Biennial Report to Congress
 

On the Recovery Program For Threatened
 

and Endangered Species
 

October 1, 2000 - September 30, 2002 

Prepared by:
 

Office of Protected Resources
 

National Marine Fisheries Service
 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 
Table of Contents
 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
 

Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act....................................................................3
 

Sea Turtles.......................................................................................................................................6
 

Green Turtle.........................................................................................................................6
 

Hawksbill Turtle..................................................................................................................8
 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle...........................................................................................................9
 

Leatherback Turtle.............................................................................................................10
 

Loggerhead Turtle..............................................................................................................12
 

Olive Ridley Turtle............................................................................................................13
 

Pacific Salmon...............................................................................................................................17
 

Maps of Salmon ESUs.......................................................................................................25
 

Chinook ESU Populations.................................................................................................32
 

Coho ESU Populations......................................................................................................33
 

Steelhead ESU Populations................................................................................................34
 

Atlantic Salmon.............................................................................................................................36
 

White Abalone...............................................................................................................................40
 

Gulf Sturgeon.................................................................................................................................42
 

Shortnose Sturgeon........................................................................................................................44
 

Johnson’s Seagrass.........................................................................................................................47
 

Elkhorn Coral.................................................................................................................................49
 

Staghorn Coral...............................................................................................................................49
 
Introduction 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) has as its primary purpose the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The ultimate goal of 

such conservation is the recovery of endangered and threatened species and their ecosystems, so that 

they no longer need the conservation measures afforded them under the ESA. Among other things, the 

Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed endangered or threatened species (except for 

those species where it is determined that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species), 

which serve as an important tool to organize and guide the recovery process, and ensure that recovery 

is achieved. 

The Endangered Species Act amendments of 1988 included a requirement that the Secretaries 

of the Interior and Commerce report to Congress every two years on the status of efforts to develop 

and implement recovery plans, and the status of all species for which recovery plans have been 

developed. This is the seventh Report to Congress on the status of the recovery program for federally 

listed endangered and threatened species under the Secretary of Commerce’s jurisdiction. The 

Secretary has delegated responsibility for endangered species recovery to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 

Recovery is the cornerstone and ultimate purpose of the endangered species program. 

Recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or 

reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term conservation and survival in 

nature can be ensured. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are 

self-sustaining components of their ecosystem and, thus, to allow delisting. 

Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a tremendous challenge. It must reverse 

declines that often have occurred over long periods of time, sometimes centuries. Many listed species 

are facing multiple threats. Reversing long-term declines of listed species takes many years of research, 

restoration, protection, and active management. Recovery tasks for a species might include: defining 

threats through research on biological requirements, managing threats through habitat protection and 

restoration, imposing conservation measures on user groups, or in some cases, augmenting a population 

with captive breeding. 

This report summarizes efforts to recover species under NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction from 

October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2002. Along with recovery activities are accounts of the most 

recent status and trends of these species. NOAA Fisheries is responsible for 56 species including 

salmon, sturgeon, other fish, sea grass, mollusks, sea turtles, and marine mammals. The conservation 

and status of listed marine mammals is most recently reported in the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Annual Report to Congress 1999-2000 and is not included in this report. 

As of September 30, 2002, 33 U.S. non-marine mammal species (including 26 Pacific salmon 
ESUs) under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries were listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. By the end of fiscal year 2002, 17 (36%) of the U.S. endangered or threatened species had 

been stabilized or were improving while 15 (31%) are known to be declining and 16 (33%) are 

unknown or mixed in their status. The numbers are encouraging, especially given the large number of 

highly imperiled species that have been listed in the past decade. A list of species for which NOAA 

Fisheries is responsible is provided in Table 1. 

Recovery plans can be obtained by writing to: 

Endangered Species Division - Recovery Plans
 

Office of Protected Resources - F/PR3
 

National Marine Fisheries Service
 

1315 East-West Highway
 

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
 

This report is available on-line via the NOAA Fisheries-Office of Protected Resources Website at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/ESABiennial/2002bien.pdf. 

Recovery plans are available electronically at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR3/recovery.html. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act Annual Report to Congress 1999-2000 is also available 

electronically at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/MMPA_Annual_Report/annualreport.html 
Table 1: Species Protected By NOAA Fisheries Under the Endangered Species Act 

Species 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

Year of 

Listing

1978 

Status and Population Trends 

Threatened - Stable 

Green Sea Turtle 1978 Endangered/Threatened - Declining 

Leatherback Sea Turtle 1970 Endangered - Declining 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle 1970 Endangered - Declining 

Kemps’s Ridley Sea Turtle 1970 Endangered - Increasing 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 1978 Endangered/Threatened - Declining 

Shortnose Sturgeon 1967 Endangered - Mixed 

Gulf Sturgeon 1991 Threatened - Stable 

White Abalone 2001 Endangered - Declining 

Atlantic Salmon 2000 Endangered - Declining 

Coastal Cutthroat 1999 Threatened - Unknown 

Chum Salmon 

Columbia River 1999 Threatened - Mixed 

Hood Canal Summer-run 1999 Threatened - Increasing 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 1998 Threatened - Increasing 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 1997 Threatened - Mixed 

Central California Coast 1996 Threatened - Declining 

Puget Sound/Straight of Georgia 1995 Candidate- Unknown 

Lower Columbia River/SW Washington 1995 Candidate - Declining 

Steelhead Trout 

Snake River 1997 Threatened - Mixed 

Upper Columbia River 1997 Endangered - Increasing 

Southern California 1997 Endangered - Unknown 

Middle Columbia River 1999 Threatened - Increasing 

Lower Columbia River 1998 Threatened - Declining 

Upper Willamette River 1999 Threatened - Declining 

Oregon Coast 1999 Candidate - Unknown 

Klamath Mountatins Province 1998 Candidate- Unknown 

Northern California 2000 Threatened - Declining 

South Central California Coast 1997 Threatened - Unknown 

California Central Valley 1998 Threatened - Declining 

Sockeye Salmon 

Snake River 1991 Endangered - Unknown 

Ozette Lake 1999 Threatened - Unknown 

Baker River N/A Not Warranted - Unknown 
Table 1: Species Protected By NOAA Fisheries Under the Endangered Species Act 

Species 

Chinook Salmon 

Year of 

Listing Status and Population Trends 

Central Valley California, spring-run 1999 Threatened - Increasing 

Snake River fall-run 1992 Threatened - Increasing 

Sacramento River Winter-run 1994 Endangered - Increasing 

Snake River Spring/Summer-run 1992 Threatened - Increasing 

Central Valley, fall/late fall-run 1999 Candidate - Increasing 

California Coastal 1999 Threatened - Unknown 

Puget Sound 1999 Threatened - Mixed 

Lower Columbia River 1999 Threatened - Declining 

Upper Willamette River 1999 Threatened - Declining 

Upper Columbia River, Spring Run 1999 Endangered - Declining 

Smalltooth Sawfish 2001 Proposed Endangered - Unknown 

Johnson's Sea Grass 1998 Threatened - Unknown 

Gulf of California Harbor Porpoise 1985 Endangered - Unknown 

Steller Sea Lion 

Eastern Stock 1990 Threatened - Increasing 

Western Stock 1997 Endangered - Declining 

Caribbean Monk Seal 1967 Endangered - Declining 

Guadelupe Fur Seal 1967 Threatened - Increasing 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1976 Endangered - Increasing 

Blue Whale 1970 Endangered - Increasing 

Bowhead Whale 1970 Endangered - Increasing 

Fin Whale 1970 Endangered - Unknown 

Humpback Whale 1970 Endangered - Increasing 

Northern Right Whale 1970 Endangered - Declining 

Sei Whale 1970 Endangered - Unknown 

Sperm Whale 1970 Endangered - Unknown 
Table 1: Species Protected By NOAA Fisheries Under the Endangered Species Act 

Species Most Recent Action 

Month and 

Year 

Alabama Shad Added to Candidates list July, 1997 

Atlantic Sturgeon Added to Candidates list August, 1988 

Barndoor Skate Petitioned. Found not warranted for listing. 

Retained as a candidate 

September, 2002 

Black Abalone Added to Candidates list June, 1999 

Boccacio Added to Candidates list June, 1999 

Dusky Shark Added to Candidates list June, 1997 

Elkhorn Coral Added to Candidates list June, 1999 

Goliath Grouper (formerly 

"jewfish") 

Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Green Sturgeon Petitioned and status review completed. June, 2002 

Key Silverside Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Largetooth Sawfish Petitioned. Found not warranted for listing. 

Retained as a candidate 

April, 2001 

Mangrove Rivulvus Added to Candidates list July, 1997 

Nassau Grouper Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Night Shark Added to Candidates list July, 1997 

Opposum Pipefish Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Pacific Hake Petitioned. Found not warranted for listing. 

Georgia Basin population added to candidates 

list 

November, 2000 

Saltmarsh Topminnow Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Sandtiger Shark Added to Candidates list June, 1991 

Smalltooth Sawfish Proposed endangered April, 2001 

Speckled Hind Added to Candidates list July, 1997 

Staghorn Coral Added to Candidates list June, 1999 

Warsaw Grouper Added to Candidates list July, 1997 

White Marlin Petitioned. Found not warranted for listing. 

Added to candidates list. NMFS to reevaluate 

in 2007 

September, 2002 
Sea Turtle Recovery 

NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service share responsibilities for the research,
 

management, and recovery of listed sea turtles. Although both agencies work closely together on many
 

marine turtle recovery activities, NOAA Fisheries is primarily responsible for recovery actions in the
 

marine environment and the USFWS is primarily responsible for recovery actions in the terrestrial
 

environment (i.e., nesting beaches). 

Green Turtle - Atlantic Population (Chelonia mydas)
 

The Florida breeding population of green turtles has been designated as endangered, while all other
 

Atlantic populations have been declared threatened. A Recovery Plan was approved on October 29,
 

1991.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least 6 

years. 

•	 At least 25% (105km) of all available nesting beaches (420 km) is in public ownership and 

encompasses greater than 50% of the nesting activity. 

•	 A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging 

grounds. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been successfully implemented. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches. 

•	 Ensure at least 60% hatch success on major nesting beaches. 

•	 Implement effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans on nesting beaches. 

•	 Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment 

•	 Minimize mortality from commercial fisheries. 

•	 Reduce threats to population and foraging habitat from marine pollution. 

Green Turtle - Pacific Population 

All United States Pacific populations of the green turtle are designated at threatened. A Recovery Plan 

was approved on January 12, 1998. 

Recovery Criteria: 

•	 All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on 

reasonable geographic parameters. 

•	 Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal of 

maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) females estimated to nest annually (FENA) 

over six years. 

•	 Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year 

monitoring period. 

•	 Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 
 

•	 Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key 

foraging grounds within each stock region. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

•	 A management plan to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place. 

•	 International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Stop the direct harvest of green turtles and their eggs, through education and law enforcement 

actions. 

•	 Eliminate the threat of fibropapillomas to green turtle populations. 

•	 Reduce incidental harvest of green turtles by commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

•	 Determine population size and status through regular nesting beach and in-water 

censuses. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

•	 Support conservation and biologically viable management of green turtle populations 

in countries that share U.S. green turtle stocks. 

•	 Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas for the species 

•	 Eliminate adverse effects of development on green turtle nesting and foraging habitats. 

•	 Control non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings, e.g., mongoose, feral cats, and 

pigs, in the Hawaiian population. 

Green Turtle - East Pacific Population 

The Mexican breeding population of green turtles is considered to be endangered. A Recovery Plan 

was approved on January 12, 1998. 

Recovery Criteria: See Green Turtle-Pacific Population 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Minimize boat collision mortalities, particularly within San Diego County, California. 

•	 Minimize incidental mortalities of turtles by commercial fishing operations. 

•	 Support the efforts of Mexico and the countries of Central America to census and protect 

nesting east Pacific green turtles, their eggs and nesting beaches. 

•	 Determine population size and status in U.S. waters through regular surveys. 

•	 Identify stock home range(s) using DNA analysis. 

•	 Identify and protect primary foraging areas in U.S. jurisdiction. 

Status of the Species 

Ggreen turtles are thought to be declining throughout the Pacific Ocean, with the exception of Hawaii, 

as a direct consequence of overexploitation, incidental take in fisheries, and habitat loss. In the western 

Atlantic, nesting populations in Florida and Costa Rica have shown increasing trends in recent years. 

Historically, green turtles were highly prized for their flesh, fat, eggs, and shell, and fisheries in the 

United States and other parts of the world contributed significantly to the decline of the species. In 

Texas, Laguna Madre once supported a significant green turtle population which was heavily exploited 
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, directed take of green turtles for local consumption and
 

for commercial purposes remains a major threat in some areas outside of the United States.
 

Total population size for the green turtle is not known, and trends are particularly difficult to assess
 

because of wide year-to-year fluctuations in numbers of nesting females, difficulties of conducting
 

research on early life stages, and long generation times. Present estimates of females nesting each year
 

in the U.S. average approximately 700 in Florida and 1,000 in Hawaii. Nesting in Florida is likely
 

reduced from historical levels however, recent data indicate that nesting may now be stable or
 

increasing. In Hawaii, nesting numbers are lower than historical levels but have shown a gradual
 

increase. However, the green turtle population in Hawaii and Florida is afflicted with a tumor disease,
 

known as fibropapillomatosis, which is of an unknown etiology and often fatal. Fibropapillomatosis is
 

considered an inhibiting factor to the full recovery of the Hawaiian green turtle population and threatens
 

the recovery of the Florida population as well.
 

Hawksbill Turtle - Atlantic Population (Eretmochelys imbricata)
 

The Atlantic populations of hawksbill turtles are listed as endangered. A Recovery Plan was approved
 

on November 24, 1993.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 The adult female population is increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend in the 

annual number of nests on at least five index beaches, including Mona Island and Buck Island 

Reef National Monument. 

•	 Habitat for at least 50 percent of the nesting activity that occurs in the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(USVI) and Puerto Rico is protected in perpetuity. 

•	 Numbers of adults, subadults, and juveniles are increasing, as evidenced by a statistically 

significant trend on at least five key foraging areas within Puerto Rico, USVI, and Florida. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been successfully implemented. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed:
 

Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches.
 

•	 Ensure at least 75 percent hatching success rate on major nesting beaches. 

•	 Determine distribution and seasonal movements of turtles in all life stages in the marine 

environment. 

•	 Minimize threat from illegal exploitation. 

•	 End international trade in hawksbill products. 

•	 Ensure long-term protection of important foraging habitats. 

Hawksbill Turtle - Pacific Population 

All populations of the Pacific hawksbills are listed as endangered. A Recovery Plan was approved on 

January 12, 1998. 

Recovery Criteria: 

•	 All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on 
reasonable geographic parameters. 

•	 Each stock must average 1,000 females estimated to nest annually (FENA) (or a biologically 

reasonable estimate based on the goal of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) over six 

years. 

•	 All females estimated to nest annually (FENA) at "source beaches" are either stable or 

increasing for 25 years. 

•	 Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

•	 Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging 

grounds within each stock region. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

•	 A management plan designed to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place. 

•	 Ensure formal cooperative relationship with regional sea turtle management programs (South 

Pacific Regional Environment Program [SPREP]). 

•	 International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Stop the direct harvest of hawksbill turtles and eggs, through education and law enforcement 

actions. 

•	 Reduce incidental mortalities of hawksbills by commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

•	 Determine population size, status and trends through long-term regular nesting beach and inwater censuses. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

•	 Support conservation and biologically viable management of hawksbill populations in countries 

that share U.S. hawksbill stocks. 

•	 Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas for the species. 

•	 Eliminate adverse effects of development on hawksbill nesting and foraging habitats. 

•	 Control non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings, e.g., mongoose, feral cats, and pigs, in the 

Hawaiian population. 

Status of the Species 

The species is severely depleted throughout its range as a result of decades of intensive harvest of
 

hawksbills. Today, most nesting populations continue to decline, a few appear stable, and a few have
 

begun to improve as a result of years of intensive conservation efforts. Major causes of the continued
 

decline of the hawksbill turtle include commercial exploitation driven by the continuing demand for
 

hawksbill shell (bekko), directed harvest of eggs, poaching of adult and immature turtles for meat, and
 

destruction and degradation of coral reef habitats that provide critically important foraging areas.
 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
 

Kemp’s ridley turtles are listed as endangered range-wide. A Recovery Plan was approved on August
 

21, 1992.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 Continue complete and active protection of the known nesting habitat, and the waters adjacent 
to the nesting beach (concentrating on the Rancho Nuevo area) and continue the bi-national 

protection project. 

•	 Eliminate mortality from incidental catch in commercial shrimping in the United States and 

Mexico through use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and achieve full compliance with the 

regulations requiring TED use. 

•	 Attain a population of at least 10,000 nesting females in a season. 

•	 Successfully implement all Priority #1 recovery tasks. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Assist Mexico to ensure long-term protection of the major nesting beach and its environs, 

including the protection of adult breeding stock and enhanced production/survival of hatchling 

turtles. 

•	 Continue TED regulation enforcement in U.S. waters, expanding the areas and seasonality of 

required TED use to reflect the distribution of the species. Encourage and assist Mexico to 

incorporate TEDs in their Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet. 

•	 Fill in gaps in knowledge of Kemp`s ridley life history that will result in better management. In 

order to minimize threats and maximize recruitment we should: determine distribution and 

habitat use for all life stages, determine critical mating/reproductive behaviors and physiology, 

determine survivorship and recruitment. 

Status of the Species 

The Kemp's ridley population declined precipitously through the 1900's. Film footage taken in 1947
 

revealed an estimated 42,000 females nesting in one day, but, by the mid 1980's fewer than 1,000
 

females were estimated to nest during an entire season. The decline of this species resulted from two
 

primary causes: collection of eggs and harvest of nesting females and accidental capture and drowning
 

of Kemp’s ridleys of all ages in shrimp trawls. Today, under strict protection, and as a result of
 

extraordinary bi-lateral efforts by Mexico and the United States, the population appears to be in the
 

early stages of recovery. The nesting population is estimated to be increasing at approximately 10%
 

each year. The increase can be attributed to two primary factors: full protection of nesting females and
 

their nests in Mexico, and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices in shrimp trawls in the United
 

States and in Mexico. 

Leatherback Turtle - Atlantic Population (Dermochelys coriacea)
 

The Atlantic population of the leatherback turtle is listed as endangered. A Recovery Plan was
 

approved on April 6, 1992.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 The adult female population increases over the next 25 years, as evidenced by a statistically 

significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico; St. Croix, USVI; and along the 

east coast of Florida. 

•	 Nesting habitat encompassing at least 75% of nesting activity in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto 

Rico and Florida is in public ownership. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been successfully implemented. 
Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Provide long-term habitat protection for important nesting beaches. 

•	 Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches. 

•	 Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment. 

•	 Reduce threat from marine pollution. 

•	 Reduce incidental capture by commercial fisheries. 

Leatherback Turtle - Pacific Population 

All populations of the Pacific leatherback turtle are listed as endangered. A Recovery Plan was 

approved on January 12, 1998. 

Recovery Criteria: 

•	 All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on 

reasonable geographic parameters. 

•	 Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal of 

maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) females estimated to nest annually (FENA) over 

six years. 

•	 Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year 

monitoring period. 

•	 Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 

•	 Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging 

grounds within each stock region. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

•	 A management plan designed to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Eliminate incidental take of leatherbacks in U.S. and international commercial fisheries. 

•	 Support the efforts of Mexico and the countries of Central America to census and protect 

nesting leatherbacks, their eggs, and nesting beaches. 

•	 Determine movement patterns, habitat needs and primary foraging areas for the species 

throughout its range. 

•	 Determine population size and status in U.S. waters through regular aerial or on-water surveys. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

Status of the Species 

Globally, nesting populations have declined in Mexico, Costa Rica, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, 

Thailand, Suriname, Trinidad, Tobago, and Papua New Guinea. The Malaysian nesting population, 

once one of the largest in the Pacific numbering several thousand nesters annually, is essentially extinct, 

with only two or three turtles now nesting each year. Nesting along the Pacific coast of Mexico declined 

at an annual rate of 22% over the last 12 years, with similar alarming declines in Pacific Costa Rica. 

Data collected on some of the smaller nesting colonies in the Atlantic, such as those of the USVI, 

Puerto Rico, and southeast Florida, clearly indicate increasing numbers of nests for the past 20 years. 
However, nesting at the largest rookeries of the Atlantic, along the Guyanas, appears to be declining
 

over the last decade. Other areas in Trinidad, Venezuela, Atlantic Costa Rica and Colombia have only
 

recently begun to be monitored, and trends have not yet been determined. New census work
 

underway along the West African coast indicates that significant numbers of leatherbacks are nesting
 

there, and these populations will contribute to the overall population estimate for the Atlantic.
 

Loggerhead Turtle - Atlantic Population (Caretta caretta)
 

The U.S. Atlantic population of loggerhead turtles are listed as threatened. A Recovery Plan was
 

approved on December 26, 1991.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 The adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South Carolina and 

Georgia, it has returned to pre-listing nesting levels (NC = 800 nests/season; SC = 10,000 

nests per season; GA = 2,000 nests/season). 

•	 At least 25 percent (560 km) of all available nesting beaches (2240 km) is in public ownership, 

is distributed over the entire nesting range and encompasses greater than 50 percent of the 

nesting activity. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been successfully implemented. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches. 

•	 Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches. 

•	 Implement effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans on all major nesting beaches within each 

State. 

•	 Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment. 

•	 Minimize mortality from commercial fisheries. 

•	 Reduce threat from marine pollution. 

Loggerhead Turtle - Pacific Population 

The U.S. Pacific population of loggerhead turtles is listed as threatened. A Recovery Plan was 

approved on January 12, 1998. 

Recovery Criteria: 

•	 To the best extent possible, reduce the take in international waters (have and enforce 

agreements). 

•	 All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on 

reasonable geographic parameters. 

•	 All females estimated to nest annually (FENA) at "source beaches" are either stable or 

increasing for over 25 years. 

•	 Each stock must average 5,000 FENA (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal 

of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) over six years. 

•	 Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments. 
 

 

•	 Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging 

grounds within each stock region. 

•	 All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented. 

•	 A management plan designed to maintain stable or increasing populations of turtles is in place. 

•	 Ensure formal cooperative relationship with a regional sea turtle management program 

(SPREP). 

•	 International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks (e.g., Mexico and Japan). 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Reduce incidental capture of loggerheads by coastal and high seas commercial fishing 

operations. 

•	 Establish bilateral agreements with Japan and Mexico to support their efforts to census and 

monitor loggerhead populations and to minimize impacts of coastal development and fisheries 

on loggerhead stocks. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

•	 Determine population size and status (in U.S. jurisdiction) through regular aerial or on-water 

surveys. 

•	 Identify and protect primary foraging areas for the species. 

Status of the Species 

Recent evidence suggests that the number of females documented nesting in the U.S. Atlantic states of
 

Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina is at best stable but may be declining, while the number of
 

nesting females in the south Florida nesting assemblage appears to be increasing. In the Pacific, there
 

are no records of loggerhead nesting on beaches under U.S. jurisdiction. Rather, nesting in the Pacific
 

basin is restricted to the western region, primarily Japan and Australia where marked declines in the
 

nesting populations have been recorded. It is thought that between 1,000 to 3,000 female
 

loggerheads may nest annually in all of Japan and as few as 300 in Queensland, Australia. Nesting
 

beach monitoring at one site in Japan (Tokushima Prefecture) has been ongoing since 1954. Surveys at
 

this site showed a marked decline in the number of nests between 1960 and the mid-1970s. Since
 

then, the number of nests has fluctuated, but has been downward since 1985. Monitoring on several
 

other nesting beaches, surveyed since the mid-1970s, revealed increased nesting during the 1980s
 

before declining during the early 1990s. In the south Pacific, long-term trend data from Queensland
 

indicate a 50 percent decline in nesting by 1988-89. The most significant threats to the loggerhead are
 

incidental capture in various commercial fisheries and coastal development of nesting beaches.
 

Olive Ridley Turtle - Pacific Population (Lepidochelys olivacea)
 

The Mexican breeding population of the olive ridley turtle is listed as endangered while all other
 

populations are listed as threatened. A Recovery Plan was approved on January 12, 1998.
 

Recovery Criteria:
 

•	 All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on 

reasonable geographic parameters. 

•	 Foraging populations are statistically significantly increasing at several key foraging grounds 
within each stock region. 

•	 All females estimated to nest annually (FENA) at "source beaches" are either stable or 

increasing for over 10 years. 

•	 A management plan based on maintaining sustained populations for turtles is in effect. 

•	 International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks. 

Major Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Minimize incidental mortalities of turtles by commercial fishing operations. 

•	 Support the efforts of Mexico and the countries of Central America to census and protect 

nesting olive ridleys, their eggs and nesting beaches. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

Status of the Species 

The western North Atlantic (Surinam and adjacent areas) nesting population has declined more than 80 

percent since 1967. Declines are also documented for Playa Nancite, Costa Rica, however other 

nesting populations along the Pacific coast of Mexico and Costa Rica appear stable or increasing. In 

the Indian Ocean, Gahirmatha located in the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, India, supports perhaps 

the largest nesting population. During 1999-2000, over 700,000 olive ridleys nested at Nasi islands 

and Babubali island, in the Gahirmatha coast. This population continues to be threatened by nearshore 

trawl fisheries and, annually, thousands of dead olive ridleys are documented as strandings on coastal 

beaches. 

Significant nesting assemblages were once found along the Pacific coast of Mexico, but in recent years 

the Mexican arribadas have been largely restricted to one site, La Escobilla in the state of Oaxaca. In 

Costa Rica, a major nesting aggregation is found at Ostional and smaller arribadas also occur in 

Nicaragua and at several localities in Panama. The olive ridley has been recorded occasionally from 

Galapagos waters, but it is essentially very rare throughout the islands of the Pacific, and indeed even in 

the western Pacific it is scarce, although widespread low-density nesting occurs. In the Indian Ocean, 

four arribada sites have been reported in the Indian State of Orissa, the most important being 

Gahirmatha Beach. Minor nesting occurs in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mozambique, Madagascar, 

peninsular Malaysia, and various other localities. 

Because of the continued existence of several large nesting populations in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, 

it is probable that the olive ridley is, in terms of absolute numbers of adult individuals in existence, the 

most abundant sea turtle species in the world. In the eastern Pacific, there is evidence of downward 

trends at several arribada beaches however, other nesting populations along the Pacific coast of 

Mexico and Costa Rica appear stable or increasing. In the Indian Ocean, Gahirmatha supports 

perhaps the largest nesting population however, the population continues to be threatened by incidental 

capture in by nearshore trawl fisheries. In the western Atlantic, there has been a decline in abundance 

of the nesting females (more than 80 percent since 1967), and this population may warrant 

reclassification as endangered. 
Major Threats to Turtles in the Marine Environment (not in priority order)

 •	 Outside of the U.S., direct harvest of immature and adult turtles is a serious threat. NOAA 

Fisheries continues to be an active member of the Inter-American Convention for the 

Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (ratified by the United States and came into force in 

2001). The treaty aims to promote cooperation and coordination between countries of the 

western hemisphere region to recover sea turtles. 

•	 A disease, known as fibropapillomatosis (FP), originally identified in green turtles, but now 

affecting loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and olive ridley turtles as well, has emerged as a serious 

threat to sea turtle recovery. In the U.S., the disease is most notably present in green turtles of 

Hawaii, Florida, and the Caribbean, but is found at other sites around the world as well. FP is 

expressed as tumors which occur primarily on the skin and eyes, and the disease can be fatal. 

The cause of the disease remains unknown, however, a viral etiology is suspected. The 

expression of the disease has been systematically monitored in several locales in Hawaii. At a 

study site on southern Molokai, for example, where tumors were virtually unknown before 

1988, the prevalence of tumored turtles ranged from 42-56% during the 1995-1997 surveys. 

In Florida, up to 50% of the juvenile green turtles captured in the Indian River Lagoon are 

infected, and there are similar reports from other sites in Florida, including Florida Bay, as well 

as from Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Fibropapillomatosis is considered the 

primary impediment to the full recovery of the Hawaii green turtle population and the disease 

may hinder the recovery of green turtle populations elsewhere as well. Research to determine 

the cause of this disease is a high priority and is underway at federal, state, and private 

institutions. 

•	 The requirement to use TEDs in the commercial shrimp fleet of the U.S. and Mexico has greatly 

reduced the mortality of turtles in shrimp trawls. Turtles are also accidentally captured in nonshrimp trawls and efforts to reduce incidental capture in these fisheries are needed to enhance 

recovery. NOAA Fisheries recently required that TED escape openings be enlarged to allow 

larger turtles to escape the net. NOAA Fisheries also continues to implement TED inspections 

of foreign shrimp fleets in conjunction with the Department of State to ensure that shrimp sold to 

the U.S. was harvested in a manner that would not adversely impact sea turtles (i.e. TEDs are 

used in shrimp fisheries operating in areas where sea turtles are present). 

•	 Several thousand commercial vessels and an extensive recreational fishery are involved in hook 

and line fishing for various coastal species. The capture of turtles in these fisheries is not 

uncommon, but the magnitude of the take is not known. 

•	 Throughout the late 1980's and early 1990's, significant numbers of green turtles were killed by 

gill and trammel net fisheries off the east coast of central Florida. These takes were significantly 

reduced with the prohibition of gillnets in Florida waters in the mid-1990's. Recently, NOAA 

Fisheries and North Carolina have managed coastal gill nets to reduce interactions with sea 

turtles. However, gill nets fished in other areas of the remain a serious threat. 

•	 Pound net fisheries are primarily a problem in Virginia waters, where turtles become entangled 

in the gear and can drown. To address the problem, NOAA Fisheries recently restricted the 

type of leaders that could be deployed in pound nets in the Chesapeake Bay. 

•	 Turtles are incidentally taken by the U.S. pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic and eastern 

Pacific when they are hooked and/or become entangled with the mainline or buoy line. While 
some turtles are released alive, others are dead when recovered and a percentage of those 

released alive will die from their injuries. NOAA Fisheries continues to implement time area 

closures and support or conduct research to identify gear modifications or changes in fishing 

practices that would reduce sea turtles interactions in this fishery. 

•	 Traps, commonly used to capture crabs, whelk, lobster and reef fish result in incidental takes of 

turtles when they become entangled in the traps or trap lines and drown. 

•	 Turtles can consume a wide variety of marine debris such as plastic and styrofoam pieces, tar 

balls, balloons, plastic bags, and plastic pellets. Effects of consumption include interference in 

metabolism or gut function, even at low levels of ingestion, as well as absorption of toxic 

byproducts. Discarded monofilament fishing line and abandoned netting can entangle turtles, 

causing injury and/or death. 

•	 Illegal harvesting of turtles is uncommon in the mainland U.S. Illegal take of green turtles in the 

Caribbean, particularly near Puerto Rico, is a more significant problem; however, no estimates 

of take exist. Legislation and treaties to protect and conserve green turtles are more extensive 

than they have been in the past, although laws are often poorly enforced, especially among 

developing nations and smaller islands where resources and geography limit implementation. 

•	 Turtles are at risk when encountering marine pollution such as oil spills. Respiration, skin, 

blood chemistry and salt gland functions are affected. Pesticides, heavy metals, and PCB's 

have been detected in turtles and eggs, but the effects are unknown. 

•	 Dredging can result in habitat destruction by degrading nesting sites and/or foraging grounds. 

Hopper dredges can also kill turtles caught in dragheads. NOAA Fisheries has implemented 

restrictions on hopper dredging activities in the Gulf and Atlantic to reduce the likelihood of 

dredges encountering turtles. 

•	 In areas where recreational boating, commercial fishing, and ship traffic are intense, propeller 

and collision injuries are common and likely play a significant role in hampering recovery. This 

is a particularly difficult issue to address, given the number of registered vessels and their wideranging activities. 

•	 Marina and dock construction result in the degradation and/or destruction of turtle foraging 

habitat. This development also leads to increased boat traffic, increasing the risk of propeller 

and vessel collision injuries. 

•	 Coastal power plants which draw their cooling water from nearshore and estuaries waters can 

entrain sea turtles and cause mortality. Measures have been put in place at some plants to 

reduce the risk to sea turtles. 
Pacific Salmon Recovery 

NOAA Fisheries is utilizing all the tools provided in the ESA and by Congress to bring about the 

recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead. These include regulatory tools found in ESA sections 4(d), 

7, and 10, and planning tools such as the recovery planning provisions of ESA section 4(f). The agency 

is also working to integrate these tools with other Federal, state, regional, local, tribal, and individual 

programs–both voluntary and regulatory–that also address salmon recovery to ensure that the region’s 

resources and capacity are used as effectively as possible. Pacific salmon recovery will require 

improving survival throughout every salmon life-history phase. Recovery efforts must therefore address 

a broad range of activities (e.g., activities affecting harvest, hatchery management, habitat, and 

hydropower operations) and ecological components (e.g., fresh water, estuarine, and ocean 

environments). The complexity of this task reinforces the importance of integrating NOAA Fisheries’ 

programs with other Federal and non-Federal programs to restore ecosystems to a point where they 

are capable of supporting sustainable salmon populations. 

Two significant events occurred in 2001 that will bring about adjustments in the management of listed 

Pacific salmon and steelhead populations. First, a September 2001 ruling in a lawsuit involving Oregon 

Coast coho salmon (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans) concluded that NOAA Fisheries had violated 

provisions of the ESA by listing only part of an Evolutionarily Significant Unite, or ESU (i.e., NOAA 

Fisheries had included hatchery populations in the ESU but not listed them).1 Although this ruling 

applied directly only to Oregon Coast coho salmon, the same situation (hatchery populations 

considered part of listed ESUs but not themselves listed) also applied to 24 of the 26 listed ESUs of 

Pacific salmon and steelhead. In response to the decision, NOAA Fisheries agreed to revise its policy 

on how it considers hatchery reared fish in its listing determinations and to conduct new status reviews 

for all 26 listed ESUs as well as for 1 candidate ESU. 

Second, on April 30, 2002, NOAA Fisheries, as part of a consent decree in National Ass’n of Home 

Builders v. Evans, agreed voluntarily to vacate and remand the critical habitat designations for 19 

ESUs for which critical habitat had been designated on February 16, 2000. This voluntary remand 

allowed NOAA Fisheries to revisit the economic analysis used in the designations in light of the 10th 

Circuit Court decision in New Mexico Cattlegrowers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. NOAA 

Fisheries plans to complete the re-designation of critical habitat for the affected ESUs, as well as the 

designation of critical habitat for the Northern California steelhead ESU (listed in 2000), in 2004. 

1

For the purposes of fulfilling the mandates of the ESA, NOAA Fisheries treats ESUs–or 

Evolutionarily Significant Units–as "species" as the Act defines the term ("...including any subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature") 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. 
Below is a discussion of recovery planning efforts underway for Pacific salmon and steelhead, a 

discussion of other ESA actions that are contributing to recovery, an update on the status of the 

species, and a description of major threats facing the species. 

Pacific Salmonid Recovery Planning 

NOAA Fisheries believes that it is critically important to ground the recovery planning process in the 

many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the 

region and has established a recovery planning process to maximize local involvement and capitalize on 

ongoing efforts. The ESA requires that recovery plans contain (1) objective, measurable goals for 

delisting; (2) a comprehensive list of the actions necessary to achieve the delisting goals; and (3) an 

estimate of the cost and time required to carry out those actions. 

To develop recovery plans that meet ESA statutory requirements as well as goals for local involvement, 

NOAA Fisheries has organized the 26 listed ESUs into 8 recovery areas or “domains”: Puget Sound, 

Willamette/Lower Columbia, Interior Columbia, Oregon Coast, Southern Oregon/Northern California, 

North-Central California Coast, South-Central California, and California Central Valley (see Table 1). 

For each domain, a recovery plan will be developed that addresses all listed salmon and steelhead 

ESUs within that domain. A Technical Recovery Team (TRT) will be appointed for each domain, 

comprised of NOAA Fisheries scientists as well as technical experts from other entities. The TRTs will 

conduct technical analyses related to recovery goals and scenarios (Recovery Planning Phase I). To 

determine the actions that should be carried out to achieve the recovery goals, NOAA Fisheries will 

work with ongoing efforts in each domain to develop an appropriate policy and planning structure 

(Recovery Planning Phase II). Regardless of how the recovery planning process is structured, NOAA 

Fisheries will ensure that the time frame, degree of certainty, and economic cost for achieving recovery 

goals will be assessed for all recovery plans. 

TRTs have now been established for 7 recovery domains, and the remaining TRT will be appointed 

shortly (see Table 1). For the Interior Columbia domain, NOAA Fisheries released interim recovery 

planning targets in the spring of 2002, and the Puget Sound and Willamette/Lower Columbia TRTs also 

produced draft documents related to recovery goals during the biennium. Phase II recovery planning 

policy groups have been established for the Puget Sound and Willamette/Lower Columbia recovery 

domains. These groups are currently evaluating salmon recovery scenarios and addressing issues of 

coordination and the overall structure and content of the recovery planning process. 

NOAA Fisheries has also established a Recovery Science Review Panel (Panel) to guide the recovery 

planning process throughout the West Coast. The Panel will (1) review core scientific principles and 

elements of the recovery planning process; (2) ensure that well-accepted and consistent ecological and 

evolutionary principles form the basis for all recovery efforts; (3) review processes and products of all 

TRTs for scientific credibility and consistency; and (4) oversee a recovery plan peer review process. 

Given adequate funding, NOAA Fisheries intends to complete formal recovery plans for all 26 listed 

ESUs by 2007. 
 

Regulatory Activities 

The regulatory tools of the ESA are being used to alleviate many threats to the species in the short term, 

while the ongoing recovery planning process assesses specific threats in each ESU and develops a suite 

of actions to remove those threats and rebuild sustainable populations over the longer term. These 

regulatory tools and their contributions to recovery are described below. 

4(d) Rule Activities 

When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires NOAA Fisheries to issue 

regulations deemed “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of” the species. These 

regulations (referred to as “4(d) rules”) may include any or all of the ESA section 9 prohibitions against 

take, which apply automatically to protect endangered species. In addition, they may contain specific 

proscriptions or exceptions instead of, or in addition to, the general prohibitions against take. Thus, a 

4(d) rule can be used to "limit" application of the take prohibition to certain activities and programs so 

long as those activities and programs adequately protect the listed species. Incorporating such "limits" 

into a 4(d) rule is advantageous to both NOAA Fisheries and non-Federal entities. Activities carried 

out in accordance with 4(d) rule limits can help protect threatened species and their habitats while 

relieving non-Federal entities from liability for the "take" prohibitions of the ESA. 

Twenty-one ESUs of West Coast salmonids are now listed as threatened. In general, the 4(d) rules for 

the ESUs that were listed, initially simply put in place the section 9 take prohibitions. On July 10, 2000, 

NOAA Fisheries issued a 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422) making the section 9 take prohibitions generally 

applicable to fourteen threatened ESUs with the exception of thirteen programs and circumstances that 

are adequately protective of the ESUs. These 13 “limits” on the take prohibitions either apply to 

specific programs (e.g., the Forest and Fish Agreement for forestry practices on private lands in 

Washington) or establish a process and criteria by which specific programs can receive the same ESA 

coverage in the future (e.g., limits for hatchery and harvest management plans, for road maintenance 

activities, for scientific research activities, and for municipal, residential, and commercial development). 

On Jan 9, 2002, NOAA Fisheries issued a second 4(d) rule ( 67 FR 1116) which applied the section 9 

take prohibitions to three threatened salmonid ESUs in California and created similar take limits or 

exceptions for specific programs or categories of activities as the July 2000 4(d) rule. 

In the biennium covered by this report, a total of 760 programs or activities have been approved or 

submitted for approval under the 4(d) rule (these included 681 research activities and 79 programs in 

areas such as hatchery and harvest management, road maintenance, and tribal resource management 

plans). These programs benefit salmon by addressing threats and by being conducted in a way that is 

adequately protective of listed ESUs. In turn, the non-Federal entities conducting the activities are 

benefitted by the certainty that they are in compliance with the ESA for those activities. 
Section 7 Activities 

Under section 7 of the ESA, NOAA Fisheries conducts hundreds of informal and formal consultations 

every year with Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may affect Pacific 

salmonids. These consultations ensure that these actions are conducted in ways that are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. The 

scope of section 7 consultations includes actions related to land management, transportation, 

restoration, fill and removal of materials in stream channels, and hydropower operation. 

Perhaps the most significant consultation completed in the biennium covered by this report was the 

consultation on the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System. This consultation included 

the development of a Columbia Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. The strategy outlines specific 

actions needed in habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydropower, which together are expected to prevent 

extinction of 12 ESA- listed salmonid populations and ultimately lead to their recovery without removal 

of four dams on the lower Snake River. 

Section 10 Activities 

ESA section 10 provides for authorization of take that may occur as a part of otherwise lawful activities 

carried out by non-Federal entities (e.g., timber harvest, water supply management, and other resource 

extraction and land management activities) or as part of scientific research or enhancement activities. 

Thus, ESA section 10 allows those conducting the activities to proceed with the certainty of ESA 

compliance and with the assurance that any adverse impacts caused to listed species by those activities 

are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

During the period covered by this report, NOAA Fisheries issued over 600 new and modified permits 

for scientific research and enhancement activities under ESA section 10. Activities covered by these 

permits included evaluation of the timing and abundance of juvenile salmonid migration to the ocean; 

evaluation of transport (e.g., trucking and barging) of juveniles around dams; and the management of 

artificial propagation programs to compensate for salmon production lost due to construction and 

operation of private and Federal hydroelectric facilities. 

At the end of 2002, NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest and Southwest regions were working on 

approximately 20 large-scale, long-term Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under ESA section 10. 

Many of these HCPs concern the management of large tracts of timber on state or private forest lands 

in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Others address gravel mining, hydropower, or water 

management activities such as irrigation, wastewater treatment, or water supply management. A total of 

eleven HCPs were issued by NOAA Fisheries Northwest and Southwest regions during the biennium. 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

Another important element of salmon recovery is the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), 

which was established by Congress in FY2000 to provide grants to the states and tribes to assist state, 

local, and tribal salmon recovery efforts. The goals of the PCSRF are to make significant contributions 

to the conservation and restoration of healthy and sustainable Pacific salmon runs and the habitats upon 

which they depend across a wide range of environmental conditions, and to provide harvestable 
surpluses to support treaty and non-treaty fishing opportunities consistent with existing law. The 

PCSRF supplements existing state, tribal, and federal programs to foster development of 

federal-state-tribal-local partnerships in salmon recovery and conservation and promotes efficiencies 

and effectiveness in local recovery efforts through enhanced sharing and pooling of capabilities, 

expertise, and information. 

The PCSRF is funding many successful projects that are beginning to show direct benefits to 

anadromous fish, such as salmon using newly opened or improved habitat. A majority of the PCSRF 

has been spent on habitat restoration activities as this is where the greatest needs exist for salmon 

recovery. The PCSRF program has also filled a vital need in its initial years by supporting recovery 

planning and building organizational infrastructure so that the long-term goal of salmon recovery can be 

achieved. Over 2,000 projects have been funded from FY2000 through FY2002. A report on the 

PCSRF and funded activities can be obtained at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/pcsrf/index.htm. 
Table 1. Status of NOAA Fisheries ESA Recovery Planning Efforts 

Recovery Planning 

Domain 

ESU’s included Phase I Technical 

Recovery Team 

established 

Phase II process 

established 

Estimated date of 

completed recovery plan 

Puget Sound Puget Sound chinook 

Hood Canal Summer chum 

Ozette Lake Sockeye 

X X 2004 

Willamette/ 

Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River chinook 

Lower Columbia River chinook 

Lower Columbia River steelhead 

Columbia River chum 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

X X 2005 

Interior Columbia Upper Columbia River Spring chinook 

Snake River Spring/Summer chinook 

Snake River Fall chinook 

Upper Columbia River steelhead 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

Snake River steelhead 

Snake River sockeye 

X 2005 

Oregon Coast Oregon Coast coho X 2006 

S. Oregon/N. California 

Coasts 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho X 2006 

N. Central California 

Coast 

California Coast chinook 

Central California Coast coho 

Central California Coast steelhead 

Northern California steelhead 

X 2006 

S. Central California 

Coast 

South-central California Coast steelhead 

Southern California steelhead 

2007 

California Central 

Valley 

Central Valley Spring chinook 

Sacramento River Winter chinook 

Central Valley steelhead 

X 2006 
Status of the Species 

Listing Actions 

The only listing action related to Pacific salmon that occurred from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 

2002, was the extension of the range of the Southern California steelhead ESU to the U.S./Mexico 

border. The range was extended to encompass additional watersheds in which steelhead have been 

observed. During this period the Klamath Mountains Province steelhead ESU was also determined to 

be not warranted for listing under the ESA 

Critical Habitat 

Critical Habitat designations are currently in place for 6 Pacific salmon ESUs. Critical habitat 

designations were vacated for 19 ESUs on April 30, 2002, as part of a consent decree in National 

Ass’n of Home Builders v. Evans (see additional discussion above). Critical habitat has not been 

designated for the Northern California steelhead ESU, which was listed in 2000. 

Overall Status 

NOAA Fisheries began a review of the status of all listed Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs, and 1 

candidate ESU, in February 2002 in response to the September 2001 ruling in Alsea Valley Alliance 

v. Evans (see additional discussion of this ruling above). Over the past two years, the abundance of 

both hatchery reared and naturally spawning populations of West Coast salmon and steelhead has 

generally increased. These increases for some listed ESUs are likely due to changes in ocean 

conditions, as well as to improvements in harvest regimes, operation of hydropower facilities, habitat, 

and hatchery management that have been put in place since the listings occurred. While improvements 

have occurred in some ESUs, others have exhibited mixed trends or have declined in abundance. 

Recent increases in salmon and steelhead returns should be viewed as an opportunity and a sign that 

recovery can be achieved, but not as an indicator that recovery has been achieved at this point. It will 

take several salmon generations of continued strong returns to achieve recovery and sustainability of the 

listed ESUs. The following figures show trends in abundance of listed ESUs for which data is available. 

These trends give an indication of how the runs have fluctuated over time, what their abundance was at 

the time of listing, and their current abundance relative to historic levels. While the goal of ESA 

recovery is not to achieve historic abundance, these historic levels do provide a benchmark to track 

recovery progress. Additionally, recovery is not measured by abundance alone, but also includes 

considerations of ESU productivity, population spatial structure, and diversity. As recovery plans are 

developed, we will develop specific recovery goals for each ESU. 

The tables below were developed to describe the current status of the 26 listed and 1 candidate 

ESU(s) of Pacific salmon and steelhead. When viewing the table please keep in mind the following: 

1. The ESA status of these 27 ESUs is currently under review. 

2. The sources for historical abundance estimates vary considerably among the ESUs. Historical 

abundance estimates may be derived from past surveys or peak catch data, anecdotal accounts, 
estimates of habitat carrying capacity, best professional judgment etc. Additionally, the timeframe 

referenced by historical abundance differs among ESUs ranging from 30 to over 100 years ago. 

3. Abundance estimates were obtained from Preliminary Conclusions Regarding the Updated 

Status of Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead (West Coast Biological Review Team. 

Co-manager review draft. February 2003). These recent estimates represent the sum of the geometric 

mean abundance for populations within the ESU (where available) over the most recent 5 years of data 

available. Additionally, the sources of the abundance data vary among and within ESUs, spanning the 

full spectrum of estimation methods (e.g., direct counts of returning salmon at dams, spawner estimates 

from redd surveys, etc.). The totals presented, therefore, represent only a very rough estimate of 

salmonid abundance in these ESUs. Many values were estimated indirectly (e.g., from a total run size 

of hatchery and natural fish utilizing an assumed fraction of natural returns or spawners) and should be 

regarded with healthy skepticism. 

4. Trend evaluations are also obtained from Preliminary Conclusions Regarding the Updated Status 

of Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead (West Coast Biological Review Team. Comanager review draft. February 2003). Recent trends (for the most recent 5 years of abundance data 

available) have been calculated for many populations with these ESUs; however, trends are often not 

coherent among populations within an ESU. Accordingly, qualitative descriptions of recent trends for 

the ESU as a whole are provided. “Decreasing” describes ESUs for which all or almost all populations 

exhibited declining trends; “mostly decreasing” describes ESUs for which the majority of the 

populations exhibited declining trends; “mixed” describes ESUs for which populations exhibited 

increasing and declining trends and no overall pattern emerged; “mostly increasing” describes ESUs for 

which the majority populations exhibited increasing trends; and “increasing” describes ESUs for which 

all or almost all of the populations exhibited increasing trends. Please refer to the full Biological Review 

Team draft report cited above for population-specific trend information (the report can be found on-line 

at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt/brt/brtrpt.html). 

5. On April 20, 2002, the critical habitat for 19 ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead designated in 

2000 were vacated by court order and remanded to NOAA Fisheries for new rulemaking (“vacated”). 

The critical habitat for 6 ESUs designated prior to the 2000 rulemaking, however, remain in place (“in 

effect”). 







0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

1994

1981 2002

Year listed

Historical Abundance

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

1999 

1998 -2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Natural) 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

1999 

1980-2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance

Total No. of Natural Spawners 

Upper Columbia River 

Spring-run chinook ESU 

0 

50000 

100000 

150000 

200000 

250000 

1999 

1980-2000 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Spawners(Hatchery + Natural) 

Lower Columbia River chinook ESU 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

1992 

1980- 2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Natural Returns 

Snake River Fall-run chinook ESU 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

300,000 

350,000 

1999 

1980-2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Spawners(Hatchery + Natural) 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1992 

1980­2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Wild) 

Snake River Spring/ 

Summer-run chinook ESU 

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

40,000 

45,000 

1999 

1989-2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Natural Returns 

Central Valley Spring-run chinook ESU 

-

Total No. of Natural Returns

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

40000 

50000 

60000 

70000 

80000 

90000 

100000 

1994 

1981 -2002 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance

Total No. of Natural Returns 

Sacramento River Winter-run chinook ESU 

Chinook salmon ESUs 

Trends in the abundance of listed chinook salmon ESUs. Trend information was not available for the California 

Coastal chinook ESU. 
Oregon Coast coho ESU 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1998 

1990­2002 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Natural Spawners 

Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts coho ESU 

(Oregon portion) 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

1998 

1980-2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Rogue R. Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Natural Spawners

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

1984 

1984, 1990 

CA Historical Abundance 

Estimated Natural Spawners 

1990 

1965 

Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts coho ESU

 (California portion) 

Lake Ozette sockeye ESU 

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

14,000 

16,000 

18,000 

20,000 

1999 

1977 -2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Natural) 

Snake River sockeye ESU 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

1991 

1954-2002 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Natural) 

Hood Canal Summer-run chum ESU 

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

40,000 

45,000 

1999 

1974 -2001 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Natural) 

Columbia River chum ESU 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1999 

1938-2002 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Returns(Hatchery + Natural) 

Coho salmon ESUs 

Sockeye

 salmon 

ESUs 

Chum

 salmon 

ESUs 

Trends in the abundance of listed coho, sockeye and chum salmon ESUs. Trend information was not available for 

the Lower Columbia River or Central California Coast coho ESUs. 
Steelhead ESUs 

Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU 6,000 350,000 

1997 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

1986- 2001 

1999 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 5,000 Total No. of Natural Returns Total No. of Natural Returns 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

Total No. of Returns 

Total No. of Natural Returns

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 50,000 

0 0 

1984-2002 

Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU Snake River basin steelhead ESU 

20,000 70,000 

1999 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

1997 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 18,000 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

10,000 

0 

1971 - 2002 1980-2002 

Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

1999 

Year listed Year listed 

Historical Abundance 

Total No. of Natural Spawners 

1980 -2002 

Trends in the abundance of listed steelhead ESUs. Trend information was not available for the Southern California, 

South-Central California, Northern California, Central California Coast and California Central Valley ESUs. 
Major Threats to Pacific Salmon Survival 

Salmonid species on the West Coast of the United States declined to dangerously low levels of 

abundance in the decades leading up to the listing of 26 salmon and steelhead ESUs in the 1990s. It is 

also estimated that scores of historic populations are now extinct. These population declines and 

extinctions are the result of numerous habitat-affecting factors (such as hydropower development, land 

development, resource extraction, and other land uses), harvest practices, hatchery production, and 

other factors such as predation and the introduction of non-native species. Human actions that have 

constrained salmonid abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity have also caused salmon 

to be more susceptible to natural environmental fluctuations such as poor ocean conditions and drought. 

No single factor is solely responsible for the declines, and it is difficult to quantify precisely the relative 

contribution of any one factor to the decline of a given ESU. Furthermore, these factors affect each 

listed salmon and steelhead ESU differently. Some factors represent major impacts in particular ESUs, 

such as hydropower operations in the Columbia River basin, while other ESUs are more affected by 

factors such as harvest and habitat degradation. The recovery planning process currently underway will 

provide more specific information on the threats facing each listed ESU and on the specific actions 

needed to alleviate those threats and recover the ESU to self-sustaining levels. 
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 

Recovery Plan Actions 

Listing and critical habitat designation: NMFS and the U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Services (the 

Services) listed the Gulf of Maine Distinc Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon as an 

endangered species on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69459). The Services identified eight rivers within 

the DPS that still support wild salmon populations. The listing has been controversial, with significant 

public support as well as opposition. 

NMFS and FWS (the Services) had proposed to list Atlantic salmon in Maine as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1995. After the State of Maine developed a Conservation Plan for 

Atlantic Salmon in Maine in 1997, the Services decided not to list Maine Atlantic salmon, citing 

anticipated conservation benefits of the plan. However, parts of the plan were not implemented, and 

the status of Maine salmon declined. In July 1999, NMFS updated the Atlantic Salmon status review, 

noting accomplishments and protected measures that are in place, but also considering all other 

available information. The updated status review stated “... under current circumstances... the Gulf of 

Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon is in danger of extinction.” Therefore, the Services listed the Gulf of 

Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon as endangered on November 17, 2000. 

The Services have deferred a decision whether to include the mainstem of the Penobscot River and its 

tributaries above the former site of the Bangor dam depending further analysis of this river as well as 

other rivers within the historic geographic range of the DPS. 

The Governor of Maine opposed the listing of Atlantic salmon, criticizing the genetic data used by the 

Services as part of the information supporting the delineation of the Gulf of Maine DPS. The State of 

Maine sued NMFS, claiming that there were no wild salmon left in Maine to protect under the ESA. 

Because of the controversy, Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins requested the National 

Research Council’s (NRC) advice on the science relevant to understanding and reversing the declines 

in Maine’s salmon populations 

On January 7, 2002, the NRC Committee on Atlantic Salmon in Maine released an interim report on 

the genetic makeup of these populations. The focus was on assessing whether Maine salmon 

populations differ from other Atlantic salmon populations (Canadian, European) and among themselves. 

Among their findings was that North American Atlantic salmon are clearly distinct genetically from 

European salmon. Further, despite the extensive additions of nonnative hatchery and aquaculture 

genotypes to Maine’s rivers, the evidence indicates that the wild salmon in Maine are genetically distinct 

from Canadian salmon. These results support NMFS’ assertion that the Gulf of Maine population is 

distinct from hatchery-raised and Canadian salmon. The final NRC report is expected in early 2003. 

Maine salmon aquaculture is an important sector of the Maine economy, particularly in Downeast 

Maine where the industry is concentrated. The Maine salmon industry supplies approximately 18% of 

the US domestic salmon consumption but only about 2% of world consumption of farmed salmon. In 

addition to contesting the listing, the State has criticized the efforts of NOAA Fisheries to work with it 

and the industry on environmentally sound aquaculture practices. The Services are continuing to work 
with the aquaculture industry and have made some progress in developing measures to minimize the 

threat posed by aquaculture to the DPS. 

Recovery Planning: The Services and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC) have prepared 

a draft recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon. The recovery plan maintains and 

expands ongoing collaborative conservation efforts, most notably actions described in the 1997 Atlantic 

Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers. This draft will be made available for public 

comment before it is finalized. It is anticipated that the draft plan will be available in the spring of 2003. 

Status of the species 

The populations of anadromous Atlantic salmon present in the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population 

Segment represent the last wild remnant of U.S. Atlantic salmon. Restoration efforts for Atlantic salmon 

are ongoing in other watersheds where the locally-adapted stocks have been extirpated. 

The original range of Atlantic salmon in the United States was from the Housatonic River in 

Connecticut, north to U.S. tributaries of the St. John River in New Brunswick, Canada. The historic 

Atlantic salmon run in the United States has been estimated to have approached 500,000 fish. The 

species began to disappear from U.S. rivers 150 years ago and currently, only remnant populations 

occur in a limited number of rivers in Maine. Throughout the past 24 years, the Dennys and 

Narraguagus rivers have had returns that averaged 20 percent of the escapement goal, and the 

Pleasant, Sheepscot, and Manchias rivers have had returns that averaged between 10 and 12 percent 

of the escapement goals. However, recent downward trends in abundance have put most of these 

seven rivers at less than 10 percent of their respective escapement goals. 

Implementation 

The Atlantic salmon recovery plan is being drafted and will provide a roadmap for recovery of this 

DPS. In the meantime, the Services continue to consult on Federal actions that may affect this DPS to 

minimize adverse impacts. The Services are continuing to fund and lead ongoing research to better 

understand such Atlantic salmon biology and threats. Notably, there has been a greater focus recently 

on partitioning mortality into various life stages and identifying factors causing mortality. Scientific 

evidence suggests that low natural survival in the marine environment is a major factor contributing to 

the decline of Atlantic salmon throughout North America. Recent research shows that much of the 

marine mortality occurs in nearshore waters soon after salmon leave the freshwater environment 

suggesting that a factor(s) within Maine rivers may be contributing significantly to low marine survival 

rates. 

In August, 2002, NMFS scientists and managers facilitated the adoption of the Greenland 

Conservation Agreement. This annual agreement is renewable annually for up to five years and results 

in suspension of the commercial fishery for Atlantic salmon in Greenland, essentially through a buyout 

program. The total cost of the agreement is approximately $275,000 USD annually or $1.375 million 

over the course of five years. The substantial subsistence fishery is not included in the agreement. 

However, this still represents a positive step forward for the conservation of Atlantic salmon. 
Major Threats and Impacts: 

The Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon is threatened by the low numbers of adult returns and low 

survival in the marine and freshwater environment. Threats are also posed by existing water 

withdrawals for agriculture, disease - particularly recent outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia (ISA) at 

US aquaculture sites, inadequate regulatory mechanisms for salmon aquaculture in Maine and 

continuing interactions between wild and aquaculture fish. 

The construction of hydropower dams with either inefficient or non-existent fishways was a major cause 

for the decline of U.S. Atlantic salmon. Dams adversely impact Atlantic salmon by impeding both their 

upstream and downstream migration, increasing predation, altering the chemistry and flow pattern of 

rivers, increasing water temperature, and reducing available flow downstream. Currently there are no 

hydropower dams on the seven rivers that have the potential to adversely impact the species. Beaver 

and debris dams have been documented on these rivers and may partially obstruct passage. 

Forest management practices can cause numerous short- and long-term negative impacts to Atlantic 

salmon, including siltation, shade reduction, and increased water temperature. Another significant land 

use in eastern Maine watersheds is lowbush blueberry agriculture. In addition, interest in cranberry 

cultivation is increasing . These agricultural activities can impact Atlantic salmon through water 

extractions and diversions and pesticide application. Currently regulatory mechanisms are in place such 

that forest practices and agricultural practices are not considered a major threat to Atlantic salmon. 

Historically, the marine exploitation of U.S. origin Atlantic salmon occurred primarily in foreign fisheries. 

U.S. origin Atlantic salmon have been documented in the harvests of West Greenland, New Brunswick, 

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Labrador. The United States is a party to the North Atlantic Salmon 

Conservation Organization (NASCO) which was formed for the purpose of managing salmon through a 

cooperative program of conservation, restoration and enhancement of North Atlantic stocks. Since 

1987 there has been a Fishery Management Plan in place which prohibits the possession of Atlantic 

salmon in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The state of Maine has closed the recreational fishery for 

Atlantic salmon in all Maine rivers accessible to anadromous salmon. 

Aquaculture facilities raising Atlantic salmon in net pens are located within 20 km of the mouths of five 

of the eight rivers still supporting wild salmon populations within the DPS. Atlantic salmon that have 

escaped from aquaculture pens are known to have entered some of these rivers. The escape of fish 

from Atlantic salmon aquaculture operations could pose a threat to the genetic integrity of Atlantic 

salmon within the DPS. I n addition, concentrations of aquaculture salmon could increase the 

vulnerability of wild stocks to disease and other adverse ecological interactions (i.e., competition for 

food and habitat). 

Scientific evidence suggests that low natural survival in the marine environment is a major factor 

contributing to the decline of Atlantic salmon throughout North America. It appears that survival of the 

North American stock complex of Atlantic salmon is at least partly explained by sea surface water 

temperature during the period when Atlantic salmon are concentrated in winter months in habitat at the 
mouth of the Labrador Sea and east of Greenland. As noted, recent research shows that much of the 

marine mortality occurs in nearshore waters soon after salmon leave the freshwater environment. 
White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) 

Recovery Actions 

Listing and Critical habitat designation: White abalone was added to the list of ESA candidate 

species in July, 1997 (62 FR 37562). It was listed as endangered on May 29, 2001(66 FR 29046). 

In the final rule to list this species as endangered, NMFS determined that designating critical habitat for 

was not prudent because it would identify remaining white abalone concentrations, and could prompt 

increased poaching. 

Status of the Species 

The white abalone dwells in deep waters from Point Conception (southern California) southward to 

Baja California. Once occurring in numbers as high as 1 per square meter of suitable habitat, they now 

can be found only occasionally. Recent surveys found that densities average 1 per hectare in the 

Channel Islands of southern California. The population is estimated to be less than 2,600 - less than 

0.1 % of its pre-exploitation level. Without aggressive rebuilding efforts, including a captive breeding 

program, this species will likely go extinct in less than 10 years. 

Implementation 

In November, 2001, NMFS hosted a white abalone restoration workshop which determined that the 

best approach to recovery was a captive breeding program whereby abalone would be collected from 

the wild and their progeny grown in aquaria and eventually returned to the wild. In summer, 2001, 

NMFS assembled a formal recovery team and, in September, 2002, NMFS held the first meting of the 

recovery team. NMFS and the recovery team have developed an outline of the recovery plan for white 

abalone, which included an emphasis on captive breeding. NMFS is planning on collecting wild 

abalone in summer, 2003 for broodstock in the captive breeding program. 

In FY 2001, NMFS hired a white abalone recovery coordinator. This individual serves on the 

recovery team and coordinates all recovery activities. 

Aside from NMFS’ activities, there are numerous groups, both in the United States and internationally, 

doing work to gather more information and build programs to help save the white abalone. Some of 

these active groups include the Channel Islands National Park Service and the California Department of 

Fish and Game. These groups have a wealth of experience in abalone biology and culture, and will play 

an important role in white abalone recovery. 

Major Threats and Impacts 

A short lived commercial fishery for white abalone began in the early 1970s, peaked mid-decade and 

collapsed in the 1980s. Only occasional landings occurred after that time. White abalone was also 

highly sought after by recreational divers, but actual landings are unknown. Recent studies suggest that 

this species has likely suffered reproductive failure resulting from severe over-harvest. Regulations on 

harvesting of abalone were instated in the 1970s, including establishing minimum size limits, limiting 

harvest during the spawning season, and increasing diver fees. However, these regulations proved 

inadequate to stop the decline of the white abalone population, so the fishery was closed in 1996. 
White abalone is highly valued in both domestic and foreign markets, and poaching remains a significant 

threat to the survival of the species. 

Currently, the white abalone are frequently found alone, White abalone are “broadcast spawners” ­

they release eggs and sperm into the environment for external fertilization. Because of this reproductive 

strategy, white abalone does not actively seek out mates, and individuals more than 1-2 meters away 

from other abalone have little chance for successful fertilization. Therefore, simply reducing harvest of 

this species is not enough to ensure recovery. 

Because populations are only small fractions of former numbers, recovery may be complicated by low 

genetic diversity within the species. Abalones are also vulnerable to various infections and diseases, 

particularly withering syndrome which affects the digestive glands. Other problems include bleeding to 

death because their blood is unable to clot, and fouling of their gills with sediments which suffocates 

them. Recent El Nino events have resulted in reduced food supply for white abalone, so competition 

for food may also have contributed to the species decline. 
Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrynchus) 

Recovery Plan Actions 

Listing and Critical habitat designation: Gulf sturgeon were listed as threatened on September 

30, 1991 (56 FR 49653). NMFS and FWS (collectively, the Services) share jurisdiction for this 

species under the Endangered Species Act. The Services published a proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon on June 6, 2002. The final designation is due February 28, 2003, 

under court order. 

Recovery planning: The Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan was approved on September 22, 1995. 

Increased interest in Gulf sturgeon by government and non-government agencies and institutions have 

accomplished much toward its recovery. Genetic analyses of Gulf sturgeon indicate the population is 

divided into five genetically distinct stocks, each occupying a unique watershed or geographical unit. 

Gulf sturgeon spawning and resting habitat have been documented and characterized in three river 

systems. Population surveys and freshwater and marine movement and migratory behavior have been 

studied in six watersheds. In addition, Gulf sturgeon outreach activities have contributed much toward 

public education. 

Recovery 

The primary short-term recovery objective is to prevent further reduction of existing wild populations of 

Gulf sturgeon within the subspecies` range. The long-term recovery objective is to establish population 

levels that would allow delisting of the Gulf sturgeon in discrete management units. Delisting could be 

considered by 2023, if recovery criteria are met. 

NMFS, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Gulf Coast Fishery management Council published a 

recovery plan for the Gulf sturgeon. The major actions recommended in the plan are: 

•	 Conduct and refine field investigations to locate important habitats. 

•	 Characterize riverine, estuaries, and neritic essential habitat. Develop and implement population 

sampling and monitoring techniques.. 

•	 Identify potential harmful chemical and water quantity and quality changes associated with 

surface water restrictions.. 

•	 Reduce or eliminate incidental mortality. 

•	 Restore natural riverine habitats. Utilize existing authorities to protect habitat, and where 

inadequate, enact new laws and regulations. 

•	 Identify dam and lock sites which offer the greatest flexibility for successful restoration of 

essential habitats. 

•	 Modify specific navigation projects which alter riverine habitats or modify thermal or substrate 

characteristics of those habitats. 

•	 Seek funding for recovery actions. 
Status of the Species 

Historically, the Gulf sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi River to Charlotte Harbor, Florida. It still 

occurs, at least occasionally, throughout this range, but in greatly reduced numbers. The fish is 

essentially confined to the Gulf of Mexico. River systems where the Gulf sturgeon are known to be 

viable today include the Mississippi, Pearl, Escambia, Yellow, Choctawhatchee, Appalachicola and 

Suwannee rivers. The status of Gulf sturgeon is not clear. However, researchers believe that the 

population decline has been arrested, and that the population is generally stable at low levels. 

Implementation 

A Recovery and Management Plan for Gulf sturgeon was completed in September 1995. In 

November, 1998, FWS published a special rule to protect Gulf sturgeon. The rule includes prohibiting 

take and possession of the species. In 2002, the Services published a proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for this species. In this rule, the Services also divided and clarified consultation 

responsibilities, facilitating the consultation process for both the Services and Federal action agencies. 

Genetic analyses of Gulf sturgeon indicate the population is divided into five genetically distinct stocks, 

each occupying a unique watershed or geographical unit. Gulf sturgeon spawning and resting habitat 

have been documented and characterized in three river systems. Population surveys and freshwater 

and marine movement and migratory behavior have been studied in six watersheds. Recent studies 

(2000 and 2001) have tracked Gulf sturgeon movements in the marine environment, and have identified 

feeding areas. This information was critical to proposing critical habitat. 

In FY 2001, NMFS hired a shortnose sturgeon recovery coordinator. This individual also spends 

significant time coordinating Gulf sturgeon recovery implementation. Gulf sturgeon outreach activities 

have contributed much toward public education. 

Major Threats and Impacts 

As with sturgeon worldwide, dams have been a significant factor in the decline of the Gulf sturgeon. 

Three major rivers (the Pearl in Mississippi, the Alabama in Alabama, and the Appalachicola in Florida) 

within the range of the Gulf sturgeon have been dammed, preventing use of upstream areas for 

spawning. The Gulf sturgeon are unable to pass through dam and lock systems. 

In addition to the structures preventing Gulf sturgeon from reaching spawning areas, dredging, 

desnagging, and spoil deposition carried out in connection with channel improvement and maintenance 

represent a threat to the Gulf sturgeon. Although exact spawning areas are not known for all river 

systems the Gulf sturgeon inhabit, indications are that submerged rock ledges and clean rock surfaces 

are important for spawning. Modification of such features, especially in rivers in which upstream 

migration is limited by dams, could further jeopardize the reduced stocks of the Gulf sturgeon. 
 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Recovery Plan Actions 

Listing and Critical habitat designation: Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). It was later included on the 

original list of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Because shortnose 

sturgeon was listed prior to the inclusion of the critical habitat provisions of the ESA, no critical habitat 

has been designated. 

Recovery planning: In December 1998, NMFS published the Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose 

Sturgeon was published, emphasizing the need to protect shortnose sturgeon by populations. NMFS’s 

goal is to recover shortnose sturgeon populations throughout their range to levels of abundance at which 

they no longer require protection under the ESA. 

Shortnose sturgeon is listed as a single species, and distinct population segments (DPSs) have not been 

individually listed. However, the recovery plan recognizes 19 river populations of shortnose sturgeon 

that are substantially isolated, and may in fact qualify as DPSs. The recovery plan indicates that each 

population segment must be protected to ensure the conservation of the species. For each population 

segment, the minimum population size will be large enough to maintain genetic diversity and avoid 

extinction. This minimum population size for each population segment has not yet been determined. 

Therefore, establishing endangered and threatened population size thresholds is a priority 1 recovery 

task. 

Recovery Actions include: 

•	 Establishing delisting criteria for shortnose sturgeon population segments 

•	 Determine minimum habitat for shortnose sturgeon population segments. 

•	 Protect Shortnose Sturgeon and their Habitats 

•	 Ensure agency compliance with the ESA. 

•	 Reduce bycatch of shortnose sturgeon 

•	 Determine if critical habitat designations are prudent for shortnose sturgeon population 

segments 

•	 Formulate a public education program to increase awareness of shortnose sturgeon and their 

status 

•	 Coordinate federal, state, and private efforts to implement recovery tasks 

•	 Restore habitats and their functions in the life histories of each population segment 

•	 Develop a breeding and stocking protocol for shortnose sturgeon 

Status of the Species 

Shortnose sturgeon occur in most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of the United States 

from the St. Johns River in Florida to the St. John River in New Brunswick, Canada. No estimate of 

the historical population size of shortnose sturgeon is available. While the shortnose sturgeon was rarely 

the target of a commercial fishery, it often was taken incidentally in the commercial fishery for Atlantic 

sturgeon. In the 1950s, Atlantic sturgeon fisheries declined on the east coast which resulted in a lack of 
records of shortnose sturgeon. This led the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to conclude that the fish 

had been eliminated from the rivers in its historic range (except the Hudson River) and was in danger of 

extinction. FWS believed the population level of the shortnose sturgeon had declined because of 

pollution and overfishing, both directly and incidentally in shad gillnets. 

The status of many shortnose sturgeon populations remains unclear. However, NMFS is funding 

research to study these populations. As each is studied, more information has become available. In 

general, northern populations are healthier than those in the south. The Hudson River population has 

shown the most dramatic improvement and may be hailed as a clear success of the ESA. The Hudson 

population which was estimated to be 30,000 as of 1980, has now grown to be approximately 

60,000. This population may soon be a candidate for downlisting to “threatened.” The Delaware 

population is also showing signs of improvement, with population numbers near 10,000. 

Recent information has indicated that some populations previously thought to be extirpated (i.e. locally 

extinct) are still extant. Prior to 1996, NMFS’ and other scientists thought shortnose sturgeon were 

extirpated from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. New studies have now captured several dozen 

sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay, including six in the Potomac River. In the Saint Johns River, FL, a 

single shortnose sturgeon was recently collected in a NMFS-sponsored survey. This is first sighting of 

this species since the late 1970s. 

Implementation 

In May 2000, NOAA Fisheries published “A Protocol for use of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons.” 

This protocol set guidelines for the handling and sampling of sturgeons for their protection and to 

facilitate standardization of methodologies used by sturgeon researchers. A sampling protocol was 

needed to establish whether sturgeon are present in systems where their status is unknown. In July 

2000, NOAA Fisheries and FWS held a joint workshop, the "Recovery and Restoration of East Coast 

Sturgeons in the Neuse and St. John's River Systems." The purpose of the workshop was to discuss 

and refine appropriate recovery plan strategies for work with sturgeon in the two river systems. 

In FY 2001, NMFS hired shortnose sturgeon coordinators in both the Northeast and Southeast 

Regional Offices. With these personnel in place, implementation of the shortnose sturgeon recovery 

plan has accelerated. 

In July, 2002, NMFS met with sturgeon researchers and geneticists from FWS and other Federal and 

state agencies to discuss research needs for shortnose sturgeon, with a focus on the Chesapeake Bay. 

One result of this meeting was commitment of money and personnel to perform studies on the Potomac 

River to determine, among other things, if sturgeon spawn near Little Falls. This work will extend for 

four years, and will begin in early spring, 2003. 

NMFS continues to consult with Federal Agencies on actions that may affect shortnose sturgeon. With 

the new information that shortnose sturgeon still inhabit the Chesapeake Bay, NMFS has begun 

consulting on projects that may affect this population of sturgeon. Through these consultations, NMFS 

has worked effectively with Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration to ensure that they carry out their actions 

in a manner that will not jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon in the Chesapeake or 

its tributaries. 

Major Threats and Impacts 

Bycatch in Atlantic sturgeon fisheries was likely the primary cause of the decline of shortnose sturgeon. 

Commercial exploitation of shortnose sturgeon occurred throughout its range starting in colonial times 

and continued periodically into the 1950's. With current prohibitions on catching Atlantic and shortnose 

sturgeons, fishing pressure has been greatly reduced. However, illegal poaching poses an unknown 

degree of ongoing threat. 

Construction of dams and pollution of many large northeastern river systems during the period of 

industrial growth in the late 1800's and early 1900's may have resulted in substantial loss of suitable 

habitat. In addition, habitat alterations from discharges, dredging or disposal of material into rivers, or 

related development activities involving estuaries/riverine mudflats and marshes, remain constant threats. 

Threats have been reduced in some rivers to allow shortnose sturgeon populations to grow or stabilize. 

In other rivers, particularly in the south, sturgeon populations remain low or are the status is unknown. 

NMFS continues to fund the necessary research to identify and reduce continuing threats. 
Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 

Recovery Actions 

Listing and Critical habitat designation: Johnson’s seagrass was classified as a candidate for listing 

on June 11, 1991 (56 FR 26797). It was listed as a threatened species on September 18, 1998 (63 

FR 49035). Designation of critical habitat was initially proposed on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39716). 

In December, 1999, NOAA Fisheries published a revised proposed critical habitat designation in the 

Federal Register. The final critical habitat designation was published on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17786) 

Recovery planning: NOAA Fisheries published a notice of availability for the draft recovery plan for 

Johnson's seagrass on June 26, 2000 (65 FR 39369). The recovery plan was finalized in September, 

2002. 

Status of the Species 

Johnson's seagrass has a very limited distribution and it is one of the least abundant seagrasses within its 

range. The species is only known to reproduce asexually and may be limited in distribution because of 

this characteristic. It plays a major role in the viability of benthic resources and has been documented as 

a food source for endangered West Indian manatees and threatened green turtles. NOAA Fisheries is 

continuing to conduct ecological research on the species to better understand its life history and to use 

in conservation decisions affecting the seagrass ecosystems. 

Johnson's seagrass is found in disjunct and patchy distribution along the east coast of Florida from 

central Biscayne Bay to Sebastian Inlet. The largest patches have been documented inside Lake Worth 

Inlet. The southernmost distribution is reported to be in the vicinity of Virginia Key in Biscayne Bay. 

Implementation 

The Johnson’s seagrass recovery plan was finalized in September, 2002. NMFS continues to consult 

on Federal actions that may affect Johnson’s seagrass and its critical habitat. Through the consultation 

process, NMFS works with Federal action agencies to reduce negative impacts to this species. In FY 

2001, NMFS hired a Johnson’s seagrass coordinator to oversee development of the recovery plan, 

and who will be responsible for implementing its recovery tasks. 

Major Threats and Impacts 

Johnson's seagrass is the rarest species of its genus, has limited distributional characteristics, restricted 

reproductive capacity (being asexual), and is dependent on substrate stability. Potential for continued 

existence and recovery may be limited due to habitat alteration by a number of human and natural 

perturbations. Such perturbations include (1) prop scoring, (2) dredging, (3) storm action, (4) siltation 

and (5) altered water quality. 

Alteration and subsequent destruction of the benthic community due to boating activities, propeller 

scoring and anchor mooring has been observed in Johnson's seagrass sites. Such activities result in 

breaking root systems, severing rhizomes and significantly reducing the physical stability of this 

ecosystem. Dredging redistributes sediments, buries plants and destroys bottom topography. Some 

abundant populations are located in close proximity to inlets, and are likely to experience erosional 
forces and siltation associated with severe storms. During hurricanes, storm surge may scour and 

redistribute sediments, thereby eroding or burying existing populations. 

Siltation due to human disturbance and increased land-use can also threaten viability of the species. 

Degradation of water quality due to human impact is also a threat to the viability of ecologically 

important seagrass communities. Nutrient over enrichment, caused by inorganic and organic nitrogen 

and phosphorus loading via urban and agricultural land run-off, can stimulate increased algal growth that 

may smother Johnson's seagrass by shading rooted vegetation and diminishing the oxygen content of the 

water. 
Candidate Corals: Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn Coral (Acropora 

cervicornis) 

Recovery Actions 

Elkhorn and stagnorn corals were listed as Candidates on June 23, 1999. 

Status and Distribution 

Elkhorn and staghorn corals are the two major reef-building corals in Florida and throughout the 

Caribbean that once formed dense thickets at shallow and intermediate depths, contributing significantly 

to reef growth, island formation, coastal protection, fisheries habitat and coral reef biodiversity. These 

species have declined in abundance throughout most of their range by 80-98% of their 1970s baseline, 

converting three-dimensional, high-relief habitat into flat "parking lot" stretches of seascape. Both 

species still occupy their historic range, although localized range reductions and extirpations have 

occurred. 

Implementation 

At a NMFS/PR led workshop (April, 2001), participants compiled recent information on the status and 

trends, threats, role of biological and ecological parameters in recovery, adequacy of existing 

management measures and new measures that are needed for conservation, and information needs. This 

information is being included in a status review that is being conducted by NMFS in coordination with 

other federal and state agencies and coral reef experts, slated for completion in FY04. The status 

review will be used to making a listing decision. 

Major Threats 

Disease outbreaks are the major cause of coral loss, with cumulative impacts from habitat loss, storm 

damage, coral bleaching, outbreaks of predators, degraded water quality, physical damage from 

anchoring and ship groundings and other human impacts. 

Recent information is available on the status and trends of populations from 60-75% of all reefs where 

they once occurred. However, research is needed on reproductive biology; genetic studies to determine 

linkages among populations and degree of genetic exchange among populations; demographic 

parameters and habitat-based variables, including methods to predict risk; causes of diseases and 

techniques to mitigate disease; and an evaluation of strategies to enhance recovery. 
Fig. 1. A map of the wider Caribbean showing locations where Acropora spp. populations were 

examined (solid circles and squares) and areas where surveys have not been conducted (cross-hatched 

circles). Areas with survey information are classified into three categories, based on the amount of 

mortality (<33%, 33-67% and >67%) with data compiled from recent Atlantic and Gulf Rapid 

Assessment program surveys (circles) and from workshop participants (squares).