies. However, any increase in hard substrate in lagoons inhabited by tidewater 

gobies should be carefully considered because this substrate would provide the habitat that could 

result in the establishment of the shimofuri goby. If lagoons were breached or other conditions 

lowered the water level, the shimofuri gobies could potentially move from the rocky areas and 

establish themselves in the tidewater goby habitat, to the detriment of tidewater gobies. To date, 

the possible effects of interactions in the wild between these exotic goby species and tidewater 

gobies are largely conjectural. 

Anthropogenic breaching of lagoons during the dry season occurs to: 1) ameliorate real or 

imagined stagnation and attendant odors of the water; 2) prevent flooding of adjacent structures 

or agricultural fields built within the flood plain of the lagoon; 3) remedy a mosquito problem by 

reducing the vegetated marsh adjacent to lagoons (thought to reduce breeding habitat for 

mosquitos); and 4) cause a new spread (or fan) of fresh deposited sediment in the surf, improving 

the break of the waves for surfing (Tom Evan, Department of Biology, University of California, 

Santa Barbara, pers. comm. 1993). The extent of anthropogenic breaching to improve the break 

of waves for surfing is not well known. 

Anthropogenic breaching of lagoons during the dry season may adversely affect tidewater gobies 

in a variety of ways. After a lagoon has been breached it reforms in a week or so, but often 

stabilizes at a lower level. Usually the level of the lagoon falls a meter (3.3 feet) or more, which 

can strand many tidewater gobies in shallow pools and leave breeding burrows above the water 

level, subject to desiccation and predation. The salinity increases considerably because 

freshwater inflow is low or absent in the dry season at many sites. Higher salinity can be 

tolerated, but is suboptimal for tidewater gobies (Swenson 1994). Adjacent marshes, which are 

used by tidewater gobies for protection from predators and as productive areas in which to grow, 

become unavailable. Tidewater gobies have been found to grow faster and larger in adjacent 

marshes when compared with those in the open waters (Swenson 1994). Because adjacent 

marshes are shallower than the lagoon, small changes in the lagoon water levels can have major 

effects on the amount of this habitat that is available for tidewater gobies. 
19

The barrier sandbar and sand content of the lagoon are dependent on sediment supplies from 

upstream. Interruption of sediment flow by upstream barriers is a cause of wasting away of 

sandy beaches (Bascom 1980). Lack of sediment flow into lagoons hinders formation of barrier 

bars and helps cause many of the attendant difficulties of anthropogenic breaching during the dry 

season by allowing tidal influence to alter the breeding substrate and salinity levels. 

Several introduced mammal and plant species have become established in tributaries and lagoons 

along the California coast. The presence of beaver , Arundo donax (giant reed), Tamarix 

pentandra (saltcedar), and Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) has the potential to change 

the natural characteristics of tidewater goby habitat (Figure 7). Beaver ponds trap nutrients in 

bottom sediments, preventing them from reaching lagoons (Naiman et al. 1993) and potentially 

affecting the composition of sediments and nutrient levels in lagoons. Beaver ponds seemed to 

provide slow water for tidewater gobies in at least one drainage, San Antonio Creek on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, until the drought of the early 1990’s, which dried up much of the 

lower creek above the lagoon. Both plant species are rapidly expanding their range in southern 

California. Tamarix is known to exacerbate the channelization of streams by stabilizing banks 

and forcing water to flow in a more restricted channel (Ohmart et al. 1988). Tamarix thus has 

the effect of contributing to the degradation of tidewater goby habitat associated with 

channelization. In 1993, large windrows of Arundo stems were massed throughout the Santa 

Margarita River Lagoon, and may provide substrate for shimofuri gobies if they gained access to 

this area. Providing habitat conducive to this exotic species could prevent the tidewater goby 

from reestablishing itself in this locality. Spartina alterniflora, another estuarine plant from the 

eastern United States, was intentionally introduced into San Francisco Bay. It is rapidly 

spreading and also alters channel forming characteristics of flowing tidal and nontidal areas that 

could degrade habitat conditions for tidewater gobies (Daehler and Strong 1995). 

Vehicular activity in the vicinity of lagoons threatens tidewater goby habitat by disturbing 

wetland vegetation, as well as contaminating the watercourse with petroleum. Toxic spills from 

highway or railway accidents are a threat when it occurs in the vicinity of tidewater goby habitat. 

The presence of recreational vehicles 

close to lagoons also poses a threat 

because of dumping of waste and greywater tanks (Appendix E) (Holland 

1992). 

H. Conservation Measures 

Since the 1994 listing of the tidewater 

goby, several conservation efforts have 

been undertaken by various Federal, 

State, and local agencies and private 

organizations. The following briefly 

describes some regulatory protection 

and conservation measures 

accomplished to date. Figure 7. Arundo in Santa Clara River Estuary Ventura 

County 
20

Federal Regulatory Protection. We identified the tidewater goby as a Category 2 candidate 

species in 1982, and a Category 1 candidate species in 1991. It was listed as a federally 

endangered species effective March 7, 1994, and is protected under the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States from taking (i.e., harassing harming, pursuing, hunting, 

shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting) listed wildlife species. It is also 

unlawful to attempt such acts, solicit another to commit such acts, or cause such acts to be 

committed. Regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.3) define 

“harm” to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in the killing or 

injury of wildlife, and intentional or negligent “harassment” as acts that significantly impair 

essential behavioral patterns (i.e., breeding, feeding). 

Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act and related regulations provide for permits 

that may be granted to authorize activities otherwise prohibited under section 9, for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act allows permits to be issued for take that is “incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity” if we determine that certain conditions 

have been met that will minimize the impacts to the listed species. Under this section, an 

applicant must prepare a habitat conservation plan that specifies the impacts of the proposed 

project and steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies, including us, to ensure 

that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 

Individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected 

by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a 

Federal permit, license, or other authorization or involve Federal funding. 

Since the listing, we have entered into section 7(a)(2) consultations with other Federal agencies 

on numerous project proposals per the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Examples 

include interagency section 7(a)(2) consultations on proposed road construction and 

maintenance, channel construction and maintenance, effluent treatment plans, and other activities 

within the current and historic range of the species. 

Measures Implemented by California State Resource Agencies. The State of California listed 

the tidewater goby as a species of special concern in 1980 and subsequently elevated its status to 

fully protected in 1987 (Swift et al. 1997). The California Water Quality Resources Control 

Board regulates water appropriation from streams that potentially affects most if not all tidewater 

goby populations. A permit from the California Coastal Commission is also required for 

breaching sandbars. Breaching lagoons in the summer has become controversial at many 

localities given the various interests noted above. Winter breaching has been allowed to prevent 

flooding for the Pajaro and Salinas Rivers (Monterey County) and Soquel Creek (Santa Cruz 

County) after development of management plans, which specify criteria for breaching and 

methods (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1996). The California Coastal Commission issues Coastal 
21

Development Permits for all developments within the Commission’s area of retained jurisdiction, 

which includes many historic state tide-lands, encompassing most coastal estuaries. The 

California Water Resources Control Board issues both waste discharge permits for liquid waste 

discharges, and 401 Water Quality Certifications for discharges to navigable waters that require a 

Federal permit or license. The California State Lands Commission issues permits for 

developments on State tide and trust lands, which include many coastal estuaries. California 

Department of Fish and Game issues Stream and Lake Alteration Agreements under Sections 

1600-1605 of the California Fish and Game Code for the alteration of any stream or water course 

depicted as a blue-line channel on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps. 

Survey and Research. We have developed a survey protocol to facilitate the determination of 

presence or absence of the tidewater goby in habitats that have potential to support it (Appendix 

F). The primary use for this protocol is for project-level surveys in support of requests for 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Additionally, 

this protocol may also be used for section 10(a)(1)(B) permit applications, and to determine 

general presence-absence for other management purposes. 

Regional studies of tidewater goby biology have been completed for Rodeo Lagoon, Marin 

County (Wang 1982; Swenson 1994); Shuman and San Antonio Lagoons, Santa Barbara County 

(Irwin and Soltz 1984); San Gregorio Lagoon, San Mateo County (Swenson 1993a, 1993b, 

1994); seven lagoons on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County (Holland et al. 2001); lagoons in 

central San Luis Obispo County (Worcester 1992); Vandenberg Air Force Base (Swift et al. 

1997); and some occurrence data for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties were reported by 

Lafferty et al. (1999a, b). 

Ramona Swenson (The Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes River Preserve, Galt, California) has 

worked on many aspects of the biology and behavior of tidewater gobies, primarily at San 

Gregorio Lagoon in central California. She has elucidated many details of the ecology of the 

species, confirming some previous findings and expanding on many of these. 

Crabtree (1985) did the only genetic study of the species, based on allozyme studies. Dan 

Holland collected more materials for a DNA study, which were analyzed by Dawson et al.

(2001). Dawson et al. (2001) conducted an analysis of mitochondrial genetic material from 

tidewater goby populations ranging from Del Norte to San Diego Counties. 

Two introductions of tidewater gobies were made in 1991, one to Waddell Creek and another 

into Malibu Creek. Both of these have been successful at least through the summer of 1996. 

Only 52 fish were placed in Malibu Creek and slightly over 200 at Waddell. In each case it is 

unlikely that all individuals were able to reproduce, so the founding populations were somewhat 

less. The Malibu Creek population has increased to several thousand individuals. The Waddell 

Creek population numbers increased to several thousand individuals by 1994 but was again 

extirpated by the high flows resulting from 1998 winter storms (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). 

Redwood National and State Park have been assessing the status of tidewater goby populations at 

Redwood Creek estuary and Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County for the purpose of 

implementing protective measures. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area has funded three 
22

status surveys of the tidewater goby population in Rodeo Lagoon. The Monterey County Water 

Resources Agency is developing a management plan for the lagoon of the Salinas River. The 

plan included a proposal to reintroduce the tidewater goby as an experimental, nonessential 

population, and to manage the lagoon to optimize tidewater goby habitat. However, the proposal 

to reintroduce the tidewater goby was deleted from the management plan, due to opposition by 

agricultural groups. The City of San Buenaventura, California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, and California State Coastal Conservancy have developed a habitat enhancement 

plan for the Ventura River estuary, which includes provisions for managing the habitat that could 

provide optimal conditions for the tidewater goby. 

Lafferty et al. (1999a) monitored post-flood persistence of 17 tidewater goby populations in 

Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties during the heavy winter floods of 1995. All 17 

populations persisted and no significant changes in population sizes were determined. 

At the time of the listing in 1994, tidewater gobies were known to have occurred in at least 87 of 

California’s coastal lagoons. Approximately 50 percent of these populations were considered 

extirpated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The assessment for listing of the tidewater 

goby occurred after the prolonged drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when conditions 

in many habitats were at a low level. Presently, 28 of the known historic populations are 

considered extirpated. Some of the re-discovered populations are located in habitats that became 

dry or nearly so during the drought. In addition, new populations continue to be discovered, 

increasing the number of known historic populations to 124. The increased understanding of the 

tidewater goby’s tolerance for a range of habitat conditions, its resiliency and recovery following 

catastrophic events (e.g., the recolonization of Laguna Creek and Moore Creek, Santa Cruz 

County, following extirpations during the drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s), and the 

growing number of known extant populations suggests that the threat of extinction is likely less 

severe than originally thought. 
23

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Presently, the natural diversity and ecological integrity of coastal lagoon and estuary habitats to 

which the tidewater goby is uniquely adapted are threatened primarily by habitat modification 

and loss, decreased freshwater inflow, exotic species, and habitat channelization, compounded 

by degraded water quality, anthropogenic dry season breaching, and excessive sedimentation. 

The extirpation and decline of tidewater goby populations occurs as a direct result of these 

threats or by their exacerbating the effects of natural deleterious events. As the number of 

populations extirpated or in decline increases, there is a decrease in the ability for recolonization 

and gene flow, which based on present information is necessary for the continued persistence of 

the species. Therefore, the strategy for recovery of the tidewater goby is designed to: 

1. preserve the diversity of tidewater goby habitats throughout the range of the species; 

2. preserve the natural processes of recolonization and population exchange that enable 

population recovery following catastrophic events; and 

3. preserve the genetic diversity as it is understood now and in the future. 

Recovery of the tidewater goby should take into consideration the variation of genetic diversity 

that exists throughout the species’ range and the recolonization and gene flow processes that 

allow recovery of populations following natural extirpations. An example of the 

metapopulation*

 dynamic aspect of the tidewater goby is the fact that extirpated populations 

located in central and southern California have been recolonized from nearby extant populations 

following storm events (Lafferty et al. 1999a, 1999b). In the metapopulation model of 

populations, several subpopulations*

 survive or remain viable* by way of continual exchange of 

individuals and recolonizations after occasional extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994). Rates of 

genetic interchange or recolonization depend on the degree of isolation between subpopulations, 

physical distance, and character of the intervening habitat (Gilpin 1987). Solitary subpopulations 

separated from other extant subpopulations by large geographic distances probably cannot be 

naturally recolonized after a local extinction from weather or other factors. As subpopulations 

become isolated recolonization rates decrease, local extinction becomes permanent, and an entire 

metapopulation can move incrementally toward extinction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Past and current land use practices have degraded tidewater goby habitat. If the tidewater goby’s 

current habitat conditions are secured or enhanced, recovery of the species would likely be 

ensured. However, there continues to be competing demands on limited resources that directly 

and/or indirectly affect the quality of tidewater goby habitat (e.g., upstream water diversions, 

pumping of groundwater, erosion, etc.). Furthermore, other anthropogenic activities and 

stochastic events are known to adversely affect tidewater gobies (e.g., introduction of exotic 

predators/competitors). To ultimately define the management requirements for the tidewater 

goby in light of the continuing resource demands and perturbations, additional research is 

necessary to determine the tidewater goby’s tolerance levels of water quality and flow, and 

optimal habitat diversity. With this additional information, we can more precisely describe the 
24

range and extent of activities that can occur without threatening the continued survival of the 

species and habitat conditions that would continue to support tidewater gobies even with the 

occurrence of stochastic events that might otherwise threaten a population. 
25

III. RECOVERY GOALS AND CRITERIA 

The goal of this plan is to conserve and recover the tidewater goby throughout its range by 

perpetuating viable metapopulations within each Recovery Unit*

 while maintaining its genetic 

diversity. Implementation of this plan would allow reclassification and ultimately removal of 

this species from the Federal list of "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants" (50 CFR 

17.12). The tidewater goby may be considered for reclassification to threatened status and 

ultimately delisting as the recovery criteria outlined below are met. 

A. Recovery Units 

1. Criteria for Designating Recovery Units/Sub-Units 

Six regional clades based on genetic work done by Dawson et al. (2001) have been used to 

define the Recovery Units. In situations where genetic work is lacking, recovery units are based 

on geomorphology. Recovery Units are further divided into Sub-Units*

, which are defined as 

regions that are genetically different from each other. There are 124 Recovery Sub-Units and 23 

potential introduction sites described in this plan. The following describes criteria used to 

establish Recovery Units and Sub-Units. For a more detailed description and recommended 

primary recovery tasks of each Recovery Unit and Sub-Unit see Appendix G. 

The tidewater goby occupies lagoon and estuarine habitats that are often closed. Little 

documentation exists of recovery of larval or adult tidewater gobies outside these specialized 

habitats. The tidewater goby exhibits: 1) genetic differentiation into regional clades based on 

mitochondrial sequence (Dawson et al. 2001); 2) regional morphological differentiation in 

degree and frequency of reduction of the supraorbital canal*

 (David Jacobs, University of 

California at Los Angeles, pers. comm. 2004); and 3) regional differences in metapopulation 

dynamics. In some regions sequence data document long term isolation of local populations 

(Barlow 2002), while in other regions population survey data support source/sink*

 type 

metapopulations. High historic frequencies of extirpation and recolonization have been observed 

(Lafferty et al. 1999b). Thus, the tidewater goby appears to have more regional and local genetic 

differentiation than other coastal marine vertebrates. These regional distinctions in 

metapopulation process are a highly unusual feature of considerable scientific and conservation 

interest. 

The genetic isolation and metapopulation differences observed in tidewater gobies can 

reasonably be explained by inferring limitations on dispersal consistent with this taxon’s habitat 

preference and life history. Reproduction occurs in the summertime when most estuaries/coastal 

lagoons are closed by sand berms. This knowledge of life history, combined with genetic data, 

argues strongly that tidewater goby larvae do not generally have access to the sea or at least do 

not exhibit the long distance marine dispersal often associated with larval fish. On the other 
26

hand some populations are known to have recolonized, documenting that dispersal does occur. 

The available evidence suggests that: 1) adult tidewater gobies rather than larvae are involved in 

dispersal; 2) dispersal occurs in association with high stream-flow events that open estuaries to 

the sea during the winter rainy season (Lafferty et al. 1999a), and 3) dispersal along the coast is 

greatly facilitated by sandy substrate and is limited by rocky coastal substrate. This last 

inference is consistent with the preference of this benthic fish for sandy bottoms for reproduction 

and is supported by mitochondrial sequence data (Dawson et al. 2001; Barlow 2002). This 

limited dispersal by tidewater goby contrasts with dispersal in the closely related arrow goby, 

which lives in open marine habitats permitting larval dispersal and exhibits minimal regional 

genetic differentiation (Dawson et al. 2002). 

Understanding of the dispersal potential, based on regions in which the genetics have been 

studied in detail (Barlow 2002) or where recolonization has been observed (Lafferty et al. 

1999b), provides a basis of inference to define units along the coast where there is limited or 

incomplete genetic data available. Regions where estuaries are separated by sandy beaches 

located in low-lying coastal settings composed of Holocene*

 alluvium are grouped together. 

Populations in habitats separated by long distances (e.g., Arcata /Humboldt Bay, Humboldt 

County, to the Ten Mile River, Mendocino County), especially where habitat consists of steep 

harder rocky substrate, are presumed to be separate genetic entities. This pattern is evident in the 

regional phylogeographic scale (Dawson et al. 2001) and locally within the regions extending 

from Salmon Creek to the Salinas Valley and from the Ventura River to Topanga where the 

degree of genetic isolation of populations has been examined in far greater detail (Barlow 2002). 

2. Regional Genetic Structure and Recovery Units 

Dawson et al. (2001) provided a broad-brush phylogeographic basis for subdivision of tidewater 

gobies into regional entities. This examination of 1,300 base pairs of mitochondrial sequence 

from 88 individuals from 31 localities examines the entire range of the tidewater goby from 

Smith River in Del Norte County to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. This work identifies 

six regional clades that have been used to define the Recovery Units: 1) north of southern 

Mendocino County line - North Coast Unit; 2) Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to Bennett’s 

Slough in the Salinas Valley- Greater Bay Unit; 3) Arroyo del Oso to Morro Bay in San Luis 

Obispo County - Central Coast Unit; 4) San Luis Creek in San Luis Obispo County to Rincon 

Creek in Santa Barbara County - Conception Unit; 5) Ventura River in Ventura County to Santa 

Topanga Creek in Los Angeles County – LA/Ventura Unit; and 6) San Pedro in Los Angeles 

County to Los Peñasquitos in San Diego County- South Coast Unit (Figure 2). 

3. Regional Morphologic Data 

Until recently, we presumed that tidewater gobies were not significantly morphologically 

differentiated; however, this is not the case. The degree of reduction of the supraorbital canal 

portion of the lateral line system was examined in 546 museum specimens of tidewater gobies 

from 26 localities (D. Jacobs pers. comm. 2004). Although sample sizes are uneven, several of 

the regional clade differences evident in the mitochondrial sequence data are supported, 

including North Coast /Greater Bay, Greater Bay/Central Coast and Ventura LA/South Coast. In 
27

addition there is local variation, which may indicate selective forces operating in different 

habitats. Collections from sites such as Malibu Creek and Artesian Wells in Santa Monica, Los 

Angeles County, and Aliso Creek, Orange County, (sites that were extirpated after museum 

collections were made, but before appropriate samples were recovered for molecular work) can 

be assigned to groups or units on the basis of morphology. Examination of these samples 

supports the placement of a break between the LA/Ventura Recovery Unit and the South Coast 

Recovery Unit at the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as morphological analysis groups historic 

Malibu/Santa Monica samples with samples to the north and historic Aliso Creek samples with 

those to the south in San Diego County (D. Jacobs pers. comm. 2004). The data also suggest 

additional morphological differences, possibly related to system size or gradient. Differences in 

the lateral line structure, which involves sensing relative movement associated with locomotion 

or current flow, are likely to be a consequence of differences in selection. From a conservation 

perspective, evidence of selective or adaptive differences in tidewater gobies complements 

evidence of genetic isolation. Both genetic isolation and evidence of adaptive difference are 

thought to be critical to defining recovery units. 

4. Local Differentiation 

Barlow (2002) sequenced the mitochondrial control region from approximately 15 tidewater 

gobies from each of 15 localities across the Greater Bay Unit. In a separate study, 30 control 

region sequences were generated from each of 5 localities constituting the existing populations in 

the LA/Ventura Unit. In the Greater Bay Unit, rocky headlands isolate populations. Sets of 

closely spaced localities show significant genetic differentiation. Interestingly, in the Greater 

Bay Unit, using data resampling to generate significance values based on FST*

 , only a few 

localities fail to demonstrate a highly statistically significant difference from all others (Barlow 

2002). This result emphasizes the degree of isolation of these populations in coastal estuaries 

and the lack of frequent dispersal within the Greater Bay Unit. In the LA/Ventura Unit, sandy 

shores separate the naturally occurring populations and, although genetic variation is limited, it is 

sufficient for statistical analysis. In this unit, the only statistical differences were associated with 

the loss of variation in the recently recolonized Topanga sample, highlighting the distinction 

between sandy and rocky coasts. Substantially greater dispersal is evident over sand than rock. 

It also suggests that statistical differences due to the loss of variation in recolonization might not 

be an appropriate rationale for designation of a unit. This information about the substrate 

specific nature of dispersal is used to infer the relationship between Sub-Units in the North Coast 

Unit, the Central Coast Unit and the Conception Unit where genetic information available is 

minimal to moderate. 

In general, where sufficient genetic information is available, Sub-Units are defined as regions 

that are not only statistically different (highly significant at the P = 0.01 level) from entities 

elsewhere, but also contain genetic resources not found elsewhere. Evidence for local genetic 

resources takes the form of dominant endemic haplotypes*

, fixed differences, endemic clades of 

haplotypes suggestive of in situ sequence evolution, and in some case localities where all 

haplotypes form a single clade. The above approach can only be applied in cases where there is 

sufficient genetic information; 10 mitochondrial control region sequences would be considered a 

minimum. 
28

The only case where we support a more restrictive definition of units is in the South Coast Unit. 

The tidewater gobies in this region form a monophyletic*

 clade that is 4 percent sequence 

divergent from all other tidewater gobies (Dawson et al. 2002). Tidewater gobies in the South 

Coast Unit are also the most morphologically distinct as all the supraorbital canals are 

substantially reduced (D. Jacobs pers comm. 2004). This unit also exhibits a very high rate of 

extirpation/recolonization (Lafferty et al. 1999b). Based on the limited mitochondrial 

sequencing, it appears that very little genetic variation is present in the unit. This situation is 

probably not natural, but likely results from the elimination of many more stable habitats to the 

north and south of Camp Pendleton where the only remaining localities are small and seemingly 

extirpation prone. In this context of reduced genetic variation two units are defined on a modest 

geographic distance between northern and southern localities in Camp Pendleton. The available 

genetic evidence differentiating these units involves a small sample size of microsatellites*

. 

Thus, a genetic difference between the Sub-Units is yet to be confirmed. 

5. Summary of Units from North to South 

See Appendix B for more detailed description of recovery units. 

North Coast Unit (NC) 

This Recovery Unit extends from Smith River near the Oregon border to the southern end of 

Mendocino County. It has the greatest geographic extent along the coast (approximately 150 

miles) of any of the proposed recovery units.

Sub-Units 

The NC1 Sub-Unit extends from the Smith River south to Lake Earl/Talawa. This stretch of 

coast is characterized by low-lying sandy shores. The NC1 Sub-Unit consists of two occupied 

tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Del Norte County. 

The NC2 Sub-Unit extends from north of Patrick’s Point and is isolated from other regions by 

steep coasts. The northernmost site, Redwood Creek estuary, is a seasonally breached freshwater 

estuary with sloughs. The other three sites are large open lagoons. The NC2 Sub-Unit consists 

of four occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Humboldt County. 

The NC3 Sub-Unit consists of about 25 miles from the mouth of the Mad River in the north 

across Arcata /Humboldt Bay to the Eel River to the south. The NC3 Sub-Unit consists of five 

occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Humboldt County. 

The NC4 Sub-Unit consists of the Ten Mile River, a large relatively pristine locality that is 

seasonally closed. This site is separated by at least 60 miles of steep coast and Cape Mendocino 

from locations in NC3 to the north. The NC4 Sub-Unit consists of one occupied tidewater goby 

locality. This Sub-Unit is located within Mendocino County. 

The NC5 Sub-Unit consists of Virgin and Pudding Creeks. These small closed stream habitats 

near Fort Bragg are separated by less than 10 miles from Ten Mile River. The NC5 Sub-Unit 
29

consists of two occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Mendocino 

County. 

The NC6 Sub-Unit consists of three small localities, Davis Pond, Brush Creek and Lagoon Creek 

located on a low sandy shore north of Pt. Arena (Manchester State Beach). It is separated by 

about 25 miles of rocky coast to the north. The NC6 Sub-Unit consists of two occupied 

tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Mendocino County. 

Greater Bay Unit (GB) 

This Recovery Unit extends from Salmon Creek just north of Bodega Head in Sonoma County to 

the Salinas River Valley in Monterey County. 

Sub-Units 

The GB1 Sub-Unit is located immediately north of Bodega Head and includes Salmon Creek. 

The GB1 Sub-Unit consists of one occupied tidewater goby locality. This Sub-Unit is located 

within Sonoma County. 

The GB2 Sub-Unit includes the “Esteros” (Estero Americano and Estero San Antonio) where 

tidewater gobies are generally present, and extirpated sites in Bodega Bay (Cheney Gulch) and 

Walker Creek in northern Tomales Bay. The GB2 Sub-Unit consists of two occupied tidewater 

goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Marin County. 

The GB3 Sub-Unit is located in southern Tomales Bay and includes Lagunitas Creek. The GB3 

Sub-Unit consists of one occupied tidewater goby locality. This Sub-Unit is located within 

Marin County. 

The GB4 Sub-Unit includes sites on the outer coast from Point Reyes, south to Point San Pedro, 

as well as sites within San Francisco Bay. The GB4 Sub-Unit consists of one occupied tidewater 

goby locality. This Sub-Unit is located in Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and 

Alameda Counties. 

The GB5 Sub-Unit includes San Gregorio, Pescadero, and Bean Hollow Creeks. The GB5 SubUnit consists of three occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within San 

Mateo County.

The GB6 Sub-Unit is the first of a number of Sub-Units that are relatively closely spaced along 

the steep intermittently rocky shores from north of Santa Cruz to the Salinas Valley. The GB6 

Sub-Unit consists of two occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within 

Santa Cruz County. 

The GB7 Sub-Unit consists of a suite of closely spaced localities including Baldwin Creek, 

Lombardi Creek, Old Dairy Creek, Wilder Creek, Younger Lagoon and Moore Creek. The GB7 

Sub-Unit consists of six occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within 

Santa Cruz County. 
30

The GB8 Sub-Unit includes Moran Lake and Corcoran Lagoon. The GB8 Sub-Unit consists of 

three occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Santa Cruz County, 

The GB9 Sub-Unit includes Soquel and Aptos Creek. The GB9 Sub-Unit consists of one 

occupied tidewater goby locality. This Sub-Unit is located Santa Cruz County. 

The GB10 Sub-Unit includes the Pajaro River, which is isolated from other tidewater goby 

localities in the region. The GB10 Sub-Unit consists of no occupied tidewater goby localities. 

The Pajaro River serves as the boundary between Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. 

The GB11 Sub-Unit includes Bennett’s Slough, which is the only locality where tidewater 

gobies have been recovered recently in the Salinas Valley/Monterey Coastal Plain. The GB11 

Sub-Unit also includes the Salinas River. This Sub-Unit is located within Monterey County. 

Central Coast Unit (CC) 

This Recovery Unit is bounded on the north by the steep Big Sur Coast from Point Pinos, 

Monterey County, and on the south by Point Buchon immediately south of Morro Bay, San Luis 

Obispo County. 

Sub-Units 

The CC1 Sub-Unit is immediately north of Piedras Blancas, and consists of Arroyo del Oso, 

which is extirpated, and Arroyo del Corral. The CC1 Sub-Unit consists of one occupied 

tidewater goby locality. This Sub-Unit is located within San Luis Obispo County. 

The CC2 Sub-Unit consists of shallow coast with multiple small estuaries south of Piedras 

Blancas and north of the Point Estero Coast. The CC2 Sub-Unit consists of seven occupied 

tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within San Luis Obispo County. 

The CC3 Sub-Unit extends south of Estero Point into Morro Bay. The CC3 Sub-Unit consists of 

seven occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within San Luis Obispo 

County. 

Conception Unit (CO) 

This Recovery Unit begins south of the promontory of Point Buchon and extends all the way 

around Point Conception and is bounded to the south and east of the Santa Barbara coast ending 

at the southern Ventura County line. This Recovery Unit is divided into three Sub-Units on the 

basis of promontories at Point Sal and Point Arguello. There is considerable sandy shore north 

of Point Arguello. Along the south - facing coast to the southeast of Point Conception there are 

many closely spaced habitats with potential rocky shore barriers that are limited in scale. 

Sub-Units 

The CO1 Sub-Unit extends between Point San Luis and Point Sal and is a largely sandy shoreline. The CO1 Sub-Unit consists of three occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is 
31

located within San Luis Obispo County. The Santa Maria River serves as the boundary between 

San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. 

The CO2 Sub-Unit extends from Point Sal to Point Arguello over generally sandy coast. The 

CO2 Sub-Unit consists of four occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located 

within Santa Barbara County. 

The CO3 Sub-Unit extends from Point Arguello to the southeastern terminus of the unit in the 

steep Seacliff region. This Sub-Unit is a fairly long stretch of coast and contains a large number 

(28) of small habitats, which are located within Santa Barbara County. The CO3 Sub-Unit 

consists of 24 occupied tidewater goby localities. Rincon Creek serves as the boundary between 

Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. 

LA/Ventura Unit (LV) 

This Recovery Unit is bounded on the north by the steep region at Seacliff and is not subdivided 

into Sub-Units. The southern terminus is here treated as the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This 

Recovery Unit is located within Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. 

South Coast Unit (SC) 

This Recovery Unit is bounded on the north by San Pedro Harbor, Los Angeles County, and on 

the south by Los Pensaquitos Creek, San Diego County. 

Sub-Units

The SC1 Sub-Unit includes San Pedro, Bolsa Chica, Aliso Creek, San Juan Creek, and San 

Onofre Creek. San Juan and San Onofre Creek are located on Camp Pendleton. The SC1 SubUnit consists of two occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located within Los 

Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. 

The SC2 Sub-Unit includes locations from Camp Pendleton as well as sites located to the south. 

The SC2 Sub-Unit consists of six occupied tidewater goby localities. This Sub-Unit is located 

within San Diego County. 

B. Recovery Criteria 

The complex genetics of the tidewater goby, the genetic metapopulation structure of its 

populations, the 1-year lifespan of most individuals, large swings in population size from season 

to season and year to year, the limited amount of scientific research on the species, and the 

difficulties in determining population size make the goal of conservation and recovery more 

complex. The current state of research does not yet allow the development of metapopulationbased recovery objectives for tidewater gobies. Until data on demography and dynamics of 

tidewater goby metapopulations are available, interim objectives emphasize consistent 

occupancy of habitat capable of sustaining viable tidewater goby populations. Recovery 
32

strategies and tasks include acquiring research data necessary to begin evaluating metapopulation 

viability. 

Although tidewater gobies face a variety of threats, 45 to 65 percent of historical localities are 

viable and support tidewater goby populations (C. Swift pers. comm. 2004). Small populations 

have been declining over time, independent of climate changes (Lafferty et al. 1999b). 

Consequently, downlisting criteria will focus on protecting existing tidewater goby populations, 

monitoring, and reintroducing tidewater gobies to formerly occupied and restored habitat. See 

Table G-1 in Appendix G for tidewater goby reintroduction and introduction suggestions. These 

factors apply at several levels, but particularly at the recovery Sub-Unit level, as this level 

denotes the best available evidence for metapopulations with potential for genetic exchange. 

1. Reclassification to Threatened 

The tidewater goby may be considered for downlisting when: 

a) An analysis based on scientifically credible monitoring over a 10-year period projects 

a 75 percent chance of all Sub-Units within each recovery unit persisting for a minimum 

of 100 years. This projection would incorporate a metapopulation viability analysis using 

a complex suite of information. A partial list of information needed for the 

metapopulation viability analysis includes: presence/absence data; population estimates; 

observed rates of extirpation and natural recolonization; results of introduction efforts to 

new localities and reintroduction to sites of known or suspected extirpation; and the 

relationships between climate variation and extinction and recolonization probabilities. 

This projection will also require incorporating information on new threats at the time of 

downlisting, such as any new exotic predator introductions that may have occurred. 

b) An individual management plan has been developed and implemented that addresses 

the specific threats, such as habitat destruction and alteration (e.g., coastal development, 

upstream diversion, channelization of rivers and streams, discharge of agriculture and 

sewage effluents), introduced predators (e.g., centrarchid fishes), and competition with 

introduced species (e.g., yellowfin and chameleon gobies), to each metapopulation. 

2. Delisting 

The tidewater goby may be considered for delisting when downlisting criteria have been met 

and: 

a) An analysis based on scientifically credible monitoring over a 10-year period projects 

a 95 percent chance of all Sub-Units within each recovery unit persisting for a minimum 

of 100 years. This projection would incorporate a metapopulation viability analysis using 

a complex suite of information. A partial list of information needed for the 

metapopulation viability analysis includes: presence/absence data; population estimates; 

observed rates of extirpation and natural recolonization; results of introduction efforts to 

new localities and reintroduction to sites of known or suspected extirpation; and the 

relationships between climate variation and extinction and recolonization probabilities. 

This projection will also require incorporating information on new threats at the time of 

delisting, such as any new exotic predator introductions that may have occurred. 
33

Downlisting and delisting criteria provide a basis for considering a change in the status of the 

tidewater goby, but would not trigger automatic downlisting or delisting. Such decisions are 

made by us through a rule-making process that involves public review and comment. Before 

delisting may occur, we must evaluate the following five listing factors and determine that the 

species is neither threatened or endangered with extinction: (1) the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease and predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., laws, existing land use); and (5) other 

human-made or natural factors affecting the continued existence of the species. We may revise 

the recovery criteria as appropriate as new information pertinent to these topics becomes 

available. Revisions must be based on the best available data. 
34

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM 

A. Recovery Action Outline 

1. Protect and enhance currently occupied tidewater goby habitat. 

1.1. Assess the current status of extant tidewater goby populations and their habitats. 

1.1.1. Standardize and implement survey, sampling, and monitoring procedures 

for tidewater goby populations. 

1.1.2. Standardize and implement protocols for assessing nonnative predator 

populations. 

1.1.3. Standardize and implement protocols for assessing impacts and source of 

sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat. 

1.2. Manage extant tidewater goby habitat. 

1.2.1. Develop and implement management strategies to avoid further direct net 

loss/modification of habitat. 

1.2.2. Develop and implement strategies for managing freshwater inflow within 

current or enhanced parameters. 

1.2.3. Develop and implement strategies for managing deleterious exotic species 

at current or reduced levels. 

1.2.4. Develop and implement strategies for managing adverse effects resulting 

from channelization at current or reduced levels. 

1.2.5. Develop and implement strategies for managing water quality within 

current or enhanced parameters. 

1.2.6. Develop and implement strategies for minimizing anthropogenic 

breaching of lagoons. 

1.2.7. Develop and implement strategies for managing excessive sedimentation 

in tidewater goby habitat within current or enhanced parameters. 

1.2.8. Monitor tidewater goby population status and trends, and habitat 

conditions. 

1.2.9. Develop an umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement or obtain financial 

incentives for landowners to maintain or enhance tidewater goby habitat. 

1.2.10. Implement regional ecosystem strategies through coordination, 

exchanging information, and existing regulatory processes to maximize 

the protection of tidewater goby habitat. 

1.2.11. Standardize and implement protocols for rescue of tidewater goby 

populations. 

2. Conduct biological research to enhance the ability to integrate land use practices with 

tidewater goby recovery and revise recovery tasks as pertinent new information becomes 

available. 
35

2.1. Determine water quality parameters for tidewater goby habitat. 

2.2. Determine freshwater inflow parameters. 

2.3 Investigate the interactions of exotic species with tidewater gobies. 

2.4. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the threats from nonnative 

predators. 

2.5. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of channelization. 

2.6. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of sedimentation. 

2.7. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of anthropogenic 

breaching. 

2.8. Describe optimal tidewater goby habitat characteristics. 

2.9. Determine the genetic diversity and intraspecific phylogeography of the tidewater 

goby. 

2.10. Determine population demography characteristics for the tidewater goby. 

2.11. Develop a metapopulation viability analysis. 

2.12. Conduct annual aerial surveys to quantify habitat losses, identify areas that have 

high potential for habitat creation/restoration, and acquire electronic imagery for 

GIS applications. 

2.13 Practice adaptive management* in which we revise recovery tasks as pertinent 

new information becomes available. 

2.13.1 Reevaluate recovery criteria. 

2.13.2 Keep recovery plan current and useful. 

2.13.3 Revise maps on recovery Sub-Units as new genetic data become available. 

3. Evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate. 

3.1 Develop and refine protocols and guidelines for translocation. 

3.1.1 Develop protocols, guidelines and selection criteria for translocation. 

3.1.2 Incorporate research findings into protocols. 

3.2 Implement translocation in subunits. 

4. Increase public awareness about tidewater gobies. 

4.1. Prepare and distribute brochures and educational materials on the tidewater goby. 

4.2. Develop a website that will educate the public on the tidewater goby and recovery 

actions. 

B. Recovery Action Narrative 

The recovery of the tidewater goby and its habitat will require implementation of four primary 

tasks: 1) monitor, protect, and enhance current habitat conditions for extant populations; 2) 

conduct research to acquire additional information needed for management; 3) restore degraded 

habitats to suitable conditions and reintroduce or introduce tidewater gobies to those habitats; 

and 4) develop and implement an information and education program. 
36

 In the first task, habitat conditions at occupied sites should be stabilized and protected by 

developing strategies to maintain or enhance, as needed, current habitat conditions, including 

managing freshwater inflow and water quality, and reducing threats from exotic species, 

channelization, sedimentation, and mechanical anthropogenic dry season breaching. These 

strategies should be developed and implemented in management plans specific for each recovery 

Sub-Unit that optimizes flexibility between recovery of the tidewater goby and local land use. 

Annual monitoring of populations is essential. Paramount importance should be placed on 

determining the compatibility of tidewater goby management strategies with other listed and 

sensitive species (California red-legged frog [Rana aurora draytonii], California least tern 

[Sterna antillarum browni], western snowy plover [Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus], lightfooted clapper rail [Rallus longirostris levipes], Belding’s savannah sparrow [Passerculus 

sandwichensis beldingi], brown pelican [Pelecanus occidentalis californicus], steelhead trout 

[Oncorhynchus mykiss], etc.) that utilize the same or adjacent habitat. 

For the second task, biological research should be conducted to develop the parameters within 

which the habitat conditions and threats can be managed for recovery. Data specific to the water 

quality (including dissolved oxygen, pH*

, and the contaminants commonly entering tidewater 

goby habitat) and freshwater inflow requirements and tolerances of the different tidewater goby 

life stages should be acquired. Research should also identify the characteristics of optimal 

habitat diversity that enhances the tidewater goby’s ability to persist in an already degraded 

environment. In addition, metapopulation viability models should be developed and genetic 

diversity studies should be conducted. Information from these tasks would then be used to 

validate the number and distribution of populations needed for population viability and long-term 

persistence. These studies should be initiated concurrent with the first task. 

Where research or monitoring finds that current conditions should be improved for the tidewater 

goby, the existing management plans should be revised. Monitoring of the tidewater goby 

populations and habitat conditions begun during the first task of recovery should continue to be 

conducted on at least an annual basis to assess the efficacy of management actions in meeting the 

recovery parameters and accomplishing the recovery objectives. The numbers and distribution 

of metapopulations required for recovery should also be evaluated and redefined, if necessary, 

based on the outcome of the genetic and population demographic research studies. This is 

particularly important for providing the best available determination of recovery Sub-Units. 

For the third task, the first step is to determine what Sub-Units would significantly increase their 

long-term probability of persistence by the addition of new populations. These Sub-Units are 

most likely to be those consisting of a small number of populations, or of small populations. A 

reintroduction plan would consist of the following: 1) identify potential sites where, through a 

combination of restoration and recolonization, tidewater gobies could be introduced; and 2) 

determine a strategy for reintroducing gobies to locations where they have been recently 

extirpated; this would involve a strategy for determining criteria for concluding extirpation, a 

time to wait for natural colonization, and a determination of the most appropriate donor 

population. 

For the fourth task, public support, cooperation and contribution are essential to accomplishing 

the recovery of the tidewater goby. During the course of recovery, activities should be organized 
37

to increase public awareness about tidewater gobies. Recovery activities will have a greater 

chance of success if the public, landowners, and other potentially affected parties are provided 

information about the tidewater goby, its habitat requirements, its threats, and the actions 

necessary to conserve its habitat and recover the species. Preparation and distribution of 

brochures and educational materials and public meetings will facilitate a better public awareness 

and understanding of the actions needed for the recovery of the tidewater goby. 

1. Monitor, protect, and enhance currently occupied tidewater goby habitats. Management 

actions should be taken to maintain current habitat conditions and ensure that the number 

and severity of threats currently affecting extant habitats do not increase. Protocols for 

assessing the current status of the tidewater goby populations and their habitat conditions 

and threats should first be standardized and implemented. The baseline information 

collected on the current status of the extant tidewater goby populations and the habitat 

threats should then be the basis for a management plan for each metapopulation. The 

management plan should describe the management actions that will be taken to stabilize 

habitat conditions and, if needed restore historic natural conditions to which the species is 

adapted. 

1.1. Assess the current status of extant tidewater goby populations and their habitats. 

The current status of the tidewater goby populations and habitat conditions should 

be assessed to provide the baseline information for determining the management 

actions needed to prevent further habitat degradation and loss. Protocols for 

assessing the present status (relative abundance) of the tidewater goby populations 

and the threats to their habitats (water inflow, exotic species, water quality, 

sedimentation) should be standardized and implemented to assure consistent, 

comparable evaluations. 

1.1.1. Standardize and implement survey, sampling, and monitoring procedures 

for tidewater goby populations. Protocols for surveying, sampling, and 

monitoring the relative abundance of tidewater goby populations should 

be standardized to ensure consistent evaluation of each extant population. 

The protocols should specify the time of year and methods required. The 

methods should be low-cost and easily replicated to encourage/facilitate 

annual monitoring of the populations and have low-impact to the species. 

Each probable extant tidewater goby population should be surveyed to 

determine its current size and status using these protocols. Surveys should 

be rigorous enough to detect tidewater gobies when population numbers 

are very low. In addition, surveys should be conducted, when possible, in 

tidewater goby habitats currently considered extirpated to investigate 

possible changes in status. 

1.1.2. Standardize and implement protocols for assessing nonnative predator

populations. Protocols for assessing the abundance and distribution of 

exotic species should be standardized. The current abundance and 

distribution of deleterious exotic species should be determined for each 

extant tidewater goby habitat using these protocols. Protocols should be 
38

developed so as to minimize impacts to tidewater gobies and other listed 

species. 

1.1.3. Standardize and implement protocols for assessing impacts and source of 

sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat. Protocols for assessing levels of 

sedimentation should be standardized. Where excessive sedimentation has 

been identified as a known or potential threat for a tidewater goby habitat, 

the source(s) and severity of the current level of sedimentation should be 

evaluated using these protocols. 

1.2. Manage extant tidewater goby habitat. Management plans should be developed 

that are specific for each Sub-Unit. The management plans should include 

provisions for managing the threats listed in Appendix E for the habitats such that 

they are managed within current or improved levels, (e.g., total habitat area, water 

inflow, nonnative predators, water quality, anthropogenic breaching of lagoons, 

etc). The management plans should also include provisions for monitoring of the 

tidewater goby populations and habitat conditions on at least an annual basis to 

assess the efficacy of management actions in halting and decreasing habitat 

threats and in enhancing habitat quality. If habitat quality or quantity continues to 

decline, or if a tidewater goby metapopulation is found to be declining, the 

management plan should be modified to ameliorate the causal factor(s). 

Management plans should take into consideration the relationships between 

climate variation and extinction and recolonization probabilities. Information 

derived from Action 2 should be incorporated as appropriate. 

1.2.1. Develop and implement management strategies to avoid further direct net 

loss/modification of habitat. Management strategies should be developed 

and implemented, to avoid, minimize or mitigate direct and indirect loss 

and adverse modification of tidewater goby habitat due to dredging, 

draining and filling of wetlands. Additional management actions should 

be taken to restore historic locations and potential habitats as opportunities 

become available to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate, the effects of 

existing structures and past activities that have destroyed or degraded 

tidewater goby habitat. 

1.2.2. Develop and implement strategies for managing freshwater inflow within 

current or enhanced parameters. Management strategies should be 

developed and implemented, if necessary, to prevent further decrease in 

freshwater inflow, water depth, and surface area at each extant tidewater 

goby habitat due to dams, water diversions and groundwater pumping. As 

opportunities become available to enhance the freshwater inflow into 

tidewater goby habitats, additional management actions should be 

implemented. 

1.2.3. Develop and implement strategies for managing deleterious exotic species 

at current or reduced levels. Based on the findings of action 1.1.2 or the 
39

best available information, management strategies should be developed 

and implemented, if necessary, to prevent further increases in the 

abundance and distribution of exotic fish (e.g., largemouth bass, striped 

bass, yellowfin goby, etc.) and frogs (e.g., African clawed frogs) in each 

extant tidewater goby habitat. As opportunities become available to 

decrease the abundances of exotic species, additional management actions 

should be taken. 

1.2.4. Develop and implement strategies for managing adverse effects resulting 

from channelization at current or reduced levels. Management strategies 

should be developed and implemented to minimize the adverse effects due 

channelization that can eliminate crucial backwater habitats or other flood 

refuges. As opportunities become available to reduce adverse effects 

resulting from channelization, additional management actions should be 

taken. 

1.2.5. Develop and implement strategies for managing water quality within 

current or enhanced parameters. Management strategies should be 

developed and implemented to prevent further degradation of the water 

quality at each extant tidewater goby habitat resulting from agricultural 

runoff and effluent, municipal runoff, golf course runoff, sewage treatment 

effluent, cattle grazing, development, oil spills, oil field runoff, toxic 

waste, and gray water dumping once we have developed tolerance levels 

for the tidewater goby to these contaminants. Furthermore management 

strategies should be developed and implemented, to prevent further 

degradation of the water quality due to dikes, tidal gates and other 

impedances to the natural freshwater/saltwater interface alter the salinity 

regime of some tidewater goby habitats. As opportunities become 

available to enhance water quality, additional management actions should 

be implemented. 

1.2.6. Develop and implement strategies for minimizing anthropogenic 

breaching of lagoons. Strategies to avoid anthropogenic breaching of 

lagoons (e.g., use of pumping and other water control structures to 

regulate water levels) should be developed and implemented to provide 

conditions during the summer and fall, when reproduction is at its highest 

and freshwater inflow is at its lowest. 

1.2.7. Develop and implement strategies for managing excessive sedimentation 

in tidewater goby habitat within current or enhanced parameters. Based 

on the findings of action 1.1.3 or the best available information, develop 

strategies and management actions should be taken, to prevent further 

increases in sedimentation in extant tidewater goby habitat due to cattle 

grazing, development, channel modification, recreational activity, and 

agricultural practices. As opportunities become available to decrease the 

levels of sedimentation, additional management actions should be taken. 
40

1.2.8. Monitor tidewater goby population status and trends, and habitat 

conditions. Tidewater goby habitat conditions can undergo dramatic 

changes on a yearly basis that are largely dependent on levels of 

precipitation. Tidewater goby populations and habitat conditions should 

be monitored (using the protocols developed in actions 1.1.1 through 

1.1.4) for abundance and trends on a minimum of an annual basis to 

evaluate management activities and assess recovery at each extant locality. 

All survey data should be submitted to the California Department of Fish 

and Game’s Natural Heritage Program for input into their natural diversity 

database system on a yearly basis. All individuals that conduct research or 

survey activities that may result in the killing or injury of a tidewater goby 

must be authorized pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. Researchers and surveyors should, as a 

term and condition for holding a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific take permit, 

provide survey and monitoring information to the California Department 

of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for input into 

appropriate databases. Furthermore, all individuals that conduct research 

or survey activities that may result in the killing or injury of a tidewater 

goby must have the appropriate permits and be in compliance with other 

applicable laws (e.g., California Fish and Game Code). 

The California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Heritage Program 

should input survey data into their natural diversity database system on a 

yearly basis. In addition, population monitoring data and habitat condition 

information should be consolidated into a database, and maintained by our 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. This database should be accessible to all 

interested parties including planning agencies and the general public. 

1.2.9. Develop an umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement or obtain financial 

incentives for landowners to maintain or enhance tidewater goby habitat. 

Landowners should be informed of conservation measures such as Safe 

Harbor Agreements for tidewater goby habitat that are available to them. 

Landowners should be encouraged to streamline the permitting process by 

applying for an umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement. Private landowners 

should be assisted in their efforts to obtain economic incentives for 

maintaining or enhancing suitable habitat and working towards the 

recovery of the tidewater goby. Land owners should be informed of 

various grant opportunities and incentives. 

1.2.10. Implement regional ecosystem strategies through coordination, 

exchanging information, and existing regulatory processes to maximize 

the protection of tidewater goby habitat. Our partners involved with 

recovery activities in the region covered by this recovery plan include 

California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks 
41

and Recreation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Environmental Protection Agency, 

California Department of Transportation, university and research 

departments, property owners, and other individuals knowledgeable about 

the species and their habitats. Existing plans, data, and information 

pertinent to the recovery of the tidewater goby must be synthesized and 

shared effectively by promoting information exchange and discussion 

between all agencies, groups, and individuals. In addition, management 

strategies must incorporate conservation needs for other listed species and 

species at risk. Support from local lead agencies for the protection of 

habitat for the tidewater goby is essential for its recovery. 

1.2.11. Standardize and implement protocols for rescue of tidewater goby 

populations. Protocols should be standardized for rescuing populations of 

tidewater gobies suddenly threatened by catastrophes like toxic spills or 

anoxic conditions, and anthropogenic breaching events. Such protocols 

could be particularly important for recovery where only one stable 

population exists that is genetically important to the recovery of the 

species and is isolated from other populations by large geographic 

distances. Protocols should include the facilities needed to hold tidewater 

gobies during catastrophic events (e.g., aquariums, fish hatcheries, habitat 

partitioning). The isolated localities are as follows: northern Arcata Bay, 

Brush Creek and environs, Rodeo Lagoon, Pajaro River, San Luis Obispo 

Creek, Pismo Creek, Santa Maria River, Carpinteria Creek, Ventura River, 

Santa Clara River, Malibu Creek, Aliso Creek, San Onofre Creek, San 

Mateo Creek, Las Flores Creek, and Santa Margarita River. 

2. Conduct biological research to enhance the ability to integrate land use practices with 

tidewater goby recovery. Data specific to tidewater goby optimal water quality and 

freshwater inflow conditions and tolerances need to be acquired, as well as a description 

of optimum habitat conditions. Research should also identify how to minimize the threat 

posed by exotic species, sedimentation, channelization, and anthropogenic lagoon 

breaching. These latter threats may best be minimized by managing for optimal habitat 

conditions based on the best available research. This research should be used to fully 

implement management actions (Action 1) needed for recovery to accommodate 

situations where habitat conditions should be enhanced and/or in determining to what 

extent proposed land used practices can occur consistent with recovery of the species, 

while minimizing adverse effects to the tidewater goby. In addition, population 

demographics and genetic diversity data are needed to validate the number and 

distribution of populations needed for population viability and long term persistence. 

2.1. Determine water quality parameters for tidewater goby habitat. Studies should be 

conducted that determine tidewater goby water quality requirements (e.g., 

dissolved oxygen and pH) and tolerances (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, petroleum 

products, and pesticides and herbicides commonly found in agricultural, urban, oil 

field, and golf course runoff). These studies should also identify strategies for 
42

achieving these parameters in the event that ongoing monitoring indicates that 

current habitat conditions should be enhanced and/or to address future land use 

practices that may affect tidewater goby habitat. 

2.2. Determine freshwater inflow parameters. Optimal parameters for water velocity, 

water depth and water surface area should be established at each extant tidewater 

goby habitat. The level of inflow necessary to maintain suitable tidewater goby 

habitat within these parameters and the parameters for water quality should be 

determined in the event that ongoing monitoring indicates that current habitat 

conditions should be enhanced and/or to address future land use practices that 

may affect tidewater goby habitat. 

2.3. Investigate the interactions of exotic species with tidewater gobies. Interactions 

can include, but are not limited to, predation, competition, and habitat alteration. 

2.4. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the threats of nonnative predators. 

Studies should be conducted to provide information needed in developing and 

implementing strategies that will minimize the level of predatory and competitive 

threat posed by exotic species (e.g., habitat enhancement). These strategies 

should be determined in the event that ongoing monitoring indicates that 

predation/competition from exotic species is threatening the survival of a 

population and/or to address future anticipated increases in exotic species 

inhabiting tidewater goby habitats. 

2.5. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of channelization. 

Studies should be conducted to provide information needed in developing and 

implementing strategies that will minimize the deleterious effects of 

channelization. These strategies should be determined in the event that ongoing 

monitoring indicates that current levels of channelization are threatening the 

survival of a population and/or to address future anticipated increases in 

channelization. 

2.6. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of sedimentation. 

Studies should be conducted to provide information needed in developing and 

implementing strategies that will minimize the effects of sedimentation. Because 

excessive sedimentation may particularly degrade substrate conditions needed for 

reproduction, the studies should include assessments of the effects of 

sedimentation on the reproductive success of the tidewater goby. The strategies 

for minimizing the effects of sedimentation should be determined in the event that 

ongoing monitoring indicates that current levels of sedimentation are threatening 

the survival of a population and/or to address future anticipated increases in 

sedimentation where mitigation for the source of sedimentation is not possible. 

2.7. Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of anthropogenic 

breaching. Studies should be conducted to provide the information needed in 

developing and implementing strategies for minimizing the threat of 
43

anthropogenic season breaching. The strategies for minimizing the deleterious 

effects of anthropogenic breaching should be determined in the event that ongoing 

monitoring indicates that current levels of anthropogenic breaching are 

threatening the survival of a population and/or to address future anticipated 

increases in such breaching. 

2.8. Describe natural tidewater goby habitat characteristics. Studies should be 

conducted that will provide the information necessary to describe natural 

tidewater goby habitat characteristics. These studies should be conducted using 

habitats where tidewater goby populations are stable or improving. It may be of 

value to compare sites where threats are minimal or nonexistent with sites that 

have threats (e.g., exotic species). Characteristics to be described should include, 

at least, substrate gradient and composition, proportion of habitat comprising 

lateral marsh, and abundance/distribution/composition of aquatic vegetation. 

These data on optimal habitat characteristics, along with those for freshwater 

inflow and water quality determined in actions 2.1 and 2.2, should be used in 

developing and implementing management strategies needed for minimizing 

threats in the event that ongoing monitoring indicates that current habitat 

conditions should be enhanced and/or to address future land use practices that 

may affect tidewater goby habitat. 

2.9. Determine the genetic diversity and intraspecific phylogeography of the tidewater 

goby. A thorough study of the genetic diversity within the tidewater goby’s range 

where data are lacking should be conducted, including a phylogenetic analysis. 

The resulting hierarchy will provide a definition of the genetic variability between 

localities and geographic areas in this species, and provide a firm basis for 

evaluating the number and distribution of populations needed for recovery. The 

genetic studies should include as many of the extant populations as possible, 

spanning the whole range of the species. 

2.10. Determine population demography characteristics for the tidewater goby. 

Research is needed on dispersal mechanisms, rates, and distances, and the 

numbers of populations needed for long-term persistence. This information, 

combined with the information gathered in action 2.9, will provide the basis for 

evaluating the sizes, numbers, and distribution of populations necessary for the 

implementation of action 2.10 and the recovery of the species. 

2.11. Develop a metapopulation viability analysis. Using the demographic and 

dispersal information gathered for the tidewater goby, a metapopulation viability 

analysis should be conducted that estimates the likelihood of extinction of 

tidewater goby metapopulations, assesses relative threats of various factors 

(predators, habitat loss, disease, etc.), and compares alternative management 

strategies. This Recovery Plan would be revised as needed based on the results of 

this analysis. 
44

2.12. Conduct annual aerial surveys to quantify habitat losses and identify areas that 

have high potential for habitat creation/restoration and acquire electronic imagery 

for GIS applications. Annually review the California coastline for habitat losses 

to learn how and if the goal of tidewater goby recovery is being achieved. This 

assessment should be accomplished by reviewing aerial photographs or by 

conducting aerial surveys. Update aerial imagery as needed. 

2.13 Practice adaptive management in which we revise recovery actions as pertinent 

new information becomes available. We should offer periodic updates to the 

press and general public regarding the status of the tidewater goby and recovery 

efforts. The scientific validity of the recovery criteria and recovery plan should 

be reviewed and revised as more information become available. The criterion of 

maintaining sufficient populations or conservation areas should be examined. 

Additionally, the success or failure of management actions should be evaluated. 

2.13.1. Reevaluate recovery criteria. The criteria for downlisting and delisting the 

tidewater goby in this recovery plan should be evaluated based on future 

information gathered from life history studies, research, monitoring, and 

management actions. If necessary, downlisting or delisting criteria should 

be refined. 

2.13.2. Keep recovery plan current and useful. The recovery plan should be 

updated, amended, or revised based on the expanded knowledge from 

research and monitoring results and evaluation of the relative success and 

failure of the management programs in attaining recovery goals every 5 

years. Management responses should be incorporated into the revised 

recovery program when potential threats are found to be actual threats. 

2.13.3. Revise maps of management units as new genetic data become available. 

We should work with biologists and consultants to revise management 

unit maps if new genetic data become available. Revised maps should be 

distributed to all who received a Recovery Plan. 

3. Evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate. Translocation efforts include 

introduction, accelerated dispersal and reintroductions. The reintroduction tidewater 

goby to historic locations and translocation to new location or areas with low population 

densities (accelerated dispersal) within developing metapopulations (with an extant 

tidewater goby population) are anticipated to enhance or accelerate the rangewide 

recovery effort. Protocols and guidelines should be developed and refined to ensure that 

translocation procedures are both appropriate and likely to be successful. 

3.1 Develop and refine protocols and guidelines for translocation. Before 

translocation of tidewater gobies occurs, the conditions necessary for ensuring 

metapopulation viability should be assessed. Moving tidewater gobies in the 

absence of suitable habitat or adequate habitat is not a wise use of resources. 

Before these relatively drastic measures are attempted, there should be a realistic 
45

expectation of long-term success based on the presence of adequate tidewater 

goby habitat, ongoing habitat management and restoration efforts, and the 

capacity for tidewater goby/habitat management and monitoring. For example, 

factors causing the failure of the native population should be remedied, following 

the methods identified above under actions 1 and 2, prior to any translocation 

effort. See Appendix G for further discussion of specific localities with respect to 

translocation and reintroduction. 

3.1.1 Develop protocols, guidelines and selection criteria for translocation. 

Locations identified as potential translocation sites should meet certain 

minimum habitat quality and management criteria. A protocol detailing 

the assessment of these minimum criteria needs to be developed to ensure 

that sites are suitable before actions are taken. 

 

3.1.2 Incorporate research findings into protocols. As ecological data are 

generated, and experience with translocation accumulates, timely 

refinements should be incorporated into the standardized translocation 

protocols. 

3.2 Implement translocation in sub-units. The habitats and tidewater goby numbers in 

some Sub-Units have declined to the point that the tidewater gobies persistence is 

very precarious. In these cases, actions such accelerated dispersal to expand the 

metapopulation and translocation to boost tidewater goby numbers may be 

required to prevent metapopulation decline. These tools may be useful for 

speeding recovery in a metapopulation, by increasing metapopulation densities 

and accelerating dispersal faster than might otherwise occur. Reintroductions to 

historic habitat are necessary in Sub-Units to re-establish metapopulations that 

have been extirpated. 

4. Increase public awareness about tidewater gobies. Recovery activities will have a greater 

chance of success if the public, landowners, and other potentially affected parties are 

educated about the tidewater goby, where it lives, its unique and special attributes, why it 

is in jeopardy, and the actions necessary to protect its habitat and recover the species. 

Preparation and distribution of brochures and educational materials and public meetings 

will facilitate a better public awareness and understanding of the actions needed for the 

recovery of the tidewater goby, and increase public support and participation in the 

recovery efforts. 

4.1. Prepare and distribute brochures and educational materials on the tidewater goby. 

A brochure and other educational materials in layperson’s terms about the 

tidewater goby will provide education to the public and landowners unfamiliar 

with the technical literature. These brochures and other educational materials 

should be distributed to public parks, beaches, and other sites associated with 

tidewater goby habitats. This information should also be made available through 

Federal, State, and local agencies associated with the protection and improvement 

of tidewater goby localities. 
46

4.2. Develop website that will educate the public on the tidewater goby and recovery 

actions. Recovery information regarding the tidewater goby and its habitat should 

be available to the public to better inform parties potentially affected by tidewater 

goby recovery efforts as to the issues involved and why the actions are being 

taken. 
47

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The table that follows is a summary of scheduled actions and costs for recovery of the tidewater 

goby. It is a guide for meeting the objectives discussed in Parts II, III, and IV of this recovery 

plan. The table includes the following five elements: 

1. Priority. The actions identified in the implementation schedule are those that, in our opinion, 

are necessary to bring about the recovery of these species. However, the actions are subject to 

modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of 

recovery actions. The priority for each action is given in the first column of the implementation 

schedule, and is assigned as follows: 

 Priority 1: An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the 

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

 Priority 2: An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in 

species population/habitat quality or some other significant negative 

impact short of extinction. 

 Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the 

species. 

2. Action Number and Description (from narrative outline). The action number and 

description are extracted from the stepdown narrative found in Part IV of the recovery plan. 

Please refer back to this narrative for a more detailed description of each action. 

3. Action Duration. The action duration column indicates the number of years estimated to 

complete the action if it is a discrete action, or whether it is a continual or ongoing action. 

Continual and ongoing actions are defined as follows: 

Continual: Action will be implemented on a regularly scheduled basis once it is begun. 

Ongoing: Action is currently being implemented and will continue until no longer necessary 

for recovery. 

4. Responsible Parties. In the table, we have identified agencies and other parties that we 

believe are primary stakeholders in the recovery process. Stakeholders are those agencies who 

may voluntarily participate in any aspect of implementation of particular actions listed within 

this recovery plan. Stakeholders may willingly participate in project planning, funding, provide 

technical assistance, staff time, or any other means of implementation. The list of potential 

stakeholders is not limited to the list below; other stakeholders are invited to participate. In some 

cases, the most logical lead agency (based on authorities, mandates, and capabilities) has been 
48

identified as the “responsible party” with an asterisk (*). The following abbreviations are used to 

indicate the stakeholder for each recovery action for the tidewater goby: 

Agencies: refers to the local lead agencies with planning authority for actions that may affect 

the listed species 

 NPS National Park Service 

 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 CORPS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 NOAA NOAA Fisheries 

 CLTRNS California Department of Transportation 

 NGO Nongovernmental organizations (e.g., The Surfrider Foundation, The Nature 

Conservancy, etc.) 

 PVT Private parties 

 TBD To be determined 

 MULTI Multiple stakeholders involved 

 UNIV University or academic researchers 

5. Cost Estimates. Cost estimates are shown for some of the recovery actions, both for the first 

5 years after release of the recovery plan and for the total estimated cost of recovery. Costs of 

some recovery actions cannot be estimated at this time. Costs of developing and implementing 

management and protection plans will vary with local circumstances and details of individual 

plans. Sites for introduction and re-introduction of tidewater gobies have not yet been 

determined, so costs of assessment and restoration cannot be estimated. The scope of necessary 

contaminants studies depends on results of ongoing research. Cost estimates are as follows: 

 

 Year 1: $370,000 + to be determined 

Year 2: $215,000 + to be determined 

 Year 3: $195,000 + to be determined 

 Year 4: $140,000 + to be determined 

 Year 5: $140,000 + to be determined 

TOTAL: $1,505,000 + to be determined 
49

Implementation Schedule for the Tidewater Goby Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost E

Action 

Priority 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

Year 

1 

1 1.2.1 Develop and implement management strategies to avoid 

further direct net loss/modification of habitat. 

2 years MULTI 70 

1 1.2.5 Develop and implement strategies for managing water 

quality within current or enhanced parameters. 

Continual MULTI 180 40 

1 1.2.8 Monitor tidewater goby population status and trends, and 

habitat conditions. 

5 years FWS* 170 40 

1 2.1 Determine water quality parameters for tidewater goby 

habitat. 

2 years FWS* 20 

1 2.9 Determine the genetic diversity and intraspecific phylogeny 

of the tidewater goby. 

Ongoing UNIV* TBD 

1 2.10 Determine population demography characteristics for the 

tidewater goby. 

5 years USGS*, 

FWS, UNIV*, 

CDFG 

25 5 

49
50

Implementation Schedule for the Tidewater Goby Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost E

Action 

Priority 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

Year 

1 

1 2.11 Develop a metapopulation viability analysis. 10 years FWS, 

USGS*, 

UNIV* 

250 

1 3.1.1 Develop and refine protocols and criteria for translocation 1-3 years FWS*, 

USGS, CDFG 

30 10 

2 1.1.1 Standardize and implement survey, sampling, and 

monitoring procedures for tidewater goby populations. 

1 year FWS* 50 50 

2 1.1.2 Standardize and implement protocols for assessing 

nonnative predator populations. 

1 year FWS*, 

MULTI 

60 60 

2 1.1.3 Standardize and implement protocols for assessing impacts 

and source of sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat. 

2 years FWS*, TBD 20 20 

2 1.2.3 Develop and implement strategies for managing deleterious 

exotic species at current or reduced levels. 

Continual FWS* 125 

2 1.2.11 Standardize and implement protocols for rescue of tidewater 

goby populations. 

1 year FWS* 10 

2 2.3 Investigate the interactions of tidewater gobies with exotic 

species. 

3 years USGS* 40 20 

2 2.4 Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the threats of 

deleterious exotic species. 

Continual FWS* TBD 

50
51

Implementation Schedule for the Tidewater Goby Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost E

Action 

Priority 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

Year 

1 

2 2.6 Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of 

sedimentation. 

Continual MULTI TBD 

2 2.7 Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of 

natural and anthropogenic breaching. 

Continual FWS* TBD 

2 2.8 Describe natural tidewater goby habitat characteristics. 1 year FWS* 10 10 2 2.12 Conduct annual aerial surveys to quantify habitat losses and 

identify areas that have high potential for habitat creation/restoration. 

Continual USGS*, 

CDFG 

TBD 

2 2.13.1 Reevaluate recovery criteria. Ongoing FWS* 125 5 2 2.13.2 Keep recovery plan current and useful. Continual FWS* TBD 2 2.13.3 Revise maps on recovery Sub-Units as new genetic data 

become available. 

Ongoing FWS*, 

UNIV* 

TBD 

2 3.1.2 Incorporate research findings into protocols 1-3 years FWS*, 

USGS, CDFG 

30 15 

2 3.2 Implement translocation in subunits 5 years FWS*, 

USGS*, 

CDFG 

TBD TBD 

51
52

Implementation Schedule for the Tidewater Goby Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost E

Action 

Priority 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

Year 

1 

2 4.1 Prepare and distribute brochures and educational materials 

on the tidewater goby. 

1 year MULTI 30 30 

2 4.2 Develop a website that will educate the public on the 

tidewater goby and recovery actions. 

1 year MULTI 40 40 

3 2.5 Conduct studies to determine how to minimize the effects of 

channelization. 

Continual FWS*, 

CORPS, 

NOAA 

50 25 

3 1.2.2 Develop and implement strategies for managing freshwater 

inflow within current or enhanced parameters. 

2 years MULTI TBD 

3 1.2.4 Develop and implement strategies for managing adverse 

effects resulting from channelization at current or reduced levels. 

Continual FWS*, 

CORPS, 

NOAA 

50 

3 1.2.6 Develop and implement strategies for minimizing 

anthropogenic breaching of lagoons. 

Continual FWS* TBD 

3 1.2.7 Develop and implement strategies for managing excessive 

sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat within current or enhanced parameters. 

Continual MULTI 120 

3 1.2.9 Develop umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement or obtain 

financial incentives for landowners to maintain or enhance tidewater goby habitat. 

Continual FWS*, 

NOAA 

TBD 

3 1.2.10 Implement regional ecosystem strategies through 

coordination, exchanging information, and existing regulatory processes to maximize the protection of tidewater goby habitat. 

Continual MULTI TBD 

52
53

Implementation Schedule for the Tidewater Goby Draft Recovery Plan 

Cost E

Action 

Priority 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

Year 

1 

3 2.2 Determine freshwater inflow parameters. 2 years MULTI TBD 

Total estimated cost of recovery over 10 years: $1,505,000 plus additional costs that cannot be estimated at t

53
54

VI. REFERENCES 

A. Literature Cited 

Akihito and K. S. Sakamoto. 1989. Reexamination of the status of the striped goby. Japanese 

Journal of Ichthyology 36:100-112. 

Aquatic Nuisance Task Force. 1993. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 

intentional introductions policy review. Proposed Report to Congress, 37 pp. 

Barlow, M. 2002. Phylogeographic structure of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi

(Teleostei: Gobiidae), in the San Francisco Bay area and Ventura County: Implications 

for Conservation Management. A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the 

requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Biology, University of California at Los 

Angeles. 

Baltz, D. M. 1991. Introduced fishes in marine systems and inland seas. Biological 

Conservation 56:151-177. 

Bascom, W. 1980. Waves and Beaches. Revised and updated edition. Anchor Books, 

Doubleday Publishing, New York. xviii + 366 pp. 

Birdsong, R. S., E. O. Murdy, and F. L. Pezold. 1988. A study of the vertebral column and 

median fin osteology in gobioid fishes with comments on gobioid relationships. Bulletin 

of Marine Science 42:174-214. 

Courtenay, W. R., Jr. and J. D. Williams. 1992. Dispersal of exotic species from aquaculture 

sources, with emphasis on freshwater fishes. Pp. 49-81 in: A. Rosenfield and R. Mann 

(Eds.), Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. 

Crabtree, C. B. 1985. Allozyme variability in the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi

(Pisces: Gobiidae). Isozyme Bulletin 18:70. 

Daehler, D. C. and D. R. Strong. 1995. Impact of high herbivore densities on introduced smooth 

cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, invading San Francisco Bay, California. Estuaries 

18:409-417. 

Dawson, M. N., J. L. Stanton, and D. K. Jacobs. 2001. Phylogeography of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), in coastal California. Evolution 

55(6):1167-1179. 

Dawson, M.N., K.D. Louie, M. Barlow, D.K. Jacobs and C.C. Swift. 2002. Comparative 

phylogeography of sympatric sister species, Clevelandia ios and Eucyclogobius 
55

newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), across the California Transition Zone. Molecular 

Ecology 11:1065-1075. 

Doak, D. F. and L. S. Mills. 1994. A useful role for theory in conservation. Ecology 75:615-

626. 

Eigenmann, C. H., and R. Eigenmann. 1892. A catalogue of the fishes of the Pacific coast of 

America north of Cerros Island. Annals New York Academy of Sciences 6:349-358. 

Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald, and H. Hamann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of 

North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, xxi + 336 pp. 

Feldmuth, R. and D. Soltz. 1986. Biological Survey of San Mateo Lagoon. Report to Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton. 

Ferren, W., P.L. Fiedler, and R.A. Leidy. 1995. Wetlands of the central and southern California 

coast and coastal watersheds. A methodology for their classification and description. 

Final Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA 

and Environmental Report. No. 1, Museum of Systematics and Ecology, University of 

California, Santa Barbara, ix + 500 pp. 

Gill, T. 1863. Notice of a collection of fishes of California presented to the Smithsonian 

Institution by Mr. Samuel Hubbard. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia 14:274-282. 

Gilpin, M.E. 1987. Spatial structure and population vulnerability. Pp. 125-139 in: M. E. Soule, 

editor. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, 

New York. 

Ginsburg, I. 1945. Contribution to a methodology in the caudal fin ray count of fishes and its 

use in classification. Copeia, 1945:133-142. 

Girard, C. 1857. A list of the fishes collected in California by Mr. E. Samuels, with descriptions 

of the new species. Boston Journal of Natural History 6:533-544. 

Haaker, P. 1979. Two Asiatic gobiid fishes, Tridentiger trigonocephalus, and Acanthogobius 

flavimanus, in southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of 

Sciences 78:65-61. 

Habel, J.S. and G.A. Armstrong. 1977. Assessment and atlas of shoreline erosion along the 

California coast. California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, vii + 

277 pp. 

Hackney, C.T. and A.A. de la Cruz. 1981. Some notes on the macrofauna of an oligohaline tidal 

creek in Mississippi. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:658-661. 
56

Hastings, R.W. and D.R. Heinle. (Organizers) 1995. The effects of aquaculture in estuarine 

environments: Dedicated issue. Estuaries, Vol. 18, No. 1A, 197 pp. 

Holland, D. 1992. The distribution and status of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) 

on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Environmental and Natural 

Resources Office, Camp Pendleton, Unpublished Report. 

Holland, D., C. Swift, and N. Sisk. 2001. Status, distribution, and habitat use of the tidewater 

goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Telestei:Gobiidae), on MCB Camp Pendleton, 

California 1998-2001. Final Report for AC/S Environmental Security, MCB Camp 

Pendleton, CA, by Camp Pendleton Amphibian and Reptile Survey, Fallbrook, CA 

Contract #M00681-00-P-1347. 

Hubbs, C.L., and R.R. Miller. 1965. Studies of cyprinodont fishes. XXII. Variation in Lucania 

parva, its establishment in western United States, and descriptions of a new species from 

an interior basin in Coahuila, Mexico. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of 

Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 127, 104 pp. 

Hubbs, C.L., W.I. Follet, and L.C. Hubbs. 1979. List of the fishes of California. Occasional 

Papers of the California Academy of Sciences. Number 113, 51 pp. 

Irwin, J.F., and D.L. Soltz. 1984. The natural history of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius 

newberryi, in the San Antonio and Schuman Creek system, Santa Barbara County, 

California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Endangered Species Office 

Contract No. 11310-0215-2. 

Jordan, D.S., and B.W. Evermann. 1898. The fishes of North and Middle America: a 

descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North 

American, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Bull. Uni. Sta. Nat. Mus., No. 47, Pt. III, pp. 

xxiv, 2183-3136. 

Lafferty, K.D. 1997. Tidewater goby collection report, 1996 and 1997. Report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Lafferty, K.D., and C.J. Page. 1997. Predation on the endangered tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi, by the introduced African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, with 

notes on the frog's parasites. Copeia 3:589-592. 

Lafferty, K. D., C. C. Swift, and R. F. Ambrose. 1996. Post-flood persistence of tidewater goby 

populations. Abstract for the Southern California Academy of Sciences 1996 Annual 

Meeting. 

Lafferty, K.D., C.C. Swift, and R.F. Ambrose. 1999a. Postflood persistence and recolonization 

of endangered tidewater goby populations. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 19:618-622. 
57

Lafferty, K.D., C.C. Swift, and R.F. Ambrose. 1999b. Extirpation and recolonization in a 

metapopulation of an endangered fish, the tidewater goby. Conservation Biology 

13:1447-1453. 

Lewitus, A.J., R.V. Jesien, T.M. Kana, J.M. Burkholder, H.B. Glasgow, Jr., and E. May. 1995. 

Discovery of the "Phantom" dinoflagellate in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 18:373-378. 

Mason, H.L. 1957. A flora of the marshes of California. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. ix + 878 pp. 

Miller, D.J., and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. California 

Department of Fish and Game Bulletin 157. 

Moyle, P.B., J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikuamanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern in 

California. Final Report for California Department of Fish and Game. Contract No. 

7337. 

Moyle, P.B., and J.E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the 

native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4:275-284. 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California revised and expanded. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California. 

Naiman, R.J., G. Pinay, C.A. Johnston, and J. Pastor. 1994. Beaver influences on the long-term 

biogeochemical characteristics of boreal forest drainage networks. Ecology, 75:905-

921. 

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. 

D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, 

MD. 386 pages. 

Ohmart, R.D., B.W. Anderson, and W.C. Hunter. 1988. The ecology of the lower Colorado 

River from Davis Dam to the Mexican-United States International Boundary: A 

community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85, xvi + 296 pp. 

Purer, E.A. 1942. Plant ecology of the coastal salt marshlands of San Diego County, California. 

Ecological Monographs 12:81-111. 

Rathbun, G. 1991. Status of declining aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and fishes in the lower 

Santa Rosa Creek, Cambria, California. Report to Greenspace; A land trust, Cambria, 

California. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

of bull trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

INT-302. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. 
58

Shapavalov, L., and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo 

gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). California Department 

of Fish and Game Bulletin 98, 575 pp. 

Smith, J.J. 1998. Report of tidewater goby and California red-legged frog sampling results for 

1997, to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished manuscript. 

Swenson, R.O. 1993a. The ecology and reproductive biology of the tidewater goby 

(Eucyclogobius newberryi). pp. 341-352. In: The Western Proceedings, 1993 

Annual Conference Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Western 

Divison, American Fisheries Society, July 22-29, Sacramento, CA. 

Swenson, R.O. 1993b. Marshes build better gobies: Population dynamics and reproduction in 

an estuarine fish, Eucyclogobius newberryi. American Zoologist 33:441 (Abst.) 

Swenson, R.O. 1994. A survey of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) at Rodeo 

Lagoon, Marin County, California. Unpublished Report for the Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.

Swenson, R.O. 1995. The reproductive behavior and ecology of the tidewater goby 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of 

California at Berkeley. 

Swenson, R.O. 1999. The ecology, behavior, and conservation of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:99-119. 

Swenson, R.O.,and S.A. Matern. 1995. Interactions between two estuarine gobies, the 

endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) and a recent invader, the 

shimofuri goby (Tridentiger bifasciatus). Presented, Cal-Neva Chapter American 

Fisheries Society, Napa, California, 3 February 1995. 

Swenson, R.O., and A.T. McCray. 1996. Feeding ecology of the tidewater goby. Trans. Amer. 

Fish. Soc. 125:956-970. 

Swift, C.C. and G.D. Frantz. 1981. Estuarine fish communities of Ballona [Marsh]. Pp. F 1-32. 

In: R. Schrieber (Ed.), Biota of the Ballona Region, Los Angeles County. Suppl. I, 

Marina Del Rey/Ballona Local Coastal Plan, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles 

County. 

Swift, C.C., R.W. Yerger, and P.F. Parrish. 1977. Distribution and natural history of the fresh 

and brackish water fishes of the Ocklockonee River, Florida and Georgia. Bull. Tall 

Timbers Research Station No. 20, Tallahassee. 
59

Swift, C.C., J.L. Nelson, C. Maslow, and T. Stein. 1989. Biology and distribution of the 

tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae) of California. Natural 

History Museum of Los Angeles County, No. 404. 

Swift, C.C., T.R. Haglund, M. Ruiz, and R.N. Fisher. 1993. The status and distribution of the 

freshwater fishes of southern California. Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 92:101-167. 

Swift, C.C., J.N. Baskin, and T.R. Haglund. 1994. The status and distribution of the tidewater 

goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae), on MCB Camp Pendleton, 

California. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Report for Contract Number 

M0068193P4385. 69 pp. 

Swift, C.C., P. Duangsitti, C. Clemente, K. Hasserd, and L. Valle. 1997. Biology and 

distribution of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi, on Vandenberg air force 

Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Final Report, USNBS Cooperative Agreement 

1445-007-94-8129. 121 pp. 

Swift, C.C., and D.C. Holland. 1998. The status and distribution of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces, Gobiidae), on MCB Camp Pendleton, California. 

Final report for Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. 

Report for Contract Number MOO68196T5642. 104 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Endangered and threatened species: Listing and recovery 

priority guidelines. Federal Register 48:43098-43105. September 21, 1983. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

determination of endangered species status for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 

59:21(1994):5494-5498. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed 

rule to move the northern populations of tidewater goby from the list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64:33816-33825. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 65:69693-69717. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

withdrawal of proposed rule to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby 

from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 67:67803-67818. 

Wang, J.C.S. 1982. Early life history and protection of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius 

newberryi)(Girard) in the Rodeo Lagoon of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Cooperative National Park Research Study Unit, Technical Report 7, Institute of 

Ecology, University of California, Davis, CPSU/UCD 022/3. 
60

Worcester, K.R. 1992. Habitat utilization in a central California coastal lagoon by the tidewater 

goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Masters thesis, California Polytechnic State 

University, San Luis Obispo. 

Worcester, K.R., and R.N. Lea. 1996. Observations on tidewater goby habitat utilization and 

laboratory maintenance during the California drought. Unpublished abstract from 

Symposium on tidewater goby, Southern California Academy of Sciences Annual 

Meeting at Loyola Marymount University May 3-4, 1996. 

B. Personal Communications 

Anderson, David. 2004. Redwood National Park. 

Bosch, Ray. 2004. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, 

California. 

Evan, Tom. 1993. Department of Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. 

Ferren, Wayne. 1995. Museum of Systematic Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 

California. 

Holland, Dan. 1992. Department of Biology, Southwestern Louisiana University, Monroe, 

Louisiana. 

Jacobs, David. 2004. University of California, Los Angeles, California. 

Lafferty, Kevin. 1994, 1996. U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Barbara, California. 

Sinnen, Wade, and Janice Curl. 1992. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Smith, Jerry. 1996, 2004. Biology Department, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. 

Swift, Camm. 1995, 2004. Entrix, Inc. 
61

Appendix A. Glossary 

adaptive management a method of using known information, hypotheses, and information 

gained while managing a system to alter management practices so 

that the management objectives can be more readily attained. 

Adaptive management may be used to improve the management 

system in a relatively risk-free way, it can be used to reduce 

management risk and uncertainty, or it can be used to choose 

among management alternatives with unknown or uncertain 

effects. 

allele one of two or more alternative forms of a gene which occupy 

corresponding loci in homologous chromosomes. 

allozyme form of an enzyme that differs in amino acid sequence, as shown 

by electrophoretic mobility or some other property, from other 

forms of the same enzyme and is encoded by one allele at a single 

locus. 

amphipods a variety of small aquatic crustacean, used by fish for food. 

anoxic lacking oxygen. 

anterior toward the head or front end of an organism. 

aquatic of or in water; streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, and marshes are 

aquatic habitats. 

 

benthic a bottom dwelling community of organisms. 

bottleneck a relatively short period of time during which the size of a 

population becomes unusually small, resulting in a random change 

in gene frequencies. 

clade a branch of biological taxa or species that share features inherited 

from a common ancestor.

colonization the act or process of establishing a new colony or population. 

cytochrome any of group of iron heme enzymes or carrier proteins in the 

oxidative and photosynthetic electron transport chains used in the 

study of heredity and variation. 
62

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid, the genetic material of all organisms 

(except RNA viruses); in eukaryotes DNA is confined to the 

nucleus, mitochondria, and plastids. 

endemic native to or confined to a certain region. 

estuary a partially enclosed coastal water body that is connected to the 

ocean. Salinity here is measurably reduced by the freshwater flow 

of rivers and streams. 

exotic not native to the area, introduced from another region or country. 

extinct no longer existing. Can refer to a species in its entirety, or in a 

particular part of the range. 

extirpated extinct in a particular area. 

founder effect the possibility that a new, small, isolated population may diverge 

genetically because the founding individuals are a random sample 

from a large, main population. 

FST a statistical measure used to reflect the history of small populations 

created from colonization events. 

habitat the environment in which a species or population lives and grows. 

Different types of habitats may be used for different life stages. 

haplotype a set of closely linked genetic markers present on one chromosome 

which tend to be inherited together. 

Holocene the geological period comprising approximately the last 10,000 

years. 

hypersaline term to characterize waters with salinity greater that 40 parts per 

thousand. 

lagoon a shallow sound, channel, or pond near or communicating with a 

larger body of water. 

listed species recognized by Federal or State governments as endangered 

or threatened. 

macroalgae algal plants large enough either as individuals or communities to 

be readily visible without the aid of optical magnification. 
63

metapopulation several to many subpopulations for tidewater gobies that are close 

enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be 

exchanged. 

microsatellite a microsatellite consists of a specific sequence of DNA bases or 

nucleotides which contains mono, di, tri, or tetra tandem repeats. 

mitochondria one of the minute, spherical, rod-shaped or filamentous organelles 

present in all cells. 

monophyletic organisms in a group are known to have developed from a 

common ancestral form, and all descendants of that form are 

included in the group. 

pH a common measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a liquid. 

phylogeographic the geographic distributions of genealogical lineages, especially 

those within and among closely related species. 

phylogeny the evolutionary interrelatedness of an organism or group of 

organisms. 

phytoplankton photosynthesizing planktonic organisms. 

piscivorous fish eating animal.

Pleistocene an epoch of the Quaternary period beginning about 1.6 million 

years ago and ending about 10,000 years ago. Best known as a 

time of extensive continental ice sheets. 

Pliocene the last epoch of the Tertiary period, during which man and most 

species of modern mammals came into existence. 

population in the wider sense, all tidewater gobies throughout their range. In 

the narrower sense, used to refer to the tidewater gobies in one 

particular locality; a collection of individuals that share a common 

gene pool. 

ostracod a variety of small aquatic crustacean, used by fish for food. 

Quaternary period a geological period which includes both the Pleistocene and 

Holocene periods comprising the second portion of the Cenozoic 

ere, characterized by the rise of man and modern mammals. 

recovery units regions of the species’ distribution that are distinct from one 

another based on geomorphology and genetic diversity. 
64

riparian terrestrial areas adjacent to aquatic habitats; on the bank of a 

stream, river, estuary, lagoon, or lake. 

salinity the concentration of salt in a solution. 

singleton population an individual population that is distinct from others grouped with 

it. 

source/sink characterizing a metapopulation consisting of actively breeding 

source subpopulations (which have average birth rates exceeding 

average death rates, and thus produce an excess of juveniles that 

may disperse to other areas) and sink subpopulations (with death 

rates exceeding birth rates, thus functioning to absorb dispersers). 

standard length a fish measurement from the tip of the snout to the hypural bone 

(approximately origin of caudal fin). 

subpopulation a group of tidewater gobies using a particular breeding site or area; 

several to many subpopulations constitute a metapopulation. 

Sub-Unit an area within a recovery unit that supports a tidewater goby 

population showing significant differences in genetics from other 

populations. 

supraorbital canal that portion of the lateral line system on the tidewater gobies head 

which begins at its junction with the lateral canal behind mid-eye, 

courses up and over the eye, and continues forward nearly to the 

tip of the snout. 

taxon a level in the classification system, such as species, genus, family, 

or order. 

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator projection. 

viability capability to survive; for populations, the ability to survive into the 

foreseeable future. 
Crescent City

Tillas Slough

(Smith River)

Lake Talawa/

Lake Earl

NC 1a

NC 1b

North Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit NC 1

Elk Creek (I)

KÎ

KË

KË

NC 1c

± 0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby (R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Redwood Creek (U)

Figure B-1. North Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit NC-1 

65

Appendix B. Maps of Recovery Units
Big Lagoon

Patrick's Point

FFreshwater Lagoon

Redwood Creek Estuary

Stone Lagoon

NC 2a

NC 2b

NC 2c

NC 2d

KË

± 0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

SStreams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Redwood Creek (U)

North Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit NC 2

Figure B-2. North Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit NC 2

66
McDaniel Slough -

Klopp Lake

AØ

Eureka

Arcata

Freshwater Slough

Mad River -

Mad River Slough

KË

KATA Radio

Station site

Jacoby Creek

NC 3a

NC 3c

NC 3e

NC 3d

NC 3f

NC 3g

Arcata Bay

Eel River

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

North Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit NC 3

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Figure B-3. North Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit NC 3

67
Fort Bragg

Virgin Creek

Tenmile River

NC 4a

NC 5a

Pudding Creek

NC 5b

?ç

?Ò

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

North Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Units NC 4 and NC 5

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS

±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Figure B-4. North Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Units NC 4 and NC 5

68
Point Arena

Lagoon Creek

Brush Creek

Davis Pond

?Ò

NC 6b

NC 6c

NC 6a

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

North Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit NC 6

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-5. North Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit NC 6

69
AÏ

GB 1a

GB 2c

?Ò

?Ò

GB 3b

Marshall Gulch (I)

GB 1b

Salmon Creek

Estero Americano

Estero de

San Antonio

GB 2d

Marshall Gulch (R)

GB 2e

GB 2b

Cheney Gulch

Bodega Head

Johnson Gulch (I)

Tomales Bay

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Greater Bay Area

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit GB 1 and GB 2

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Figure B-6. Greater Bay Area Recovery Unit, Sub-Units GB 1 and GB 2

70
Corte Madera

Creek

?Ò

KË

!"c$

?ú

?Ò

%&n(

?3⁄4

Pillar

Point

Point

Reyes

Rodeo Lagoon

Cliff House

Restaurant

Strawberry

Creek

Petaluma River

GB 1a

GB 2c

?Ò

Lake Merced

Lake Merritt

KË

Bolinas Lagoon (I)

Horseshoe

Cove (I)

Limantour

Slough (I)

Millerton

Creek (I)

Fish Hatchery

Creek (I)

GB 4a

GB 3b

GB 3c

GB 3a

GB 4b

GB 4c

GB 4e

GB 4d

GB 4k

GB 4I

Laguna Salada (I)

San Pedro Creek (I)

GB 4m

GB 4n

GB 4h

GB 4g

GB 4i

GB 4j

GB 4f

Mill

Creek (I)

KË

AÏ

Novato Creek Lagunitas

Creek

Tomales Bay

MARIN

SAN MATEO Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Greater Bay Area

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit GB 3 and GB 4

0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-7. Greater Bay Area Recovery Unit, Sub-Units GB 3 and GB 4

71
San Gregorio Creek

GB 5a

GB 5c

Pescadero-Butano Creek

Bean Hollow Creek

GB 5d

Pomponio Creek (I)

GB 5b

?Ò

?±

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Greater Bay Area

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit GB 5

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-8. Greater Bay Area Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit GB 5

72
Waddell Creek

Scott Creek

Laguna Creek

Baldwin Creek

Lombardi Creek

Old Dairy Creek

Wilder Creek

Younger Lagoon

(Long Marine Lab)

Moore Creek

GB 6a

GB 7d

GB 7c

GB 7b

GB 6c

GB 6b

GB 7a

GB 7f

GB 7e

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Greater Bay Area

Recovery Unit

Sub-Units GB 6 and GB 7

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

?Ò

Figure B-9. Greater Bay Area Recovery Unit, Sub-Units GB 6 and GB 7

73
Soquel

Creek

Salinas

River (R)

Bennet Slough

Pajaro River (R)

Aptos

Creek

Moran Lake

Corcoran Lagoon

?Ò

?à

?Ò

?Ò

Añ

San Lorenzo

River

GB 8a

GB 8b

GB 8c

GB 9a

GB 9b

GB 10a

GB 11a

GB 11b

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Greater Bay Area

Recovery Unit

Sub-Units GB 8 through GB 11

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-10. Greater Bay Area Recovery Unit, Sub-Units GB 8 through GB 11

74
Arroyo

de la Cruz (I)

Arroyo del Oso

Arroyo del Corral

CC 1a

CC 1a

CC 1c

Oak Knoll Creek

(Arroyo Laguna)

Arroyo de Tortuga

Arroyo del Puerto

Broken Bridge Creek

Little Pico Creek

Pico Creek

San Simeon Creek

Leffingwell Creek

Santa Rosa Creek

CC 2a

CC 2b

CC 2c

CC 2e

CC 2f

CC 2g

CC 2h

CC 2i

CC 2d

?Ò

Cambria

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Central Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Units CC 1 and CC 2

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-11. Central Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Units CC 1 and CC 2

75
Villa Creek

San Geronimo Creek

Cayucos Creek

Little Cayucos Creek

Toro Creek

Los Osos Creek

Morro Creek

Chorro Creek

Willow Creek

Old Creek

CC 3a

CC 3b

CC 3c

CC 3d

CC 3e

CC 3f

CC 3g

CC 3h

CC 3i

CC 3j

Morro Bay

?Ò

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Central Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit CC 3

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-12. Central Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit CC 3

76
San Luis

Obispo Creek

Pismo Creek

Santa Maria

River

Oso Flaco Lake (I)

Arroyo Grande

Creek (I)

?Ò

Oceano

CO 1d

CO 1a

CO 1b

CO 1c

CO 1e

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Conception

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit CO 1

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-13. Conception Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit CO-1

77
Shuman Canyon

Canada

Honda

Santa Ynez River

San Antonio Creek

CO 2a

CO 2b

CO 2c

CO 2d

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Conception

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit CO 2

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-14. Conception Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit CO 2

78
Jalama Creek

Canada de Agua Caliente

Gaviota Creek

Canada del Agua

Canada de las Agujas

Canad del Pescado/

San Augustine

Canada del Cojo Arroyo Hondo

Arroyo Quemado

Canada de Alegria

KË

Canada de

Santa Anita

?Ò

Refugio

Creek

Arroyo el Bulito

CO 3a

CO 3e

CO 3c

CO 3b

CO 3h

CO 3i

CO 3j CO 3k

CO 3f

CO 3g

CO 3l

CO 3m

CO 3d

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Conception Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit CO 3

(Western Half)

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-15. Conception Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit CO 3 (Western Half)

79
CO 3n

Eagle

Canyon

òA

ËK

Tecolote

Canyon Rincon

Creek

Carpinteria

Creek

CCarpinteriaia

SSalt Marsh

Arroyo

Laguna Paredon

Mission Channel

Creek

Arroyo

Burro

CCampus

LLagoon (R)

Sycamore

Creek

DDevereux

SSlough (R)

Winchester/

Bell Canyon CO 3o

CO 3q

CO 3p

CO 3u

CO 3ab

CO 3aa

CO 3z

CO 3y

CO 3v

CO 3w

CO 3x

CO CO 3t 3r

Andre Clark

Bird Refuge

(Outlet)

Goleta

Slough (U)

ËK

CO 3s

Santa

Barbara^

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

Conception Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit CO 3

(Eastern Half)

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

SStreams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-16. Conception Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit CO 3 (Eastern Half)

80
Ventura River

LV 1a

Santa Clara

River

LV 1b

Calleguas CreekMugu Lagoon

LV 1d

Zuma

Canyon (I)

LV 1g

J Street Drain/

Ormond Lagoon

LV 1c

Arroyo

Sequit (I)

Sycamore

Canyon (I)

LV 1e

LV 1f

KË AØ

?Ò

?ë

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

LA/Ventura Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit LV 1

(Western Half)

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-17. LA/Ventura Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit LV 1 (Western Half)

81
Zuma

Canyon (I)

LV 1g

royo

quit (I)

Malibu

Creek

LV 1h

Topanga

Creek

LV 1i

Santa Monica

Artesian Springs

LV 1j Ballona

Creek (I)

LV 1k

^

Malibu

^

Marina Del Rey

^

Santa Monica

^Redondo Beach

?þ

?ë

Los Angeles

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

LA/Ventura Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit LV 1

(Eastern Half)

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

Streams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

?Ò

Figure B-18. LA/Ventura Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit LV 1 (Eastern Half)

82
Figure B-19. South Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit SC 1 (Western Half)

83
^ Dana Point

AlAliso Creek (R)R)

SSan Juan Creek

San Mateo Creek

San Onofre Creek

Sc 1c

Sc 1d

Sc 1e

Sc 1f

?¦

Ò?

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

South Coast Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit SC 1

(Eastern Half)

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

SStreams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Goby

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-20. South Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit SC 1 (Eastern Half)

84
Cockleburr

Canyon

SC 2e

AgAgua Hedionda

LLagoon

SC 2i

San Marcos CreekBatiquitos Lagoon (I)

SC 2J

Escondido Creek -

San Elijo Lagoon (I)

SC 2k

San Dieguito

Lagoon (I)

SC 2l

Los Penasquitos

Lagoon (I)

SC 2m

BBuena Vista

LLagoon

SC 2h

Hidden Lagoon

SC 2b

French Lagoon

SC 2d

Las Flores/

Las Pulgas

Creek

SC 2a

Aliso

Canyon

SC 2c

SSan Luis Rey River (R)

SC 2g

Santa Margarita

River

SC 2f

^

Oceanside

^

^Leucadia

Carlsbad

Solana Beach

^

çY

©?

 ̈?

Rose Can

CLEMEN

Tidewater Goby Occurrence Data: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division, California Natural

Diversity Database, 2003; personal communication, Drs. C. Swift, K. Lafferty, and D. Jacobs

Coastal Streams derived from USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph Data

South Coast

Recovery Unit

Sub-Unit SC 2

0 2.5 5

Miles

Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office GIS ±

Tidewater Goby

Recovery Sub-Units

Streams With Unverified

Tidewater Goby Observations

Redwood Creek (U)

Potential Introduction

Locations

Elk Creek (I)

SStreams Occupied Historically by Tidewater Gobyy

(R) indicates potential reintroduction locations

Streams Occupied by Tidewater Goby

Figure B-21. South Coast Recovery Unit, Sub-Unit SC 2

85
86

Appendix C. Status of Recovery Sub-Units 

This list of 149 localities is current to June 2004; all are represented on Figures B-1 to B-21 in 

Appendix B. This list includes 124 locations where tidewater gobies either occur or are known 

historically to have occurred, and 23 locations where tidewater gobies are not known to occur, 

but could potentially be introduced. More detailed original data are in Swift et al. (1989); 

additional data are given for new localities, or those that have changed. The localities are 

organized geographically in order from north to south, and are grouped by unit and Sub-Unit 

(e.g., North Coast Unit, Sub-Unit NC 1). County names are included with the Sub-Unit headings 

and, as necessary, with specific localities. The localities are separated by distinctly marine 

habitats, usually open coastline of the Pacific Ocean or lower San Francisco Bay. Closely 

located tributaries in more estuarine situations, such as within Humboldt Bay, are treated as one 

locality. For each locality, we present the following information: 1) The surface area of the 

body of water, based on estimates from topographic sheets and notes taken during visits over the 

last 25 years, and based on a relatively high water mark at or near the maximum surface area 

within the relatively steep shores typical of the upper two-thirds or more of the lagoons at most 

localities, 2) land ownership, 3) the most recent year (for locations where tidewater gobies are 

known to occur) when tidewater gobies were collected or observed to be present or absent, and 

4) water quality description, based upon the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2002 Clean 

Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. 

NORTH COAST UNIT

Sub-Unit NC1 (Del Norte County) 

Tillas Slough - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 3 hectares 

(5 to 7.5 acres) minimum, but there may be as much as 200 hectares (500 acres) of habitat in the 

Smith River estuary. All land adjacent to Tillas Slough is privately owned. Tidewater gobies 

were collected in 1996 (C. Chamberlain, graduate student, Humboldt State University, pers. 

comm., 1996), and the species was considered common here in 1988. Tidewater gobies were 

collected in October 1999 by C. Swift (February 2000 recovery permit report). Tidewater gobies 

were not found there during a 2003 survey by G. Goldsmith. Threats at this site include 

pollution from pasture runoff, and disturbance/modification of drainage pattern. The area 

supporting tidewater gobies is small, and immediately down channel from a metal culvert 

crossing a trail/road with access to people staying at nearby lodging. Although connected to the 

Smith River estuary, this site is the only recorded location of tidewater gobies in the Smith River 

watershed. Tidewater gobies appear to be associated with the structure near the culvert, which 

has included a large root wad. The population is vulnerable to any catastrophic event in this 

small area that would alter water quality, stream flow regime, or connectivity to other habitats. 

An event such as dredging or filling the area, chemical spills, stream channelization could 

quickly extirpate the population. Tillas Slough and the Smith River estuary are not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Lake Earl/Lake Talawa - Lake Earl and Lake Talawa constitute two connected coastal lagoons 

that range in size from several hundred to a few thousand acres depending on the season, time 
87

since breaching, and current water level. Much of this lagoon is within the Lake Earl Wildlife 

Area, managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, and a California State Parks. 

This site is also adjacent to Pacific Shores Association land development. Tidewater gobies are 

always present, possibly in the millions (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1999). Tidewater gobies 

were collected during extensive surveys in 1999 by C. Page and in October 1999 by C. Swift 

(February 2000 recovery permit report). Gobies were also collected by G. Goldsmith and 

California Department of Fish and Game personnel in February 2002 and March 2003. Threats 

include artificial breaching of Lake Talawa, causing a rapid emptying of the lagoon which 

transports many thousands of gobies into the Pacific Ocean. Stranding of tidewater gobies 

within Lake Talawa and Lake Earl is well documented after breach events, as well as the 

presence of gobies at the breach site immediately prior to breaching. Despite annual breaching 

for several years, the population of gobies has recovered and persisted in these lagoons in large 

numbers. Lake Earl and Lake Talawa are not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. 

Elk Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 hectare (1.0 

acre). Elk Creek empties into Crescent City Harbor. This locality is entirely encompassed by 

private land. There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential 

introduction site. Tidewater gobies were supposedly found by a Caltrans biologist; however, this 

account is undated and unsubstantiated. C. Page surveyed the site in May of 1999 with no 

detections. Tidewater gobies were not found during surveys in 2003 by G. Goldsmith. Threats 

include sedimentation from upstream development and local channelization and culverting. Elk 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit NC2 (Humboldt County) 

Redwood Creek Estuary, North Slough - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 1.0 

to 4.0 hectares (2.5 to 10 acres). The site is managed by Redwood National and State Parks and 

private landowners. Tidewater gobies were collected February to December 1980 by T. 

Salamunovich (M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University). Collected specimens were deposited at 

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). Tidewater gobies have not been 

detected since 1980. Gobies were not found here in 1996 (D. Anderson, pers. comm. 2004), or 

in 1997 or 1998 (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1998). Tidewater gobies are assumed extirpated 

here due to anoxic conditions in prior habitat, following a thorough search by D. Anderson that 

yielded no detections. Threats include channelization of Redwood Creek, separation of North 

Slough from main channel, and severe alteration of natural flood flow regime in slough and 

channel immediate upstream of slough. Redwood Creek is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective 

potential sources (in parentheses) include sedimentation/siltation (range grazing, silviculture, 

restoration, residue management, logging road construction/maintenance, land development, 

removal of riparian*

 vegetation, streambank modification/destabilization, erosion/siltation, 

natural sources) and temperature (logging road construction/maintenance, removal of riparian 

vegetation, streambank modification/destabilization, erosion/siltation, natural sources, nonpoint 

source). 
88

Freshwater Lagoon - Total size of lagoon encompasses approximately 100 hectares (250 acres). 

Redwood National and State Parks controls about 10 percent of the area, Caltrans controls sand 

spit and highway separating Freshwater Lagoon from the ocean, with remaining area in private 

ownership. Tidewater gobies were last collected in 1951; none have been detected during 

several recent surveys. No tidewater gobies were collected in 1996 (C. Chamberlain, pers. 

comm. 1996). Threats include the elimination of the natural breaching cycle due to construction 

of State Route 101, and the introduction of centrarchids and salmonids for recreational fishing. 

The reestablishment and maintenance of tidewater goby populations within this lagoon in the 

future are unlikely due to the more or less permanently altered breaching regime, elimination of 

salt water intrusion into the former lagoon, and naturally reproducing populations of introduced 

predatory fishes. Freshwater Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Stone Lagoon - Total size encompasses approximately 270 to 300 hectares (675 to 750 acres). 

Dry Lagoon State Park controls about 60 percent of the area, with about 40 percent in private 

ownership. Tidewater gobies have always been present during past surveys, and were most 

recently collected in 1997 (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1997) and in 2003 by G. Goldsmith 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threats include past history of planting coastal cutthroat trout, 

the possibility of a catastrophic chemical spill from adjacent State Route 101, and the potential 

future alteration of breaching regime. Stone Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Big Lagoon - This locality is a large coastal lagoon, measuring 700 to 800 hectares (1750 to 

2000 acres). Big Lagoon County Park controls about 5 percent, Big Lagoon Rancheria about 5 

percent, Dry Lagoon State Park about 30 percent; the remaining is private or corporate 

ownership. Tidewater gobies were detected during surveys in 2004 by G. Goldsmith. Threats 

include native salmonids, and potential threats include nonnative predatory fish and amphibians. 

Big Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. 

Sub-Unit NC3 (Humboldt County) 

Northern Arcata Bay (Humboldt Bay) - This locality encompasses approximately 200 to 400 

hectares (500 to 1000 acres), included in several small lagoons and estuaries of coastal streams. 

About 20 percent owned by the City of Eureka, 30 percent by the City of Arcata, and 50 percent 

private. A tidewater goby observation was recorded in 1982 for Arcata Marsh/Klopp Lake 

(Humboldt State University Fisheries Museum). No tidewater gobies were found in surveys of 

Arcata Marsh, Mad River Slough, and Freshwater Slough in Humboldt Bay in 1996, but they 

were found in Jacoby Creek, a tributary to Arcata Bay, (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1996), (G. 

Goldsmith, 2003). Tidewater gobies also have been found in Liscom Slough, a tributary to Mad 

River Slough, collected October 1999 by C. Swift (Feb. 2000 recovery permit report), report of 

collection from Liscom Slough by C. Swift, 2001. Tidewater gobies were not found in Liscom 

Slough during a survey by G. Goldsmith (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in 2003. Surveys 

conducted by G. Goldsmith in ditches tributary to Eureka Slough, 2001, and in Butchers Slough 

(lower Jolly Giant Creek), 2002 found no tidewater gobies in those small sites. Threats at 

numerous sites with suitable habitat in Humboldt Bay include operation of tide gates to control 
89

water flow, grazing, oil spill contamination, contamination from adjacent paper and lumber mill 

sites, highway construction and maintenance, alteration of stream flood flows, and possibly 

sedimentation. Humboldt Bay is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State Water 

Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in 

parentheses) include PCBs (source unknown). 

Eel River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 22 hectares (55 

acres). This location is owned by the California Department of Fish and Game, as part of the Eel 

River Wildlife Area. The Eel River delta is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State 

Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources 

(in parentheses) include sedimentation/siltation (range grazing, silviculture, nonpoint source) and 

temperature (removal of riparian vegetation, nonpoint source). 

Sub-Unit NC4 (Mendocino County) 

Ten Mile River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 30 to 50 

hectares (75 to 100 acres). This locality is all privately owned, except for highway right-of-way 

and small portion of State parks. Tidewater gobies were collected in 1997 (C. Chamberlain, 

pers. comm. 1997), October 1999 by C. Swift (February 2000 recovery permit report), and in 

2003 (G. Goldsmith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threats include highway construction and 

maintenance, dry season artificial breaching, and potential chemical contamination from 

highway accidental spills. Ten Mile River is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State 

Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources 

(in parentheses) include sedimentation/siltation (silviculture, road construction and maintenance) 

and temperature (habitat modification, removal of riparian vegetation, nonpoint source). 

Sub-Unit NC5 (Mendocino County) 

Virgin Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.5 to 0.7 

hectare (1.2 to 1.7 acres). The coastal one-third portion of this locality lies within McKerricher 

State Beach. There are several small residential property owners directly above State land 

adjacent to the creek. Tidewater gobies collected there in 1996 by California Department of Fish 

and Game, in October 1999 by C. Swift (pers. comm. and recovery permit report), and in 2003 

by G. Goldsmith. Threats include highway construction and maintenance, sewage 

contamination, residential development. Virgin Creek is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pudding Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 5 to 6 

hectares (12.5 to 15 acres). About 45 percent of this locality occurs in McKerricher State Beach, 

45 percent is managed by the City of Fort Bragg, and 10 percent is privately owned. Tidewater 

gobies were collected in 1997 (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1997), Jan. 1998 by C. Page, and in 

2003 by G. Goldsmith. Threats include water diversion directly upstream of the State Route 1 

bridge, highway construction and maintenance, development, and recreational use. Pudding 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 
90

Sub-Unit NC6 (Mendocino County) 

Davis Pond/Lake Davis - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.0 

to 3.1 hectares (2.6 to 7.7 acres). This locality occurs approximately 1.0 miles north of Brush 

Creek, on the edge of Manchester State Park. Davis Pond is located approximately 250 feet 

south of Lake Davis, which is the terminus for an unnamed creek. Davis Pond is likely 

contiguous with Lake Davis during periods of high water levels. Tidewater gobies were found in 

Davis Pond in a July, 1996 survey (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1997), and in 2003 by G. 

Goldsmith. Davis Pond is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. Threats include exotic species; more research is needed at this locality 

to determine other potential threats. 

Brush Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). Approximately 75 percent of this locality occurs in Manchester State 

Beach and about 25 percent is privately owned. Tidewater gobies were last collected in 1990. 

No tidewater gobies were found in a July 1996 survey. Threats include highway construction 

and maintenance, and development. Brush Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Lagoon Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 20.5 hectares 

(50.6 acres). This locality occurs on privately owned land adjacent to Manchester Beach State 

Park, and is the terminus of Lagoon Creek, called Hunter’s Lagoon. No tidewater gobies were 

found during sampling in 2003 by G. Goldsmith. Lagoon Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

GREATER BAY AREA UNIT 

Sub-Unit GB1 (Sonoma County) 

Marshall Gulch - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectares (0.5 to 1.2 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is 

a potential introduction site. Exotic fish species are a threat to the tidewater goby at this 

location. Marshall Gulch is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Salmon Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 9 to 12 

hectares (22.5 to 36 acres). Approximately 75 percent of this locality is owned by Sonoma 

Beach State Park, and the rest is privately owned. Habitat degradation resulting from sandbar 

breaching, water diversions, and groundwater pumping is a threat to the tidewater goby at this 

location. Tidewater gobies were collected here in October of 1999 (C. Swift February 2000 

permit report). Salmon Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board.
91

Sub-Unit GB2 (Sonoma and Marin Counties) 

Johnson Gulch - (Sonoma County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.2 to 0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records 

for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Johnson Gulch is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cheney Gulch - (Sonoma County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 2 to 5 hectares (5 to 10 acres). Approximately 90 percent of this locality occurs in 

Doran County Park, and the rest is privately owned. Tidewater gobies were collected here in 

1948, but were not found in 1996 (C. Chamberlain pers. comm. 1999). Cheney Gulch is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Estero Americano - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 300 to 400 hectares (750 to 1000 acres). All of the adjacent lands are privately 

owned. Tidewater gobies were collected here in October of 1999 (C. Swift February 2000 

permit report). The State Water Resources Control Board considers Estero Americano to be 

“Water Quality Limited” due to excess nutrients and sedimentation/siltation. The excess 

nutrients are due to by pasture grazing and riparian and upland manure ponds. The 

sedimentation/siltation is due to riparian and upland grazing, hydromodification, removal of 

riparian vegetation, streambank modification and destabilization, erosion and siltation, and 

nonpoint source runoff. The tidewater goby is also threatened by exotic fish species at this 

location. 

Estero de San Antonio - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 200 to 300 hectares (500 to 750 acres). All of the adjacent lands are privately 

owned. Tidewater gobies were collected here in 1997 (C. Chamberlain, pers. comm. 1997). The 

State Water Resources Control Board considers Estero de San Antonio to be “Water Quality 

Limited” due to excess nutrients and sedimentation. The excess nutrients are due to agriculture, 

irrigated crop production, riparian and upland pasture grazing, riparian range grazing, intensive 

animal feeding operations, concentrated animal feeding operations, agricultural runoff, land 

development, hydromodification, channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, streambank 

modification/destabilization, drainage and filling of wetlands, channel erosion, and natural 

sources. The sedimentation is due to agriculture, grazing, land development, erosion and 

siltation, and nonpoint sources. The tidewater goby is also threatened at this location by exotic 

fish species, habitat degradation due to sandbar breaching, water diversions, and groundwater 

pumping. 

Walker Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 10 to 20 

hectares (25 to 50 acres). All of the adjacent lands are privately owned. Tidewater gobies were 

collected here in 1897 (USNM 67297), but were not found in 1996 or 1999 (C. Chamberlain, 

pers. comm. 1999; C. Swift Feb. 2000 recovery permit report). The State Water Resources 

Control Board considers Walker Creek to be “Water Quality Limited” due to mercury from 

surface mining and mine tailings, and nutrients and sedimentation/siltation from agriculture. The 

TMDL ranges from 2,002 to 2,007. 
92

Sub-Unit GB3 (Marin County) 

Lagunitas (Papermill) Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

10 to 20 hectares (25 to 50 acres). All of the adjacent lands are privately owned. Tidewater 

gobies were collected here in 1953, but were not found in 1996 (C. Chamberlain pers. comm. 

1999). Tidewater gobies were found in lower Tomasini Creek, a tributary of the Lagunitas 

Creek delta, during surveys in 2003 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The State Water Resources 

Control Board considers Lagunitas Creek to be “Water Quality Limited” due to excess nutrients, 

pathogens, and sedimentation/siltation due to agriculture, urban runoff, and storm sewers. The 

TMDL ranges from 2,002 to 2,007. 

Millerton Gulch - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.0 to 3.0 

hectares (2.5 to 7.4 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is 

a potential introduction site. Millerton Gulch is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Fish Hatchery Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.0 to 

3.0 hectares (2.5 to 7.4 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, 

which is a potential introduction site. Fish Hatchery Creek is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB4 (Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties) 

Horseshoe Lagoon - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 8 to 10 hectares (20 to 25 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for 

this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Horseshoe Lagoon is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Estero de Limantour - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 40 to 121 hectares (100 to 300 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby 

records for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Estero de Limantour is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Bolinas Lagoon - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 240 hectares (593 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this 

locality, which is a potential introduction site. Bolinas Lagoon is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Rodeo Lagoon - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 15 to 20 hectares (37.5 to 50 acres) and is located entirely within the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area. Tidewater gobies were collected here in October of 1999 (C. Swift 

February 2000 recovery permit report). Threats to the tidewater goby at this location include 

reduction or modification of habitat, and exotic fish species. 

Corte Madera Creek - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 20 to 25 hectares (50 to 62.5 acres). Approximately 70 percent of the adjacent 
93

lands are in public and private ownership in the City of Larkspur, 20 percent are owned by the 

College of Marin, and ownership of 10 percent is unknown. Tidewater gobies were collected 

here in 1961. The State Water Resources Control Board considers Corte Madera Creek to be 

“Water Quality Limited” due to the pesticide Diazinon. High Diazinon levels can cause water 

column toxicity. Diazinon is applied by homeowners principally in the late spring and early 

summer, and enters Corte Madera Creek with urban runoff and through storm sewers. 

Mill Creek - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

0.2 to 0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, 

which is a potential introduction site. Mill Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Novato Creek - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 10 to 20 hectares (25 to 50 acres) and is located mostly in the City of Novato. 

Tidewater gobies were collected here in 1945. Recent survey data for tidewater gobies at this 

locality are not available. The State Water Resources Control Board considers Novato Creek to 

be “Water Quality Limited” due to the pesticide Diazinon. High Diazinon levels can cause water 

column toxicity. Diazinon is applied by homeowners principally in the late spring and early 

summer, and enters Novato Creek with urban runoff and through storm sewers. Tidewater 

gobies were collected here in 1945. 

Petaluma River - (Marin County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 30 to 40 hectares (75 to 100 acres) and is located mostly in the City of Petaluma. 

The only collection of tidewater gobies was by E. Samuels, before 1857, National Museum of 

Natural History (USNM) specimen 360. No tidewater gobies were found during recent surveys 

for a flood control project near Washington and Lynch Creeks (B. Cox, fishery biologist, pers. 

comm. 2004). Petaluma River is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Strawberry Creek - (Alameda County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 3 to 5 hectares (7.5 to 10 acres) and is located in the City of Berkeley. Tidewater 

gobies were collected here in 1950. Recent survey data for tidewater gobies at this locality are 

not available. Strawberry Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Lake Merrit - (Alameda County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 64.8 hectares (160 acres). This locality occurs within the City or Oakland. 

Recent survey data for tidewater gobies at this locality are not available. The State Water 

Resources Control Board considers Lake Merrit to be “Water Quality Limited” due to low 

dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, and trash from urban runoff and storm sewers. 

Cliff House (Sutro Baths) - (San Francisco County) The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre). This locality is Federally owned and 

managed by the National Park Service. No tidewater gobies were found during surveys here in 

2003 (M. McGowan, pers. comm. 2004). Sutro Baths is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 
94

Lake Merced - (San Francisco County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 200 to 300 hectares (500 to 750 acres) and is located within the City and County 

of San Francisco. Two golf courses occur adjacent to this locality. Tidewater gobies were 

collected here in 1895. No recent survey data are available, but M. McGowan (Associate 

Professor, California State University, San Francisco) is initiating a fish study at this locality (M. 

McGowan, pers. comm. 2004). The State Water Resources Control Board considers Lake 

Merced to be “Water Quality Limited” due to low dissolved oxygen and pH. 

Laguna Salada - (San Mateo County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 5.0 hectares (12.3 acres). This locality occurs adjacent to a golf course. There are 

no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Laguna 

Salada is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. 

San Pedro Creek - (San Mateo County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.2 to 0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records 

for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. San Pedro Creek is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB5 (San Mateo County)

San Gregorio Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 5 to 10 

hectares (12.5 to 25 acres). Approximately 25 percent of this locality occurs within San 

Gregorio State Beach. The remaining adjacent lands are privately owned. Tidewater gobies 

were abundant here in 1995 through 1997 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1998), August 1997 (J. Smith, 

APR for 1997, 1998), and October 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 1999). The State Water 

Resources Control Board considers San Gregorio Creek to be “Water Quality Limited” due to 

the high coliform levels and sedimentation/siltation from nonpoint sources. The tidewater goby 

is also threatened at this location by sandbar breaching, stream channelization, and recreational 

activity in or in the vicinity of the lagoon. 

Pompino Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Pompino State Beach. There are no 

historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Pompino 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pescadero-Butano Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses in excess of 30 

hectares (greater than 75 acres). Almost 100 percent of the habitat is located within the 

Pescadero State Beach and Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Tidewater gobies were collected 

here in 1996 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1998). The State Water Resources Control Board considers 

Pescadero Creek to be “Water Quality Limited” due to the sedimentation/siltation from nonpoint 

sources. The tidewater goby is also threatened at this location by sandbar breaching, 

encroaching development, and stream channelization. 
95

Bean Hollow Creek (Arroyo de Los Frijoles) - The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 1.5 to 2 hectares (3.75 to 5 acres). All of the adjacent lands are 

privately owned. Tidewater gobies were abundant here in 1996 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1998). 

Threats to the tidewater goby at this location include vehicular or railroad contamination, water 

diversions, groundwater pumping, changes to the salinity regime, and reduction or modification 

of habitat. Bean Hollow Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB6 (Santa Cruz County) 

Waddell Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 5.0 to 7.0 

hectares (10 to 17.5 acres). The north side of the lagoon is in Rancho del Oso State Park; the 

south side is privately owned. The original population was considered extirpated by Swift, et al. 

(1989), but tidewater gobies were re-introduced from 1991 through 1996 (from Scott Creek) by 

J. Smith (Associate Professor, San Jose State University). Tidewater gobies were present but in 

low numbers in 1996 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1996), and were absent during surveys from 1997 to 

2000 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Waddell Creek is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors include nutrients, potentially 

from municipal point sources.

Scott Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 4.0 hectares (10 

acres). Scott Creek bisects the Swanton Pacific Ranch, owned by California Polytechnic State 

University, San Luis Obispo. The creek dried to low levels in the early 1990's, but the fresh or 

brackish pond to the south has been considered a refuge during floods and drought. Tidewater 

gobies were not found during limited sampling in 1996, in either the lagoon or pond, and their 

status was described as uncertain (J. Smith, Biology Department, pers. comm. 1996). Tidewater 

gobies were present during surveys in 2003 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Scott Creek is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Laguna Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.0 to 1.5 

hectares (2.5 to 3.75 acres). Ownership at the estuary is private but committed to California 

Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks). State Parks owns the creek on the east side of 

Highway 1, upstream of the estuary. Limited farming occurs on adjacent land. Laguna Creek 

was dry during the 1988-92 droughts and the tidewater goby population here was considered 

extirpated. However, tidewater gobies were found here in 1996 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1996). 

Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2000 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Laguna 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB7 (Santa Cruz County) 

Baldwin Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.7 to 1.0 

hectare (1.75 to 2.5 acres). Wilder Ranch State Park owns the creek and estuary; limited cattle 

grazing still occurs upstream of the estuary. J. Smith collected tidewater gobies in two 

freshwater ponds upstream of the lagoon that connect with the creek (J. Smith, pers. comm. 

1996). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2004 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). 
96

Baldwin Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Lombardi Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 hectare 

(0.49 acre). State Parks (Wilder Ranch State Park) owns the creek and estuary; limited cattle 

grazing still occurs upstream of the estuary. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 

2002 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Lombardi Creek is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Old Dairy Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 hectare 

(1 acre). The creek mouth occurs within Wilder Ranch State Park. A small population was 

found here during surveys in 2003 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Old Dairy Creek is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Wilder Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.5 to 2.5 

hectares (3.7 to 6.2 acres). Wilder Ranch State Park owns the creek and estuary; limited cattle 

grazing still occurs upstream of the estuary. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 

2000 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Wilder Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Younger Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 6 to 8 

hectares (15 to 20 acres). Younger Lagoon Reserve was accepted as a reserve in the University 

of California Natural Reserve System in 1986. The lagoon is located adjacent to the Long 

Marine Lab, managed by the University of California, Santa Cruz. Tidewater gobies were 

present during surveys in 2004 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Younger Lagoon is not designated 

as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Moore Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.3 to 0.7 

hectare (0.75 to 1.7 acres). State Parks (Natural Bridges State Beach) owns the creek mouth. 

Portions of the creek drainage upstream include Moore Creek Preserve (246 acres), a City of 

Santa Cruz park, and University of California, Santa Cruz property. Antonelli=s pond, upstream 

of the lagoon, captures most of the runoff in drought years. The tidewater goby population at 

Moore Creek mouth was considered extirpated during the drought of the late 1980's. However, 

tidewater gobies were again collected in 1992 and 1996 by Dr. Jerry Smith (J. Smith, pers. 

comm. 1996). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2000 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 

2004). Moore Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB8 (Santa Cruz County)

San Lorenzo River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 26.7 

hectares (66 acres). The river flows through the City of Santa Cruz, and drains into Santa Cruz 

Harbor. City beaches are adjacent to the lagoon. C. Swift and G. Kittleson observed tidewater 

gobies at this locality for the first time on May 11, 2004, during seining for a fish relocation 

effort associated with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project (Riverbend Project)(G. Kittleson, 

pers. comm. 2004). The San Lorenzo River Lagoon is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 
97

State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors in the San Lorenzo River Lagoon 

include pathogens; potential sources of stressors include urban runoff/storm sewers, and natural 

sources. 

Corcoran Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 6 to 8 

hectares (15 to 20 acres). Twin Lakes State Beach comprises approximately 10 to 20 percent of 

land adjacent to the lagoon; the remaining adjacent land is owned by the community of Twin 

Lakes. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2000 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). 

Corcoran Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Moran Lake - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 2.5 hectares 

(5 to 6 acres). This locality occurs within a 9.2 acre regional park (Moran Lake Park). The 

adjacent “26th Avenue Beach” is owned by Santa Cruz County, and private homes are adjacent to 

the beach and park. Tidewater gobies were not present during surveys in 2000, but were present 

in 2001, and it is possible that gobies from Corcoran Lagoon recolonized Moran Lake (J. Smith, 

pers. comm. 2004). Moran Lake is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit GB9 (Santa Cruz County)

Soquel Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 3 hectares 

(5 to 7.5 acres). This locality occurs in the City of Capitola. Tidewater gobies were discovered 

here by J. Smith in late 1980’s and intermittently collected by J. Smith and Don Alley 

(consultant in Santa Cruz). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1992, and absent 

during surveys in 1994; tidewater gobies here may recolonize from Corcoran Lagoon (J. Smith, 

pers. comm. 2004). One individual tidewater goby was found during surveys in 1997, and no 

tidewater gobies were not found during subsequent surveys in 1998 through 2002 (Alley 2002). 

Soquel Creek is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: nutrients 

(septic disposal, nonpoint source); pathogens (urban runoff/storm sewers, natural sources 

nonpoint source); and sedimentation/siltation (construction/land development). 

Aptos Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 3 hectares 

(5 to 7.5 acres). This locality occurs within the City of Capitola. Tidewater gobies were present 

during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm.). Aptos Creek is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective 

potential sources (in parentheses) include pathogens (urban runoff/storm sewers), and 

sedimentation/siltation (disturbed sites through land development, and channel erosion).

Sub-Unit GB10 (Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties) 

Pajaro River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 50 to 60 

hectares (125 to 150 acres), plus 10 hectares (25 acres) more if Watsonville Slough is included. 

Approximately 5 percent of this locality occurs in Sunset State Beach; the rest is privately 

owned. The Pajaro River occurs at the boundary Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Tidewater 
98

gobies were assumed extirpated (Swift et al. 1989), but were rediscovered by J. Smith in 1991. 

The Pajaro River population was probably not extirpated, but was still present in the deeper 

portions of the lagoon and nearby Watsonville Slough where sampling is difficult (J. Smith, pers. 

comm. 1996). The Pajaro River is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State Water 

Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in 

parentheses) include nutrients (irrigated crop production, agricultural subsurface drainage, 

agricultural irrigation tailwater, agricultural return flows, urban runoff/storm sewers, wastewater, 

channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, nonpoint source) and sedimentation/siltation 

(agriculture, irrigated crop production, grazing, agricultural runoff, resource extraction, surface 

mining, hydromodification, channelization, habitat modification, removal of riparian vegetation, 

streambank modification/destabilization, channel erosion). 

Sub-Unit GB11 (Monterey County) 

Bennett Slough - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 10 to 20 

hectares (25 to 50 acres). Lands adjacent to this locality include the Moss Landing Wildlife 

Area, managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, and privately owned agricultural 

lands. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm., 2004). 

Bennett Slough is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. However, land use patterns adjacent to Bennett Slough are similar to those 

adjacent to nearby Moro Cojo Slough, which is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by State 

Water Resources Control Board. In Bennett Slough, pollutants and stressors and their respective 

potential sources could be similar to those described in Moro Cojo Slough, and include: low 

dissolved oxygen (source unknown); pesticides (agriculture, irrigated crop production, 

agricultural storm runoff, agriculture return flows, nonpoint source); and sedimentation/siltation 

(agriculture, irrigated crop production, agricultural storm runoff, nonpoint source). 

Salinas River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 100 hectares 

(250 acres). Approximately 20 percent of the adjacent land is owned and managed by the 

Salinas National Wildlife Refuge; the remaining adjacent lands are privately owned. Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 1951. Gobies were not present during surveys in 1991 and 

1992 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 2004). The Salinas River estuary is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective 

potential sources (in parentheses) include: fecal coliform (past sewage discharge); pesticides 

(agriculture, irrigated crop production, agricultural storm runoff, agricultural irrigation tailwater, 

agricultural return flows, nonpoint source); nutrients (agriculture); salinity/chlorides (agriculture, 

natural sources, nonpoint source); and sedimentation/siltation (agriculture, irrigated crop 

production, range grazing-riparian and/or upland, agricultural storm runoff, road construction, 

land development, channel erosion, nonpoint source).

CENTRAL COAST UNIT 

Sub-Unit CC1 (San Luis Obispo County) 

Arroyo de la Cruz - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.9 hectare 

(2.2 acres). This locality is privately owned. There are no historic tidewater goby records for 
99

this locality, which is a potential introduction site. Arroyo de la Cruz is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Arroyo del Oso - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 hectare 

(0.25 acre). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. Upstream activities 

include horse and cattle ranching. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1988. Arroyo del 

Oso is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo de Corral - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1 to 2 

hectares (2.5 to 5.0 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. Adjacent 

beaches will retain some type of public access as condition of a draft conservation easement and 

agreement with the American Land Conservancy. Upstream activities include horse and cattle 

ranching. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. Arroyo de Corral is not designated 

as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit CC2 (San Luis Obispo County) 

Oak Knoll Creek (Arroyo Laguna) - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 4 to 5 hectares (10 to 12.5 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst 

Corporation. Adjacent beaches will retain some type of public access as condition of a 

conservation easement. Upstream activities include horse and cattle ranching. Tidewater gobies 

were last collected in 1995. Oak Knoll Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo de Tortuga - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.3 

hectare (0.5 to 0.7 acre). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 1991. Arroyo de Tortuga is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo del Puerto - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.5 to 1.0 

hectare (1.2 to 2.5 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation, and flows 

through the village of Old San Simeon. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. 

Arroyo del Puerto is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Broken Bridge Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 

0.2 hectare (0.25 to 0.5 acre). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. Broken Bridge Creek is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Little Pico Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. Adjacent 

beaches will retain some type of public access as condition of a conservation easement. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. Little Pico Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 
100

Pico Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1 to 1.5 hectares 

(2.5 to 3.7 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hearst Corporation. Tidewater gobies 

were last collected here in 1995. Pico Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. Development along this creek would be restricted, 

according to a draft conservation agreement with the American Land Conservancy. 

San Simeon Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 3 

hectares (5 to 7.5 acres). The creek mouth occurs within San Simeon State Park, and the Park 

borders approximately 1.5 miles of the creek upstream of the estuary. Tidewater gobies were 

last collected here in 2002 (Alley 2003). Tidewater gobies have been detected throughout the 

dry season, and the lagoon does not go dry during the summer (Alley 2003). San Simeon Creek 

is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Leffingwell Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 hectare 

(0.25 acre) or less. The creek mouth occurs within San Simeon State Park. Upstream of the 

creek mouth, lands adjacent to the creek are privately owned. Tidewater gobies were last 

collected here in 1981. Leffingwell Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. 

Santa Rosa Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 3 

hectares (5 to 7.5 acres). The creek mouth occurs within San Simeon State Park, and within the 

Santa Rosa Creek Preserve, an area of approximately 40 acres that also includes riparian forests 

and coastal wetlands. Tidewater gobies could not be found here in the early 1990’s, but were 

collected again in 1995, and 1998 through 2003 (Alley 2003). Poor rainfall seasons may result 

in the lower Santa Rosa Lagoon going completely dry. Additionally, tidewater goby populations 

may have been eliminated from this locality in the past, and re-colonized from San Simeon 

Creek (Alley 2003). D. Alley recommends re-establishment of riparian trees along the south side 

of Santa Rosa Creek to shade the Shamel Park pool. Santa Rosa Creek is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit CC3 (San Luis Obispo County) 

Villa Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 4 to 5 hectares 

(10 to 12.5 acres). Most of the land adjacent to the creek is privately owned. The Cayucos Land 

Conservancy has been granted a perpetual conservation easement over the Estero Bluffs, 

adjacent to and south of Villa Creek, and which stretch nearly four miles south to Cayucos 

Creek. Estero Bluffs is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. Villa Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

San Geronimo Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 

0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Estero Bluffs, a conservation 

easement that is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Upstream of 

the creek mouth, lands adjacent to the creek are privately owned. The locality was discovered by 

Dan Holland in the late l980’s. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1991. San 
101

Geronimo Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Cayucos Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 to 1.5 

hectares (2 to 1.2 acres). Most of the creek mouth occurs within Cayucos State Beach. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. Cayucos Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Little Cayucos Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 

0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). Most of the creek mouth occurs within Cayucos State Beach. This 

locality was discovered by Dan Holland in the late 1980’s. Tidewater gobies were last collected 

here in 1991. Little Cayucos Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Old Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 4 hectares (5 

to 10 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Morro Strand State Beach. Upstream of the creek 

mouth, land adjacent to the creek is privately owned. This population of tidewater gobies was 

extirpated by largemouth bass in late 1980's (Dan Holland, Department of Biology, 

Southwestern Louisiana University, Monroe, pers. comm. 1992). Old Creek is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Willow Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectares (0.5 to 1.2 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Morro Strand State Beach. Upstream 

of the creek mouth, land adjacent to the creek is privately owned. This locality was discovered 

by Dan Holland in the late 1980’s, and tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1991. 

Willow Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Toro Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 0.2 hectare 

(0.25 to 0.5 acre). The creek mouth occurs within Morro Strand State Beach. Tidewater gobies 

were discovered here in 1995 by Ramona Swenson. Toro Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Morro Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 to 1.5 

hectares (2 to 3.75 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Atascadero State Beach. Public and 

private owned in the City of Morro Bay. Record discovered after Swift et al. (1989). Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 1916 (Field Museum of Natural History, FMNH 9121). Morro 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Chorro Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 100 hectares 

(250 acres). This locality occurs in Morro Bay State Park and Morro Estuary Natural Preserve. 

Tidewater gobies have not been seen here since 1981 and may be extirpated. Chorro Creek was 

last surveyed in 1990-1991, and no tidewater gobies were found. Chorro Creek is designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors 

and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: fecal coliform (source unknown); 

nutrients (municipal point sources, agriculture, irrigated crop production, agriculture-storm 
102

runoff); and sedimentation/siltation (agriculture, irrigated crop production, grazing, 

construction/land development, road construction, resource extraction, hydromodification, 

channelization, streambank modification/destabilization, channel erosion, erosion/siltation, 

natural sources, golf course activities, nonpoint source). 

Los Osos Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 100 hectares 

(250 acres). This locality occurs in the Morro Estuary Natural Preserve. Tidewater gobies have 

not been seen here since 1981 and may be extirpated. Los Osos Creek is designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: fecal coliform (source unknown); low 

dissolved oxygen (agriculture, grazing, urban runoff/storm sewers, natural sources); nutrients 

(same as in above account for Chorro Creek); and sedimentation/siltation (same as in above 

account for Chorro Creek).

CONCEPTION UNIT 

Sub-Unit CO1 (San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties) 

San Luis Obispo Creek - (San Luis Obispo County) The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 20 hectares (50 acres). Ownership at this locality includes the City 

of Avila Beach and private landowners. No tidewater gobies were collected from 1916 until 

1989 to 1990, when T. Pafford found them abundant. Specimens occur in the Natural History 

Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM 44824-1). These were missed by many collectors that 

surveyed this area in the intervening years. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 

1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). San Luis Obispo Creek is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include nutrients (municipal point sources, 

agriculture, irrigated crop production, agricultural storm runoff) and pathogens (source 

unknown).

Pismo (Price) Creek - (San Luis Obispo County) The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 3 to 5 hectares (7.5 to 10 acres). Approximately 25 percent of this 

locality occurs in Pismo State Beach; the remainder is privately owned and owned by the City of 

Pismo Beach. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 

2004). Pismo Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Arroyo Grande - (San Luis Obispo County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 3 to 5 hectares (7.5 to 10 acres). Threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus 

aculeatus) were observed in the portion of the creek within the city limits of Arroyo Grande (J. 

Shuler, California Department of Fish and Game, pers. obs. 1972). J. Shuler described Arroyo 

Grande as “slowly deteriorating as a steelhead stream.” The water entering Arroyo Grande 

Creek comes from Lopez Lake (artificial), northeast of the town of Arroyo Grande. Arroyo 

Grande Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 
103

Oso Flaco Lagoon - (San Luis Obispo County) The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 3 to 5 hectares (7.5 to 10 acres). This locality occurs within the 

Guadalupe-Nipomo National Wildlife Refuge. Oso Flaco Lagoon is designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include fecal coliform (source unknown) and 

nitrates (source unknown). 

Santa Maria River - (Santa Barbara County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 30 to 50 hectares (75 to 100 acres). This locality occurs within the GuadalupeNipomo National Wildlife Refuge. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. 

Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Santa Maria River is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential 

sources (in parentheses) include: fecal coliform (agriculture, pasture grazing [riparian and/or 

upland], urban runoff/storm sewers, natural sources), and nitrates (agriculture, pasture grazing 

[riparian and/or upland], urban runoff/storm sewers). 

Sub-Unit CO2 (Santa Barbara County)

Shuman Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.6 to 1.0 

hectare (1.5 to 2.5 acres). This locality is owned by Vandenberg Air Force Base. Tidewater 

gobies were present during surveys in 2001 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Shuman Creek is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. There are 

concerns by the U.S. Geological Survey about water-quality for the Shuman Creek basin, due to 

the potential effects of discharges from a private chemical landfill adjoining the Base's northern 

border. 

San Antonio Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2.0 to 3.0 

hectares (4.9 to 7.4 acres). This locality is owned by Vandenberg Air Force Base. Tidewater 

gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). San Antonio Creek is 

not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Santa Ynez River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 300 

hectares (750 acres). The mouth of the river occurs on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Tidewater 

gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Santa Ynez River 

is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: nutrients 

(nonpoint source); salinity/chlorides (agriculture); and sedimentation/siltation (agriculture, urban 

runoff/storm sewers, resource extraction).

Cañada Honda - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 0.2 

hectare (0.2 to 0.5 acre). Cañada Honda is owned and managed by Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

C. Swift observed this site as just a trickle during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s with no 

tidewater gobies present; the creek’s current size is larger. Tidewater gobies were present during 

surveys in 2001 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Cañada Honda Creek is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 
104

Sub-Unit CO3 (Santa Barbara County) 

Jalama Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 to l.2 

hectares (0.8 to 3.0 acres). Approximately 80 to 90 percent of Jalama Creek is owned by 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, and approximately 10 to 20 percent is privately owned. Adjacent 

Jalama Beach is leased or its use permitted to Santa Barbara County Parks. Tidewater gobies 

were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at Jalama 

Beach is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include fecal 

coliform (agriculture, pasture grazing (riparian and/or upland), natural sources, nonpoint source).

Cañada del Cojo - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 

to 0.7 hectare (0.5 to 1.75 acres). This locality is owned by the Bixby Ranch Company. No 

recent information on this locality and possible I category. Tidewater gobies were last collected 

here in 1987 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 1996). The creek at Cañada del Cojo is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cañada del Pescado/San Augustine - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.2 to 0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.0 acre). Hollister Ranch. Tidewater gobies 

were last collected here in 1981. Two intermittent creeks at Arroyo San Augustine and Cañada 

del Pescado join upstream to form this locality. Neither of these creeks is designated as “Water 

Quality Limited by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cañada de las Agujas - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 

0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.0 acre). This locality is privately owned by the Hollister Ranch. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1989. No tidewater gobies were found 

during sampling in 1998 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Cañada de las Agujas Creek 

is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo El Bulito - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.5 to 1.0 

hectare (1.2 to 2.5 acres). This locality is privately owned by the Hollister Ranch. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1995. No tidewater gobies were found 

during sampling in 1998 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Arroyo El Bulito is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cañada del Agua - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectare (0.5 to 1.0 acres). This locality is owned by the Hollister Ranch. Tidewater gobies were 

last collected here in 1981. Two intermittent creeks at Cañada de las Panoches and Cañada del 

Agua join upstream to form this locality. Neither of these creeks is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cañada de Santa Anita - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 

3 hectares (5 to 7.5 acres). This locality is owned by the Hollister Ranch. Tidewater gobies 

were last collected here in 1998 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Cañada de Santa Anita Creek 

is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 
105

Cañada de Alegria - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.5 

hectare (0.5 to 1.0 acre). This locality is owned by the Hollister Ranch. Tidewater gobies were 

last collected here in 1998 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Cañada de Alegria Creek is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cañada de Agua Caliente - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

0.2 to 0.5 hectare (0.5 to 1.2 acres). This locality is owned by the Hollister Ranch. Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 1998 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Cañada de Agua 

Caliente is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. 

Gaviota Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 5 to 8 hectares 

(12.5 to 20 acres). This locality is owned and managed by Gaviota Creek State Park. Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at 

Gaviota Beach (mouth of Cañada de la Gaviota Creek) is designated as “Water Quality Limited” 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective 

potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform (source unknown). 

Arroyo Hondo - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 0.3 

hectare (0.2 to 0.7 acre). This locality is privately owned. No tidewater gobies were found 

during sampling in 1995 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Tidewater gobies were present during 

surveys in 2003 (C. Swift, pers. comm., 2004). Arroyo Hondo is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo Quemado - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.4 

hectare (0.5 to 1.0 acre). Arroyo Quemado Creek flows through County-owned agricultural 

(orchards) land. The lower portion of the watershed is developed with private residences of the 

beachside Arroyo Quemada community. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1986. No 

tidewater gobies were found during sampling in 1989 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Arroyo 

Quemado is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. A study conducted by the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department (Bacteria 

Source Study for the Lower Arroyo Quemado Creek Watershed) in the spring of 2001 showed 

elevated levels of bacteria in the lagoon, from the following sources: avian (49 percent), wildlife 

(18 percent), human/pet (16 percent), and agriculture (17percent). 

Refugio Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.3 to 0.6 

hectare (0.7 to 1.5 acres). This locality occurs at and is managed by Refugio Creek State Beach. 

Tidewater gobies discovered here by Rosemary Thompson and Tom Taylor in late 1980's. 

Specimens occur in the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Tidewater gobies were 

present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at Refugio 

Beach is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform 

(source unknown). 

Eagle Canyon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.6 

hectare (0.5 to 1.5 acres). Land adjacent to this locality is privately owned. Information on 
106

presence/absence of tidewater gobies at this location is not known. Eagle Canyon Creek is not 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Tecolote Canyon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.6 

hectare (0.5 to 1.5 acres). Land adjacent to this locality is privately owned. Tidewater gobies 

were last collected here in 1995. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. 

Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Tecolote Canyon Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Winchester (Ellwood/Bell) Canyon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.2 to 0.6 hectare (0.5 to 1.5 acres). This locality is located immediately west of 

the community of El Encanto Heights, and lands adjacent to this locality are privately owned. 

Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Winchester 

and Ellwood Canyons merge to form Bell Canyon, less than a mile upstream of this locality. 

The creeks flowing from these canyons are not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. 

Devereux Slough - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 13 to 15 

hectares (32.5 to 37.7 acres). Adjacent land is privately owned by the Devereux Ranch School. 

Oil tanks and a golf course occur on land adjacent to this locality. Tidewater gobies were last 

collected here in 1968. No tidewater gobies were found during sampling in 1993 (K. Lafferty, 

pers. comm. 2004). Devereux Slough is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Campus Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 13 to 15 

hectares (32.5 to 37.7 acres). This locality occurs on the campus of the University of California, 

Santa Barbara. No tidewater gobies were found during sampling in 1993 (K. Lafferty, pers. 

comm. 2004). Campus Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Goleta Slough - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 5 hectares 

(5 to 12.5 acres). No tidewater gobies were found during sampling in 1993 (K. Lafferty, pers. 

comm. 2004). Goleta Slough is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in 

parentheses) include: metals (industrial point sources); pathogens (urban runoff/storm sewers); 

priority organics (nonpoint source); and sedimentation/siltation (construction/land development). 

Arroyo Burro - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 1.0 to 3.0 

hectares (2.5 to 7.4 acres). Ownership at or near this locality includes the City of Santa Barbara, 

as well as public and private. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2004 (C. Swift, 

pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at Arroyo Burro Beach is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform (source unknown). 

Mission Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.2 to 0.6 

hectare (0.5 to 1.5 acres). The City of Santa Barbara owns this locality. This site discovered and 
107

collected by Ambrose and Lafferty (1993). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 

2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Mission Creek is 

designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants 

and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include fecal coliform 

(agriculture, urban runoff/storm sewers, natural sources, nonpoint source, unknown nonpoint 

source).

Laguna Channel - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 0.4 

hectare (0.2 to 1.0 acre). Ownership at or near this locality includes the City of Santa Barbara, as 

well as public and private. This locality was discovered and collected by Ambrose and Lafferty 

(1993). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). 

Laguna Channel is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Sycamore Creek - Sycamore Creek. The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.1 to 0.4 hectare (0.2 to 1.0 acre). Ownership at or near this locality includes the 

City of Santa Barbara, as well as public and private. Tidewater gobies were present during 

surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Sycamore 

Creek is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform 

(source unknown). 

Andree Clark Bird Refuge - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

0.1 to 0.4 hectare (0.2 to 1.0 acre). Ownership at or near this locality includes the City of Santa 

Barbara, as well as public and private. This locality was discovered and collected by Ambrose 

and Lafferty (1993). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. 

comm. 2004). Andree Clark Bird Refuge is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo Paredon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 0.4 

hectare (0.2 to 1.0 acre). The mouth of Arroyo Paredon occurs in Serena Park, a local park. 

Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Arroyo 

Paredon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. 

Carpinteria Salt Marsh - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2.0 

to 5.0 hectares (4.9 to 12.3 acres). Ownership of this locality includes the City of Carpinteria, as 

well as public and private. Tidewater gobies not found in 1995 or 2003 surveys (K. Lafferty, 

pers. comm. 2004). Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1923. Carpinteria Salt Marsh 

(El Estero) is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: 

nutrients (agriculture); organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (agriculture); priority organics 

(urban runoff/storm sewers); and sedimentation/siltation (agriculture construction/land 

development, storm sewers). 
108

Carpinteria Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 to 1.0 

hectare (1.0 to 2.5 acres). Ownership at this locality includes Carpinteria State Beach and 

private. Tidewater gobies were not recorded at this site 1940-1993 (Swift et al. 1989; Ambrose 

et al. 1993). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 1999 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 

2004). The Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Carpinteria Creek is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform (source unknown). 

Rincon Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 to 1.0 

hectare (1.0 to 2.5 acres). No tidewater gobies were found during sampling in 1993 (K. Lafferty, 

pers. comm. 2004). Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. 

comm. 2004). The Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Rincon Creek is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include coliform (source unknown). 

LOS ANGELES/VENTURA UNIT 

Sub-Unit LV1 (Ventura and Los Angeles Counties) 

Ventura River - (Ventura County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 2 to 10 hectares (2 to 25 acres). The mouth of the Ventura River occurs at a 

public beach, owned by the City of Ventura. Upstream of the estuary, much of the land adjacent 

to the river is privately owned. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1998 (K. Lafferty, 

pers. comm. 2004). The Ventura River estuary is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential 

sources (in parentheses) include: algae (nonpoint/point source), eutrophism (nonpoint/point 

source), fecal coliform (nonpoint source), and trash (nonpoint/point source). 

Santa Clara River - (Ventura County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 30 to 50 hectares (75 to 125 acres). McGrath State Beach owns approximately 10 

to 20 percent of this locality; the rest privately owned, or owned by the City or County of 

Ventura. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2004 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). 

The Santa Clara River estuary is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in 

parentheses) include: “chemA” (source unknown), coliform (nonpoint source), and toxophene 

(nonpoint source). 

J Street Drain/Ormond - (Ventura County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.3 to 1.0 hectare (0.7 to 2.5 acres). Ownership at this locality includes the City 

of Oxnard, as well as public and private. Tidewater gobies were first collected here by Ambrose 

and Lafferty in 1993 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Tidewater gobies were present during 

surveys in 2004 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The J Street Drain is not designated as “Water 

Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Calleguas Creek/Mugu Lagoon - (Ventura County) The available tidewater goby habitat 

encompasses approximately 50 hectares (150 acres). This locality is owned by the Naval Base 
109

Ventura County (formerly Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station). Tidewater gobies were not 

found during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Calleguas Creek (Reach 1, formerly 

Mugu Lagoon) is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control 

Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include: 

chlordane (nonpoint source); copper (nonpoint source); DDT (nonpoint/point source); 

endosulfan (nonpoint/point source); mercury (nonpoint/point source); nickel (nonpoint/point 

source), nitrogen (nonpoint/point source); PCBs (nonpoint/point source); sediment toxicity 

(nonpoint/point source); sedimentation/siltation (agriculture, natural sources); and zinc 

(nonpoint/point source). 

Sycamore Canyon - (Ventura County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.9 hectare (2.2 acres). This locality occurs within Point Mugu State Park. There 

are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. 

Sycamore Canyon Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Arroyo Sequit (Leo Carillo State Beach) - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby 

habitat encompasses approximately 0.9 hectare (2.2 acres). This locality occurs within Leo 

Carillo State Park. There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a 

potential introduction site. Arroyo Sequit is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the 

State Water Resources Control Board. 

Zuma Canyon - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 2.4 hectares (6 acres). This locality occurs within Zuma Beach County Park. 

There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential introduction 

site. Zuma Beach is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) 

include DDT (nonpoint source) and PCBs (nonpoint source). 

Malibu Creek - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 6 to 10 hectares (15 to 25 acres). Ownership at the creek mouth includes Malibu 

Creek State Park, and also private (less than 10 percent). Tidewater gobies were extirpated in 

the early 1960’s but re-introduced in 1991. Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 

2003 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Malibu Creek is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential 

sources (in parentheses) include: coliform (nonpoint/point source), algae (nonpoint/point 

source), scum/foam (nonpoint/point source), sedimentation/siltation (source unknown), and trash 

(nonpoint source). 

Topanga Creek - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.8 hectare (2 acres). The creek mouth occurs within Topanga State Beach. 

Tidewater gobies were present during surveys in 2002 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). Topanga 

Creek is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include lead 

(nonpoint source). 
110

Santa Monica Artesian Springs - (Los Angeles County) The amount of available tidewater 

habitat is unknown. Ownership at the springs is not known. Santa Monica Artesian Springs is 

not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Ballona Creek - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.8 to 2.0 hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). Ownership at this locality includes 

Dockweiler Beach State Park, and the cities of Venice and Los Angeles. No tidewater gobies 

were found during sampling in 2001 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). There are no historic 

tidewater goby records for this locality, which is a potential introduction site. The Ballona Creek 

estuary is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (nonpoint/point source) include 

chlordane, DDT, coliform, lead, PAHs, PCBs, and zinc. 

SOUTHERN COAST UNIT 

Sub-Unit SC1 (Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties) 

San Pedro Harbor - (Los Angeles County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.8 to 2.0 hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). Ownership at this locality includes the cities 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach. San Pedro Bay is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential 

sources (nonpoint/point source) include chromium, copper, DDT, PAHs, PCBs, and zinc. 

Bolsa Chica - (Orange County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 0.8 to 2.0 hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). The title to the Bolsa Chica wetlands is held 

by the California State Lands Commission. There are no historic tidewater goby records for this 

locality, which is a potential introduction site. Bolsa Chica is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Aliso Creek - (Orange County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

0.5 to 1.0 hectare (1.25 to 2.5 acres). Ownership at this locality includes: Laguna Beach 

Country Club (25 percent), Aliso Beach County Park (25 percent), City of South Laguna, public 

and private (50 percent), and Aliso Creek Golf Course (5 percent). Tidewater gobies were last 

collected here in 1978. This site was dry in 1990. Tidewater gobies were not found in 1994 

surveys (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Aliso Creek is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

San Juan Creek - (Orange County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 4 to 10 hectares (10 to 25 acres). Ownership includes Doheny State Beach 

(approximately 30 percent); the remainder includes the City of Dana Point, and public and 

private. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1968. No tidewater gobies were found 

during sampling in 1994 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). San Juan Creek is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

San Mateo Creek - (San Diego County) The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses 

approximately 4 to 6 hectares (10 to 15 acres). This locality occurs on Camp Pendleton Marine 
111

Corps Base. The population here was considered extirpated by Swift et al. (1989), but tidewater 

gobies were collected here in fall of 1993 (Swift et al. 1994). Subsequently, the tidewater gobies 

were extirpated during the 1998 El Niño storm events and the North County Transit emergency 

bridge protection activities (C. Swift pers. comm. 2004). Camm Swift and Merkel and 

Associates reintroduced tidewater gobies to San Mateo Creek in January of 2000. Tidewater 

gobies were found during surveys in 2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). San Mateo Creek is 

not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

San Onofre Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 2 to 4 

hectares (5 to 10 acres). This locality occurs on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. Tidewater 

gobies were extirpated here in spring of 1993 (Swift et al. 1994), but gobies were rediscovered in 

1996 by Dan Holland. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. 

comm. 2004). San Onofre Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Sub-Unit SC2 (San Diego County) 

Las Flores/Las Pulgas Creek - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 

1 to 3 hectares (2.5 to 7.5 acres). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. 

Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). Las Flores 

Creek is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Hidden Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.5 to 1.0 

hectare (1.25 to 2.5 acres). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, and was 

discovered by Slader Buck (Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base) and C. Swift in 1993 (Swift et 

al. 1994). Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). 

Hidden Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources 

Control Board. 

Aliso Canyon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.4 to 0.8 

hectare (1.0 to 2.0 acres). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, and was 

discovered by Dan Holland in 1996. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 2003 (K. 

Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). The creek at Aliso Canyon is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (in parentheses) include bacteria (nonpoint/point source). 

French Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 3 to 4 

hectares (7.5 to 10 acres). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, and was 

discovered by Dan Holland in 1996. No tidewater gobies were observed here during sampling in 

2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). French Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cockleburr Canyon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.1 to 

0.4 hectare (0.2 to 1.0 acre). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, and 

was discovered by Dan Holland in 1996. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 2003 (K. 
112

Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). The creek mouth at Cockleburr Canyon is not designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Santa Margarita River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 10 to 

70 hectares (25 to 175 acres). This locality occurs at Camp Pendleton (U.S. Marine Corps). 

Tidewater gobies were not found here during surveys in late 1993 (Swift et al. 1994). Tidewater 

gobies were last collected here in 2000 (C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). No tidewater gobies were 

observed during sampling in 2003 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 2004). The Santa Margarita 

Lagoon is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include 

eutrophism (nonpoint/point source). 

San Luis Rey River - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 6 to 10 

hectares (15 to 25 acres). Ownership includes the City of Oceanside, as well as public and 

private. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1958. No tidewater gobies were observed 

during sampling in 2003 (K. Lafferty and C. Swift, pers. comm. 2004). The San Luis Rey River 

mouth is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources (in parentheses) include bacteria 

indicators (nonpoint/point source). 

Buena Vista Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 40 to 

100 hectares (100 to 250 acres). Ownership includes the cities of Carlsbad (75 percent) and 

Oceanside (25 percent). Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1955 (K. Lafferty, pers. 

comm. 1996). Buena Vista Lagoon is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources 

(nonpoint/point source) include bacteria indicators, nutrients, and sedimentation/siltation. 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 35 

to 120 hectares (87.5 to 300 acres). Ownership includes the City of Carlsbad, as well as public 

and private. Tidewater gobies were last collected here in 1940 (K. Lafferty, pers. comm. 1996). 

Tidewater gobies not found during 1994 surveys. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is designated as 

“Water Quality Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors 

and their respective potential sources (nonpoint/point source) include bacteria indicators and 

sedimentation/siltation. 

Batiquitos Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 to 2.0 

hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is 

a potential introduction site. Batiquitos Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality Limited” by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. 

San Elijo Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 to 2.0 

hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, which is 

a potential introduction site. San Elijo is designated as “Water Quality Limited” by the State 

Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their respective potential sources 

(nonpoint/point source) include bacteria indicators, nutrients, and sedimentation/siltation. 
113

San Diegito Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 to 

2.0 hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, 

which is a potential introduction site. San Diegito Lagoon is not designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon - The available tidewater goby habitat encompasses approximately 0.8 

to 2.0 hectares (2.0 to 5.0 acres). There are no historic tidewater goby records for this locality, 

which is a potential introduction site. Los Peñasquitos Lagoon is designated as “Water Quality 

Limited” by the State Water Resources Control Board. Pollutants and stressors and their 

respective potential sources (nonpoint/point source) include sedimentation/siltation. 
114

Appendix D. Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat Description 

Map Unit 1: Orange County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle 

map Laguna Beach, California, and San Juan Capistrano, California. San Bernardino 

Principal Meridian, California, T. 7 S., R 8 W., beginning at a point on Aliso Creek in 

SW sec. 32 and at approximately 33 deg.30'46" N latitude and 117 deg.44'37" W 

longitude, UTM*

 coordinates 430853.4 E, 3708395.9 N, and proceeding downstream 

(westerly) to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile), 

including the stream, its 50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 2: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Mateo Creek in NW sec. 14 and 

at approximately 33 deg.23'46" N latitude and 117 deg.35'20" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 445152.5 E, 3695369.7 N, and proceeding downstream (southerly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.3 kilometer (0.9 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 3: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Onofre Creek in SE sec. 14 and 

at approximately 33 deg.23'05" N latitude and 117 deg.34'30" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 446450.2 E, 3694074.4 N, and proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.6 kilometer (0.4 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 4: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 10 S., R. 6 W., beginning at a point on Las Flores Creek in the middle of 

sec. 13 and at approximately 33 deg.17'32" N latitude and 117 deg.27'20" W longitude, 

UTM coordinates 457495.3 E, 3683780.1 N, and proceeding downstream (westerly) to 

the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile), including the stream, 

its 50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 5: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Hidden Creek in W sec. 30 and at 

approximately 33 deg.16'46" N latitude and 117 deg.26'48" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 458321.5 E, 3682362.9 N, and proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 6: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Aliso Creek in NE sec. 31 and at 
115

approximately 33 deg.16'13" N latitude and 117 deg.26'19" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 459521.7 E, 3680981.1 N, and proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.7 kilometer (0.4 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 7: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on French Creek in E sec. 31 and at 

approximately 33 deg.16'01" N latitude and 117 deg.26'01" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 459078.8 E, 3681354.4 N, and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.7 kilometer (0.4 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 8: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Cockleburr Creek in NE sec. 5 and 

at approximately 33 deg.15'16" N latitude and 117 deg.25'21" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 460570.4 E, and 3679563.4 N, and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile), including the stream, its 

50-year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 9: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map Oceanside, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, California, 

T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on the Santa Margarita River in NW sec. 2 and at 

approximately 33 deg.15'08" N latitude and 117 deg.22'38" W longitude, UTM 

coordinates 464774.9 E, 3679326.9 N, and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the 

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 5.0 kilometers (3.1 miles), including the river's 50-

year flood plain, associated lagoons and marsh. 

Map Unit 10: San Diego County, California. From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' 

quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian, 

California, T. 12 S., R. 4 W., beginning at a point on Agua Hedionda Creek in the middle 

of Section 9 and at approximately 33 deg.08'44" N latitude and 117 deg.18'19" W 

longitude, UTM coordinates 471444.4 E, 3667474.6 N, and proceeding downstream 

(southwesterly) to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles), 

including the creek, its 50-year flood plain, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and associated 

marsh. 
116

Appendix E. Tidewater Goby Threats Table

The following table lists known and possible threats affecting known and potential tidewater 

goby habitats. 

Table legend: 

Habitat Size

Large = Large water bodies are those meeting at least one of the following general physical 

parameters: streams with channel bankful widths in excess of 20 meters (66 feet) at any point 

and/or with estuarine (areas with salt water intrusion) habitats exceeding 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) 

in length; or lagoons and ponds larger than 2 hectares (5 acres) surface area.

Medium = Medium sized water bodies include smaller streams less than 20 meters bankful width 

and/or estuaries longer than 100 meters (328 feet) but less than 1 kilometer in length. Medium 

sized lagoons and ponds are those with a surface area less than 2 hectares, but larger than 0.4 

hectare (1 acre). 

Small = Small water bodies are the remaining streams, ditches, sloughs, lagoons, and ponds of 

lesser dimension than as described for the medium size range.

NA = Not applicable, water body is altered beyond the point of restoration. 

Population Density

Rare 

Variable 

Abundant 

- = no record 

Presence

Extirpated = population undetected for three or more consecutive years 

Regular = population detected annually 

Intermittent = population detected irregularly 

- = no record 

Source of Population

Historic = preserved population from the past 

Introduced = population relocated from a source location 

Recolonized = a naturally reestablished population 

- = no record 

Threats

● = Known threat 

* = Possible threat 

NT = Not a threat 
117

Non-Point Source Pollution

AG = Agricultural run-off or effluent 

MR = Municipal run-off 

OL = Oil contamination, oil fields in vicinity of habitat 

GC = Golf course run-off 

CO = Vehicular or railroad contamination 

RA = recreational activity in or in vicinity of lagoon 

Point Source Pollution

ST = Sewage treatment effluent 

OL = Oil contamination, oil fields in vicinity of habitat 

TW = Toxic waste 

Habitat Degradation

BR = Breaching 

DV = Development encroaching on habitat 

CH = Stream channelization 

GR = Cattle grazing 

WD = Water diversions/groundwater pumping 

SR = Salinity regime affected: dikes, levees, dams, etc. 

RH = Reduction or modification of habitat 

ER = Soil erosion in vicinity of habitat, sedimentation of habitat 

RA = Recreational activity in or in vicinity of lagoon 

CL = Complete loss of habitat 

Predators-Competitors

NP = Native Predators 

FI = Exotic fish species 

FR = Exotic frog species
Recovery Unit Sub-Unit

Site 

Code

Habitat Size Population Density Presence Source of population Approximate Distance from Nearest Extant Population (miles) Habitat Restoration Needed

AG MR OL 

a Small Variable Intermittent Historic 8 Some ● 

b Large Abundant Regular Historic 8 Some * 

c Medium - - - 10 Some

a Medium - Extirpated Historic 3 Much * 

b Large - Extirpated Historic 2 Much NT 

c Large Abundant Regular Historic 2 None 

d Large Abundant Regular Historic 2 None 

a Large - - - 20 Some

b Medium Rare Intermittent Historic 3 Some * 

c Medium Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Some 

d Small Variable Intermittent Historic 0.5 Some * 

e Small Rare Intermittent Historic 0.5 Some * 

f Medium - Intermittent Historic 6 Some * 

g Large Rare Regular Historic 20 Some

NC4 a Large Abundant Regular Historic 6 None 

a Medium Abundant Regular Historic 1 None * 

b Medium Abundant Regular Historic 1 Much 

a Medium - - - 1 Some

b Medium - - Historic 1 None 

c Medium - - Historic 1 None a Small - - - 2 Some 

b Medium Abundant Regular Historic 12 Some 

a Small - - - 9 Some

b Small - Extirpated Historic 9 Some NT 

c Large Variable Regular Historic 15 Some ● 

d Large Abundant Regular Historic 15 Some ● 

e Large - Extirpated Historic 8 Some NT a Lagunitas Creek Medium Rare Regular Historic 16 Much ● * 

b Small - - - 14 Some

c Small - - - 0.75 Somea Large - - - 30 Some

b Large - - - 29 Some

c Large - - - 10 Some

d Medium Abundant Regular Historic 43 Some * * 

e Medium - Extirpated Historic 15 Much NT 

f Medium - - - 10 Much 

g Medium - Extirpated Historic 30 Much NT 

h Large - Extirpated Historic 30 Much NT 

i Small - Extirpated Historic 14 Much 

j Large - Extirpated - 18 Much 

k NA - Extirpated Historic 5 Much 

l Large - Extirpated - 11 Much NT 

m Medium - - - 18 Some

n Small - - - 20 Some

a Medium Abundant Regular Historic 4 None 

b Medium - - - 2 Some

c Medium Variable Intermittent Historic 4 Much ● 

d Small Variable Intermittent Historic 4 Much 

a Medium - Extirpated Historic 5 Some ● 

b Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 6 Some ● 

c Small Abundant Regular Historic 3 Some ● NT a Small Abundant Regular Historic 0.7 Some ● 

b Small Rare Intermittent Historic 0.7 Some ●

c Small Rare Intermittent Historic 0.8 Some ●

GREATER BAY UNIT

GB7

Lake Earl-Lake TalawaEstero de San AntonioBrush CreekSalmon CreekMarshall Gulch2Lagoon CreekBig Lagoon

Location Status1

Pescadero-Butano Creek

GB2GB1NC3

Fish Hatchery Creek2Johnson Gulch2Cheney GulchEstero Americano Pompino Creek2

Lake MerritSan Pedro Creek2

San Gregorio CreekCliff HouseNovato CreekWalker CreekMillerton2Horseshoe Cove2Corte Madera Creek

NORTH COAST UNIT

Non-Point Sou

Virgin Creek Pudding Creek

 NC1

NC2NC5

Bean Hollow CreekWaddell CreekScott CreekLaguna CreekBaldwin CreekLombardi CreekOld Dairy CreekKlopp Lake (McDaniel)Ten Mile RiverFreshwater SloughMad River2Jacoby CreekKATA Station SiteEel RiverMad River Slough

Locality

Tillas Slough (Smith River)Elk Creek2Redwood Creek EstuaryFreshwater LagoonStone LagoonRodeo Lagoon

GB5GB6GB3

Mill Creek2Laguna Salada2Lake Merced

GB4

Petaluma CreekStrawberry CreekEstero de Limantour2Bolinas Lagoon2Davis Pond

NC6

118
Recovery Unit Sub-Unit

Site 

Code

Habitat Size Population Density Presence Source of population Approximate Distance from Nearest Extant Population (miles) Habitat Restoration Needed

AG MR OL 

Location Status1

Non-Point Sou

Locality

d Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.7 Some NT 

e Medium Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Some ● 

f Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Some NT ● 

a Large Rare Intermittent Recolonized 1 Some ● 

b Large Abundant Regular Historic 1 Some ● 

c Large Variable Regular Historic 1 Some NT ● a Large Variable Intermittent Recolonized 2 Much NT ● 

b Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 4 Much ● 

GB10 a Large - Extirpated Historic 5 Much ●● 

a Large Rare Intermittent Historic 14 Much ● 

b Large - Extirpated Historic 5 Much ●● 

a Small - - - 1.5 Some

b Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Some * 

c Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 5 Some a Small Abundant Regular Historic 2 Some 

b Small Rare Regular Historic 0.3 Some 

c Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.3 Some NT 

d Small Abundant Regular Historic 1 Some 

e Medium Abundant Regular Historic 2 Some 

f Medium Abundant Regular Historic 2 Some * 

g Small - Extirpated Historic 1 Much 

h Medium Variable Intermittent Historic 2 Some * 

a Medium Abundant Regular Historic 3 Some ● 

b Small Rare Regular Historic 2 Some 

c Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.2 Some * 

d Small - Intermittent Recolonized 0.2 Some NT 

e Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 1 Much 

f Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.6 Much ● 

g Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 2 Much NT 

h Small - Extirpated Historic 2 Much NT ● 

i Medium - Extirpated Historic 1 Some ● 

j Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 1 Some ● 

a Large Variable Intermittent Recolonized 6 Some ● 

b Small Abundant Regular Historic 6 Much ●● 

c Large Rare Regular Historic 11 Much ● a Small Abundant Regular Historic 3 None 

b Large Abundant Regular Historic 3 None ● 

c Large Abundant Regular Historic 6 Some 

d Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 6 Much 

a Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 8 Much ● 

b Medium Rare Intermittent Historic 3 Some ●

c Medium Rare Intermittent Historic 1 Some ● 

d Small Abundant Regular Historic 0.5 Much ●

e Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Much ●

f Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 0.5 Much ●

g Medium Abundant Regular Historic 0.5 Some ● 

h Small Abundant Regular Historic 1 Some ● 

i Small Abundant Regular Historic 1 Some ●

j Medium Variable Regular Historic 1 Some ● 

k Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 1 Much 

l Small Rare Intermittent Recolonized 1 Much U ● 

m Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 3 Much ● ● 

n Small Rare Intermittent Historic 0.7 Some o Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.3 Some p Small Abundant Regular Historic 0.3 Some ● ●

CONCEPTION UNIT CO3GREATER BAY UNIT

GB7

Arroyo del Oso

GB8

San Lorenzo RiverYounger Lagoon Moore CreekCorcoran LagoonMoran LakeSoquel CreekAptos CreekPajaro RiverBennett SloughSalinas RiverArroyo de la Cruz2Arroyo de TortugaBroken Bridge CreekLittle Pico CreekArroyo de CorralOak Knoll CreekPico CreekSan Simeon CreekLeffingwell CreekSanta Rosa CreekVilla CreekSan Geronimo CreekCayucos CreekLittle Cayucos CreekOld CreekWillow CreekToro CreekMorro CreekChorro CreekLos Osos CreekSan Luis Obispo CreekPismo CreekSanta Maria RiverShuman CanyonSan Antonio CreekSanta Ynez RiverCanada HondaJalama CreekCanada del CojoCanada del PescadoCanada del las AqujasArroyo el BulitoCanada del AquaCanada de Santa AnitaCanada de AlegriaCanada de Aqua CalienteGaviota CreekArroyo HondoArroyo QuemadoRefugio CreekEagle CanyonTecolote CanyonWinchester Canyon

CENTRAL COAST UNIT

CC1CC3

CO1CO2

CC2

Wilder Creek

GB9

GB11

119
Recovery Unit Sub-Unit

Site 

Code

Habitat Size Population Density Presence Source of population Approximate Distance from Nearest Extant Population (miles) Habitat Restoration Needed

AG MR OL 

Location Status1

Non-Point Sou

Locality

q Large - Extirpated Historic 2 Much ●●

r Medium - Extirpated Historic 4 Much 

s Large - Extirpated - 6 Much ● 

t Medium Abundant Regular Historic 4 Some ●

u Large Variable Regular Historic 0.1 Some NT ● 

v Small Abundant Regular Historic 0.1 Much NT ● 

w Small Abundant Intermittent Recolonized 0.2 Much NT ● 

x Small Abundant Intermittent Recolonized 0.2 Much NT ● 

y Small Abundant Intermittent Recolonized 3 Much 

z Medium - Extirpated Historic 1 Much ●● 

aa Medium Abundant Intermittent Historic 3 Some NT ● 

ab Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 3 Much ● 

a Large Variable Regular Historic 4 Some ●●● 

b Large Variable Regular Historic 4 Some ● ● 

c Large Variable Intermittent Recolonized 8 Much ● ● 

d Large - Extirpated Historic 7 Much ● * 

e Small - - - 12 Some

f Small - - - 17 Some

g Small - - - 11 Some ● 

h Large Abundant Intermittent Recolonized 6 Some ● ● 

i Small Abundant Intermittent Recolonized 6 Much ● 

j NA - Extirpated Historic - Much 

k Large - - - 10 Much ● 

a NA - Extirpated - 40 Much ● ● 

b Large - - - 42 Much ●

c Medium - Extirpated Historic 14 Some ● 

d Large - Extirpated Historic 7 Much

e Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 1 Some ● ● 

f Medium Variable Intermittent Recolonized 1 Some ● 

a Large Abundant Regular Historic 1 Some 

b Large Variable Intermittent Historic 0.2 Some NT

c Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 1 Some NT

d Large Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.2 Much NT

e Small Variable Intermittent Recolonized 0.05 Much 

f Large Variable Intermittent Recolonized 2 Much * ● 

g Large - Extirpated Historic 3 Much * ● 

h Large - Extirpated Historic 3 Much NT ● 

i Large - Extirpated Historic 3 Much NT ● 

j Large - - - 5 Much ● 

k Large - - - 3 Much * ● 

l Large - - - 3 Much ● 

m Large - - - 4 Much ● 

CONCEPTION UNIT CO3SOUTHERN COAST UNIT

Devereux SloughGoleta SloughMission CreekCockleburr CanyonSan Onofre CreekLas Pulgas CreekSan Pedro HarborAliso CreekSan Juan CreekSan Mateo CreekSanta Clara RiverCalleguas Creek/Mugu

LA/VENTURA UNIT Zuma Canyon2 Malibu Creek

Santa Monica Artesian Spr.Andree Clark Bird Refuge

SC1SC2

LV1

San Luis Rey RiverBuena Vista LagoonCampus LagoonArroyo Sequit2Sycamore Canyon2Aliso CanyonSanta Margarita RiverCarpinteria Salt MarshCarpinteria CreekRincon CreekLas Peñasquitos Lagoon2Bolsa Chica2San Diegito Lagoon2San Elijo Lagoon2Topanga CreekBallona Creek2Ventura RiverJ Street Drain/Ormond Laguna ChannelArroyo BurroSycamore CreekArroyo ParedonFrench Lagoon

1reflects status in year 20042 indicates a potential introduction site (no historic tidewater goby record)

Hidden LagoonBatiquitos Lagoon2

Aqua Hedionda Lagoon

120
121

Appendix F. Tidewater Goby Survey Protocol

1. Introduction 

The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), a species of fish endemic to California, has 

undergone substantial reduction in population size and distribution within its range in recent 

years. Surveys for the species have been conducted using a variety of methods over the past 2 to 

4 decades. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, seek to increase the scientific information 

available upon which to base future management and conservation of the species, including 

efforts for recovery. Through the survey protocol recommended in this document, we intend to 

promote survey methods and intensities that ensure sound and supportable presence/absence 

determinations of species locations, leading to better management decisions based on the best 

available scientific data. 

We provide the following guidance to facilitate the determination of presence or absence of the 

species in habitats with potential to support it. We anticipate that the primary use for this 

protocol will be for project-level surveys in support of requests for consultation under section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Additionally, this protocol may also be 

used for section 10(a)(1)(B) permit applications, and to determine general presence-absence for 

other management purposes. 

In general, surveys for wildlife and fish species may be done to meet a variety of management 

objectives, including but not limited to: 1) confirming the presence or absence of a species at a 

particular location, 2) identifying habitats potentially occupied, 3) estimating population size, 

and 4) determining population trends. For the purposes of this protocol, we have focused 

primarily on the first objective, determining presence/absence of a species at particular sites. 

The protocol is also likely to provide supporting information in identifying locations and habitat 

types currently occupied by the species. It is not the intent of this protocol to estimate population 

size or determine population trends. 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Federal regulations pursuant 

to Section 4(d) prohibit the take1

 of endangered and threatened species fish and wildlife species 

without special exemption. Virtually all methods to survey for gobies require the surveyor to 

enter the species’ habitat, resulting in an unavoidable risk of take of the species should it occur 

there. Therefore, a final objective of this survey protocol is to minimize the incidental take of 

 

1

 Take is defined by the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt 

to engage in any such conduct.” [ESA §3(19)] Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as actions that create the 

likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. [50 CFR §17.3] 
122

gobies by implementing survey methods and intensities that are likely to minimize the take of 

gobies through the survey methodology itself. 

2. Background 

Habitat Affinity 

The tidewater goby inhabits primarily waters of coastal lagoons, estuaries, and marshes. The 

species is benthic in nature as an adult (Swift 1980). Its habitat is characterized by brackish 

shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches where the water is fairly still, but not stagnant (Miller 

and Lea 1972; Moyle 2002; Swift et al.1989; Wang 1982; Irwin and Soltz 1984). Tidewater 

gobies exhibit a preference for a sand substrate component for breeding, but they are also found 

on rocky, mud, and silt substrates as well. Tidewater gobies have been documented in waters 

with salinity levels from 0 to 42 parts per thousand, temperature levels from 8 to 25 degrees 

Celsius (46 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit), and water depths from 25 to 200 centimeters (10 to 79 

inches) (Irwin and Soltz 1984; Swift et al. 1989; Worcester 1992; Lafferty 1997; Smith 1998). 

In their study, Trihey and Associates (1996) report tidewater gobies concentrated within 30 

meters of the shore and in waters between 0.5 and 1.0 meter deep. In addition, higher densities 

of tidewater gobies were found in areas containing submerged aquatic vegetation than those 

containing only emergent vegetation or no vegetation. 

Tidewater gobies have been reported from estuaries in California ranging from Tillas Slough at 

the mouth of the Smith River (northern Del Norte County) to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern 

San Diego County). The distribution of the tidewater goby corresponds to the distribution of 

sand deposition within the littoral cells along the California coast (Capelli 1997). Apparently, 

none have ever been found in Mexico or Oregon, based on extensive surveys outside of 

California. 

The tidewater goby appears to spend all life stages in lagoons, in tidally influenced portions of 

coastal waters, or in freshwater habitats adjacent to these water bodies. Tidewater gobies may 

enter marine environments when flushed out of the estuary/lagoon by breaching of the sandbars 

following storm events or human manipulation. The tidewater goby generally lives to about 1 

year of age, although some variation has been observed (Swift 1989; Wang 1982; Irwin and 

Soltz 1984). During this single year, it is able to complete its life cycle. 

Reproduction occurs year-round, although a distinct peak in spawning occurs in April and May 

(Moyle et al. 1989). Detailed information regarding the biology of the tidewater goby can be 

found in Wang (1982), Irwin and Soltz (1984), Swift et al. (1989), Worcester (1992), Swenson 

(1995), Lafferty et al. (1999), and Swenson (1999). 

Swenson (1995) reported that field studies of tidewater gobies in central California revealed 

different patterns in population ecology among different habitats. Feeding ecology differed for 

gobies in lagoon, creek and marsh habitats. Tidewater gobies in the marsh were significantly 

larger, more fecund and potentially longer-lived than tidewater gobies in the lagoon or creek. 

However, sandy lagoons may be more important than muddy marshes as spawning habitat 
123

because males in lab studies preferred to dig spawning burrows in sand rather than mud. 

Although lagoons are considered the typical habitat of tidewater gobies, brackish marshes can 

also be important, perhaps due to better food resources or reduced disturbance regimes. Marshes 

may serve as refugia, providing a source population for recolonization of the creek and lagoon 

habitats after high-flow events. 

Developing monitoring programs to assess abundance patterns can be difficult because tidewater 

gobies can be patchily distributed within habitats. 

2.1 Legal Status 

On March 7, 1994, we listed the tidewater goby as endangered throughout its range under the 

Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). We designated critical habitat on November 20, 

2000, for the southern California populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). On June 

24, 1999, we published a proposed rule to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby 

from the endangered species list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The proposed rule to 

delist was withdrawn on November 7, 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002), following 

significant public and species expert comments. Therefore, the current status of the species 

remains listed as endangered throughout its range, and critical habitat remains as designated in 

2000. A recovery plan is in development. 

The tidewater goby was listed as a species of special concern by the California Department 

of Fish and Game in 1980, and was elevated to fully protected status in 1987 (Swift et al. 1997). 

2.3 Methods Applied to Prior Surveys 

This section provides a brief summary of survey methods used in the past, their success, and the 

recommendations for improvement by those who used them. This information is provided to 

assist the reader in understanding the effectiveness of those methods, and the relative efficiency 

of each. In addition, this information assists the reader in understanding why we recommend the 

methods in the protocol, described later in this document, rather than other methods that to the 

uninitiated might seem better or more cost effective. We believe that this information adequately 

supports our proposed protocol, thus promoting consistency among all surveyors. However, any 

and all methods proposed to conduct surveys for tidewater goby should receive our 

consideration, as appropriate. 

Tidewater goby abundance and distribution can be affected by habitat characteristics such as 

vegetation, substrate and depth (Swift et al. 1989, Worcester 1992, Swenson 1995). These 

factors can also influence the efficiency of sampling methods. Tidewater gobies have been 

successfully collected with both seines (Swift et al. 1989, Swenson 1995) and meter-square 

throw traps (Worcester 1992, Swenson 1995). Other reported methods include dip nets, minnow 

traps, ichthyoplankton net, snorkeling/direct observation, and plastic tubes. Each is described in 

more detail below. 

2.3.1 Seine Netting
124

Seine netting is one of the most common methods utilized in tidewater goby surveys (Wang 

1984; Holland 1992; Swift 1994; Swenson 1994; Swenson 1996a, 1996b; Lafferty et al. 1997; 

Fong 1997; Swift 1997) throughout the species range. The technique can be applied over a 

variety of habitats, but does have limitations in areas with dense emergent vegetation (Trihey and 

Associates 1996). Seining is a commonly used collecting method, well suited for near-shore 

areas with smooth bottoms and little vegetation. 

Seine nets used for goby surveys ranged in length from as short as 1.2 meter (Wang 1984; 

Swenson 1996b; Swift 1997; Wang and Keegan 1998) to 7.3 meter (Swenson 1994; Swenson 

1995). Other commonly used lengths include 1.8 meter (Holland 1992; Swift 1997), 2.1 meters 

(Swenson et al. 1996a), 3 meters (Lafferty et al. 1997; Wang 1984), and 5 meters (Swift 1997). 

The nets ranged in height from 1.0 meter to 1.8 meter. 

Various mesh sizes have been used. Reported mesh sizes ranged from 0.5 millimeter to greater 

than 6 millimeters. Commonly used mesh sizes included those near 3 millimeters (Wang 1982; 

Wang 1984; Fong 1997, Lafferty et al. 1997; Swift 1997; Wang and Keegan 1998), 4 millimeters 

(Swenson 1995; Swenson 1996b), 4.5 meters (Swift 1994), 4.8 millimeters (Fong 1997), and 

greater than 6 millimeters (Holland 1992; Trihey and Associates 1996; Fong 1997). Due to their 

small size, especially when in the larval or subadult form, tidewater gobies can easily escape 

from the seine if the mesh size is too large. Fong (1997) selected a 3.2-millimeter delta mesh 

because gobies were observed squeezing through the 6.4-millimeter mesh and 4.8-millimeter 

mesh. 

Swift (1997) used 28.5-gram (1-ounce) weights centered 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) apart on the 

lead line, to ensure the bottom of the seine remain in close contact with the subsurface, 

preventing gobies from escaping. 

Wang (1982, 1984) used 1.2 x 1.0 meter beach seine with 1.0 millimeter mesh to sample eggs, 

larvae, and juveniles in the inshore zones with vegetation. Wang and Keegan (1998) collected 

specimens with a beach seine with 500 micron (0.5 millimeter) mesh to sample juvenile and 

adult tidewater goby and other fish species. 

Swenson (1994) used a seine (7.3 meters x 1.2 meter, 4 millimeter-square mesh) in shallow 

water (5 to 80 centimeters deep) to sample adults and juveniles. Swenson (1995) sampled in 

water 20 to 120 centimeters deep to capture adults and juveniles. 

The distance of each seine haul varied with researcher and application. Holland (1992) used a 

minimum of three stations to be sampled within the available aquatic habitat. Each station 

consisted of five sweeps, each sweep was 10 meters in length, and all sweeps were 2 to 3 meters 

apart. Wang and Keegan (1998) hauled their seines from 3 to 10 meters along the shoreline, 

depending on the size of the station. Trihey and Associates (1996) hauled the seine 

perpendicular to the shoreline and landed the net on shore, where possible. Swenson (1995) 

reported a total linear distance sampled as approximately 150 meters, but did not report the 

length of each haul. Trihey and Associates (1996) recommended shortening the seine's width to 

approximately 3 meters to reduce total catch and time for net clearing and to minimize stress to 

captured fish. 
125

2.3.2 Drop or Throw Traps

Drop or throw trapping is an effective method for sampling small fishes in vegetated areas or in 

open water sites that are difficult to seine (Kushlan 1981; Rozas and Odum 1988; Chick et al. 

1992; Swenson 1996a). Tidewater gobies have been successfully collected with meter-square 

throw traps (Worcester 1992, Swenson 1995). 

Trihey and Associates (1996) sampled with throw trap consisting of two l meter square plastic 

frames (polyvinyl chloride pipe, 1.27 centimeter diameter) connected with net sides (1.6 

millimeter Delta mesh) (Worcester 1992). The lower frame is weighted with water and metal 

reinforcing bars, and a skirt of netting enclosing a chain is attached to the lower frame to seal the 

bottom over uneven substrate. Swenson (1995) constructed the drop net with one frame's 

corners closed to trap air (the floating top frame) and the other frame's comers left open to fill 

with water when in use (the heavy bottom frame). These frames were attached to the top and 

bottom edges of 1.2 meter wide fine netting (1.6 millimeter Delta mesh) to form a square tube. 

Setting the drop trap is a two-person task. The two polyvinyl chloride pipe frames are held 

together and tossed approximately 1 meter away. The two people then moved quickly to the trap 

to help secure the lower frame to the bottom with their feet. After estimating vegetative cover, 

fish are cleared from the trap with fine-meshed dipnets. The trap is swept until five consecutive 

passes of the dipnet yield no additional fish (Trihey and Associates 1996). Worcester (1992) 

constructed drop nets entirely of 1/16 inch mesh knotless nylon netting or fiberglass screening to 

prevent larval fish from being lost. 

Throw traps are easier to use in vegetated areas than the beach seine and are capable of capturing 

smaller fish due to the finer mesh size. A seine with finer mesh could capture smaller fish, 

although the smaller mesh would increase water resistance, which could affect seine 

effectiveness (Trihey and Associates 1996). 

Drop nets and traps have been used to sample nursery habitats (Kahl 1963; Kjelson and Johnson 

1973; Kushland 1974; Turner and Johnson 1974; Kjelson 1977). Kushlan (1974) discussed the 

difficulties and advantages of various drop trap designs with respect to size, portability, and 

effectiveness. Chamberlain (1988) designed and constructed 2 m x 2 m traps with wood frames 

and transparent plastic panels to avoid attracting or frightening fish by shadow casting. Trihey 

and Associates (1996) reported results indicating higher variability among drop trap samples 

than among seines. Worcester (1992) reported 1/8 inch Delta mesh style knotless nylon netting 

as too large to contain larval fish. The entire trap was lined with fiberglass window screening to 

ensure that no fish would be lost through the netting. 

Fong (1997) recommended a sample area of roughly 10 square meters seemed as optimal; it 

balanced the variability associated with small sample area that plagued the drop traps against 

greater than 1 hour processing times needed for sample areas much greater than 10 square 

meters. 
126

2.3.3 Dip Net

Worcester (1992) used dip nets to remove fish from within the drop traps, both by visual 

observation and by blind sweeps of the net. Irwin et al. (1984) employed dip nets where the use 

of seines was impractical. Swift et al. (1997) used fine-meshed dip nets on occasion. Goldsmith 

(pers. comm.) found dip nets to be effective where submergent and emergent vegetation or the 

small size of the water body makes the use of seine nets difficult. 

2.3.4 Hand-towed ichthyoplankton net

Wang (1982) and Wang and Keegan (1998) report successful use of a hand-towed 

ichthyoplankton net with 0.5-meter mouth and 0.5-millimeter mesh to collect fish eggs, larvae, 

and juveniles. Planktonic larvae were captured in the shallow areas with an ichthyoplankton net 

and a fine-meshed beach seine. Juvenile and adult tidewater goby inhabit the benthic level. 

Wang and Keegan (1998) attached the net to a bridle 2 meters in length and hand-towed it along 

an approximate 10 meter course at each station. 

2.3.5 Minnow Traps

Lafferty et al. (1997) sampled using Gee’s minnow traps. Six minnow traps (6millimeter mesh), 

baited with dry dog-food, were set in the evening in 0.5-2 meter water and inspected the 

following morning. Swift (1997) occasionally collecting with Gee's minnow traps with either 

1/4 inch (6 millimeters) or 1/8 inch (3 millimeters) mesh and fine-meshed dip nets. Although 

tidewater gobies sometimes occur in unbaited traps with 3 millimeters mesh, it is extremely 

unusual to find them in the baited traps with 6 millimeters mesh, even in areas where they are 

extremely abundant Swift (1997), suggesting that gobies escape easily from the larger mesh. 

2.3.6 Snorkeling and Direct Observation

Worcester (1992) concluded snorkeling is not feasible for the tidewater goby due to its small 

size, schooling tendencies, and cryptic nature. The variable nature of the habitat, often with very 

murky or heavily vegetated water, also precludes direct observational techniques (Worcester 

1992). Swenson (1995) reported some success in observing gobies from the shore in shallow 

water (40 to 100 centimeters) or while snorkeling, but turbidity prevented extensive field studies 

using these methods. Holland (1992) conducted snorkeling surveys to qualitatively assess the 

numbers and distribution of gobies in standing water ranging from a maximum depth of 0.9 to 

1.0 meter in 1990 to a maximum of 0.75 meter in 1991. Water turbidity was high in 1990 and 

effectively precluded snorkeling, but visibility was greater than 0.6 meters in 1991 and a 

snorkeling survey was successful (Holland 1992). However, Worcester (1992) observed at least 

100 tidewater gobies in water approximately 3 inches deep on top of a concrete bridge abutment 

during a snorkeling survey in February, 1990. 

Swift et al. (1994) examined some areas by swimming transects about 1.0 meter wide with mask 

and snorkel. A snorkeled transect 270 meters long and 1.0 meter wide recorded 2 tidewater 

gobies. However, the resulting density of 0.0074 tidewater gobies per square meter and an 

estimate of 126 fish in the sampled lagoon was much lower than documented with seine hauls. 
127

They also report other localities as too turbid for snorkeling. Estimates based on snorkeling were 

found to be much lower than those based on seining. All population estimates in their repot are 

based on seine collections. 

2.3.7 Plastic tubes

Swenson (1995, 1996b) collected adult tidewater gobies in artificial burrows made of polyvinyl 

chloride pipe tubes (13 millimeter inner diameter, 13 centimeters long). Plastic Dura-lenem, 

13.0 centimeter by 5.5 centimeters, was rolled up inside the tube as a liner to collect the adhesive 

eggs. McGehee (1989) and Bechler et al. (1990) report gobies readily adopt plastic tubes as 

artificial burrows, both in lab aquaria and in the field. "Tube trapping" is a useful method to 

collect breeding fish, to quantify reproductive output, and to determine the timing and intensity 

of spawning. The open-ended tubes are shoved into the sediment at an angle of approximately 

30 degrees until the lower lip rested at the surface of the substrate (Swenson 1995). Sets of 10 

tubes are placed in the sediment in shallow water (less than 1 meter deep, preferably 20 to 50 

centimeters deep) at each habitat site (Swenson 1995). Tubes are spaced up to 1 meter apart to 

minimize territorial interactions by males. Tubes are left in the substrate 14 to 28 days to allow 

colonization by nesting males. 

2.3.8 Sample Size

Fong (1997) estimated 48 and 33 beach seine hauls would be required for two sample regions to 

obtain density estimates within 20 percent of the mean with 90 percent confidence, based on data 

reported in Trihey and Associates (1996). Assuming that each seine haul would take an average 

of 45 minutes, a total of 61 sampling hours would be required for just two regions. In addition to 

the amount of time involved, this heavy sampling intensity would result in impacts to the 

tidewater goby habitat. For their purposes, the sampling effort was generally less than 5 seine 

hauls per region. Trihey and Associates (1996) recommended that sampling effort should consist 

of 3 to 5 seine hauls per site and 5 to 10 drop trap samples. Swift (1997) recommended that to 

detect seasonal changes in populations, collections in lagoons be repeated bimonthly. 

2.3.9 Sampling Season and Timing

Fong (1997) reported that October sampling indicates higher fish abundance occurs in the fall 

rather than the winter sampling period. Overall, mean densities of gobies increased from 1.7 per 

square meter to 35 per square meter. 

Swenson (1995) conducted sampling in the morning at high tide (plus 4.7 feet). Because the 

water was too deep to effectively sample the main creek, a second survey was conducted in the 

morning during low tide (plus1.8 feet), using a bag seine. 

To detect seasonal changes in populations, Swift (1997) collected in lagoons bimonthly. 

Upstream tributaries were sampled for gobies intermittently to assess the degree to which 

tidewater gobies utilized these areas. 
128

2.3.10 Density

Trihey and Associates (1996) reported tidewater goby density as extremely variable both across 

and within most sampling factors: method, location, vegetation and substrate. Mean density was 

12.5 tidewater gobies per square meter for throw traps (standard deviation = 22.6, range 0 to 91, 

n = 70) and 2.0 tidewater gobies per square meter for seine samples (standard deviation = 3.6, 

range = 0 to 14.2, n = 26). Although the capture method alone did not significantly affect 

tidewater goby densities, the project's main objective was to test sampling methods and therefore 

the authors decided to treat trap and seine data separately for further analyses. Location within 

the lagoon significantly affected tidewater goby density for both methods. Substrate type and 

vegetation significantly affected densities of tidewater gobies caught with the throw traps but not 

with seine. Depth and distance from the shoreline also affected tidewater goby density. 

Tidewater gobies were more abundant in waters 50 to 100 centimeters deep and within 30 meters 

of the shore. Tidewater gobies were not collected in waters less than 20 centimeters deep or 

from nearshore sites. Swenson (1995) reported tidewater goby density varied tremendously 

among the five samples (0 to 198 tidewater gobies per square decimeter). Density was greater in 

vegetated areas; the difference was not significant but the small sample size may have been too 

low to reject the null hypothesis (Swenson 1995). 

2.3.11 Salinity

Swenson (1994) reported on the use of an Atago hand refractometer to measure salinity. Water 

temperature (degrees Celsius) and salinity (parts per thousand) were measured at the surface and 

on the bottom (approximately 50 to 70 centimeters deep). 

2.4 Suitability of Habitat 

Lafferty et al. (1999) reported known locations where apparent extirpations were followed by 

evidence of recolonization (Lafferty et al. 1999). Based on this information, we assume that all 

sites known to be previously occupied by gobies will be considered suitable and occupied 

without clear evidence that the site has been modified to the point where recolonization is highly 

unlikely, barring habitat restoration that successfully restores habitat conditions and ecosystem 

functions to conditions similar to a time of known tidewater goby occupancy. 

3. Application of the Recommended Protocol 

3.1 General Intent of the Protocol 

The general intent of the protocol described in section 4 of this document is to provide a 

methodology of surveying for tidewater gobies in likely natural and human-made habitats at an 

intensity and effectiveness that ensures a high level of confidence in finding gobies should they 

currently exist at the site. A secondary intent of the protocol is to prescribe a sampling regime or 

methodology that avoids placing an onerous and unreasonable burden on any project proponent 

who seeks to work in habitats likely to be suitable to the species. 
129

The methodology described below is intended to document the presence or absence of tidewater 

gobies to a reasonable level of certainty, and to provide basic information on habitat affinity of 

the species. This methodology is not intended to be of sufficient intensity to estimate population 

levels, recruitment rates, or survival rates; habitat affinities more appropriate for research studies; 

population viability analyses; or other parameters associated with research-level activities. The 

parameter of interest in these surveys is a high likelihood of detecting gobies should they exist at 

the site. 

We believe the following protocol will provide consistent results with a reasonable amount of 

effort. However, while we strongly recommend that potential surveyors adopt and implement 

our proposed protocol, we may consider other methods, on a case by case basis. The action 

agency or project proponent has the discretion to use any appropriate survey methodology to 

determine the presence or absence of tidewater gobies, provided they meet three conditions. 

First, any proposed protocol must meet or exceed the intended level of survey intensity and 

effectiveness of the protocol described herein. Second, surveyors proposing methods or 

intensities other than as prescribed here should seek concurrence on the proposed changes from 

our field office having jurisdiction over the proposed survey area. The proponent should seek 

this concurrence as early in the survey design as possible, and definitely prior to beginning actual 

field surveys. Finally, the surveyors must obtain any and all applicable Federal (described 

below) and State permits in advance of conducting the surveys. 

3.2 Application of the protocol to projects 

These guidelines are not intended for long-term monitoring or research projects or for 

determining the overall status of populations; guidelines for such monitoring and research efforts 

should be developed with our assistance on a case-by-case basis. We have worked with, and will 

continue to work with Federal, State, and local biologists; scientific and academic institutions; 

commercial organizations; and other interested parties to collect additional data on the 

distribution, ecology, and biology of the tidewater goby. We will revise this survey protocol as 

needed, using the best available data. 

This protocol should fulfill the needs of landowners and managers to complete pre-disturbance 

surveys for tidewater gobies that provide a reasonable basis upon which to make effects 

determinations. Projects resulting in direct or indirect effects to tidewater gobies or their habitats 

should conduct surveys consistent with this protocol to document the presence or absence of 

tidewater gobies at their proposed project site. In addition, surveys conducted under this 

protocol may provide useful information on the overall distribution of tidewater gobies within 

their range. 

Extreme care must be taken when conducting surveys to avoid inadvertently injuring or killing 

tidewater gobies, or damaging their habitat (see Appendix F-3). 

3.3 Peer Review of the Recommended Protocol 

This protocol has been developed in conjunction with and reviewed by the Tidewater Goby 

Science Team, a group of agency and independent experts in tidewater goby biology and 
130

research. The protocol includes their comments. Any survey that uses a different methodology 

from this protocol should include a detailed description of the procedures used and an evaluation 

as to whether the conclusions drawn constitute the best available scientific and commercial 

information. 

4. Recommended Protocol 

We recommend the following survey guidelines be used to determine, with some reasonably 

high level of confidence, the presence or absence of tidewater gobies in habitat deemed suitable 

for the species. 

4.1 Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit Requirements 

The survey methods prescribed in the following protocol require work within habitat likely to be 

occupied by tidewater gobies, and involves the handling of individuals for identification 

purposes. Although there is no requirement to preserve voucher specimens or otherwise directly 

kill individuals, the capture and handling of individuals has some risk of incidental mortality. 

Also, the methods proposed here require the surveyors to enter suitable habitat, and an 

unavoidable consequence of such activity is the trampling or other damaging of occupied 

burrows and mortality of eggs and possibly individuals. Therefore, all surveyors must obtain a 

recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended. The permit application form and instructions for completion are available at the 

website http://forms.fws.gov/3-20055.pdf. 

4.2 Survey Equipment 

Surveys should be conducted using appropriate equipment. If other equipment is to be used, 

surveyors should contact our appropriate field office to determine if the other equipment is 

suitable for use under this protocol. The following equipment is the minimum necessary for 

conducting tidewater goby surveys under this protocol: 

 U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle 7.5 minute series (topographic) map(s); 

 global positioning system unit or other method to identify latitude/longitude of tidewater 

goby and sampling locations to within 10 meters of actual location on topographic maps 

or aerial photos; 

 refractometer or electronic salinity meter; 

 a fish identification guidebook or field-ready identification card with pictures of similar 

species; 

 long handled dipnet with a frame opening greater than 0.1 square meter and mesh size 

less than 3 millimeters; 

 3 meters length by 1 meter deep seine (approximately 3 millimeters mesh), recommended 

for small habitats (described below); 

 5 meters length by 1 meter deep seine (approximately 3 millimeters mesh), recommended 

for medium to large habitat areas; 

 minnow traps with approximately 3 millimeters mesh, unbaited; 

 field notebook; 
131

 camera; 

 thermometer; 

 meter stick; and 

 a goby viewing device (e.g., clear plastic bag or small jar). 

In order to prevent the unintentional introduction of nonnative organisms or disease, sampling 

gear should be thoroughly cleaned, and dried if possible, prior to use in different watersheds. 

4.3 Site Assessment 

The area to be sampled for tidewater gobies should include appropriate habitat consisting of slow 

moving water bodies, generally less than 3 meters (10 feet) in depth, with suitable substrate and 

appropriate water quality parameters. The size of the discrete water body (lagoon, pond, stream, 

ditch) under investigation will be used to determine the corresponding sampling effort to be 

carried out. 

For the purpose of selecting appropriate equipment, and determining sampling effort, water 

bodies are categorized by size as large, medium, and small. Large water bodies are those 

meeting at least one of the following general physical parameters: streams with channel bankful 

widths in excess of 20 meters (66 feet) at any point and/or with estuarine (areas with salt water 

intrusion) habitats exceeding 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) in length; or lagoons and ponds larger than 2 

hectares (5 acres) surface area. Medium sized water bodies include smaller streams less than 20 

meters bankful width and/or estuaries longer than 100 meters (328 feet) but less than 1 kilometer 

in length. Medium sized lagoons and ponds are those with a surface area less than 2 hectare, but 

larger than 0.4 hectare (1 acre). Small water bodies are the remaining streams, ditches, sloughs, 

lagoons, and ponds of lesser dimension than as described for the medium size range.

Immediately prior to conducting in-water goby sampling activities, surveyors should complete 

the following actions: 

1. Take one or more overview photos from a vantage point that provides an oblique view of 

the sampled habitat (when possible). The location(s) should be consistent from year to 

year if future surveys are anticipated. 

2. Record the percent cover of aquatic vegetation and identify common plant species present 

in the area actually surveyed. 

3. Categorize the water body, including size (as defined above). 

4. Measure the average depth of the water using the meter stick for each sampling effort. 

5. Record water temperature at a depth of half the average water depth in the survey area. 

6. Take salinity measurements at both surface and bottom depths with the salinity meter or 

refractometer. 

7. Note any unusual characteristics of the environment. 

8. Record all other pertinent information describing date, time, location, names of 

surveyors, etc. 
132

4.4 In-water Sampling for Tidewater Gobies 

Before sampling, we recommend the surveyors review the literature and agency records for 

historical information and other available resources, and including communication with species 

experts. This review should determine whether populations have been previously identified at or 

near the site to be sampled, or whether suitable habitat for tidewater goby exists at the site. This 

information should be summarized in the survey report (see section 5, below). 

In the absence of recent survey data, any site known historically to have been populated with 

tidewater goby should be assumed to be currently occupied by the species, unless clear evidence 

indicates that the habitat has been so modified as to be uninhabitable. 

For the purpose of this protocol, the presence of one individual tidewater goby resulting from 

surveys constitutes evidence of an extant population. This determination is based on the annual 

life cycle of the species, the difficulty in detecting tidewater gobies, and the low likelihood of 

only one individual to be present in a watershed. 

4.5 Survey Methods 

Several methods can be effective in identifying, or capturing tidewater gobies. The following 

methods are recommended for conducting surveys, and each one is best suited to particular types 

of water bodies. 

To maximize the probability of capture, and to ensure that the highest quality habitat within the 

area of interest is surveyed, sampling should be segmented into multiple locations within any 

water body. For purposes of this protocol, the “area of interest” is defined as that portion of the 

water body wherein the presence or absence of gobies is to be documented. For general surveys, 

the area of interest is likely to be the entire water body. For water bodies proposed to be altered 

by a project or other action, the area of interest is that portion of the water body likely to be 

affected (adversely or beneficially) by habitat loss, alteration, disturbance, sedimentation, or any 

other physical or biological factor directly or indirectly affecting suitable habitat of the species. 

When surveying large water bodies, surveys should adequately cover all suitable habitat within 

the area of interest. We recommend surveying in a minimum of five distinct separate areas 

throughout the suitable habitat in large water bodies. When surveying small and medium water 

bodies, at least three distinct areas within suitable habitat should be sampled. In all water bodies, 

the saltwater/freshwater interface should be included in sampling locations, because gobies are 

often located in this zone. The following information should be used as a guide to complete the 

required amount of sampling effort. The effort categorized in the table below represents 

minimum acceptable numbers. In all size categories of water bodies, it is important to sample in 

Dip Netting 

(minutes of effort) 

Water 

Body 

Size 

Number of Minnow Traps per 

24 hour sampling period/ 

number of sampling periods 

Seine hauls 

(minimum effort 

required) Supplemental Sole Method 

Large 12/2 (minimum) 25 per 10 hectares 20 120 per 10 hectares 

Medium Not required 15 per water body 10 90 per water body 

Small Not required 15 per water body 5 60 per water body 
133

the area where the impacts from the proposed project would be significant, and especially 

important in the large water bodies, where only a small percentage of the water body is surveyed. 

If the water body supports fishes, surveyors may begin sampling with the dip net if and where 

appropriate. Surveyors should record the presence of other identifiable fish and invertebrate taxa 

captured or observed, as part of general comments for each water body surveyed. Dip nets are 

especially important in those portions of suitable habitat where emergent and submergent 

vegetation or substrate limits or precludes the use of seine nets. For those habitats where seine 

nets cannot be used effectively, dip nets may be the only method that can be effectively 

employed. The table above indicates the amount of time that should be dedicated to the use of 

dip nets. Where seine nets can be used effectively, the amount of dip netting required is 

identified in the column labeled “Supplemental.” In those water bodies where seine nets cannot 

be used, the dip netting may be the sole method that can be used effectively. The minimum time 

allocated to dip netting for sole method sampling is identified in the above table. For 

instructions in minimizing effects to gobies from sampling see Appendix F-3. 

Where site conditions allow effective use of a seine, surveyors should attempt to cover a 

minimum of 30 square meters per seine haul, with a recommended average of 50 square meters 

per seine haul. The number of seine hauls may be limited by suitable sites, and is dependent on 

the size of the water body. 

For small and medium water bodies, conduct enough seine hauls to adequately cover suitable 

habitat. A minimum of 15 seine hauls is suggested to adequately cover these areas. Although 

some overlap between seine hauls is effective, they should have no more than 20 percent overlap 

in area. For any size water body, once tidewater gobies are detected, sampling may cease. In 

cases where the amount of suitable habitat within a water body can be covered completely by 

fewer than the prescribed number of seine hauls, sampling may cease when the water body is 

essentially 100 percent covered, or when tidewater gobies are first captured. 

For large water bodies (as defined above), the number of seine hauls completed should be 

adequate to effectively sample the suitable habitat of interest. Since large water bodies may 

range from two to several hundred or more hectares, these water bodies only need to be sampled 

in the area of interest (as described above). Within the area of interest, the water body should be 

generally delineated into 10 hectare blocks of suitable habitat. The following survey 

recommendations apply within each 10 hectare block. We recommend a minimum of 25 seine 

hauls throughout a minimum of five sampling areas in each block. These 25 seine hauls should 

be distributed approximately uniformly across the five sampling areas (i.e., five or more seine 

hauls across each of five or more sampling areas), or otherwise distributed among the five 

sampling areas to optimize the likelihood of detecting gobies within the suitable habitat of 

interest. For example, if two sampling areas are high quality habitat and three are lesser habitat, 

it may be best to complete eight seine hauls in each of the two best habitat areas, and three seine 

hauls in each of the three lesser habitat areas. Since conducting additional seine hauls in a 

sampling area represents relatively little additional work above that already necessary to do the 

minimum, additional seine hauls are encouraged whenever a question remains as to the 

possibility of tidewater gobies occupying the habitat. 
134

If small fishes suspected to be tidewater gobies are found, surveyors should place them in 

viewing device and confirm the identification of tidewater goby (or other species) by looking for 

the clear tip of the first dorsal fin. If surveyors are in doubt, they should confirm fish 

identification by using a fish identification guidebook, and if possible, take photographs. 

Surveyors should record the location where gobies were sampled and the sampling effort 

expended to find them, to the nearest 10 meters. Surveyors should release the gobies promptly at 

site of capture and discontinue sampling (vouching new records or collections for other scientific 

purposes are appropriate if in accordance with the biologist’s permits). Surveyors should also 

record the location of positive and negative survey results. 

4.6 Sampling Period 

Tidewater goby abundance fluctuates spatially and seasonally (Swenson 1999), due in part to 

their predominantly annual life cycle (see Background). Surveys must be conducted in two 

sampling periods between July 1 and October 31, due to this period being the time of highest 

abundance for the species in general, and therefore, the period of highest detection. The two 

sampling periods must be separated by at least 30 days to accommodate situations where changes 

in water level, seasonal movements, or other functions result in movement of gobies within the 

survey area. All surveys should be recorded and reported, including surveys that do not detect 

tidewater gobies. Surveyors should return to the same sites in sampling period 2 where tidewater 

gobies were not found in sampling period 1, but also include any suitable habitat that may have 

not been suitable during the first survey period due to changes in water level, etc. If tidewater 

gobies are found during the first visit, sites do not need to be sampled during the second period. 

For surveys conducted as part of a project clearance, additional sampling may be needed prior to 

initiation of those project activities that may affect the tidewater goby. If gobies are not found 

within the two survey periods, and the project will not be completed within 60 days of the last 

survey, a pre-project survey may be required for any part of the proposed project area that may 

affect the tidewater goby. The need for this survey will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

between the applicant and our field office that has jurisdiction over the area of interest. 

4.7 Area to Which Survey Protocol is Applicable 

The survey protocol may be applied throughout the species range. Survey results are specifically 

applicable only to the actual body of water to which the survey is applied, but may be generally 

applied to similar water bodies contiguous to or immediately adjacent to the sampled habitats, 

provided a reasonable likelihood of connectivity between the sampled site and the sites to which 

the information is being extrapolated. 

4.8 Effective Duration of Survey Results 

Survey results are valid for 1 year. Based on input from several tidewater goby research 

scientists, due to the annual life cycle of the tidewater goby, documented population fluctuations, 

and their recolonizing ability, survey results are valid for a maximum of 1 year from the date 

surveys end. 
135

Five consecutive years of negative survey results are needed to establish a history of absence. 

Proposed actions that span more than 1 year must be surveyed for each year of activity. Contact 

our appropriate field office (see Appendix F-1, below) for additional information before 

conducting surveys. 

Surveys are not needed if surveys completed during the prior 10 years have confirmed the 

presence of gobies in waters with habitat contiguous to the habitat identified for survey AND the 

habitat where gobies were earlier found have not been substantially modified or impacted by 

human activities or natural events. That is, we presume that habitat previously occupied by 

gobies continues to be occupied unless clear evidence indicates that gobies have been extirpated. 

The converse is not necessarily true. Habitats that have undergone sampling in the past, 

regardless of intensity, and been shown to be absent of gobies does not necessarily mean those 

habitats are currently devoid of the species. We will, however, consider the merits of scientific 

analyses on a case-by-case basis to analyze presumed absence of the species in otherwise 

suitable habitat. Those analyses should consider any past surveys done in that habitat, the 

intensity and coverage of those surveys, any modifications to the habitat since last known 

occupancy by the species, and the potential for the habitat to be recolonized by adjacent 

populations. 

4.9 Other Permits and Permissions 

Because this protocol (and tidewater goby surveys in general) involves capture, surveyors must 

have “take” authorization pursuant to section 7 or 10(a) of the Act to be exempt from the take 

prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. Surveys must be conducted by individuals possessing a 

10(a)1(A) recovery permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service, specific to the tidewater goby. In 

addition, there may be permit requirements from the California Department of Fish and Game as 

well as other agencies to conduct surveys for gobies. Finally, surveyors should seek appropriate 

permissions from landowners or their managers to access or cross properties for their goby 

survey work, as needed. Nothing within this protocol should be construed as permission to enter, 

access, or cross any lands or waters not under the immediate control of the surveyor without 

specific permission from the affected landowner(s). 

5. Reporting Requirements 

Any permitted biologist observing a tidewater goby under this protocol is to notify our 

appropriate field office by phone (see Appendix F-1 for contact numbers) within 24 hours of 

such observation. Within 5 business days, the surveyor should fax or e-mail a copy of a U.S. 

Geological Survey quadrangle 7.5 minute series (topographic) map to the recovery permit 

coordinator in our appropriate field office, with the observation site clearly marked. Include a 

detailed description of the precise location of the tidewater goby(ies). 

The permittee shall notify our appropriate field office in writing, at least 10 working days prior 

to the anticipated start date of survey work and receive approval prior to beginning work. 

Surveyors also should prepare a final report within 45 days that includes the following: 
136

 Recovery permit number(s) 

 Names of surveyors 

 Location information, including county, watershed, GPS coordinates in either 

Latitude/Longitude or UTM NAD27 or indicated on a copy of a U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map 

 Photographs of the project site (photo points [locations and general direction] should be 

indicated on a map) 

 A typed summary providing survey dates and times (both begin and end times) 

 Habitat description (amount and quality of suitable habitat) 

 The area sampled by a particular method (indicated on a map) 

 Justification for areas not surveyed 

 Effectiveness of seine hauls 

 Number of tidewater gobies captured 

 Photographs of tidewater gobies detected on site to verify species identification, 

(collection is not permitted without prior authorization) 

 Other species detected 

 Water temperature 

 Salinity 

 Whether area is currently tidally influenced 

 A description of possible threats to tidewater gobies observed at the site including 

nonnative and native predators. 

The report should be provided to our appropriate field office (see Appendix F-1). 

Based on the results of surveys, we will provide guidance on how tidewater gobies should be 

addressed. If tidewater gobies are found, we will work with the project proponent through the 

section 7 (for Federal actions) or section 10 (for non-Federal actions) process. If tidewater 

gobies are observed but not identified to species, additional survey efforts may be recommended. 

If tidewater gobies are not found during the field surveys (conducted according to this protocol), 

we will consider the tidewater goby not likely to be currently present on the project site.

We may not accept the results of field surveys conducted under this protocol for any of the 

following reasons: 1) if our appropriate field office was not contacted prior to field surveys 

being conducted; 2) if field surveys were incomplete, or conducted in a manner that was 

inadequate for the area to be surveyed; or 3) if the reporting requirements were not fulfilled.

We encourage all surveyors to send any information on tidewater goby distribution resulting 

from surveys to the California Natural Diversity Data Base administered by the California 

Department of Fish and Game. Information about how to submit information to the California 

Natural Diversity Data Base is provided in Appendix F-2. Copies of the California Natural 

Diversity Data Base form should mailed in a timely manner to the California Department of Fish 

and Game, as well as our appropriate field office. 

These individual survey reporting results are separate from, and do not replace or supersede, the 

annual report required of each endangered species recovery [section 10(a)(1)(A)] permit holder 

to report activities conducted each year under his/her permit.
137

Literature Cited For Appendix F 

Capelli, M. 1997. Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) management in California 

estuaries. Proceedings, California and the World Ocean Conference, San Diego, CA. 

Chamberlain, R.H.. 1988. Fish use of a mitigation salt marsh. A Thesis Presented to the 

Faculty of Humboldt State University. 90 + xii pp. 

Chick, J.C., F. Jordan, J.P. Smith, and C.C. McIvor. 1992. A comparison of four enclosure 

traps and methods used to sample fishes in aquatic macrophytes. Journal of Freshwater 

Ecology 7:353–361 

Fong, D. 1997. Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) sampling in Rodeo Lagoon, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, Marin Co. National Park Service, San Francisco. 18 pp. 

Holland, D. 1992. The distribution and status of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) 

on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Natural Resources Management Office, 

United States Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. 58 + iv pp. 

Irwin, J.F., and D.L. Soltz. 1984. The natural history of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius 

newberryi, in the San Antonio and Shuman Creek system, Santa Barbara County, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Endangered Species Office Contract No. 11310-

0215-2. 

Kjelson, M.A., W.R. Turner, and G.N. Johnson. 1975. Description of a stationary drop-net for 

estimating Nekton abundance in shallow waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 1:46-49. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1974. Quantitative sampling of fish populations in shallow, freshwater 

environments. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103(2):348-352. 

Lafferty, K.D. 1997. Tidewater goby collection report, 1996 and 1997. Report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

Lafferty, K.D. and C.J. Page. 1997. Predation on the endangered Tidewater Goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi, by the introduced African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, with notes 

on the frog’s parasites. Copeia 3:589-592. 

Lafferty, K.D., C.C. Swift, and R.F. Ambrose. 1999. Extirpation and recolonization in a 

metapopulation of an endangered fish, the tidewater goby. Conservation Biology 13:1447-

1453. 

Miller, D.J., and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. California 

Department of Fish and Game Bulletin 157. 
138

Moyle, P.B., J. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern in 

California. Final Report for California Department of Fish and Game. Contract No. 7337. 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California revised and expanded. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California. 502 + xv pp. 

Smith, J.J. 1998. Report of tidewater goby and California red-legged frog sampling results for 

1997 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished manuscript. 

Swenson, R.O. 1994. Survey for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in Novato 

Creek (Highway 37 Bridges, Marin County, California). Dept of Integrative Biology, 

University of California, Berkeley. 11 pp. 

Swenson, R.O. 1995. The reproductive behavior and ecology of the tidewater goby 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, 

Berkeley. 230 pp. 

Swenson, R.O. 1996a. Capturing tidewater gobies with artificial burrows (“Tube Trapping”). 

Trihey and Associates, Inc., Concord, California. 2pp. 

Swenson, R.O. 1996b. Sex-role reversal in the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 14pp. 

Swenson, R.O. 1999. The ecology, behavior, and conservation of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 55:99-119. 

Swift, C.C., J.N. Baskin, and T.R. Haglund. 1994. The status and distribution of the tidewater 

goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae), on MCB Camp Pendleton, 

California. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Report for Contract Number 

M0068193P4385. 69 pp. 

Swift, C.C., J. L. Nelson, C. Maslow, and T. Stein. 1989. Biology and distribution of the 

tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae) of California. Natural History 

Museum of Los Angeles County, No. 404. 

Swift, C.C., J.N. Baskin, and T.R. Haglund. 1997. Final report: biology and distribution of the 

tidewater goby on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Contract 

#MOO68 lBP4385. 70 pp. 

Trihey & Associates, Inc. 1996. Monitoring of the tidewater goby population in Rodeo Lagoon, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Concord, California 31 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

determination of endangered status for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 59(24):5494-

5498. 
139

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed 

rule to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby from the list of endangered 

and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64(121):33816-33825. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

withdrawal of proposed rule to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby from 

the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 67(216):67803-67818. 

Wang, J.C.S. 1982. Early life history and protection of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius 

newberryi)(Girard) in the Rodeo Lagoon of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Cooperative National Park Research Study Unit, Technical Report 7, Institute of Ecology, 

University of California, Davis, CPSU/UCD 022/3. 

Wang, J.C.S. 1984. Technical report No. 15 on the ecological status of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Girard), in a lagoon and lake of the Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, California. Cooperative National Park Research Study Unit, Technical 

Report 15, Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis. 

Wang, J.C.S. and T. P. Keegan. 1988. Technical report no.29 assessment of an oil spill on 

selected fishes in Rodeo Lagoon and Muir Beach. Cooperative National Park Research 

Study Unit, Technical Report 7, Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis. 52 + 

iv pp. 

Worcester, K.R. 1992. Habitat utilization in a central California coastal lagoon by the tidewater 

goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Masters thesis, California Polytechnic State University, 

San Luis Obispo. 218 + x pp. 
140

Appendix F-1. USFWS Field Office and Regional Office Contacts

Please contact the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Service field office, for the counties indicated below, to 

obtain local information about the tidewater goby or application of this survey protocol: 

 

For San Diego or Orange County, or Los 

Angeles County south of the Santa Monica 

Pier, contact: 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92009 

Phone: (760) 431-9440 

Fax: (760) 930-0846 

For Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, 

Santa Barbara, or Ventura County, or Los 

Angeles County northwest of the Santa 

Monica Pier, contact: 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

2493 Portola Road, Suite B 

Ventura, California 93003 

Phone: (805) 644-1766 

Fax: (805) 644-3958 

For Sonoma, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, 

Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, or San 

Francisco County, contact: 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Phone: (916) 414-6600 

Fax: (916) 414-6713 

For Del Norte, Humboldt, or Mendocino 

County, contact: 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

1655 Heindon Road 

Arcata, California 95521 

Phone: (707) 822-7201 

Fax: (707) 822-8411

 

For information on ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, please contact: 

Region 1, USFWS 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Eastside Federal Complex 

911 N.E. 11th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97232-4181 

Phone: (503) 231-6241 

Fax: (503) 231-6243
141

Appendix F-2. General instructions for filling out California Natural Diversity Data Base

field survey forms 

The California Natural Diversity Data Base is the largest, most comprehensive database of its 

type in the world. It presently contains more than 33,000 site specific records on California’s 

rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. The majority of the data collection effort for 

this has been provided by an exceptional assemblage of biologists throughout the state and the 

west. The backbone of this effort is the field survey form. We are enclosing copies of California 

Natural Diversity Data Base field survey forms for species and natural communities. We would 

greatly appreciate you recording your field observations of rare, threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species and natural communities (elements) and sending them to us on these forms. 

We are interested in receiving forms on elements of concern to us; refer to our free publications: 

Special Plants List, Special Animals List, and Natural Communities List for lists of which 

elements these include. Reports on multiple visits to sites that already exist in the California 

Natural Diversity Data Base are as important as new site information as it helps us track trends in 

population/stand size and condition. Naturally, we also want information on new sites. We have 

enclosed an example of a field survey form that includes the information we like to see. It is 

especially important to include a photo copied portion of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic 

quad with the population/stand outlined or marked. Without the map, your information will be 

mapped less accurately, as written descriptions of locations are frequently hard to interpret. Do 

not worry about filling in every box on the form; only fill out what seems most relevant to your 

site visit. Remember that your name and telephone number are very important in case we have 

any questions about the form. If you are concerned about the sensitivity of the site, remember 

that the California Natural Diversity Data Base can label your element occurrence “Sensitive” in 

the computer, thus restricting access to that information. 

The California Natural Diversity Data Base is only as good as the information in it, and we 

depend on people like you as the source of that information. Thank you for your help in 

improving the California Natural Diversity Data Base. 
142

Appendix F-3. Techniques to Minimize Effects to Tidewater Goby from Surveys 

General Guidelines 

When conducting sampling for tidewater gobies, particular care should be taken when walking in 

suitable habitat to minimize disturbance to the area, especially during breeding periods, when 

gobies in burrows could be crushed as a result of being stepped on. Entry to the water should be 

slow, and where possible, visually scan for gobies before entry. This precaution should also be 

taken when launching and retrieving of boats as part of sampling efforts. When captured, 

tidewater gobies should never be completely removed from water, and should remain completely 

wetted at all times. All individuals captured should be released immediately after identification 

at the point of capture. Any tidewater gobies exhibiting signs of physiological stress shall be 

immediately released. As part of the presence/absence survey, measuring gobies is neither 

required nor recommended. Tidewater gobies shall not be anaesthetized, stained, dyed, or 

otherwise marked at any time. Electrofishing is not an authorized sampling method for tidewater 

gobies. 

Seining 

Disturbance and damage to burrows, eggs, and young should be minimized through use of the 

smallest and lightest weight seines practicable that meet protocol guidelines. It is important to 

avoid accidental injury or mortality to tidewater gobies, which may be caught and suffocated in 

vegetation such as algal mats or other debris when using seines. Rocks should be removed from 

seines immediately, otherwise tidewater gobies may be crushed by rocks tumbling and rolling in 

the seine. Bagged portions of seines must remain in the water until all tidewater gobies are 

removed. Temporary holding containers, if used, should be shallow, filled with clean water, and 

be placed in a location that will not result in exposure to extreme temperatures. 

Dip Netting 

When using dip nets, a container of water collected from the immediate vicinity of the tidewater 

goby capture should be available to immediately transfer gobies into when captured. 

Traps 

When setting minnow traps, place them in areas where anticipated tidal or upstream water 

volume fluctuations will not dewater the trap, or expose it to poor water conditions as a result of 

location. When checking traps, all contents should immediately be transferred to a container of 

water from the immediate vicinity before identifying fish species.
143

Appendix G. Description of Recovery Units and Sub-Units 

The six Recovery Units and 26 Sub-Units are described below. Information reviewed includes 

each Recovery Unit’s and Sub-Units distinguishing phylogeographical features, location, 

geological characterization, and tidewater goby morphological descriptions. Primary recovery 

tasks are also described for each location. In some cases, where data and research are lacking, 

descriptions are brief or incomplete. Table G-1, provided below, lists source populations for 

potential tidewater goby reintroduction and introduction sites. 

North Coast Unit (NC) 

This Recovery Unit extends from Smith River near the Oregon border to the southern end of 

Mendocino County. It has the greatest geographic extent along the coast (approximately 150 

miles) of any of the proposed recovery units. This unit forms a discrete clade in 

phylogeographic analysis (Dawson et al. 2001) and is also differentiated from other units in that 

all fish observed have complete supraorbital canal structures (D. Jacobs pers comm. 2004). 

South of Mendocino County for approximately 70 miles to Salmon Creek the coast is rocky and 

steep, and there appear to be few of the small estuarine habitats preferred by tidewater gobies. 

No tidewater gobies have been captured or detected within the estuaries, lagoons, and river 

mouths along this stretch of coast, further supporting our assumption that it is a significant 

barrier to tidewater goby dispersal. 

Only a limited number of mitochondrial sequences have been generated from within the North 

Coast Recovery Unit. These data alone are insufficient to define Sub-Units in the region. 

Therefore, Sub-Units are based on distance between sites and on coastal geomorphology, where 

differential dispersal over sand and rock, as observed elsewhere (Dawson et al. 2001; Barlow 

2002; Lafferty et al. 1999) and discussed above, comes into play.

Sub-Units 

The NC1 Sub-Unit is delineated by the extent of the Holocene alluvial surface along the coast in 

the Region of Smith River and Lake Earl/Talawa. This stretch of coast is characterized by lowlying sandy shores. Lake Earl, a large dune-dammed lagoon, likely sustains the largest tidewater 

goby population in the species range. However, Lake Earl is a single locale and is subject to 

breaching, which affects the population. In addition, the only other known habitat in the area in 

Tillas Slough of the Smith River has been difficult to collect at times, implying scarcity or 

intermittency of this population. Given the proximity and soft substrate, it is unlikely that these 

sites are genetically distinct except perhaps for potential loss of genetic variation in Tillas Slough 

due to bottlenecks*

 or recolonization. Tidewater gobies are not known from the steeper coast 

extending 30 miles to the south, suggesting that these populations are genetically isolated from 

the next Sub-Unit to the south. Thus, there is reason to be concerned given the presence of only 

two populations. It is possible that locations in the Smith River Estuary other than Tillas Slough 

might make viable tidewater goby habitat or that fish could be transplanted to Elk Creek or other 

small drainages just to the south on contiguous coastal lowlands. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 
144

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Confirm that Lake Earl is the source of genetic variation in the region. 

4) Transplant Tillas Slough with tidewater gobies from Lake Earl after 3 years of recorded 

absence. 

5) Establish populations in Elk Creek. 

The NC2 Sub-Unit consists of four occupied tidewater goby localities along approximately 15 

miles of low-lying coast associated with Holocene alluvium. This region, extending north of 

Patrick’s Point, is isolated from other regions by steep coasts. NC2 is primarily defined on the 

basis of the natural extent of the species range and geomorphology. The northernmost site, 

Redwood Creek estuary, is a seasonally breached freshwater estuary with sloughs. The other 

three sites are large open lagoons. Tidewater gobies have often proved difficult to locate in 

Redwood Creek estuary. One lagoon (Freshwater Lagoon) has high populations of introduced 

predators (centrarchids) and populations of tidewater gobies have not been observed there in 

over 50 years. The other two lagoons (Stone Lagoon, Big Lagoon) have a more continuous 

population history although frequency of sampling has been limited. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Confirm that Stone and Big Lagoons are the most genetically variable potential source 

populations in the region. 

4) Restore and transplant Redwood Creek estuary with tidewater gobies from Stone Lagoon after 

3 years of recorded absence (Table G-1). 

The NC 3 Sub-Unit consists of a region of sandy coast and coastal Holocene alluvium about 25 

miles in length from the mouth of the Mad River in the north across Arcata /Humboldt Bay to the 

Eel River to the south. Again, this Sub-Unit is defined largely by the isolation of this sandy 

shoreline limited by rocky shores to the north and south. Tidewater gobies have been recovered 

from the margin of Arcata/Humboldt Bay. Here they occupy high marsh channels. In the case 

of the Mad River Slough (not the Mad River proper) the habitat appears to be a long abandoned 

tide-gated irrigation channel marginal to the Slough, which in turn empties into Arcata Bay. 

This elevated habitat appears to be isolated from tidal action except perhaps during spring tides. 

This site is atypical in that it is not in a typical seasonally closed coastal setting (although the 

population in Lagunitas Creek that debouches into Tomales Bay and extirpated populations 

around San Francisco Bay may represent similar bay margin habitats). It seems likely that 

geomorphologic modification of this region may have led to less seasonally closed habitat over 

time. Dredging and jetties may also serve to maintain the open condition of Arcata Bay. 

Agricultural and transportation activity have also greatly modified the bay margins, likely 

eliminating tidewater goby habitat. 

The Mad River Slough is the only location where collections have been predictably successful in 

recent years. This habitat is small and potentially subject to further modification. Tidewater 

gobies have also recently been reported from southern Arcata Bay in Jacoby Creek, KATA 

Station, and Freshwater Slough, all of which are similar small habitat. Nevertheless, the status of 

the tidewater goby in the NC3 region seems particularly precarious. Thus, a proactive effort to 
145

place tidewater gobies in similar closed high-marsh-channel/bay-margin habitats seems 

appropriate. To this end, other localities such as Klopp Lake, Hookton Slough, and White 

Slough have been mentioned as potential tidewater goby habitat. These sites tend to be small, 

and it can be argued that, due to the small size and precarious nature of these habitats, a larger 

number of sites should be identified in which reintroductions should be attempted. Successive 

reintroductions should be attempted after observation of absence in 2 rather than 3 years. This is 

merited by the small size of sites that permit greater certainty of absence and the precarious 

nature of the suite of populations (metapopulation) that comprises the unit. 

Tidewater gobies have been recently reported from the Eel River (G. Goldsmith, pers. comm.. 

2004) . The Eel River has a more open system than tidewater gobies generally prefer; however, 

this river is part of the low alluvial plain that constitutes NC3. It is very likely that the Eel River 

and for that matter the Mad River were connected with the Humboldt/Arcata Bay system at 

various times in the Holocene either through flooding or channel migration. In short, it is 

worthwhile transferring tidewater gobies to the Mad River to see if it can sustain populations 

despite what appear to be less than perfect conditions. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Tidewater gobies should be transferred to the Mad River Estuary, Klopp Lake, Hookton 

Slough, and White Slough from the Mad River Slough, Jacoby Creek, KATA Station, and 

Freshwater Slough. 

4) Consider other sites around the margin of Humboldt Bay for transfer of tidewater gobies. 

5) Localities should be considered for transfer from persisting sites after 2 years of absence (see 

Table G-1). 

The NC4 Sub-Unit consists of Ten Mile River, a large relatively pristine locality that is 

seasonally closed. This site is separated by at least 60 miles of steep coast and Cape Mendocino 

from locations in NC3 to the north. The two small sites of Virgin and Pudding Creek, 

constituting NC5, are located less than 10 miles to the south, albeit over rocky substrate. These 

units may be isolated due to the rocky shore, or they could be sink populations supplied by Ten 

Mile River. Genetic analysis to assess the relationship between these units is necessary. As the 

lagoon is large, transplanting should probably not be conducted until extensive presence/absence 

surveys have not detected tidewater gobies over 4 years. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Ten Mile River should have gobies transferred to it from Virgin or Pudding Creek after 4 

years of recorded absence (see Table G-1). 

The NC5 Sub-Unit consists of Virgin and Pudding Creeks. These small closed stream habitats 

near Fort Bragg are separated by less than 10 miles from Ten Mile River. As discussed above, 

they may or may not be genetically isolated from this Sub-Unit (NC4). If after genetic analysis 

NC4 and NC5 are determined to be identical with Ten Mile River, or if they are determined to be 

operating as an interacting metapopulation with Ten Mile River, they should be conjoined and 
146

managed as a single unit. It may be that once the genetic issues have been addressed, other small 

habitats in the region could be identified to raise the number of habitats in the unit to support 

recovery. Virgin Creek and Pudding Creek should have tidewater gobies transferred (one from 

the other) after 2 years of recorded absence as they are small easily surveyed habitats. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Virgin and Pudding Creek should be recolonized after 2 years (see Table G-1). 

4) Other streams suitable for recolonization in the Fort Bragg region should be identified. 

The NC6 Sub-Unit consists of three small localities, Davis Pond, Brush Creek and Lagoon 

Creek, located on a low sandy shore north of Pt. Arena (Manchester State Beach). It is separated 

by about 25 miles of rocky coast to the north. This stretch of coast between NC5 and NC6 is of 

interest as it contains a number of modest size streams suggesting the possibility of tidewater 

goby habitat. However, streams such as the Noyo and Navarro may not close in the summer due 

to the lack of sandy sediment buildup at their mouths. Thus they may not be adequate tidewater 

goby habitat or they may only serve as tidewater goby habitat intermittently. The North Coast 

Unit is separated to the south of Point Arena by about 60 miles of steep coast where tidewater 

gobies have not been found. This break in distribution corresponds to a clade break in the 

Dawson et al. (2001) analysis between the North Coast Unit and the Greater Bay Area Unit. 

Given the small size and isolation of the NC6 habitats, their likelihood of persistence seems 

small. As yet, there is no evidence that they are genetically distinct. If such evidence were 

forthcoming, it could prove important to establish still other nearby populations to sustain the 

viability of this Sub-Unit. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Establish degree of genetic isolation of the Sub-Unit. 

3) Davis Pond, Virgin and Pudding Creek should be recolonized after 2 years (see Table G-1). 

4) Identify other streams suitable for recolonization in the Manchester Beach region. 

Greater Bay Unit (GB) 

This Recovery Unit extends from Salmon Creek just north of Bodega Head in Sonoma County to 

the Salinas River Valley in Monterey County. It is separated from the North Coast Unit by 60 

miles of steep coast and a clade break is evident in some analyses (Dawson et al. 2001). To the 

south, this unit is separated from the Central Coast Unit by the steep 100 mile long Big Sur Coast 

which supports little estuarine habitat appropriate for tidewater gobies. Again a clade break 

between the Greater Bay and Central Coast Units is evident in the Dawson et al. (2001) analysis. 

David Jacobs (pers comm. 2004) reported that the Greater Bay Unit has a low frequency of 

modest reduction of the supraorbital canal, as opposed to the North Coast Unit where no such 

reduction is observed, and units to the south where such reduction is more pervasive and 

instances of reduction are more substantial. 

In the North Coast Unit discussed above, genetic information in hand is limited and there is no 

evidence for genetic differentiation. In contrast, in the Greater Bay Unit approximately 240 
147

tidewater gobies from 16 collection localities have mitochondrial control regions sequenced (D. 

Jacobs pers. comm. 2004; Barlow 2002). There are still a few localities in the region such as 

Scott Creek and Waddell Creek where interpolation is required. Nevertheless, a reasonably 

comprehensive pattern has emerged. This pattern is one of substantial and very local genetic 

differentiation, which is presumed to be a consequence of lack of dispersal around rocky 

promontories. Of the 15 localities examined by Barlow (2002) only a few closely spaced 

samples are not highly significantly different from all others in the region on the basis of an 

AMOVA (Analysis of Molecular Variance) and FST where significance is established by iterative 

resampling techniques. David Jacobs (pers. comm. 2004) infers that many of these locations 

have been isolated for much of the Holocene in a scenario where sea level rise at the beginning 

of the Holocene flooded many small valleys creating large numbers of closely spaced habitats. 

Subsequently, shoreline retreat due to coastal erosion eliminated many of these habitats. The 

remaining populations were then more widely spaced and evolved in long-term genetic isolation 

from one another. 

Given the degree of differentiation and the possibility of statistically significant differences due 

to loss of genetic variation that may have occurred as a result of recolonization events (in the few 

places where they occur), we are conservative in the definition of Sub-Units in this region. SubUnits are only defined in cases of long term isolation as evidenced by lack of shared haplotypes 

with other sites, unique fixed or nearly fixed differences, or the presence of endemic clades of 

haplotypes exclusive to the Sub-Unit. Endemic clades of haplotypes strongly support a history 

of in situ evolution and thus are strongly indicative of long periods of isolation. Despite the 

application of this relatively strict criterion 11 Sub-Units are defined in the region are discussed 

below. 

Sub-Units 

The GB1 Sub-Unit is located immediately north of Bodega Head in Sonoma County. Salmon 

Creek is the only site known to be occupied and fish from Salmon Creek are highly statistically 

significant from all other in an AMOVA analysis, contain related endemic haplotypes (endemic 

clade) and share no haplotypes with other localities. No other occupied tidewater localities have 

been reported north of Bodega Head and south of the North Coast Unit as discussed above. 

However, there is a small stream valley, Marshall Gulch, located a couple of miles north of 

Salmon Creek. As Salmon Creek is a unique singleton population*

, establishment at this 

additional site would provide some safeguards. However, due to small size, Marshall Gulch may 

prove to be marginal habitat. It is also in private hands. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Survey Marshall Gulch for the presence of tidewater gobies. Assuming they are absent, 

attempt to arrange for transfer to there from Salmon Creek. This should include arrangements 

with landholders, and possibly enhancement to the habitat. 

3) Tidewater gobies should be transferred regularly from Salmon Creek to Marshall Gulch in 

order to maintain the genetic variation of this “backup population”. 
148

The GB2 Sub-Unit includes the “Esteros” (Estero Americano and Estero San Antonio), Marin 

County, where tidewater gobies are generally present, and extirpated sites in Bodega Bay 

(Cheney Gulch) and Walker Creek in northern Tomales Bay, Marin County. Estero Americano 

and Estero San Antonio are dominated by a diverse clade of haplotypes endemic to this unit. 

Two other clades of haplotypes are present, one of which is exclusive to Estero Americano. This 

set of haplotypes is similar, but not identical to those in tidewater gobies from Salmon Creek. 

Perhaps because of the presence of these haplotypes in Estero Americano and not in Estero San 

Antonio, FST analysis documents that the Esteros are distinct from each other at the 5 percent 

level. Thus even though they are adjacent to each other gene flow between them does not appear 

to be continuous. Nevertheless they are treated in the same unit here. 

Given the subtle differences between the Esteros, any attempt to recolonize sites around Bodega 

Harbor should come from Estero Americano. Bodega Harbor has been dredged since World 

War II, and a jetty to stabilize the opening was provided circa 1970. This likely increased the 

tidal variation in the inner reaches of the Bodega Harbor, which was separated by shallow flats 

from the opening. In addition, during the 1970’s a large road was built along the north and west 

margins of the Bay in preparation for a nuclear plant that was never constructed. This alteration 

of high marsh habitat may have eliminated tidewater gobies. Water wells in the dune fields 

north of the bay may also lower the water table and limit freshwater input, further constraining 

tidewater goby breeding habitat. Given these factors it is not clear how much potential there is 

for tidewater gobies to persist in Bodega Harbor. However, there seems to be little reason not to 

place tidewater gobies in potential habitats in the harbor on an experimental basis. The end of 

Cheney Gulch is one possible location for transfer. Another possibility is a ditch/marsh area near 

the north end of the harbor, which was isolated from the harbor by the construction of the 

shoreline road mentioned above. 

Walker Creek is located just inside Tomales Bay. Tomales Bay is fully tidal. At the entrance to 

the Bay are two sand spits extending from the east side of the Bay. These spits presumably 

accreted successively in the Holocene as a consequence of southward transport of sediment 

along the Bodega Bay shore. As these features are sand, presumably tidewater gobies could 

have readily moved around these features from the Esteros. Thus it is assumed that Walker 

Creek would have had greater contact with the Esteros than with the Lagunitas/Papermill locality 

at the southern terminus of Tomales Bay, as much of the shoreline within the bay is rocky and 

potentially precludes dispersal. However, it could be argued that mitochondrial sequences from 

museum specimens of tidewater gobies from Walker Creek should be generated to unequivocally 

establish that these historic populations were like those now in the Esteros. The reason for 

concern in this regard is that the Lagunitas tidewater gobies are genetically distinct from all other 

localities (discussed below), and the distinction between the north and south ends of the bay is 

based on our general assumption of exclusively adult dispersal over sand. There may be, or may 

have been historically more sand at depth in the bay than is evident today. In addition the 

argument for lack of larval dispersal may not apply to bays to the same degree as to seasonally 

closed sites on the outer coast. Lenses of freshwater could transport tidewater goby larvae 

around the bay following the first significant rains in the fall. Thus examination of the genetic 

affinities of Walker Creek museum samples may be merited even though this is relatively 

difficult to do. 
149

At the mouth of Walker Creek, the creek itself seems to be isolated from a marsh by a floodgenerated or possibly man-made levy. Thus the flow of the stream may be effectively 

channelized and separated from shallow tidewater goby habitat in the marsh area and a railroad 

trestle to the south of the creek. Due to this separation it is not clear whether good tidewater 

goby habitat is present. However tidewater gobies could be placed in the adjacent marsh or 

behind an abandoned railroad trestle adjacent to the marsh. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) “Experimental” introduction of Estero Americano tidewater gobies into Bodega Harbor 

habitats should be conducted at Cheney Gulch and the north end of the harbor. 

3) In the case of 4 years of monitored absence in either of the Esteros they should be recolonized 

from the other. 

4) The genetics of Walker Creek museum samples should be investigated, and, if appropriate, 

Estero San Antonio tidewater gobies should be introduced into Walker Creek. Some 

modifications to the habitat may be necessary to improve the habitat. 

The GB3 Sub-Unit is located in southern Tomales Bay, Marin County. Southern Tomales Bay is 

exceptionally muddy, presumably as a result of a phase of erosion and agricultural exploitation 

following the Gold Rush. The tidal exchange in the bay takes over two weeks to turn the water 

column, hence the retention of fine grained sediment. Until recently the Lagunitas/Papermill 

Creek population was considered extirpated. However, this last year a population of tidewater 

gobies was discovered by Darren Fong in a small distributary (Tomasini Creek) of Lagunitas 

Creek. Ten mitochondrial control region sequences were obtained from this population (D. 

Jacobs pers. comm. 2004). They are all identical and distinct by several base changes from 

tidewater gobies in other habitats. This population is isolated and appears to have suffered a 

bottleneck. This genetically distinct population appears to be in a precarious state. We would 

recommend immediate action to locate other habitats in Southern Tomales Bay to establish these 

fish. Fish Hatchery Creek on the west side of the Bay might be appropriate. Habitat, 

immediately south of Millerton Point might also be appropriate. Plans to improve habitat are 

currently being generated. These plans should be implemented in a way that allows this 

genetically unique population to persist. 

The GB4 Sub-Unit includes sites on the outer coast from Point Reyes, Marin County, south to 

Point San Pedro, San Mateo County, as well as sites within San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, 

Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties. Tidewater gobies have only persisted in Rodeo Lagoon, 

presumably due to a history of extensive shoreline modification in the region. This population is 

highly statistically distinct from all others; it shares no haplotypes with other localities and is 

dominated by a clade of related haplotypes. It is presumed to be representative of tidewater 

gobies from a large number of extirpated localities in the region. 

Immediately south of Point Reyes in Point Reyes National Seashore, Horseshoe Lagoon and 

Estero de Limantour appear to provide good protected habitat. The absence of historic records of 

tidewater gobies in these localities may relate to early habitat modification for grazing (tidegating for cattle ponds) and introduction of exotic sport fish. However, these problems are no 

longer an issue and placement of tidewater gobies in these localities would be merited. 
150

Many localities in San Francisco Bay and along the outer coast may be no longer viable due to 

habitat modification. Others may currently be suitable, but lack a source of recruits in the bay. 

As tidewater gobies are abundant at Rodeo Lagoon, there is little reason not to place gobies in a 

large number of habitats on an experimental basis. Thus it seems reasonable to survey the 

habitat in the region (GB4c and e through n, in Figure B-7) to identify localities most likely to 

provide tidewater goby habitat. This might include sites in addition to those listed in Table G-1. 

Some historic sites may be judged to be completely nonviable. In some cases habitat 

modification or elimination of exotics may be merited to improve suitability for tidewater gobies. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Introduction of tidewater gobies into Horseshoe Lagoon and Estero de Limantour from Rodeo 

Lagoon. 

3) Survey coast and bay habitats in the unit for currently viable tidewater goby habitat. 

4) Introduce tidewater gobies to suitable habitats on an experimental basis. 

The GB5 Sub-Unit includes three currently occupied sites: San Gregorio, Pescadero, and Bean 

Hollow, in San Mateo County. Haplotypes in the region form a single diverse monophyletic 

clade of haplotypes. All three sites are highly statistically distinct from all other tidewater goby 

sites in a resamples FST approach (Barlow 2002). San Gregorio Creek and Bean Hollow are not 

statistically differentiated from each other, but the intervening site, Pescadero Creek is. 

Presumably this is a consequence of extinction/recolonization dynamics between the sites. 

Despite this local heterogeneity there seems little reason to not to treat all three sites as a single 

unit as they are all on a relatively continuous sandy coast isolated by steeper coast to the north 

and south and share many haplotypes. Much of this coast is protected in State Parks. One 

additional estuary in this area, Pompino Creek, might support tidewater gobies if they were 

introduced. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Introduce tidewater gobies into Pompino Creek from Pescadero Creek. 

3) Reintroduce tidewater gobies after 4 years of monitoring (see Table G-1). 

The GB6 Sub-Unit is the first of a number of Sub-Units that are relatively closely spaced along 

the steep intermittently rocky shores from north of Santa Cruz to the Salinas Valley, Santa Cruz 

County. Despite the close spacing of many of these habitats, steep shores and minor 

promontories are associated with genetically distinct entities. There is no genetic information 

from the most northerly samples in this Sub-Unit, Scott and Waddell Creeks. Although they are 

grouped here with Laguna Creek, the next site to the south, the genetic relationship between the 

sites needs to be determined. 

Laguna Creek is highly significantly distinct from all other sites examined in the Greater Bay 

Unit (Barlow et al. 2002). It is dominated by an endemic clade of haplotypes. The most 

common haplotype found in Laguna Creek has also been observed once in Moran and once in 

Corcoran Lagoon. A common haplotype from the Sub-Unit GB7 also occurs once in Laguna 

Creek (n=16). Based on current sampling, several other haplotypes present in Laguna Creek are 
151

unique to the locality. These haplotypes could also be present in Scott or Waddell Creek to the 

north. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Waddell Creek, which is currently extirpated, should be supplied with tidewater gobies from 

Scott Creek. 

3) Scott Creek should be sampled genetically to determine if it is genetically distinct from 

Laguna Creek, which is substantially to the south. 

The GB7 Sub-Unit consists of a suite of closely spaced localities including Baldwin Creek, 

Lombardi Creek, Old Dairy Creek, Wilder Creek, Younger Lagoon and Moore Creek, Santa 

Cruz County. Mitochondrial sequence data are available for Baldwin Creek, Wilder Creek and 

Moore Creek. In addition it is known that both Younger Lagoon and Moore Creek have been 

extirpated and recently recolonized. Baldwin Creek and Wilder Creek are not differentiated by 

the iterated FST test. Moore Creek is actually statistically distinct from all other samples and 

shares some haplotypes with Moran/Corcoran in Sub-Unit GB8, but a greater number of 

haplotypes are shared with Wilder Creek and Baldwin Creek. Hence we place it with this group 

(Barlow 2002). Given its known extirpation, it appears that Moore Creek received recruits from 

both sites, Wilder Creek to the north and Moran Lake to the south. In these small sites 

extirpation and recolonization appear to be ongoing. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Assess additional tidewater goby extirpation and recolonization dynamics in the region. 

3) Reintroduce tidewater gobies after 4 years of monitoring (see Table G-1). 

The GB8 Sub-Unit includes Moran Lake and Corcoran Lagoon, Santa Cruz County, which are 

not statistically distinct from each other using an iterated resampling of data and calculation of 

FST (Barlow 2002). They are highly significantly different from all other sites, and Corcoran 

Lagoon contains some smaller clades of endemic haplotypes. Tidewater gobies recently 

recovered from the San Lorenzo River, which located west of Corcoran Lagoon, are most likely 

related to this unit. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Assess additional tidewater goby extirpation/recolonization dynamics in the region. In 

particular the genetics of fish from the San Lorenzo River need to be assessed, 

3) Improvement of other small habitats in the region so that they can sustain tidewater goby 

populations. 

4) Reintroduce tidewater gobies after 2 years of monitoring (see Table G-1). 

The GB9 Sub-Unit includes Aptos Creek and Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz County. Aptos Creek is 

highly statistically distinct from all other localities and it is dominated by a clade of endemic 

haplotypes suggesting in situ evolution. Soquel Creek is a historic tidewater goby site. If it is 

modified to support them, tidewater gobies should be reintroduced there. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 
152

1) Monitor 

2) Reintroduce tidewater gobies into Soquel Creek from Aptos Creek population. 

Reintroduction should take place regularly to maintain a backup population. 

The GB10 Sub-Unit includes the Pajaro River, Santa Cruz County, which is isolated from other 

tidewater goby localities in the region. A concerted effort should be made to determine if 

tidewater gobies continue to reside there. If they do, it should be determined whether or not 

theses tidewater gobies are distinct from tidewater gobies in Bennett Slough to the south. If no 

tidewater gobies are recovered or if they prove to be sufficiently similar to those in Bennett 

Slough, then the GB10 Sub-Unit should be joined with GB11 Sub-Unit. If tidewater gobies are 

determined to be absent from the Pajaro River, then tidewater gobies should be transplanted from 

Bennett Slough. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Survey intensively to confirm status of the tidewater goby. 

3) If not present, then improve habitat and introduce tidewater gobies from Bennett’s Slough. 

The GB 11 Sub-Unit includes Bennett’s Slough, Monterey County, which is the only locality 

where tidewater gobies have been recovered recently in the Salinas Valley/Monterey Coastal 

Plain. These tidewater gobies are highly significantly differentiated from all other tidewater 

gobies in the unit and contain a clade of endemic haplotypes implying long term in situ

evolution. 

Given the range of interconnected waterways including coastal lagoons as well as agricultural 

features in the Salinas Valley, it seems that tidewater gobies may persist in other localities in this 

area. A survey of potential localities in the Salinas Valley/Monterey Coastal Plain should be 

made to ascertain whether tidewater gobies are present and what other habitat would be 

appropriate for their reintroduction. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Survey intensively to identify additional tidewater goby habitat in the Salinas Valley. 

3) Reintroduce Bennett Slough tidewater gobies into other appropriate tidewater goby habitat in 

the Salinas Valley including, but not limited to the Salinas River. 

Central Coast Unit (CC) 

This Recovery Unit is bounded on the north by the steep Big Sur Coast and on the south by Point 

Buchon immediately south of Morro Bay, and is differentiated by a clade break in the Dawson et 

al. 2001 data. This unit contains 21 localities from which tidewater gobies have been found at 

various times. Twenty-nine mitochondrial sequences (D. Jacobs pers. comm. 2004; Dawson et 

al. 2001) have been obtained. Due to the limited number of samples relative to populations, 

these data are suggestive, but not conclusive, of subdivision in the region. On the basis of 

headlands at Point Piedras Blancas and north of Estero Point the region is subdivided into three 

low coastal regions considered to be Sub-Units. In most cases these Sub-Units support many 

small closely spaced coastal estuaries. One important objective is to understand the degree of 
153

genetic differentiation of the three Sub-Units, and whether the genetic data support this number 

of units. 

Sub-Units 

The CC1 Sub-Unit is located north of Piedras Blancas, San Luis Obispo County, and consists of 

two sites, one of them currently extirpated. If genetic studies support the differentiation of these 

sites, an effort should be made to supply Arroyo del Oso and perhaps other sites in the region 

with tidewater gobies. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Reintroduce Arroyo del Corral tidewater gobies to Arroyo del Oso. 

4) Examine other sites for potential introduction. 

The CC2 Sub-Unit consists of shallow coast line with multiple small estuaries south of Piedras 

Blancas and north of the Point Estero Coast. Of the eight small sites here one seems to be 

currently extirpated. Given the number of sites and the lack of obvious threats little management 

may be required. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Consider reintroductions if 50 percent of populations are extirpated. 

The CC3 Sub-Unit extends south of Estero Point into Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County. This 

area again involves closely spaced populations similar to CC2. However, it is distinct in that 

sites in the south adjacent to and within Morro Bay appear to have been adversely affected by 

human activity. Currently, Morro and Chorro Creek immediately outside and within Morro Bay 

have been extirpated, and Los Osos Creek within the Bay may have been recently recolonized. 

These sites appear to have been adversely affected, by channelization in the case of Morro 

Creek. Sites in Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek in Morro Bay may have been affected by 

dredging and jetty construction that increase tidal amplitude as well as the effects of marina 

construction and other development. This again suggests that bay populations are more subject 

to extirpation, perhaps due to greater modification of these habitats (e.g. Humboldt/Arcata Bay, 

Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, San Francisco Bay). There are six currently viable localities in the 

area immediately to the north of Morro Creek. An assessment of habitat quality and threat 

removal in Morro Creek and Morro Bay would seem appropriate as the tidewater gobies appear 

to have naturally recolonized within Morro Bay (Lafferty et al. 1999). 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Improve tidewater goby habitat in Morro Creek and Morro Bay. 

4) Consider reintroductions if number of occupied sites falls below four. 
154

Conception Unit (CO) 

This Recovery Unit begins south of the promontory of Point Buchon and extends all the way 

around Point Conception and is bounded to the south and east of the Santa Barbara coast ending 

at the southern Ventura County line. Both of these termini are supported by clade breaks in the 

Dawson et al. (2001) analysis. It is at first surprising that Point Conception does not form a 

significant barrier. However, unlike other promontories along the coast such as Bodega Head, 

Point Reyes or the Big Sur Coast, which are made of Sierran type granite, or a number of other 

promontories such as Estero Point, which are made of Mesozoic Franciscan material, Point 

Conception is composed of Miocene age sedimentary rocks, which erode rapidly and supply 

sediment locally. In addition there is likely a substantial supply of sand from the north at Point 

Conception. In any case, examination of coastal photos documents that the shoreline at Point 

Conception and Point Arena does not have any long rocky stretches but is regularly interspersed 

with sand. This combination of substrates does not appear to limit tidewater goby migration to 

the same degree as harder substrates. In terms of genetic data, research currently being 

conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles is in the process of dramatically 

increasing the amount of mitochondrial sequence from the region surrounding the City of Santa 

Barbara (D. Jacobs pers. comm. 2004). There is some suggestion, but not confirmation due to 

small sample sizes, of endemic clades of haplotypes to the north of Point Conception especially 

in the Pismo Creek Area. Another issue of concern is Hollister Ranch. In this region to the 

south and east of Point Conception access has been difficult to obtain and no tidewater goby 

samples have been recovered for genetic analysis. 

This Recovery Unit is divided into three Sub-Units on the basis of promontories at Point Sal and 

Point Arguello. There is considerable sandy shore north of Point Arguello. Along the south - 

facing coast to the southeast of Point Conception there are many closely spaced habitats with 

potential rocky shore barriers that are limited in scale. Thus barriers to dispersal appear to be 

modest. 

Sub-Units 

The CO1 Sub-Unit extends between Point San Luis and Point Sal and is a largely sandy shoreline. Three localities currently have tidewater gobies: San Luis Obispo Creek, Pismo Creek and 

the Santa Maria River. Given the apparent distinction of populations in the region, effort should 

be made to reestablish tidewater gobies in coastal habitat in the Arroyo Grande region 

immediately south of Pismo Creek and in Oso Flaco Lake.

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Improve habitat and reduce threats to tidewater gobies in Arroyo Grande and Oso Flaco Lake. 

4) Reintroduce tidewater gobies into Arroyo Grande and Oso Flaco (see Table G-1). 

The CO2 Sub-Unit extends from Point Sal to Point Arguello over generally sandy coast. The 

unit consists of four tidewater goby habitats ranging from large systems, such as the Santa Ynez 

River, to Cañada Honda, a frequently extirpated population. 
155

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Improve habitat and remove threats as there only four tidewater goby habitats in the unit. 

4) Recolonize (see Table G-1). 

The CO3 Sub-Unit extends from Point Arguello to the southeastern terminus of the unit in the 

steep Seacliff region. This Sub-Unit is a fairly long stretch of coast and contains a large number 

(28) of small habitats. With the available geographic and genetic data it is not clear that there is 

any place where the unit should be subdivided. It is possible that Jalama Creek, which lies 

between Point Arguello and Point Conception, belongs more appropriately with CO2. An 

additional complication is lack of access to Hollister Ranch, where eight populations reside but 

no monitoring or recovering of tidewater goby samples is currently possible. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study (including Hollister Ranch). 

4) Consider recolonization if there is a 25 percent reduction in number of inhabited locations. 

LA/Ventura Unit (LV) 

This Recovery Unit is bounded on the north by the steep region at Seacliff and is not subdivided 

into Sub-Units. The southern terminus is the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The northern terminus is a 

clade break in Dawson et al. (2001). This region at Seacliff is unusual in that it is formed by a 

rapidly uplifted Pleistocene sediment. The cliffs themselves are not indurated. What appears to 

cause the break is the presence of cobbles rather than sand in the intertidal and shallow subtidal, 

which in turn support algal cover. This appears to have been sufficient to isolate this region so 

that clade formation (coalescence) and reciprocal monophyly could be established. The southern 

end of this clade has been hard to define because of anthropogenic elimination of habitats. The 

continuity of this group from the Ventura/Santa Clara flood plain around to the Santa Monica 

Bay is supported by the morphology of classic museum specimens as discussed above. Tidewater 

gobies in Ormond/J Street Drain site are naturally recolonized, those in Malibu Creek are the 

product of artificial introduction, and those in Topanga Creek are naturally recolonized, 

presumably from Malibu Creek. Barlow (2002) in her thesis examined 30 mitochondrial 

sequences from each of the five currently inhabited sites in the region. Given this history it is 

perhaps not surprising that this region has significantly reduced genetic variation relative to those 

to the north and that the populations are not genetically differentiated from each other. The only 

statistically significant result identified Topanga Creek as having even greater reduction in 

genetic variation, presumably due to founder effect*

. Given the history of impact in the region it 

would be beneficial to establish or reestablish additional sites. Possibilities include the “duck 

ponds” region of Mugu Lagoon, Big Sycamore Canyon, Arroyo Sequit, Zuma Creek, and 

perhaps Ballona Creek. Big Sycamore Creek and possibly Zuma Creek might currently support 

tidewater gobies. But all these sites would benefit from restoration - primarily the removal of fill 

to make space for lagoon development, as in many cases Pacific Coast Highway and State Parks 

are built on artificially filled lagoon areas. 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 
156

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study. 

3) Improve habitat and remove threats to tidewater gobies followed by reintroduction to 

reconstruct this highly degraded unit. 

4) Recolonize (see Table G-1). 

South Coast Unit (SC) 

This Recovery Unit is 4 percent sequence divergent (Dawson et al. 2001), and is 

morphologically distinct in that all tidewater gobies observed in the region have substantial 

reduction of the supraorbital canal. Thus these tidewater gobies have been isolated for a 

substantial period of time, perhaps in excess of the 2 million year duration of the Pleistocene. 

Thus this unit would appear to be distinct at the subspecific or perhaps even the species level 

from all the other tidewater goby units. This unit also presents a considerable conservation 

challenge as tidewater gobies appear to have been extirpated from much of the region by urban 

development. It seems likely that they occupied estuarine habitat from San Pedro, south of Palos 

Verdes, to La Jolla. Tidewater gobies now occur only on Camp Pendleton, where they undergo 

frequent extirpation and recolonization, and from the limited mitochondrial sequence data in 

hand they appear to be severely bottlenecked (Dawson et al. 2002). From the few observations 

with microsatellites that we have (D. Jacobs pers. comm. 2004) it appears that there may be a 

subtle distinction between the two locations in northern Camp Pendleton and the several 

locations towards the south of the base. These data need to be corroborated by a formal 

microsatellite study. At the moment, the north and the south are treated as separate Sub-Units to 

facilitate the maintenance of suspected genetic variation. In order to aid recovery of the species 

the tidewater goby should be reintroduced into as many localities as possible to the north and 

south of Camp Pendleton. These localities tend to be larger than those on Camp Pendleton, and 

before their modification they were the likely stable source populations in this regional 

metapopulation. Unfortunately lagoon management has tended toward complete isolation from 

the sea or, more frequently, deep dredging for recreational use. This management makes 

recolonization difficult at some known historical tidewater goby sites such as San Pedro or Agua 

Hedionda. Thus sites that have no historic records, but which show every likelihood of having 

been prime tidewater goby habitat prior to human modification of the systems, are included as 

prospective tidewater goby reintroduction sites - e.g., Bolsa Chica to the north and San Elijo 

Lagoon, San Diegito Lagoon, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. These sites should be actively pursued 

for improvement and reintroduction to augment the number of tidewater goby habitats in this 

unit as these locations better approximate the natural semi-closed state than do some of the 

others. 

SC1 and SC2 

Primary tasks recommended for recovery: 

1) Monitor 

2) Substantiate Sub-Unit with genetic study (microsatellite). 

3) Improvement habitat and remove threats to tidewater gobies followed by reintroduction to 

reconstruct this highly degraded unit. 

4) Recolonize (see Table G-1).
157

Table G-1. Tidewater Goby Reintroduction Sites 

Recovery 

Unit Sub-Unit 

Site 

Code Recipient population* 

Source 

population(s) if 

restorable 

Years to wait from 

extirpation to reintroduction** 

a Tillas Slough (Smith River) NC1b 3 

NC1 b Lake Earl-Lake Talawa NC1a 3 

c Elk Creek NC1b 0/3 

a Redwood Creek estuary NC2b, c 3 

b Freshwater Lagoon NC2c 3 

c Stone Lagoon NC2d 3 

NC2 

d Big Lagoon NC2c 3 

a Mad River NC3a 0/2 

b Mad River Slough NC3c-g 2 

c Klopp Lake NC3b 0/2 

d Jacoby Creek NC3b 0/2 

e KATA Station Site NC3f 0/2 

f Freshwater Slough NC3b 2 

NC3 

g Eel River NC3b,f 0/2 

NC4 a Ten Mile River NC5a 5 

a Virgin Creek NC5b 2 NC5 

b Pudding Creek NC5a 0/2 

a Davis Pond NC6b 2 

b Brush Creek NC6c 2 

NORTH COAST UNIT 

NC6 

c Lagoon Creek NC6b 2 

a Marshall Gulch GB1b 2 GB1 

b Salmon Creek GB1a 3 

a Johnson Gulch GB2c 0/2 

b Cheney Gulch GB2c 0/2 

c Estero Americano GB2d 4 

d Estero de San Antonio GB2c 4 

GB2 

e Walker Creek GB2d 0/2 

a Lagunitas Creek GB3b,c 3 

GB3 b Millerton GB3a 0/2 

c Fish Hatchery Creek GB3a 0/2 

a Horseshoe Lagoon GB4d 0/3 

b Estero de Limantour GB4d 0/3 

c Bolinas Lagoon GB4a 0/3 

d Rodeo Lagoon GB4d 4 

e Corte Madera Creek GB4d 0/2 

f Mill Creek GB4d 0/2 

g Novato Creek GB4d 0/2 

h Petaluma Creek GB4d 0/2 

i Strawberry Creek GB4d 0/2 

j Lake Merrit GB4d 0/2 

GREATER BAY UNIT 

GB4 

k Cliff House/Golden Gate Park GB4d 0/2 
158

Recovery 

Unit Sub-Unit 

Site 

Code Recipient population* 

Source 

population(s) if 

restorable 

Years to wait from 

extirpation to reintroduction** 

l Lake Merced GB4d 0/2 

m Laguna Salada GB4d 0/2 

n San Pedro Creek GB4d 0/2 

a San Gregorio Creek GB5d 4 

b Pompino Creek GB5c 0/3 

c Pescadero-Butano Creek GB5b 4 

GB5 

d Bean Hollow Creek GB5a 4 

a Waddell Creek GB6b 0/2 

GB6 b Scott Creek GB6a 3 

c Laguna Creek GB6a 3 

a Baldwin Creek GB7b 3 

b Lombardi Creek GB7a 4 

c Old Dairy Creek GB7b 4 

d Wilder Creek GB7a 4 

e Younger Lagoon GB7d 4 

GB7 

f Moore Creek GB7d 4 

a San Lorenzo River GB8b 3 

GB8 b Corcoran Lagoon GB8c 3 

c Moran Lake GB8b 3 

a Soquel Creek GB9b 0/2 GB9 

b Aptos Creek GB9a 2 

GB10 a Pajaro River GB10a 5 

a Bennett Slough GB11b 2 GB11 

b Salinas River GB11a 0/2 

a Arroyo del la Cruz CC1b 0/2 

CC1 b Arroyo del Oso CC1a 0/2 

c Arroyo de Corral CC1a 2 

a Oak Knoll Creek CC2b TBD 

b Arroyo de Tortuga CC2a TBD 

c Broken Bridge Creek CC2a TBD 

d Little Pico Creek CC2e TBD 

e Pico Creek CC2d TBD 

f San Simeon Creek CC2d TBD 

g Leffingwell Creek CC2f TBD 

CC2 

h Santa Rosa Creek CC2f TBD 

a Villa Creek CC3c TBD 

b San Geronimo Creek CC3a TBD 

c Cayucos Creek CC3a TBD 

d Little Cayucos Creek CC3c TBD 

e Old Creek CC3d TBD 

f Willow Creek CC3e TBD 

g Toro Creek CC3i,j TBD 

CENTRAL COAST UNIT 

CC3 

h Morro Creek CC3i,j TBD 
159

Recovery 

Unit Sub-Unit 

Site 

Code Recipient population* 

Source 

population(s) if 

restorable 

Years to wait from 

extirpation to reintroduction** 

 i Chorro Creek CC3j TBD 

j Los Osos Creek CC3i TBD 

a San Luis Obispo Creek CO1b 4 

b Pismo Creek CO1a 4 

c Arroyo Grande CO1b 0/2 

d Oso Flaco Lagoon CO1b 0/2 

CO1 

e Santa Maria River CO1b 3 

a Shuman Canyon CO2b 3 

b San Antonio Creek CO2c 3 

c Santa Ynez River CO2b 4 

CO2 

d Canada Honda CO2c 2 

a Jalama Creek CO3b TBD 

b Canada del Cojo CO3a TBD 

c Canada del Pescado CO3b TBD 

d Canada del las Agujas CO3b TBD 

e Arroyo el Bulito CO3b,d TBD 

f Canada del Agua CO3d,e TBD 

g Canada de Santa Anita CO3d,e TBD 

h Canada de Alegria CO3g TBD 

i Canada de Aqua Caliente CO3h TBD 

j Gaviota Creek CO3i TBD 

k Arroyo Hondo CO3j TBD 

l Arroyo Quemado CO3j TBD 

m Refugio Creek CO3j,l TBD 

n Eagle Canyon CO3m TBD 

o Tecolote Canyon CO3m,p TBD 

p Winchester Canyon CO3o TBD 

q Devereux Slough CO3p TBD 

r Campus Lagoon CO3p TBD 

s Goleta Slough CO3p TBD 

t Arroyo Burro CO3u TBD 

u Mission Creek CO3t TBD 

v Laguna Channel CO3u TBD 

w Sycamore Creek CO3u TBD 

x Andree Clark Bird Refuge CO3u TBD 

y Arroyo Paredon CO3u TBD 

z Carpinteria Salt Marsh CO3u,y TBD 

aa Carpinteria Creek CO3u,y TBD 

CONCEPTION UNIT 

CO3 

ab Rincon Creek CO3aa TBD 

a Ventura River LV1b 3 

b Santa Clara River LV1a 3 

c J Street Drain/Ormond LV1a 3 

LA/VENTU

RA UNIT 

LV1 

d Calleguas Creek/Mugu LV1b 0/3 
160

Recovery 

Unit Sub-Unit 

Site 

Code Recipient population* 

Source 

population(s) if 

restorable 

Years to wait from 

extirpation to reintroduction** 

e Sycamore Canyon LV1c 0/3 

f Arroyo Sequit LV1c 0/3 

g Zuma Canyon LV1c 0/3 

h Malibu Creek LV1a 3 

i Topanga Creek LV1h 4 

j Santa Monica Artesian Springs LV1a,b TBD 

 

k Ballona Creek LV1h 3 

a San Pedro Harbor SC1f 0/2 

b Bolsa Chica SC1f 0/2 

c Aliso Creek SC1f 0/2 

d San Juan Creek SC1f 0/2 

e San Mateo Creek SC1f 2 

SC1 

f San Onofre Creek SC1e 2 

a Las Pulgas Creek SC2c 2 

b Hidden Lagoon SC2d 2 

c Aliso Canyon SC2a 2 

d French Lagoon SC2b 2 

e Cockleburr Canyon SC2d 2 

f Santa Margarita River SC2e 2 

g San Luis Rey River SC2a-e 0/2 

h Buena Vista Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

i Aqua Hedionda Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

j Batiquitos Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

k San Elijo Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

l San Diegito Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

SOUTHERN COAST UNIT 

SC2 

m Los Peñasquitos Lagoon SC2a-e 0/2 

*see Appendix E threats table for location status as of 2004. 

**TBD = to be determined, contact appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Field Office for further direction. 
161

Literature Cited for Appendix G 

Barlow, M. 2002. Phylogeographic structure of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi

(Teleostei: Gobiidae), in the San Francisco Bay area and Ventura County: Implications 

for Conservation Management. A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the 

requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Biology, University of California at Los 

Angeles. 

Dawson, M. N., J. L. Stanton, and D. K. Jacobs. 2001. Phylogeography of the tidewater goby, 

Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), in coastal California. Evolution 

55(6):1167-1179. 

Dawson, M.N., K.D. Louie, M. Barlow, D.K. Jacobs and C.C. Swift. 2002. Comparative 

phylogeography of sympatric sister species, Clevelandia ios and Eucyclogobius 

newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), across the California Transition Zone. Molecular 

Ecology 11:1065-1075. 

Lafferty, K.D., C.C. Swift, and R.F. Ambrose. 1999. Extirpation and recolonization in a 

metapopulation of an endangered fish, the tidewater goby. Conservation Biology 

13:1447-1453. 
162

Appendix H. Summary of Threats and Recommended Recovery Actions. 

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTION NUMBERS

A Loss of marsh habitat due to 

drainage for coastal 

development projects and 

dredging 

I.a, I.b, II 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 

2.8, 2.12, 3.1, 3.2 

A Changes in temperature and 

salinity regimes due to 

upstream water diversions, 

groundwater overdrafting, 

dikes and levees in 

subsidence zones, blockage 

of connections between 

marsh and ocean by roads or 

railroads, or summer 

breaching of lagoons 

I.a, I.b, II 1.2.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 

1.2.10, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8, 2.12, 3.1, 

3.2 

A Invasion of plants on bare 

lagoon substrates due to 

upstream water diversions 

I.a, I.b, II 1.2.2, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 2.2, 

2.8, 3.1, 3.2 

A Water quality reduction due 

to siltation, oil field runoff, 

animal wastes, and 

agricultural or sewage 

effluent 

I.a, I.b, II 1.1.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 

2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2 

A Sedimentation and habitat 

degradation due to cattle 

grazing and feral pig 

activity 

I.a, I.b, II 1.1.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 

1.2.10, 2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2 

A, E Winter floods, exacerbated 

by river channelization, 

scouring out sandy habitat 

and washing gobies out of 

lagoons 

I.a, I.b, II 1.2.4, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 2.5, 

2.8, 3.1, 3.2 

B Not applicable 

C Predation by introduced 

predatory fishes 

(centrarchids, striped bass, 

etc.), amphibians, or 

crayfish 

I.a, I.b, II 1.1.2, 1.2.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 
163

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTION NUMBERS

C Infestation by parasitic 

flukes (Cryptocotyle lingua) 

I.a, I.b, II 

D Inadequacy of Clean Water 

Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, 

and California 

Environmental Quality Act 

to protect the species 

Not 

applicable 

Beyond scope of recovery plan. 

E Deterioration of coastal and 

riparian habitat due to 

drought 

I.a, II 1.2.2, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 2.2 

E Competition with 

introduced species 

(rainwater killifish, exotic 

goby species) 

I.a, I.b, II 1.2.3, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 

E Small population size, 

stochastic extinction risk 

and loss of genetic 

distinctiveness for recovery 

units and sub-units 

I.a, II 1.1.1, 1.2.11, 1.2.12, 2.9, 2.10, 

2.11, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 

Listing Factors: 

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment Of Its Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, Educational Purposes (not a factor) 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Recovery Critera: 

I.a. Metapopulation viability analysis projects 75% chance of all sub-units persisting for 100 years. 

I.b. Individual management plans developed and implemented that address specific threats to each metapopulation. 

II. Metapopulation viability analysis projects 95% chance of all sub-units persisting for 100 years.